The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Alexander T., Raphael1999, Adrián Badida, fr nick, Andres Belizario
5640 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 174 guests, and 82 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,827
Posts412,417
Members5,640
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 13 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: Cavaradossi] #390297 01/28/13 07:19 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
OUCH! Your correct! I never memorized my Third-declension endings because there were TOO MANY to memorize.

I don't believe the ambiguity is escaped despite your explanation.

First of all, "the bishops of each nation" can be taken as a collective whole despite your explanation. The later canon (from Antioch) is more clear that the bishops being spoken of are restricted to a particular geographical region because it refers to the bishops IN each province. The genitive case does in fact allow an ambiguity in this regard that the prepositional "in" does not.

Secondly, even assuming we are restricting the interpretation to a head bishop of one nation, we still have to ask where the idea of a head bishop (or head servant) came from in the first place. His name is Jesus.

Third, notice that the later canon from Antioch has a smaller geographical range for the head bishop than the Apostolic Canon. The direction of the development is from greater to smaller geographical range. This would imply that, if the Apostolic Canon was based on a more primordial principle (i.e., from Jesus), the more primordial principle would have to refer to an even larger geographical range. This would be logical. As asserted in an earlier post. Jesus Himself set up a standard of headship for the Church universal. As the Church grew in membership, the Church herself determined for the sake of good order that this principle of headship can and should be applied to smaller portions of the Church. But it does not negate the fact that the primordial principle of headship came from Jesus Himself.

Once again, thanks for the grammar lesson!

Blessings

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390312 01/28/13 11:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Otsheylnik Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the conversation so far. I find it's often difficult for two people with different points of view to have a civil conversation, but you have a very respectable disposition.


Thankyou smile

Originally Posted by mardukm
More often than not, during debates or discussions regarding head bishops, the concept of "primacy of jurisdiction" is commonly regarded as being opposed to the concept of "primacy of honor." You had earlier stated that Patriarchs are a position of honor, which would normally indicate that one denies that a Patriarch is a position of jurisdiction. Further, your current statement that "patriarch" is a "title," indicates to me you don't believe it is an actual office with real prerogatives. Forgive me if my assumption was wrong, but until now, the language you have used to describe your position would not lend one to assume that you believe that Patriarchs have real jurisdiction.
This development in our conversation has some interesting consequences, imo. I need to ask you -- in light of our conversation and the conciseness of our definitions, do you personally think that the idea of a head bishop for the Church universal (NOT a universal bishop for the Church) is wrong?


I think the problem is that you're starting from a poorly defined premise - that there is some jurisdiction that is not local. I don't see "primacy of jurisdiction" can exist - because as I understand it, all jurisdiction is local. How can one local area have primacy over another autonomous area? This is my problem. Having said that, I also think it's false to contrast Primacy of honour with the idea that someone has real jurisdiction. Actually, primacy of honour pre-supposes a real jurisdiction. It makes no sense to talk about the primacy of honour of Rome without there being a Metropolitan OF Rome.

In regard to the last point, I don't think the idea of a head bishop is supported in Scripture or Tradition or is necessary.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm

A lot of people think that the relationship of the Pope to his brother bishops is the same relationship that a bishop has to his priests.

Not me. He's a metroplitan.

This is great to know. More often than not, when I have a debate or discussion with Low Petrine advocates, they will hurl the usual "the Pope can replace his brother bishops any time at his mere discretion" accusation. I'm glad you at least recognize that this is not the nature of the Pope's jurisdiction as a head bishop. At this point, I would be interested to discuss more concisely what objections you might have to the idea - as already mentioned - of a <head bishop> for the Church universal (not a universal <bishop>). You mentioned (later in your post) that you object to the idea of "divine establishment." Would that be your main objection? In lieu of that question, do you recall earlier in this thread where I mentioned the range of ecclesiastical positions that I've encountered? In the list of (3) thru (8), which one (or ones) would you say best approximates your own position? It seems to be either (4) or (6). I'm not trying to pidgeonhole your position, just trying to get a better understanding for the sake of our discussion.


I don't think I can associate my position with any of those options, because they seem to have a very strange premise which is that patriarchal or metropolitical jurisdiction is not local. I don't agree with this. It is. This is abundantly clear from all the canons, such as Nicea 6 and I Constantinople 2.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Othseylnik
Quote
(2) While every other head bishop must act in a formal manner collegially, the Pope can act in a formal manner either personally OR collegially. However, it must be noted that while the Pope can act in a formal manner personally, this does not mean that he can act in a formal manner unilaterally (i.e., "personal" does not mean "unilateral"), because the Pope is constrained by the divine constitution of the Church to always act in at least an INformal manner collegially.

How is this informal collegiality manifested and how can it be differentiated from unilateralism by the lay observer?

This is a great question. Perhaps I should first explain what I mean by "informal collegiality." The government of the Catholic Church is run by the College of Bishops, who represent the supreme authority in the Church. There are two FORMAL ways for the College to exercise its supreme authority - (1) the collegial authority of the Ecumenical Council which represents the entire Church, and (2) the personal authority of the Pope, who can also represent the entire Church. In this latter exercise of formal authority, the Pope's brother bishops either act as his counselors, or his brother bishops act as legislators with the Pope being the executive authority (hence, the collegial authority is INformal); in an Ecumenical Council, they act with the Pope as the judicial/legislative/executive power(hence, the collegial authority is formal). There is a very important caveat to this discussion - namely, the Pope's formal exercise of personal authority is not activated by his mere discretion, but by the needs of the Church. He can only use his authority to RESPOND to the genuine needs of the Church, not be the unilateral arbiter of what the needs of the Church are. For example, the Pope has absolutely no canonical or divine authority to wake up one day and decide, "You know what, I don't think it is good for the Melkites to retain their Byzantine Liturgy anymore; I'm going to make it a law to forbid them to perform the Byzantine Liturgy." This is one of the grossest misrepresentations made by Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates about the papal prerogatives. The Catholic canons assert that the Pope has the prerogative to RESPOND to the needs of the Church either personally or collegially, and in this action, he must be in communion with his brother bishops. The way it works, and has always worked, is that the bishops approach the Pope for help when they feel it is necessary, and then the Pope responds, either in a formal manner personally or a formal manner collegially. I don't know what mental gymnastics Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors employ to support their opinion, but they somehow translate that statement from the Canons to mean that the Pope has the prerogative to unilaterally make laws at his mere discretion.

Informal collegiality is normally explicitly indicated in any papal decree. But sometimes, it requires some investigation to discover the collegiality involved in a papal decree. For example, there was a discussion with an Absolutist Petrine advocate at CAF several months ago, and someone asked him for one instance when a Pope, though promulgating something by his personal authority, did not at the same time arrive at his decision collegially. He proposed 2 examples: (1) a recent change in canon law by HH Pope Benedict; (2) Humanae Vitae. I did some investigation online, and it turns out that the motu proprio for the change to canon law specifically indicates that the change was done due to appeals by the bishops, and that the Pope had obtained the counsel of several episcopal conferences before making the change. So there was no unilateral authority being exercised in this example. As far as Humanae Vitae, it turns out that the matter actually came to the attention of the Pope through the appeal of some bishops because a certain South American bishop had brought it up during V2. Further, it was only after the matter was put to the vote at V2 (with a little over 90% of the bishops affirming the Traditional position of the Catholic Church on contraception) that the Pope decided to promulgate Humanae Vitae. Not too many people are aware of the collegiality involved when Humanae Vitae was promulgated. Humanae VItae was promulgated under the formal, personal authority of the Pope, not the formal, collegial authority of the Council, but it was by NO means a unilateral decision by the bishop of Rome (contrary to popular propaganda by Absolutist Petrine advocates). Some more popular and well-known examples of informal collegiality involved in papal decrees are contained in the Apostolic Constitutions on the dogmas of the IC and Assumption, and the promulgation of the Codes of Canon Law. These were not unilateral actions by the Pope, but involved the clear participation of his brother bishops, though eventually promulgated by the Pope's personal authority. I hope these few examples help explain that when the Catholic Church speaks of the personal authority of the Pope, she is referring to the personal and formal promulgating authority of the Pope. It is called "personal" because the decision is his by his free volition and by his own authority, but it is not called "personal" because it is, or is intended to be, unilateral.

I recall reading about the discussions for reunion with the Armenian Apostolic Church in the Middle Ages. Rome had to submit and resubmit with constant revisions the conditions for reunion to the Armenian Church I think 3 times before a portion of the Armenian Apostolic Church eventually consented to reunion. At the Council of Florence, it was also explictly stated that the papal bulla for reunion with the Coptic Orthodox Church would have no effect unless it was approved by the Coptic Synod. It is ludicrous to think that the Pope's authority in the Church universal is unilateral and/or absolute, or that he is the Church's sole, universal bishop, or that it has ever been that way, or that it will ever be that way, or that it is taught to be so by the Catholic Church.


This lengthy passage deserves a response in it's own post, and I will do so in due course.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Thanks for the explanation. I think I have a better grasp of what you are trying to say. But from what you are saying here, I don't perceive any great difference in our perspectives on this particular point. To be more concise, for example, the Catholic Church teaches that the three-fold hierarchy of deacon-priest-bishop is of divine establishment, yet we really have no direct Scriptural evidence that Christ established it that way. I think you are very correct in your assessment that "divine establishment" simply means that it is "not contradictory to the meassage of Christ." I don't see why we can't understand V1's decree that the Primacy is "divinely established" in the same way - i.e., that it is not contradictory to the message of Christ.

The problem is that "divinely established" doe NOT mean the same things as not contrary to the Gospel.


Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Is this cataloguing of the historical ups and downs of different points of view just an elaborate way of saying "we're all cafeteria catholics picking and choosing our interpretations" or is it a way of saying that there actually is no position that's objectively true?

The first option would be a fair (and amusing) way to put it, but there is definitely an objectively true position about the Decrees of Vatican 1.


I don't see how you can prove that your position is more objectively true that the position you characterise as Absolutist Petrine. At most you can say it is supported by better evidence, which is not the same thing; by the way, I don't think you've yet shown that either. All you've shown is that it looks to be that way if you read things in the way that you read them.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
Peter's confession is not the rock, it is "rocky" or "rock-like". There's a distinction.

I believe that's a well-accepted distinction. Many popular Catholic apologetics describe Peter as "rocky" because his stature of "rock" is derived from Christ, not that he is himself the primordial Rock by his own power. I'm not aware of any Catholic source, officially or popularly, who would deny this distinction. So I'm still not sure what is the basis of your denial that Peter can be called "Rock."

I don't follow the logic that being like something or possessing something is the same as being it.

Originally Posted by mardukm
There is only one successor to the primacy. The decree must be taken contextually. I suppose anyone can take a little snippet from the Decree devoid of context and impose any sort of interpretation they want on that little snippet. I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose.
Quote
Can you please show me where it is explained how only certain attributes of Peter are transferred to one of his successors and not others? I don't disagree that the primacy can be held by one individual, but I believe the primacy comes from the Church, not Peter. As clearly explained at Chalcedon the reason for it was based on Rome's status as the centre of empire. This makes sense to me. I don't understand, how logically, it can come from Peter if he has many successors.

Thanks for the concise explanation of your concern. From what I know, Pope St. Gregory's position was an admission that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch shared in St. Peter's status as coryphaeus, because they are, after all, head bishops of their respective Churches. But the principle of primacy would still indicate that even these head bishops have one among them who holds the primacy. Certainly, we see this principle of head bishops themselves having a head bishop in the metropolitan-patriarchal relationship. I don't see how the same cannot be the case in the patriarchal-universal relationship.


See, now I'm confused again. Having made a lengthy but not unconvincing argument distinguishing head bishop from universal bishop, you're now back to talking about the head bishop being universal. Is it any wonder I'm confused?

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390357 01/30/13 04:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Have to break this down:
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Jesus never left his parables unclarified, and he was rather clear on this one, as well. "Who is the wise and faithful servant whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute food at the proper time?"(Luke 12); ""Who is the wise and faithful servant whom the master will put in charge of his household to distribute food at the proper time?"(Matthew 24). St. John Chrysostom interpreted this to refer specifically to St. Peter and his successors.

You mean this?

No. It's from his work On the Priesthood, Book 2:
For when we see any one bestowing care upon members of our household, or upon our flocks, we count his zeal for them as a sign of love towards ourselves: yet all these things are to be bought for money:— with how great a gift then will He requite those who tend the flock which He purchased, not with money, nor anything of that kind, but by His own death, giving his own blood as the price of the herd. Wherefore when the disciple said, You know Lord that I love You, and invoked the beloved one Himself as a witness of his love, the Saviour did not stop there, but added that which was the token of love. For He did not at that time wish to show how much Peter loved Him, but how much He Himself loved His own Church, and he desired to teach Peter and all of us that we also should bestow much zeal upon the same. For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. Naturally then did Christ say, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord shall make ruler over His household. Again, the words are those of one who is in doubt, yet the speaker did not utter them in doubt, but just as He asked Peter whether he loved Him, not from any need to learn the affection of the disciple, but from a desire to show the exceeding depth of his own love: so now also when He says, Who then is the faithful and wise servant? he speaks not as being ignorant who is faithful and wise, but as desiring to set forth the rarity of such a character, and the greatness of this office. Observe at any rate how great the reward is— “He will appoint him,” he says,” ruler over all his goods.”

to quote you
Originally Posted by mardukm
the proper CONTEXT of the words that has been neglected

St. John writes this treatise to his friend Basil, who had been consecrated against his will as bishop of Rhaphanaea, a suffragan not only to the successor of St. Peter-the Patriarch of Antioch-but to the latter's suffragan, the Metropolitan of Apamaea. The importance of his unimportance will come up below.

St. John is responding to Bp. Basil's complaint:
Quote
That it is possible then to make use of deceit for a good purpose, or rather that in such a case it ought not to be called deceit, but a kind of good management worthy of all admiration, might be proved at greater length; but since what has already been said suffices for demonstration, it would be irksome and tedious to lengthen out my discourse upon the subject. And now it will remain for you to prove whether I have not employed this art to your advantage.

Basil: And what kind of advantage have I derived from this piece of good management, or wise policy, or whatever you may please to call it, so as to persuade me that I have not been deceived by you?

St. John retorts by hammering on applying your proof text to Bp. Basil:
Quote
Chrysostom: What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? John 21:15-17 For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, “Peter, do you love me?” and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, “if you love me tend my sheep.” The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. For when we see any one bestowing care upon members of our household...

I have already posted a similar situation:
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother DTBrown,

Originally Posted by DTBrown
I might add that I found these comments by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck regarding St. Cyprian's words helpful, reading from pages 81-84 of his book His Broken Body.

Thank you so much for the text.

In fact, I do have that text available to me. It's just I was not sure if it was the early version or the later version of St. Cyprian's De Unitate. Your link to Fr. Cleenewerck helped settle it for me (I have the later version), and I thank you for that.

So I guess it is true that St. Cyprian never in fact stated that "all the Apostles are successors of St. Peter." This is simply an interpretation non-Catholics have imposed on the existing text of St. Cyprian.

No. But instead of retreading a path already taken, I offer soemthing of interest to your Coptic past. It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa. St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus. In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot. When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him. But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'[Matthew 16:19]. When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus. Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria. So it would seem to be odd: if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one, why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church. But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

And the Orthodox interpretation of St. Cyprian (ep. XXVI).

St. John is writing to a suffragan bishop Basil, not an Archbishop Bail, let alone a Pope Basil (a Pope Basil existing only in Alexandria, never at Rome). Yet St. John justifies the forced consecration of Basil as bishop, NOT as a justification of the authority to do so, but to tell Basil he should recognize the honor in sharing in the same calling as St. Peter. St. Cyprian makes that clear:
Quote
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.xxvi.html
"the Church is founded upon the bishops" NOT "the supreme pontiffs. SS. Cyprian and John speak of St. Peter as a type of the apostles and bishops, "holding each part for the many" and not for himself personally, nor any "successors" other than those consecrated into the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390368 01/31/13 01:13 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Nothing on restricting his successors to those at Rome.

That's in your own misinterpretation of Pastor Aeternus

No, that's the straightforward statements of your Paster Aeternus:
Quote
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church...For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church...Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture [sic], and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church...Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching...The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power...The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church...was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office...But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office...Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaching no such thing, I have no understanding to misunderstand.
Originally Posted by mardukm

(along with the Absolutist Petrine advocates).

Like your supreme pontiff who defined it, his council who agreed to it, their prince-bishop who wrote the official apology (relatio) to it, and those associated with its second council, which re-iterated it.
Originally Posted by mardukm

I'll agree with your criticisms of the Absolutist Petrine view any day, but you are mistaken if you think your perception and their perception is what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't teach any Petrine view, other than her Orthodox episcopate. Your "magisterium" teaches what you call the "Absolutist Petrine view." I'm not stuck to their perceptions, but you are (look at the anathema's in Pastor Aeternus)
Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm

So the Catholic interpretation is not a novel thing.

Of course it isn't. Pastor Aeternus introduces the novelty.

The novelty is not Pastor Aeternus, but rather the misinterpretation imposed on it.

You are misinterpreting the plain text contained in it, a novelty of a novelty.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390377 01/31/13 09:50 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Originally Posted by mardukm
It is just as correct as the interpretation that it refers to the head bishops of local Churches. In general, the parable refers to any position that is a headship, and an exhortation that the servant who possesses this headship involves a great responsibility to take care of his fellow servants. Those apostolic Christians who deny such a position of servanthood for the Church as a whole, as if the Church as a whole cannot be considered the household of God that is mentioned in the parable, are the ones who would have a hard time justifying their position.

Au contraire. Justifying the position of the Apostles comes quite easily. St. Cyprian summed their preaching on the subject quite nicely: "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."

EACH part held by EACH one for the WHOLE.

Yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is called collegiality.

No, it is called conciliarity (or, if you prefer, conciliarism), and yes, that is what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has taught ever since her birth in the Mother Church at Jerusalem, and will teach until the descent of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

As for collegiality, that was an invention of Vatican II at an attempt to moderate the excesses of Vatican I.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Each bishop has a responsibility for the whole Church, but there is one, the one who has the primacy, who has the primary responsibility for the unity of the Church, moreso than other bishops.

So you claim. However, the history of the Church knows of no fourth order of the ordained clergy of a "supreme pontiff," nor can such a consecration be found in her rites. No name of any one bishop "who has the primary responsibility for the unity of the Church" was ever raised at every Divine Liturgy in the sacrifices from the rising of the sun even unto its setting making God's name great among the nations, and in every place incense offered unto His name. That came with Ultramontanism-but Ultramontanism, as a heresy, lies outside the Church.
Originally Posted by mardukm

The body and the head always work together, never apart from each other, for the good of the whole Church.

Yes, that's the flow of ecclesiology out of Christology, as the Church flows out of Christ's side in the waters of baptism and the blood from the Cross into the chalice.
Originally Posted by mardukm

Contrary to the Low Petrine view, no local bishop and no local Church is independent from other bishops or local Churches, much less in their relation to their head bishop and the Church universal.

Laying aside the non-existence of Petrine views in Orthodox ecclesiology, and the absence of high or low petrine views in your magisterium, no autocephalous primate bishop and no patriarchate is independent from other bishops or local or autocephalous Churches, much less the autocephalous primates relating to some head bishop with universal jurisdiction any more than they relate to the lowiest suffragan in their own local Church.
Originally Posted by mardukm

The very reality of the ecumenical council proves the error of the Low Petrine view in this regard.

Petrine views have no reality outside your posts, and unless you're over a millenium old, you had no part in any Ecumenical Council. As a summary of St. Cyprian states:
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA...s%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false

In fact, the same Ecumenical Council who declared "Peter speakes through Leo" (but only AFTER examining his tome for Orthodoxy) also acclaimed of his suffragan bishop Peter at Corinth "Peter thinks like Peter. Orthodox one you are welcome." The very reality of the ecumenical council's view in this regard proves the error of falsely attributing a different responsibility to a so-called Petrine office separate from the episcopate which assembles in Council

Originally Posted by mardukm

And yes, I understand that not all EO have this conception of ecclesiology (as stated in a previous post, the EO ecclesiology seems to run the gamut between Low Petrine and High Petrine)
Orthodox ecclesiology has no Petrine, just as the ecclesiology of Pastor Aeternus has neither what you call Low nor High Petrine views, just what you call the Absolute Petrine office. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside her Orthodox episcopate, has no petrine office, low, high or absolute. Outside of your posts, no one has the conception of ecclesiology described therein.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
In Acts, the Apostles send St. Peter, he does not send them. Other than the Ecumenical Synod, the NT does not speak of any responsibility for the Church as a whole above the bishop.

Jesus did in the parable of the wise and faithful servant.

Not according to His Church, speaking through St. John Chrystom, St. Cyprian, St. Besa and Shenouti..., He didn't.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
The hierarchy of the bishops comes from ecclesiastical, not divine, institution.

This is true. The organization of the Church into Patriarchates and Metropolitan Sees originated from the Church, not from Christ. But the idea that there would be a head servant among the servants in his entire household originated from Christ, not the Church.

Not according to the Gospels and the Book of Acts, not to mention the Epistles and the Book of Revelation: if Matthew 16:19 said what your Pastor Aeternus claims with its eisogesis, why do the disciples ask a couple verses down (18:1) who is the greatest? And why doesn't Christ answer them (18:4) "Peter"?
Originally Posted by mardukm

So what Christ set up was for the Church as a whole - HIS Church

Yes, His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Originally Posted by mardukm

- while the Church, as it grew and as time progressed, set up smaller bodies of administration for the sake of good order, in imitation of the form that Christ set up for the Church as a whole.

In that first stage of growing out of the original See of the Mother Church that Christ set up in Jerusalem, the Apostles in Jerusalem sent St. Peter and St. John to Samaria (Acts 8:14). Not only in the administration of good order, but in the hierarchy of the Church in the form that Christ set up in, for and as His Body the Church: He stated, quite clearly "Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him" (Jn. 13:16). That's conciliarity, what Christ set up for the Church as a whole.

When St. Peter left Jerusalem, the primacy stayed with her, not him (Acts 12:17), and when the Church gathered to exert their primary responsibility for the unity of the Church, they did so not in Antioch, where St. Peter was (Gal. 2:11) but Jerusalem (Acts 15:2), where, as Holy Tradition tells us "that Peter and James and John after the ascension of Our Saviour, as if also preferred by Our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" (St. Clement, Hypotyposes VI).

St. Peter went to Jerusalem where the apostles and elders (i.e. their successors, the bishops) came together to consider this matter, to bear testimony in the Council, but St. James rendered the judgement of the Church and the Council's definition echoed his words in its encyclical, sent on his instruction, ex cathedra Sancti Jacobi Dei Fratris, the Apostolic See.

To judge from the Book of Acts and the Epistles, the primacy remained in Jerusalem-while St. Peter went on to Antioch and then Rome-until the martyrdom of St. James and the destruction of the Holy City in punishment thereof. Even centuries later, when Rome, Alexandria and Antioch had divided the known world among themselves for evangelization, Eusebius still refers to "the Throne" only when he speaks of the cathedra upon which the successors of St. James the Brother of God and Heir of David sat.

St. Clement records (Hypotyposes VII) that "the Lord after His resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one." Hence why SS. James, Peter (or rather Cephas) and John (in that order), as divine scripture (Gal. 2:9) tells us stood together as pillars upholding the Church as a whole. St. Paul (Eph. 2:20) identifies Christ as the cornerstone-not St. Peter (who, of course, agrees with St. Paul's identificaiton I Peter 2:4)-all the Apostles-including St. Peter-forming the foundation on Him. On this, the three-not one-pillars raise the roof of the dome of the Church, extending the right hand of fellowship to SS. Barnabas and Paul at Antioch to set up an even larger body of administration for the sake of good order of the daughter Church-where St. Peter was-being built up as the sister of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, becoming the Matron of Jerusalem once St. James was martyred and the Holy City destroyed. Indeed, before that tragedy, SS. Paul and Barnabas are sent by Antioch-not by Jerusalem, and not by St. Peter-establishing bishops in the sees they set up, and report back to the Church at Antioch-not Jerusalem (nor, as far as we know, St. Peter) Acts 14. The servants were masters in their own household, or rather, the servants had only One Master, and they served Him by setting up even bigger bodies of administration, not only for the sake of good order, but to manifest the nature of the Church as the Body of her One Head, Christ.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390396 01/31/13 08:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
And when the Fathers set it up, they saw fit to specify its role. And beyond announcing to the other primates (some of which are Metropolitans, btw) the date of Pascha calculated by the Pope of Alexandria, and granting-BUT NOT HEARING-an appeal, the Fathers did not give much responsibility to the archbishop of Rome over the Church as a whole, beyond the responsibility he shared with the other primates and indeed all other bishops.

Yes, the appellate authority is a recognition of the primacy of the bishop of Rome for the whole Church.

Questionable. It had a lot to do with the immediate and absolute authority of the Emperor of Rome over the whole Empire-a connection demonstrated even in pagan days, when history records the first bishop of Rome trying to exercise authority over the whole Church, Abp. St. Victor, as also having the ear of the emperor Commodus (through Commodus' Christian mistress Marcia), which the saint put to use for the Church.

Met. Hosius presided over the Council of Sardica, which you mentioned, commissioned not only by the Archbishop of Rome (in whose jurisdiction Sardica fell under at the time), but the Emperor of the West Constans (in whose control Sardica remained) as well. And it was his support for the cause of Nicea against his brother and co-emperor the Arian Constantintius II (who ruled from New Rome over all the East), that determined the outcome of Sardica, not the will of Archbishop Julius of Old Rome. That New Rome received equal privileges in reference to Old Rome and in its own right (i.e. the right of the appeals in cc. 9 and 17 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon) in reference to its resource of secular power and authority (as was referenced in canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council) underscores that.


Originally Posted by mardukm

And your statement is a rather jaundiced account of the Sardican Canons.

Said Canons have a rather jaundiced history.

Many of the leading canonists and historians (e.g. see the Excursus on the issue in the Post-Nicene Fathers http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.vi.html) dispute the Ecumenical status of the Council of Sardica in general, and in particular state that the canons you cite were creating, rather than recognizing, a right of the see of Old Rome. And that right they (e.g. Balsamon, Zonaras etc.) restrict to those bishops already within Old Rome's jurisdiction as Patriarch of the West, if not restrict to the particular circumstances of the time. The fact cannot be disputed that the Council of Sardica failed as an Ecumenical Council, and its canons acquired ecumenical force only with the canons of the Council of Trullo, but there are those who dispute (not I) the ecumenical force of those canons.

Originally Posted by mardukm

The bishop of Rome, according to those Canons, has the prerogative to hear the case through his representatives at the new court set up by the appeal (Canon 5: "...let it be in the power of the bishop of the Roman Church, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right - that some be sent with the bishop [who is appealing] and invested with his authority...But if he think that the bishops [of the neighboring sees] are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter, let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment"). And not only that, but he has the prerogative to choose the judges (Canon 3: let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighboring provinces and let him appoint judges...").

Note: the bishops of the neighboring provinces, not the bishop of Rome, retries the case, but only if it can "be established that such is the case as to merit a new trial." "If it seems good...to honor the memory of St. Peter...let..." NOT "Remember St. Peter, so you must..." The bishop of Rome can hear the case only after the bishops of the surrounding regions investigate the appeal, and the accused appeals them upholding the sentence, and even then the bishop of Rome is limited in only being able "to be sent to be judges with the bishops." He never hears the case alone, unlike the right of Metropolitans or "the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople" to hear their local cases and their appeals.
Originally Posted by mardukm

The early Church recognized a greater authority for the bishop of Rome for matters throughout the Church, and outside of his immediate, local jurisdiction, moreso than you pretend.

Provide an example form the history of the Church.

The earliest example of such an attempt by Old Rome to exercise such an authority, the Pascha Controversy, ended in letters rebuking the Archbishop of Rome "from the whole Church." Indeed, the matter wasn't referred to Old Rome in the first place, but decided in local synods throughout the Church, and in the end the calculation of the Pope of Alexandria, not Old Rome's, that the Church adopted.
Originally Posted by mardukm

But neither is this authority unilateral and absolute as Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend. The extremes of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views really have no basis in the history of the Church.

The schema of "Petrine views" of a "Petrine office" have no basis in the history of the Church, and Pastor Aeternusdepends on an "Absolutist Petrine" revision of history for its theology.

The apologists for your Pastor Aeternus make much (too much) of the prominence of St. Peter in the Mother Church of Jerusalem. Yet the see of Jerusalem is never accounted a Petrine See, nor its Patriarch ever draw his authority from St. Peter, although, in the theology of your Pastor Aeternus Jerusalem served as the seat of the papacy of the supreme pontiff for around a decade at least, the first decade of its supposed existence.

St. Peter personally founded the see of Antioch, and your "universal calendar" celebrates his reign there. Yet Antioch does not come second after Old Rome, but after Alexandria, the see founded not by St. Peter (who never set foot in it) but his disciple St. Mark. Since, as cited above, he who is sent is not greater than he who is sent, the order should be, in "Petrine" order, Rome-Antioch-Alexandria, if not Antioch-Rome-Alexandria. Such has never been the case, but the order Rome-Alexandria-Antioch reflected the secular order of importance of the cities of the Empire, which of course caused their relative importance in the Church.

The facts of the history of the Church simply will not fit being hammered in holes of your "Petrine" schema. And the teaching of your Pastor Aeternus cannot stand without the "Absolute Petrine advocates" propping it up.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390405 02/01/13 12:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
And, despite what Pastor Aeternus says, "it was through the Church that" his primacy and prerogatives were "transmitted to him in his capacity as Her minister.

I can agree that much of the way the Primacy is exercised has been conditioned by the circumstances of the Church as time progressed, not established by Christ Himself. However, the Primacy per se is from Christ.

So you (and your Pastor Aeternus) have asserted. But, according to Christ's own words "he who is sent is not greater than he who sends," and we see in the book of Acts the Apostles sending St. Peter and not the reverse.

Originally Posted by mardukm

And there are certain basic responsibilities that came along with this Primacy established by Christ (to confirm his brother bishops and to feed the entire household of God being the most obvious scriptural prerogatives).

as we have seen above, the preachers of the Church have applied those "scriptural prerogatives" to the lowliest of bishops. And we see SS. Paul and James exercising these prerogatives, although no one claims that they held primacy.

Originally Posted by mardukm
I think part of the eisegesis of non-Catholics comes from the idea that when canons are established, it is an indication of a novelty being introduced into the Church. Hence, the Canons of Sardica, for example, are (mis)interpreted as the first time the universal appellate authority of the bishop of Rome is established. This is an obviously false reading of the sources, as we know that bishops were appealing to the bishop of Rome long before the time of Sardica.

Oh? Name an instance then-remember, appeals from bishops in the Patriarchate of the West do not count.
Originally Posted by mardukm

The fact is, canons are more often than not merely a codification of long-standing customs/beliefs.

True enough, chief among examples c. 6 of the First Ecumenical Council and c. 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council. Your "Petrine views" face the problem that no canon codifies such customs or beliefs. Not appearing in the New Testament, that shouldn't come as a surprise. Since the Catholic Church has never been defined as "St. Peter and his successors and the bishops in communion with him," in what Ut Unum Sint calls "the very essence of this community," trying to convince the Orthodox of "Universal Responsibility of the Pope for the Unity of the Churches" inhering in the see of Old Rome, rather than trying to convince us of the Churches vesting such a responsibility in the see of Old Rome (or any other see), is doomed to failure.

Last edited by IAlmisry; 02/01/13 12:21 AM.
Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: Otsheylnik] #390411 02/01/13 11:31 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
More often than not, during debates or discussions regarding head bishops, the concept of "primacy of jurisdiction" is commonly regarded as being opposed to the concept of "primacy of honor." You had earlier stated that Patriarchs are a position of honor, which would normally indicate that one denies that a Patriarch is a position of jurisdiction. Further, your current statement that "patriarch" is a "title," indicates to me you don't believe it is an actual office with real prerogatives. Forgive me if my assumption was wrong, but until now, the language you have used to describe your position would not lend one to assume that you believe that Patriarchs have real jurisdiction.
This development in our conversation has some interesting consequences, imo. I need to ask you -- in light of our conversation and the conciseness of our definitions, do you personally think that the idea of a head bishop for the Church universal (NOT a universal bishop for the Church) is wrong?

I think the problem is that you're starting from a poorly defined premise - that there is some jurisdiction that is not local. I don't see "primacy of jurisdiction" can exist - because as I understand it, all jurisdiction is local.

For a bit, you got me confused too. I thought you understood that Metropolitans and Patriarchs have real jurisdiction as Metropolitans and Patriarchs. I guess we need to define what we mean by jurisdiction. I don't understand jurisdiction to be merely and only local. Jurisdiction in general merely means that a particular ordinary has care for the flock of Christ. Local jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of a local bishop. The jurisdiction of a head bishop, on the other hand, is plenary, its boundary depending on what he is the head bishop of:
If he is a Metropolitan, he is the head bishop/primate of a Metropolitan Church, and his jurisdiction as metropolitan head bishop (to be distinguished from his role has bishop of his local diocese) covers the entire territory of the Metropolitan See (though he always also has local jurisdiction as the bishop of his local diocese, of course).

if he is a Patriarch, he is the head bishop/primate of a Patriarchal Church, and his jurisdiction as patriarchal head bishop (to be distinguished from his role as bishop of his local diocese, and his role as metropolitan head bishop of his Metropolitan Church) covers the entire territory of the Patriarchal See (though he always also has a plenary jurisdiction in his Metropolitan See as a Metropolitan, and a local jurisdiction in his local diocese as a local bishop, of course).

If he is the Pope, he is the head bishop/primate of the Catholic Church, and his jurisdiction as universal head bishop (to be distinguished from his role as bishop of his local diocese, and his role as metropolitan head bishop of his Metropolitan Church, and his role as patriarchal head bishop of his Patriarchal Church) covers the entire territory of the Church universal (though he always also has a plenary jurisdiction in his Patriarchal and Metropolitan Churches as Patriarch and Metropolitan, respectively, and a local jurisdiction in his local diocese as a local bishop, of course).

But remember the important caveat here - the nature of the jurisdiction of a <head bishop> is different from the nature of the jurisdiction of a <bishop>.

From what I understand you to be saying, your understanding of jurisdiction as only local means that a metropolitan or patriarch only has a REAL jurisdiction in his LOCAL diocese, and not a REAL plenary jurisdiction in his ENTIRE metropolitan or patriarchal Church, respectively. Is this correct? At this point, I am just trying to understand what your understanding is. We can debate our respective understandings after we -- ummm -- understand each other. smile

Quote
How can one local area have primacy over another autonomous area? This is my problem.

I confess I do not understand the quandary. A Metropolitan has primacy in his entire metropolitan Church, and thus has primacy over many autonomous areas (i.e., dioceses). Similarly, a Patriarch has primacy in his entire patriarchal Church, and thus has primacy over several autonomous areas (i.e., metropolitan Churches) with metropolitan head bishops within his patriarchal Church. So a Patriarch is the primate (i.e., head bishop) of all the Metropolitans (i.e., head bishops) specifically in his entire Patriarchal Church, and also the primate among all the bishops generally in his entire Patriarchal Church. So, to repeat, I do not understand what is hard to understand about the concept of primacy over "another" autonomous area. The CC is simply applying this same principle on the universal level, but it is the same, understandable principle that you will find at the metropolitan and the patriarchal levels.

I think what you may not be considering is that there are different levels of autonomy. A local diocese is an autonomous Church, a metropolitan Church is an autonomous Church (with a greater geographical boundary than a local diocese, and includes many local diocesan Churches), and a patriarchal Church is an autonomous Church (with a greater geographical boundary than a metropolitan Church, and includes several metropolitan Churches).

Quote
Having said that, I also think it's false to contrast Primacy of honour with the idea that someone has real jurisdiction. Actually, primacy of honour pre-supposes a real jurisdiction. It makes no sense to talk about the primacy of honour of Rome without there being a Metropolitan OF Rome.

Agreed. I would extend this to the patriarchal and universal levels. The primacy of the head bishop of a patriarchal Church is not a primacy of mere honor, but he has real jurisdiction in the entire patriarchal Church. The primacy of the head bishop of the Church universal is not a primacy of mere honor, but has real jurisdiction in the entire Church universal. But, to repeat, the real jurisdiction of a <head bishop> is different in nature from the real jurisdiction of a <bishop>. A <head bishop>'s jurisdiction is presidential and he must always act with the agreement of his orthodox brother bishops for the good of the Church of which he is head. In distinction, a <bishop>'s jurisdiction is monarchical and he can act unilaterally for the good of his Church of which he is head.

Quote
In regard to the last point, I don't think the idea of a head bishop is supported in Scripture or Tradition or is necessary.

This is puzzling. A Metropolitan is a head bishop. A Patriarch is a head bishop. You repeatedly acknowledge their reality, but now you say that neither the Metropolitan nor Patriarch (i.e., head bishops) has any support from Scripture or Tradition for their existence. Please define what you understand by the term "head bishop," or what you think I mean when I use the term "head bishop."

Originally Posted by otsheylnik
I don't think I can associate my position with any of those options, because they seem to have a very strange premise which is that patriarchal or metropolitical jurisdiction is not local. I don't agree with this. It is. This is abundantly clear from all the canons, such as Nicea 6 and I Constantinople 2.

The jurisdiction of a bishop is local. But the jurisdiction of head bishops (i.e., patriarchs and metropolitans) is plenary (not merely local, with the jurisdiction of a patriarch having a greater geographical extent than the jurisdiction of a metropolitan). That is what I see from the canons, such as Nicea and Constantinople. Let me ask you this - do you agree that the geographical extent of the jurisdiction of a Metropolitan <head bishop> is greater than that of a <bishop>? Remember the important caveat that the jurisdiction of a <head bishop> is different in nature from the jurisdiction of a <bishop>.

Originally Posted by Othseylnik
This lengthy passage deserves a response in it's own post, and I will do so in due course.

Looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Thanks for the explanation. I think I have a better grasp of what you are trying to say. But from what you are saying here, I don't perceive any great difference in our perspectives on this particular point. To be more concise, for example, the Catholic Church teaches that the three-fold hierarchy of deacon-priest-bishop is of divine establishment, yet we really have no direct Scriptural evidence that Christ established it that way. I think you are very correct in your assessment that "divine establishment" simply means that it is "not contradictory to the meassage of Christ." I don't see why we can't understand V1's decree that the Primacy is "divinely established" in the same way - i.e., that it is not contradictory to the message of Christ.

The problem is that "divinely established" doe NOT mean the same things as not contrary to the Gospel.

I agree. When you originally said "not contrary to Christ's message," I thought you meant it was understood to have been from Christ and preserved in unwritten Tradition, not that it is contained in Scripture explicitly. That is why I had no problem agreeing with your statement earlier. Are you saying something must be explicit in Scripture to be considered to have been from Christ and part of Sacred Tradition (seems like a topic that deserves a thread of its own, eh:))?

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
The first option would be a fair (and amusing) way to put it, but there is definitely an objectively true position about the Decrees of Vatican 1.

I don't see how you can prove that your position is more objectively true that the position you characterise as Absolutist Petrine. At most you can say it is supported by better evidence, which is not the same thing; by the way, I don't think you've yet shown that either. All you've shown is that it looks to be that way if you read things in the way that you read them.

First of all, do you perceive the difference between the position that states the Pope can act unilaterally when exercising the primacy (the Absolutist Petrine view), and the position that states the Pope can only act collegially when exercising the primacy (the High Petrine view)?

Secondly, the way I read Pastor Aeternus is within the context of the background debates and statements of the Vatican Council Fathers and of Sacred Tradition. Theoretically, which do you think is more likely to be objectively true - the position that reads it in that context, or the position that reads it devoid of that context?

Finally, we need to examine the statements themselves (from Pastor Aeternus) that would incline to the (mis)interpretation of the Absolutist Petrine view. Let's read the decrees, just as we would the decrees of all the other Councils, according to the background discussions of the Fathers of the Council, as well as the context of Sacred Tradition. If we read them in that objective context and discover a different meaning to the decrees, should we not adhere to the understanding in virtue of that context, rather than the one devoid of that context?

I invite you to discuss the specific portions of Pastor Aeternus that are seemingly unacceptable on its face. Permit me to present the objective background of those statements (i.e., Sacred Tradition and the discussions of the Council Fathers) to see if (perhaps) its apparent (Absolutist Petrine) interpretation is not the correct interpretration after all. For now, I'll offer you one example aside from the ones already given so far in previous posts (just to get the ball rolling), if you are inclined to agree that a discussion of these statements is worthwhile: The Decree on the Primacy states that there is no recourse to a decision by the Supreme Pontiff. On its face, it seems like it is saying that anything the Pope says goes, and no one can do or say anything about it. So he can, in effect (supposedly), decide to get rid of the Melkite Liturgy and no one can say anything about it. Be honest -- are you inclined to understand that statement in that way? After you respond, I will give you a High Petrine explanaion of that statement in the immediate context of the Decree as well as the context of Sacred Tradition to demonstrate that such an interpretation is completely erroneous.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
Peter's confession is not the rock, it is "rocky" or "rock-like". There's a distinction.

I believe that's a well-accepted distinction. Many popular Catholic apologetics describe Peter as "rocky" because his stature of "rock" is derived from Christ, not that he is himself the primordial Rock by his own power. I'm not aware of any Catholic source, officially or popularly, who would deny this distinction. So I'm still not sure what is the basis of your denial that Peter can be called "Rock."

I don't follow the logic that being like something or possessing something is the same as being it.

I admit I don't understand your quandary. You (and perhaps all non-Catholics) have no problem saying "the rock of Mt 16 is St. Peter's confession," with the inherent understanding that you call the Confession "the rock" because its rockiness is derived from Christ. Catholics have the same understanding when we call Peter "the rock" - i.e., that his "rockiness" is derived from Christ. Why do you impose a meaning on the Catholic understanding as if it was different from your own, given that you would use the same expression with regard to the Confession, as we would use with regard to Peter? That is, you say "the rock of Mt. 16 is St. Peter's confession because it derives its rockiness from Christ." Catholics say "the rock of Mt. 16 is St. Peter because he derives his rockiness from Christ." Why is your expression OK, and the Catholic expression wrong? Please explain.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
There is only one successor to the primacy. The decree must be taken contextually. I suppose anyone can take a little snippet from the Decree devoid of context and impose any sort of interpretation they want on that little snippet. I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose.

Can you please show me where it is explained how only certain attributes of Peter are transferred to one of his successors and not others? I don't disagree that the primacy can be held by one individual, but I believe the primacy comes from the Church, not Peter. As clearly explained at Chalcedon the reason for it was based on Rome's status as the centre of empire. This makes sense to me. I don't understand, how logically, it can come from Peter if he has many successors.

Thanks for the concise explanation of your concern. From what I know, Pope St. Gregory's position was an admission that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch shared in St. Peter's status as coryphaeus, because they are, after all, head bishops of their respective Churches. But the principle of primacy would still indicate that even these head bishops have one among them who holds the primacy. Certainly, we see this principle of head bishops themselves having a head bishop in the metropolitan-patriarchal relationship. I don't see how the same cannot be the case in the patriarchal-universal relationship.

See, now I'm confused again. Having made a lengthy but not unconvincing argument distinguishing head bishop from universal bishop, you're now back to talking about the head bishop being universal. Is it any wonder I'm confused?

We can get back to this part. We need to define our terms first. I think we can clear it up if you explain what you mean by "head bishop" and "jurisdiction" as I asked above. I think I've made my own understanding clear enough. We can disagree or agree with each other once we come to an understanding first of how we are each using/understanding the terms under discussion.

Blessings

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390420 02/01/13 06:52 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by Epiphanius

Apotheoun:"Some Orthodox are agnostic on whether or not there is grace in Catholic sacraments."
And that's because from their perspective, it seems a little extreme to take a firm position one way or the other. (Also, the East has always been more comfortable with ambiguity than the West.)

This makes sense. I've met Orthodox who regard the primacy only as a discplinary matter, not a doctrinal matter, and that it was a heresy for the CC to make it a dogma. But if one accuses someone of heresy for making a dogma out of something that should not be dogma, has not the accuser likewise made a dogma of the opposite position, and thus fallen under his own condemnation?

No.

Why? How does making a disciplinary matter into a dogma make it a matter of heresy?


Let the Baltimore Catechism, Q. 323, answer:
Quote
A schismatic is one who believes everything the Church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its head–the Holy Father. Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church, they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heretics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I, all schismatics are heretics.

Nihil Obstat:D. J. McMahon, Censor Librorum
Imprimatur:+ Michael Augustine,Archbishop of New York
New York, September 5, 1891
Nihil Obstat:Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.,Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: + Patrick J. Hayes, D.D.,Archbishop of New York
New York, June 29, 1921

One cannot require belief in heresy, without falling into heresy.

Overloading has sunk more than one ship (in Egypt, it drowned at least one king), and it just takes a straw to break a camel's back. Bernard of Clairveaux railed against such ideas as "more is better" and the denial of the existence of excess when the IC first appeared. His take on "the fifth Marian dogma" would be interesting.

Quote
For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.
Rev. 22:18
Quote
You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deut. 4:2

As St. Paphnoutios said, when mandated celibacy was proposed at the Council of Nicea I, the Church ought not to impose the burden of a yoke the Apostles did not lay on the Faithful. Mandated celibacy is a discipline: is there no end to the heretical "reasons"-such as blantant gnosticism and Manicheism-given for defending it in the West and trying to impose it on the East? Such results when one mandates what is not necessary. Even Fr. Corapi, whom I enjoy listening to, while admitting it is only a discipline, goes on to say things that seem oblivious to the fact that priests with whom he is in communion are married.

So it is not a matter of making "making a disciplinary matter into a dogma" into "a matter of heresy", as usually the impulse to make the disciplinary matter into dogma stems from heresy, or it soon employs heresy to justify the imposition. Orthodoxy requires leaving well enough alone.

So while Ut Unum Sint has fine words of reconciliation, Pastores Dabo Vobis provides the Orthdoox more than enough "fine print" as to what is required to sign on the dotted line.

Last edited by IAlmisry; 02/01/13 06:54 PM.
Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: Stephanos I] #390421 02/01/13 07:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Quote
What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.

Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Interview with Father Robert Taft, SJ.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390424 02/01/13 08:19 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
You are reading things which the Apostles did not put in the Gospel, let alone Christ.

Or perhaps you are reading things into Pastor Aeternus that was never intended by the Fathers of V1.

No, its supreme pontiff left quite a full record of what he intended.

The only one of the "Fathers of VI" that the Vatican has canonized, Archbishop Antonio María Claret y Clará (confessor to the Spanish royal court and founder of the Claretians), when bishops fled rather than rubber stamp the approval of their supreme pontiff's Pastor Aeternus, condemned "blasphemies and heresies uttered on the floor of this Council," in a John 11:50-1 moment, that he "never heard of before." After taking the forefront in imposing the "Pastor Aeternus," he died soon thereafter.

It happened in the full light of history-at least as full as intrigue comes. It is not unknown nor a secret.

Originally Posted by mardukm

It amazes me that when we assess the decrees of EVERY Council in the history of the Church, they are NEVER interpereted apart from (1) Sacred Tradition, nor (2) the background debates of the Fathers available to us. Yet both Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of Vatican 1 do the exact opposite with regards to V1. Why?

A more cogent question would be why and how you can make such a statement. For one, the ex cathedra statements of Unam Sanctam always come up in discussion of the tradition of Ultramontanism, and the debate over Honorius-and the forced revisionism of Hefele's work-are brought up by the supporters and opponents of your Pastor Aeternus.
Originally Posted by mardukm

We need to interpret the decrees of V1 in the context of the discussions of the Fathers of the Council and in the context of Sacred Tradition.

We do.

Originally Posted by mardukm

A lot of times, the words of a Decree can have more than one apparent meaning. Take for example the First Ecumenical Council. The semi-Arians and the Pneumatomachi had no problem appealing to its Decrees to support their own opinions, but their understanding was very different from the Faith possessed by the Fathers of Nicea.

The fact that the Semi-Arians and Pneumatomachi busied themselves in producing creeds to replace that of Nicea I (a number of which can be read here: http://www.fourthcentury.com/conciliar-creeds-of-the-fourth-century/), leading to the Fathers of Constantinople to complete the work of the Fathers of Nicea I and set their seal on the Orthodox Creed of the Catholic Church, belies your assertion here. As was pointed out then, the difference of one letter in one word, homoousios vs. homoiousios, in the Creed suffices to distinguish Orthodox from heresy. Your Pastor Aeternsu doesn't even approach such abstraction.

So when Ut Unum Sint invokes (86, 95) "the Constitution Lumen Gentium, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio" to state that "For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator"-itself an exercise of the assumed power (UUS 94) "When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also—under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council— declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith" by declaring such revisionism of Church history as belonging to the deposit of Faith, we Orthodox have no choice but to stick to the Sacred Tradition of the Consensus of the Fathers, which knows of no such "common consent," much less any such divine right to a "prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office" (PA IV 8).

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390434 02/01/13 11:05 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
I don't find your schema of "Absolutist Petrine," "High Petrine" and "Low Petrine" in that statement on the matter by your present "supreme pontiff" (sounds rather absolutist) while in charge of the office of propagating your doctrines.

Perhaps that's because you have not read beyond the jaundiced and non-contextual presentations of Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors, who seem to be have the market as far as the popularity of opinions.

They also have the documentation to back up and substantiate their opinions, pro or con. I have read plenty of your posts on this subject, begging the question out of context.

Why, pray tell, would an "Absolutist Petrine advocate" have a "jaundiced" presentation? Most are rather smug on the subject.

Originally Posted by mardukm
When I've debated Absolutist Petrine advocates at CAF, 100% of them had never even heard of the official Relatio of Vatican 1. And I'm pretty sure that most if not 99% of non-Catholics have the same lack of awareness on the matter.

I try not to be responsible for the ignorance of others.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Nor does it occur in the statement of your previous "supreme pontiff" of blessed memory:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

The document you linked to represents the High Petrine view, not the Absolutist Petrine view. I'm not sure what the point of your focus on mere terminologies is.

I prefer to let people speak for themselves, and not put words in their mouths.

Take for instance, the "Byzantines" and the "Byzantine Empire." Such people and such a state never existed. Figments of Western prejudice, the concepts continue to distort historiography. Another example comes from "feudalism," another constitution which never was (see Elizabeth A. R. Brown's The Tyranny of a Construct), which not only impeded understanding of the Medieval West, but contributed to the strange ideas of Mssrs. Marx and Engels as well.

Originally Posted by mardukm

The conceptual differences between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views are very easy to understand.

such is claimed for most hair splitting.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Except for a brief disclaimer clause, your Pastor Aeternus embraces what you call an "Absolutist Petrine" position, and requires you to embrace one as well.

That's probably only because either (1) you already have a pre-conceived notion

Other than the non-existence of a Petrine office outside Ultramontanism-and that learned from history-I have no pre-conceived notions.
Originally Posted by mardukm

or (2) you read Pastor Aeternus without understanding what the Fathers of V1 debated behind the scenes.

Laying aside the facts that I understand said debates, it matters not as Pastor Aeternus has spoken, the case is closed. A document so blatantly straight-forward and explicit stands in little need of the debates behind the scenes for understanding it.

Originally Posted by mardukm

A perfect example of point (1) is the idea that V1 taught that the Pope is the onlysuccessor of St. Peter, when there is no such statement in the Decree. Rather, the Decree states only that the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter's primacy.

A distinction without a difference, as the "Petrine primacy"-or rather supremacy (and PA does use the word "supreme")-constitutes the very bone of contention. Your present supreme pontiff, in interpreting your previous one of blessed memory, saw that (The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church):
Quote
At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation" In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter"...In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome, enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors", we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power.... In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html
Only a brief and ambiguous allusion to any other successors of St. Peter:
Quote
The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.

"a relation to," not "a manifestion of." "Considered Petrine," not "being Petrine." As Card. Ratzinger et alia referenced (Decree Eastern Churches):
Quote
By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans, clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

The fact that your primate, alone among the "sui juris churches" cannot have the title of the see he claims-"Pope"-belies any difference that you are trying to introduce into distinctions you are reading into Pastor Aeternus.

Originally Posted by mardukm

There are numerous such examples of eisegesis by Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors.

No eisogesis. Just a reading of the plain text. Again, what difference is there in your schema between any of the four lines of "Patriarchs of Antioch" your supreme pontiff has claimed for St. Peter's first see, and the line his Crusaders installed and your Vatican I renewed in Jerusalem which has no "sui juris" status? Why doesn't your primate Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak, who claims to succeed St. Mark the disciple of St. Peter in Alexandria, not have that see's title of "Pope", the original holder of that title? Other than primacy, what succession to St. Peter do you claim, and for whom?

Originally Posted by mardukm

Another, more popular, example is the statement in the Decree that the Pope can exercise his prerogatives "freely" or "unhindered." Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors misinterpret this term to mean that the Pope has absolute power without restriction. They/you think that the term "freely" means "uninhibited," when, in FACT, the word, according to the original intent of the Fathers, actually only means "uncoerced." The term "freely" means nothing more than that the Pope exercises his prerogatives with free will/volition - i.e., . The Pope cannot be FORCED to do or not do something that his office demands.

We are well aware of this issue, ironically almost undone at the Vatican Council with its supreme pontiff seeking asylum from the Prussian summus episcopus (i.e. the King) Supreme Governor of the Evangelical State Church, after seeking asylum with the "Defender of the [Protestant] Faith" and " Supreme Governor of the [Anglican] Church of England."

Again, the plain text of your Pastor Aeternus states it quite explicitely:
Quote
And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.


Originally Posted by mardukm

It does not mean the Pope can do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants.

Again, the plain text of your Pastor Aeternus states it quite explicitely:
Quote
Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Of course, you may claim that although not subject to questioning nor responsible/answerable to anyone but God a la divine right of kings, the "successor of St. Peter" does not "do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants", no end of examples of supreme pontiffs behaving badly (have you seen "the Borgias"?) can be provided. It would be nice if the question of why Card. Law is in Vatican City could be pursued.
Originally Posted by mardukm

This is actually explained in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, which incorporates that very statement from the V1 Decree in the Canons.

Oh? What canon empowers the Church to judge a supreme pontiff in his doings? As even Ut Unum Sint (88) apologizes for "certain painful recollections" in the abuse of power, alleged to be a thing of the past, we Orthodox prefer the means of dealing with it (as happened recently in Jerusalem) in the present, and of course the future.

Last edited by IAlmisry; 02/01/13 11:09 PM.
Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390437 02/02/13 02:11 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Have you debated him as well?

Why would I need to, when HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory himself held to a High Petrine view:
"Vatican I's definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches...The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them "episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction"; that the Pope "is taking for himself the place of every bishop"; and that the bishops are merely "instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own."" (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html)

Note that HH did not say "well, the Pope doesn't do it because it is a merely practical impossibility," which is the usual claim by both Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors of the papacy. Rather he says that Vatican 1 did not give such power (i.e., to invervene daily) to the Pope.

So he says. Does he say it "ex cathedra"? We don't have a straight answer on such things.

Your supreme pontiff, in your link, says
Quote
Vatican I emphasized the fullness of papal power and defined that it is not enough to recognize that the Roman Pontiff "has the principal role." One must admit instead that he "has all the fullness of this supreme power" (DS 3064)...For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope's power "is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful" (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops' permission or mediation.

IOW, his disclaimer says "Vatican I's definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches," but if the supreme pontiff does, the local churches and their bishops have no power to stop him or hold him accountable.

I would presume that your supreme pontiff's promulgation of his code of canon law surpasses the exercise of "magisterium" in a general audience, he dictating in the former that:
Quote
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

So yes, your supreme pontiff issues a disclaimer
Quote
Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: "The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them."

but we should keep in mind the actions of his predecessor as the "supreme pontiff" of Pastor Aeternus
Quote
Archbishop Scherr, of Munich, was a personal friend of Dr. Dollinger, and was at first one of the opponents of the dogma of infallibility. At the railway station of Munich, as he was starting to attend the Vatican Council, he assured Dr. D611inger that in 'he event (which the archbishop thought improbable) of the dogma being proposed in the Council, it should have his determined opposition. For a time the archbishop took his place among the minority of the Council, but he yielded at last, and excommunicated Dr. Dollinger for not following his example. Yet I never heard Dr. Dollinger speak bitterly of him. On the contrary, he made excuses for him j urged that he had acted under pressure from Rome; pleaded that he had more piety than strength of character; and declared that he was bound to act as he did, or resign his see. To illustrate the archbishop s esprit exalte", which subordinated his judgment to his religious emotions, Dr. Dollinger one day told me the following anecdote, on the authority of Archbishop Scherr himself. When the archbishop received information from Rome that he was to be presented with the archiepiscopal pallium on a given day, he immediately began to prepare himself for this great honor by devoting the interval to retirement and religious exercises. The pallium is generally, but not invariably, made by the nuns of one of the Roman convents from the wool of lambs kept on purpose — a fact which added to the honor of the gift. On the stated day, the archbishop's servant announced the arrival of the messenger with the pall. The archbishop expected a special envoy from the Vatican and a formal investituretsanctified by the papal benediction, instead of which there walked into his presence a Jewish banker with a bundle under his arm, out of which he presently produced the pall with a bill for £200. Keenly as Dr. Dollinger entered into the humor of the story, he really told it as an illustration of the archbishop's simplicity of character, and by way of excusing his conduct in excommunicating himself. "To him," he said, " the dogma presents no insuperable difficulty, and he cannot understand why it should present any to me. He bows to authority, and cannot see that authority has no more to do with historical facts than it has to do with mathematical facts." He was always prone to make excuses for the bishops who accepted the dogma of infallibility—even for those who had been among its most prominent opponents at the Vatican Council. He snowed me once a letter from one of the latter, in which the writer—a distinguished prelate — declared that he was in sad perplexity. He had proclaimed the dogma, he said, while stiU remaining in the same mind in which he had opposed it at the Council. "But what could I do?" he asked. "Can one be in the Church and be out of communion with the pope? Yet can it be right to proclaim what one does not believe? Such is my dilemma, and it has made me so unhappy that I have thought of resigning my see. On reflection, I nave chosen what 1 consider the safest course." "Allowance must be made for these men," said Dr. Dollinger. "Habit is second nature, and their mental attitude has been so invariably that of unquestioning obedience to papal authority, that when they have to choose between that authority and allegiance to what they believe to be historical truth, their second nature asserts itself and they yield."

On a subsequent occasion, I asked Dr. DOllinger if he thought the Bishop of Rottenourg (Dr. Hefele) would end by accepting the dogma. The case was in one way a crucial one. As an authority on the historical bearings of the question, Hefele was the best equipped man at the Council. His masterly "History of the Councils " is accepted as the standard authority on all hands. Not only did he oppose the dogma at the Vatican Council, but during the sitting of the Council he published, through the Neapolitan press, a pamphlet against it, basing his opposition on the example of Honorius as a test case. Perrone, the great theologian of the Roman College, and a strong Infallibilist, has laid it down in his standard work on "Dogmatic Theology," that if only one pope can be proved to have given, ex cathedrd, a heterodox decision on faith or morals, the whole doctrine collapses. Hefele accordingly took the case of Honorius, and proved that this pope had been condemned as a heretic by popes and oecumenical councils. Pennachi, professor of church history in Rome, replied to Hefele, and Hefele returned to the charge in a rejoinder so powerful that he was left master of the field. If therefore Hefele, so honest as well as so able and learned, accepted the dogma, it was not likely that any other bishop of the minority would hold out. "He must yield," said Dr. Dollinger to me, three months after the prorogation of the Vatican Council, "or resign his see. His quinquennial faculties have expired and the pope refuses to renew them until Hefele accepts the decree. At this moment there are nineteen couples of rank in his diocese who cannot get married because they are within the forbidden degrees, and Hefele cannot grant them dispensations." "But since he denies the pope's infallibility," I asked, "why does he not himself grant the necessary dispensations?" "My friend," replied Dollinger, "you forget that the members of the Church of Rome have been brought up in the belief that a dispensation is not valid without these papal faculties, and a marriage under any other dispensation would not be acknowledged in society." The event proved that DSllinger was right. The quinquennial faculties are a tremendous power in the hands of the pope. They are, in fact, papal licenses, renewed every five years, which enable the bishops to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions that ordinarily belong to the pope, such as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, obligations of fasting, prohibition of marriage within the prohibited degrees, and also the power to permit the reading of prohibited books. It is obvious that the extinction of the quinquennial faculties in a diocese means the paralysis in a short time of its ordinary administration. It amounts to a sort of modified interdict. And so Dr. Hefele soon discovered. The dogma was proclaimed in the Vatican Council on the iSth of July, 1870, and on the 10th of the following April Hefele submitted. But he was too honest to let it be inferred that his submission was due to any change of conviction. He deemed it his duty to submit in spite of his convictions, because "the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it." Bishop Strossmayer held out longest of all; but he yielded at last, so far as to allow the dogma to be published in the official gazette of his diocese during his absence in Rome. Nevertheless, he remained to the last on the most friendly terms with Dr. Dollinger, and it was to a letter from Dr. Dollinger that I was indebted for a most interesting visit to Bishop Strossmayer in Croatia in 1876.

To some able and honest minds Dr. Dollinger's attitude on the question of infallibility is a puzzle. His refusal to accept the dogma, while he submitted meekly to an excommunication which he believed to be unjust, seems to them an inconsistency. This view is put forward in an interesting article on Dr. Dollinger in the Spectator of last January 18, and, as it is a view which is probably held by many, I quote the gist of the article before I try to show what Dr. Dollinger's point of view really was: —

There was something very English in Dr. Dollinger's illogical pertinacity in holding his own position on points of detail, in spite of the inconsistency of that position on points of detail with the logic of his general creed. He was, in fact, more tenacious of what his historical learning had taught him, than he was of the a priori position which he had previously assumed — namely, that a true Church must be infallible, and that his Church was actually infallible. No one had taught this more distinctly than Dr. Dollinger. Yet first iie found one erroneous drift in the practical teaching of his Church, then hefound another, and then when at last his Church formally declared that the true providential guarantee of her infallibility extended only to the Papal definition of any dogma touching faith and morals promulgated with a view to teach the Church, he ignored that decree, though it was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous as well as one of the most numerously attended of her Councils, and preferred to submit to excommunication rather than to profess his acceptance of it. And then later he came, we believe, to declare that he was no more bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent than be was by the decrees of the Council of the Vatican. None the less he always submitted to the disciplinary authority of the Church, even after he had renounced virtually her dogmatic authority. He never celebrated mass nor assumed any of the functions of a priest after his excommunication. In other words, he obeyed the Church in matters in which no one had ever claimed for her that she could not err, after he had ceased to obey htr in matters in which he had formerly taught that she could not err, and in which, so far as we know, he had only in his latter years taught that she could err by explicitly rejecting the decrees of one or two General Councils. . . . When she said to him, "Don't celebrate mass any more," he seems to have regarded himself as more bound to obey her than when she said to him, "Believe what I teil you."

Dr. Dollinger would not have accepted this as an accurate statement of his position. He would have denied that the dogma of infallibility "was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous" of the Church's Councils, and would have pointed to the protest of more than eighty of the most learned and influential bishops in the Roman communion, whose subsequent submission he would have discounted for reasons already indicated. And he would have been greatly surprised to be told that it was as easy to obey the command, "Believe what I tell you," as the command " Don't celebrate mass any more." I remember a pregnant remark of Cardinal Newman's to myself at the time of Dr. Dollinger's excommunication, of which be disapproved, though accepting the dogma himself. "There are some," he said, " who think that it is as easy to believe as to obey; that is to say, they do not understand what faith really means." To obey the sentence of excommunication was in no sense a moral difficulty to Dr. Dollinger. He believed it unjust and therefore invalid, and he considered himself under no obligation in foro conscientice to obey it. He did not believe that it cut him off from membership with the Church of Rome; and he once resented in a letter to me an expression which implied that he had ceased to be a member of the Roman Communion. He submitted to the sentence of excommunication as a matter of discipline, a cross which he was providentially ordained to bear. It involved nothing more serious than personal sacrifice — submission to a wrong arbitrarily inflicted by an authority to which obedience was due where conscience did not forbid. "Believe what I tell you" was a very different command, and could only be obeyed when the intellect could conscientiously accept the proposition. To bid him believe not only as an article of faith but as an historical fact what he firmly believed to be an historical fiction was to him an outrage on his intellectual integrity. For let it be remembered that the Vatican decree defines the dogma of papal infallibility not merely as part of the contents of divine revelation, but, in addition, as a fact of history "received from the beginning of the Christian faith." It challenged the ordeal of historical criticism, and made thus an appeal to enlightened reason not less than to faith. To demand belief in a proposition that lies beyond the compass of the human understanding is one thing. It is quite another matter to demand belief in a statement the truth or falsehood of which is purely a matter of historical evidence. If Dr. D61linger had been asked to believe, on pain of excommunication, that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell, the able writer in the Spectator would readily understand how easy submission to an unjust excommunication would have been in comparison with obedience to such a command. But to Dr. DOllinger's mind the proposition that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell would not be a bit more preposterous, not a bit more in the teeth of historical evidence, than the proposition that "from the beginning of the Christian faith," it was an accepted article of the creed of Christendom that when the Roman pontiff speaks to the Church ex cathedrd on faith or morals, his utterances are infallible, and "are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." He was firmly convinced of the contradictory of that proposition, and while he remained of that mind how could he have honestly professed his acceptance of the dogma? The appeal was not to his faith, but to his reason. It was, as he said himself, like asking him to believe that two and two make five.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Eg...le%20Vatican%20infallibility&f=false
So, what faculties does a bishop have that he does not receive from your supreme pontiff? What rights does the local bishop have that your supreme pontiff cannot impede at any moment, with no recourse left to the bishop?

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Of course Otsheylnik's understanding of the papacy differs from your own, as I've never seen anyone else but you embrace yours.

There are a lot of Catholics who adhere to a High Petrine view, not an Absolutist Petrine view, of the papacy. One of the moderators at CAF even sent me a PM congratulating me for my defense of the High Petrine view. Many have e-mailed me (mostly Catholics in communion with Rome, but also Catholics not in communion with Rome) to thank me for the distinctions, and a lot have told me that the distinctions have helped them remain in the Catholic Church.

I can't comment on private correspondence to which I am not privy.
Originally Posted by mardukm

You have to understand that perhaps 98% of my studies in the process of my decision to join the Catholic communion came not from Catholic theologians, but from Catholic Magisterial sources. Most Catholic theological material comes from Latin Catholics, many with an Absolutist Petrine perspective. But my knowledge, as stated, was informed by Catholic Magisterial sources, not popular lay apologetic and theological sources.

Oh? And what sources bearing the imprimatur and nihil obstat of your "magisterium" taught you the distinctions between "Absolute," "High," and "Low" "Petrine views"?

Originally Posted by mardukm
For example (among many), my knowledge of "Purgatory" came from Magisterial sources such as the Councils of Trent and Florence, not popular theological sources, so I've never imbibed the popular Latin theologoumena regarding "Purgatory" (e.g., purgatorial fire, purgatorial punishment, accounting of time, etc., etc.) as part of my Catholic consciousness.

Fr. Ambrose has answered you on this. For me to do so here would send us perhaps on a tangent, when already the debate is prolix. I will say, I've never found the concept of "theologoumena" in scholastic theology.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Least of all, Archbishop St. Gregory

Pope St. Gregoy did not have an Absolutist Petrine outlook.
though he did have a moderate, incipient Ultramontane one. Not enough to disqualify him from "St.", though.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
...Pope Pius IX.

Yes. Pio Nono had personal Absolutist Petrine tendencies, but the Council did not.

Even if they didn't, they rubberstamped "Pio Nono"'s, who stated them plainly "with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record."

And, as your Vatican II re-iterated, the "college of bishops" never acts-or even exist-without its head (according to Lumen Gentium), your supreme pontiff. So even if they didn't share "Pio Nono'"s "Absolutist Petrine tendencies," they were, under the dogmatic constitutions of your ecclesiastical community, powerless to oppose them.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390441 02/02/13 04:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
You might want to squeeze your "High Petrine" position into the disclaimer clause, but the rest of Pastor Aeternus will not let you, as it empties said clause of any meaning that Archbishop St. Gregory might have put into it. According to your Pastor Aeternus he can indeed, at any time he chooses, act alone, anywhere in the "Church universal." Without collaboration, consent or appeal. He makes that quite explicit.

Can you please point out exactly where Pastor Aeternus states that the Pope can
(1) act alone

I 2-4 II 1, 3
Quote
It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas, that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold...
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time...Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.


Originally Posted by mardukm

(2) any time he chooses

II 2, 4-5
Quote
no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See...For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership...Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.


Originally Posted by mardukm
(3) without collaboration

I 4-5
Quote
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.


Originally Posted by mardukm
(4) without consent,

III 2 IV 9
Quote
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world...such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.


Originally Posted by mardukm
(5) without appeal.

III 8
Quote
The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.


Originally Posted by mardukm

You say this is quite explicit, but I haven't seen it.

You should look harder.

Caveat lector.

Originally Posted by mardukm

I admit that Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that the Pope can act anywhere in the Church universal (though that does not in the least mean he can do whatever he wants).

who could stop him?

Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Indeed, I suspect that bishops cannot act unilaterally themselves as you mean it. They are at all times answerable to both their flock entrusted to them and the whole of the episcopal assembly throughout the world, and Christ Himself.

Agreed. But I think we each have a different understanding of what "answerable" means. The highest authority in the Church is Sacred Tradition, and EVERY bishop, including the Pope, is subject to it.

That's a nice thought, but Holy Tradition does not enforce itself. If it did, we would have no need for Ecumenical Councils. Nestorius was subject to it, but it took the Council of Ephesus to get rid of him.

Pope Honorius of Rome being subject to Holy Tradition didn't work for his papacy.

Originally Posted by mardukm

When I think of "answerable," I mean being answerable to Sacred Tradition. which is the true judge in all matters.

In the operation of things, it judges nothing. It provides the standard by which things are judged.

Things and persons are answerable to Holy Tradition, in that it consists of the life of Holy Spirit in the Church, and rejects what does not live in Him. The concept of a "Petrine office", however, sets itself up against such Receptionist concepts.

Originally Posted by mardukm

I think what you mean by "answerable" is being anwerable to a personal authority. In the Catholic Church, the authority of Sacred Tradition exhibits itself in what is known as "latae sententiae" excommunication - i.e., an excommunication by virtue of the law itself, not by a personal authority. Even the Pope is subject to this.

Cite your authority for that.

Because Pope Greogory VII's "Dictatus Papae" says otherwise:
Quote
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

Originally Posted by mardukm

Bishops, including the Pope, are servants of Sacred Tradition, and they cannot act apart from or in contradiction to it.

Yeah, and Octavian restored the Roman Republic. At least his propaganda claimed so.

Pope Benedict VIII acted apart from and in contradiction to Holy Tradition when he, at the command of the German Emperor Henry II, inserted the filioque into the Creed of the rite of Rome, contradicting the silver placque that Pope Leo II hung on the Cathedral door upholding the Holy Tradition of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils.

Your "High Petrine" views does not hold that your supreme pontiff is impeccable, does it? So even in theory the possibility (not to mention the history) of a pope going astray must be entertained: what do you do then? Ultramontanism hasn't countenanced an answer to that.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Though there is no canonical means to depose a Pope

see
Originally Posted by mardukm

he can indeed lose his status by virtue of latae sententiae excommunication.

Cite your authority on that, please.

If that were true, we could have let Nestorius go on.

Originally Posted by mardukm

This occurred during the "babylonian captivity" of the Avignon papacy period. What occurred was that the College of Cardinals elected a new Pope, who called an Ecumenical Council, which then made a sentence based on the sacred canonical Tradition of the Church. The College itself did not have the canonical authority to judge the Pope, so that was the way it was done.

Uh, no. The council of Constance deposed Pope John XXIII (the original). It did make sentences based on the canonical tradition of the patriarchate of the West, but after the council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence, your supreme pontiffs repudiated them.
Originally Posted by mardukm

I've read even in such a traditional Catholic source as the old Catholic Encyclopedia that the events that occurred during the Avignon period was not an aberration, but a legitimate exercise of conciliar authority in an extreme case.

Citation, please.

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint [Re: mardukm] #390449 02/02/13 05:32 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
If a head bishop was "a necessary reality of the Church universal," the Book of Acts would emphasize his "reality" from beginning to end as St. Luke chronicled the Church's spread to the ends of the universe. But no head bishop as you-or, more importantly, your Pastor Aeternus-describes him, rears his head.

Well, the Apostles were not bishops, but the Apostles had a coryphaeus, which was St. Peter. The body of bishops down through the centuries simply inherited/inherits its ontological make-up from the Apostles, which was established by Christ Himself, by virtue of Apostolic Succession.

which being one, all bishops inherit from St. Peter and all the Apostles.

St. Peter acted as coryphaeus, but when the Church ventured out of Jerusalem, he did not go of his own accord, but was sent (along with St. John) by the Apostles.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Do not confuse eisogesis for express statements.

Actually, when one speaks of eisegesis, one understands that it is not merely the words, but the proper CONTEXT of the words that has been neglected. So it is the Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors who are guilty of eisegesis. Both camps neglect not only the context of the statements made by Fathers during the Council, but the context of Sacred Tradition as well, in their misinterpretation of the Vatican Decrees.

The idea of any Petrine views cannot be sustained without eisegesis of the papacy of Rome since 1054 and its Vatican decrees into the NT and the first millenium Church. Ut Unum Sint does not differ from any other manifesto of "Petrine doctrines" in that. The Orthodox, continuing how the Church was administrated and operated from the NT throughout the whole first millenium and maintaining the Holy Tradition in that context, cannot be party to that eisegesis.

Page 9 of 13 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3