www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) is 90 percent identical to the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law (CIC), and as such it does not represent an authentic witness to the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches.

I would agree with that. I think most would agree that they are provisional at best and would be completely recast if a communion with the mother Orthodox churches were to occur.

Or just dropped. There is no need for a code of canons at all. The Church, in fact, got on perfectly well without one for almost 1900 years.

I assume you mean the "code" and not the "canons". The term "Rudder" does convey a softer, gentler, more caring pastorate for which we are all in need.

But the Rudder is not really a systematic code of canons. Many canons from the Rudder go completely unobserved (and have been unobserved for many centuries) without a single complaint. The purpose of the Rudder is much different, I would say.

CONTINUED (someone e-mailed me recently about his concerns on this topic, so I felt obliged to move up my time table and respond to the rest of brother Isa's posts)

I'm not sure how you perceive this Canon "surpasses the exercise of the magisterium in a general audience." This canon comes straight out of the Decrees of the first Vatican COUNCIL.

I assume you intend for this excerpt from the Canons to prove the Pope has ABSOLUTE, UNILATERAL authority? So you intentionally excise �2 of this Canon to prove your point? Are you trying to purposefully demonstrate to the readers here that the Absolutist Petrine perspective depends on taking snippets out of our magisterial texts devoid of even their immediate context ?
Here is �2 of Canon 333 that you purposefully neglected to include:
"In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is ALWAYS joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office."
So, taken in FULL context, the Canon positively asserts that the primacy of ordinary power can ONLY be exercised while the Pope is in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church, and that it can only be exercised according to the needs of the Church. Nothing here about the Pope being able to unilaterally impose laws and decrees on the Church at his mere discretion apart from or separated from his brother bishops. As expressed several times, and which you have amply demonsrated, the canards against the Catholic teaching are based on myopic excisions of selective texts to create a monstrous caricature of the Catholic faith.

There is also another very important point about the texts you have quoted that is the source of much misunderstanding. As asserted (and proven, perhaps inadvertantly, by you), the Absolutist Petrine distortion of Catholic teaching depends on myopic snippets being taken out of their context. A particular portion of the texts is often bandied about - wrenched out not only from the immediate context of the Canons, but also from the general teaching of the Catholic Church - that has given rise to a tremendously huge misunderstanding. Namely, it is the expression "primacy of ordinary power."

When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I always understood the term "ordinary" when applied to a bishop to mean that he is the usual and normative authority in the local Church. After all, that is what "ordinary" means in common parlance. But I discovered that in Catholic canonical language, that is not case. "Ordinary," in Catholic canonical usage, only means "inherent." To a non-Catholic, the phrase "primacy of ordinary power" will mean that the Pope is the usual and normative ruler of any single diocese. But that is NOT what it means. Rather, it literally only means that the Pope has a primacy of "inherent" power. It is called "ordinary" because if and when it needs to be used, the power is inherently that person's to use, and he needs no one else's permission to use it. The jurisdiction of every <head bishop> (be he metropolitan, patriarch, or Pope) in any particular diocese within his plenary territorial jurisdiction is regarded as "ordinary" in Catholic ecclesiology. But no <head bishop> (be he metropolitan, patriarch, or Pope) has the authority to impede the ordinary authority of any local <bishop> in that bishop's own diocese. In practical terms, the <head bishop> can ONLY use his ordinary power for a local diocese not his own if the bishop of that local diocese (1) appeals to him or (2) has been impeded in his duties for his diocese (e.g., by heresy, absence, imprisonment by the secular power, etc.). In these extenuating circumstances, and ONLY in these extenuating circumstnaces, it is the inherent (i.e., "ordinary") power of the <head bishop> to care for the local diocese, and he does not need anyone's permission to perform that responsibility. So, to repeat, the expression "primacy of ordinary power" does not mean the Pope has the authority to daily and/or normatively intervene in the affairs of a local diocese (in effect replacing the local bishop), contrary to the pretensions of Absolutist Petrine advocates, and the misapprehensions of "non-"Catholics.

It should be noted that there IS a term used in Catholic Canonical language to denote what non-Catholics would mean when non-Catholics use the term "ordinary" -- namely, it is the term "PROPER." Any non-Catholic who will bother to investigate the Canons of the Catholic Church will notice that while the jurisdiction of the Pope and any other head bishop is regarded as "ordinary" for every local diocese within their respective plenary jurisdictions, just like the jurisdiction of a local bishop for his diocese, it is ONLY the local bishop that has what is called PROPER jurisdiction in his local diocese.

A disclaimer that holds true to its intent and the intent of the Canons.

I'm not sure what the point is about Archbishop Scherr. If you were just citing that portion to provide a greater context for the portions you highlighted, that's fine, and no need to explain.

Is this the kind of information you have read that causes you to believe you know enough about the context of the background debates at the Council? If so, these sources of information are rather jaundiced, and actually misleading.

First of all, note that while the article indicates that Hefele accepted the challenge of demonstrating that the Pope had given a heterodox decision ex cathedra, he actually did no such thing. What Hefele did at the Council was present evidence that the Pope was condemned as a heretic, but he did nothing to prove that Pope Honorius had given an ex cathedra decision on the matter.

Secondly, my own sources reveal that Bishop Hefele gave indications during the debates what it would take for him to accept the Decrees, and that most of his conditions were in fact met. Naturally, one has to wonder why bishop Hefele and other bishops held out so long after the promulgation of the Decrees. One can only speculate. On the very important issue of introducing a clause into the dogma that all the bishops must be consulted for an ex cathedra decree to be regarded infallible, Hefele conceded that such a condition was a practical impossibility. Hefele's primary concern was that the dogma on infallibility as it was made it seem as if the Pope's infalllibility and its exercise thereof was independant of or separated from the Church. The Fathers of the CommitteeDe Fide added the historic Proem to Pastor Aeternus to meet this concern (which was, of course, an issue not just with Hefele, but many other bishops, both from the Minority and Majority Parties). Many bishops saw this as a sufficient safeguard, but others did not, and would have preferred that the Tradition expressed in the historic Proem was contained in the dogma itself. There was also, and most importantly, the addition of the clause "not from the consent of the Church" into the dogma itself. This clause was in fact added to the text in the same round of discussions as when the historic Proem was added to the text. I have no doubt that this simultaneous addition is what caused certain bishops (such as Hefele) to feel that the historic Proem could not achieve its intended purpose. But the reason for adding the historic Proem was very different from the reason for adding the clause "not from the consent of the Church." Those respective reasons were not diametrically opposed, so the addition of the controversial clause did not invalidate the addition of the historic Proem. That is why you need a good knowledge of the background discussions/debates to properly assess the text of Pastor Aeternus. My impression is that your own sources have not provided you with such knowledge, which would explain why our respective positions are different. If you want to continue this particular line of the discussion, please do so in the thread I started on the historic Proem. I think a discussion on infallibility is not within the scope of this thread, which is a discussion on the Primacy.

Thirdly, it should be pointed out that despite the complaints by detractors of V1 that the procedural process was stacked in favor of papal control by the Majority Party, it was actually Hefele who had provided the procedure (Hefele was one of the main coordinators of the Council). It was simply practical, in Hefele's consideration, that such a council - the largest one in history so far - would need a single, coordinating authority to settle procedural matters.

You made a comment earlier about the "revisionism" of Hefele by Catholics. It is actually your sources that are guilty of this, mostly by leaving out important details of Hefele's role, involvement, and statements at the Council.

Well, first of all, it must be stressed that Bishop Hefele did not accept the Decrees in order to receive the quinquennial faculties.

Secondly, Bishop Hefele, while initially disagreeing with the dogma of "papal infallibility," in fact had little problem with the dogma on the Primacy.

Thirdly, the whole conversation recorded in the quote demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic theology. The quinquennial faculties having nothing to do with doctrine, but are canonical/disciplinary prerogatives. They have nothing to do with "papal infallibility." Dollinger's friend was utterly incorrect to assume that just because Hefele did not believe in infallibility, then Hefele should go ahead and grant the dispensations. Dollinger, despite his status, was utterly incorrect to respond that the granting of quinquennial faculties has anything to do with the validity of sacraments. Likewise, the author of that excerpt was utterly incorrect to say that the quinquennial faculties allows the bishop to absolve from the sins he enumerated. What the quinquennial faculties do is not to grant the power to absolve from those sins (which is already the inherent right of every bishop), but to allow a bishop to grant dispensations from the normal canonical penalties attached to those particular sins.

Fourthly, your question "what faculties does a bishop have" would demonstrate a like misunderstanding of the quinquennial faculties. As mentioned in an earlier post, the sanctifying power is equal among bishops, and it is greater than the power of jurisdiction. The Pope has no authority to take away the sanctifying power of a bishop (which would, in fact, include many, and the most important, of a bishop's functions).

Here is an assessment from a book regarding faculties of bishops and priests:
"However, the significance of this distorted pyramidal ecclesiology [due to the granting of quinquennial faculties] should not be exaggerated. Even under the 1917 Code, the bishop had many powers in law and by holy orders that did not need to be delegated by the Holy See. In fact, most faculties granted to priests on the diocesan pagellae of the time were not received from the Holy See and then subdelegated by the bishop. Instead, they were episcopal faculties, ones that the bishop could grant on his own authority." (John Huels, Empowerment for Ministry, p.6)

Fifthly, AFAIK, the granting of quinquennial faculties appear under the canonical law of the Latin Church, and have never applied to non-Latin Churches. (Contrary to popular opinion, the 1917 Code only applied to the Latin Church, not the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches; there were some parts of the Code that regulated the relationship between Latin and non-Latin Christians, but its provisions were for non-Latins within the Latin territories, not the Eastern or Oriental traditional jurisdictions. It is possible, of course, that bishops within Metropolitan sui juris Churches that were created in the traditional Latin territories were granted quinquennial faculties by default, the Churches having been created through the personal authority of the bishop of Rome. However, this would not apply to bishops within the traditional non-Latin jurisdictions.)

Sixthly, most of the prerogatives that were given with the quinquennial faculties were in fact restored to the Latin bishops (or bishops under the canonical jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome) at V2.

Pastor Aeternus, the official Relatio of Vatican 1, The Vatican Council 1869-1870 (Dom Cuthbert Butler, Newman Press), the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don't recall Fr. Ambrose demonstrating that I, as an Oriental, am bound to accept scholastic theology. I don't recall Fr. Ambrose presenting any evidence from magisterial sources that I, as an Oriental, must believe any of those Latin theologoumena.

Even before I joined the Catholic communion, I was already suspecting the utter inconsistency of this argument. The ancient Apostolic Canon 34 states that the body of bishops CANNOT act without their head involving matters that fall outside the immediate, proper jurisdiction of any single bishop. As pointed out earlier, even the Church historian Eusebius seems to have recognized that this Canon applies to the bishop of Rome in relation to all the Churches. Please explain your objection to the Vatican Council repeating the contents of this ancient Apostolic Canon in its decrees? Please explain why you believe Catholics should not adhere to this ancient Apostolic Canon?

Where does it say here that the Pope can act alone? All it says is that St. Peter alone was given particular prerogatives (related to the Primacy), and that these prereogatives were passed on to his Successor in the primacy, the bishop of Rome. There's nothing there that states he can exercise these prerogatives unilaterally, separated from the Apostles (or his brother bishops), nor at his mere discretion. That's eisegesis, brother.

All it says here is that St. Peter has a perpetual successor. Where does it say that the Pope can act any time he chooses at his mere discretion? That's eisegesis, brother.

All it says here is that (1) St. Peter alone was given the primacy, and (2) this primacy was not given by the Church, but by Christ directly through the succession of primacy. There's nothing here that states that St. Peter or the Pope can exercise the primacy without collaboration from the Apostles or the rest of the Church, respectively. That's eisegesis, brother.

One needs to take this in the context of the rest of the Church's Tradition. This authority that requires submission can ONLY be used in response to the needs of the Church, and ALWAYS in communion with his brother bishops. So it is by no means exercised at the mere and sole discretion of the Pope.

I won't express at this, because it is in fact perhaps the single greatest cause of confusion in the Decree. Please read the following explanation I gave from CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=709591
If you have any other questions upon reading that, please present them in the Historic Proem thread, since this issue of "consent" involves the matter of the infallibility, rather than the Primacy.

Please show us a single canon from the early Church that indicates that after appeal to the bishop of Rome, there was another higher authority to which someone could appeal. Until you provide such a canon, I'll maintain my incredulity at why an Orthodox would reject this statement from Pastor Aeternus. I will make a further comment on the final clause of this excerpt. The excerpt, contrary to the misconception of Absolutist Petrine advocates, does not say that no appeal to an Ecumenical Council can be made -- only that one cannot appeal to it as IF it were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. We know that Ecumenical Councils were called in the early Church when papal authority alone was not enough to settle the issue (e.g., the Fourth Ecum). But the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 dictates that such an action cannot be done without the consent of him who is recognized by the bishops to be their head. So it is indeed possible to appeal to an Ecumenical Council from a decision of the Pope, but since the Ecumenical Council would need to have the consent of the Pope, it cannot be considered to be an authority higher than the Pope. It's certainly imminently possible that within the context of an Ecumenical Council, the Pope can be convinced to change his decision (e.g., the Fifth Ecum). The main point is that the Ecumenical Council (as with any Council) as a body cannot be considered to have an authority that is above him who is regarded as the head of that body, since the decisions of that body requires, according to the most ancient Tradition of the Church, the consent of that head. The authority of the body and head are EQUAL, neither one intended by Christ or the Church to "lord it over" the other. It is, btw, another Absolutist Petrine distortion to claim that Pastor Aeternus states anywhere that the Pope is ABOVE an Ecumenical Council.

That's a good question. I'll explain more below as I cover the events of Avignon and that general time period.

That's an indefensible statement. Pope Honorius never taught monothelitism as the public Faith of the Church to anyone. This is proven by the facts of history. First of all, monothelitism was a heresy that affected only the Eastern portion of the Church, never the West. Secondly, there was no knowledge by any of the Fathers at the SIxth Ecum that any bishop in the Western Church believed, much less taught, monothelism. The only reason Pope Honorius' name even came into the picture was because Sergius brought forth the PRIVATE letter given to him by Pope Honorius.

That's a good way of putting exactly what I stated.

How so?

"A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholic�. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope." I hope you understand that the old Catholic Encyclopedia has the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

interesting. And to prove that this has actually been the Tradition of the Catholic Church, then it must be the case that every Pope down to this day holds the title of Saint. Does the hagiographic Tradition of the Catholic Church - even the Latin Catholic Church - support or refute your claim? The fact that not every Pope has been considered a Saint even by the Latin Catholic Church demonstrates how silly it is to even attempt to claim that this extreme pov is actually Catholic teaching.

Please explain what the relevance of this for our discussion?

Hardly. First of all, the very great majority of Churches in the West for a few centuries were already using filioque in their Creeds, even while in communion with their Eastern brethren.

Secondly, St. Maximos already affirmed the orthodoxy of filioque, so for those who understood that it was the Faith that mattered, and not the mere text, there was nothing contrary to Tradition about the insertion of filioque.

Thirdly, Pope Leo's action was meant specifically and only to counter Charlemagne's political ambitions over the Easterns, not to make any sort of canonical rule over the matter. Charlemagne wanted to extend his policial hegemony into the East, and wanted to use the Pope to further his ambitions. Consequently, he made a fuss about the fact that at the Seventh Ecum, the Creed professed by Patriarch St. Tarasius only used the clause "THROUGH the Son" instead of "AND the Son." He hoped to have an excuse to extend his control into Constantinople by accusing its Patriarch of heresy. As part of his plot, he asked the Pope to officially insert filioque (i.e., AND the Son) into the Creed. But the Pope saw through his scheme, and as a response to Charlemagne, he commissioned the plaques to be made.

Interesting comment. History has shown that Popes can be corrected, or even resign due to popular (laity + clerical) pressure. That would be the way it would be done. It's not contained in the canons, but it can be done. That's part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Your impression seems to be based on the misconception that when Pastor Aeternus speaks of no recourse to a decision by the Pope, that means the Pope can do anything he wants, when he wants, where he wants and no one can do anything about it. As demonstrated, that misconception resulted from the statements being wrenched out context regarding the Pope's role as JUDGE. There is absolutely nothing in Pastor Aeternus that states that the Pope cannot be corrected, or that it is wrong to resist a Pope who is most evidently tearing down the Church:
�Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to de�stroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the exe�cution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.�(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

There is a canonical way to get a Pope out of office, but it is not based on his actions; it would rather be based on a question of the legitimacy of his election. This was the canonical way Popes were removed from office from the 10th century onwards, AFAIK. If there was an especially evil Pope, one could question how he ever got into office in the first place. There could have been coercion involved, for example, which would illegitimize the election. I wonder if a case could be made on the basis of deception. I mean, the decision of the electors is based on their information and perception of the papabile. If their information and perception as to the character of a Pope was based on false information or deception, then it cannot have been a legitimately free decision (thus invalidating the election). Secular contractual law recognizes this distinction; I wonder if ecclesiastical law would recognize it. Interesting to ponder.

Then you cite a canon for it from the early Church. Btw, to be more concise, I meant "no canonical means to depose a Pope based on his actions." There is a canonical means, as already mentioned, based on a question of the legitimacy of his election. Popes can also resign due to popular pressure.

The next Pope had to confirm the matter for it to be completely valid.

What did they repudiate? The canons? Please clarify.

"...for the purpose of putting an end to the Great Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the Council deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Gallicans wrongly imagined."

Scripture records that there was one among all the Apostles (who were together as one the authority for the Church universal) who held a position of primacy. So yes, according to your admission that what St. Peter and the other Apostles had was inherited by the bishops, there must be one who likewise holds this position of primacy among all the bishops.

A sending that was made by agreement, not by imposition of authority.

Blessings

I will, Lord willing, do mardukm the duty of response, but in the meantime, something of a leitmotif that can be quickly posted might do in the meantime.


You and your Pastor Aeternus claim that "any bishop appealing to the bishop of Rome, from "West" or "East," prior to that time proves the point," without recognizing that by that standard any bishop making appeal to any bishop besides the bishop of Rome undermines your "point."

In the context, Bp. St. Basil of Caesarea (and by virtue of that office autocephalous Metropolitan of Caesarea, Exarch of Pontus, and Primate of Armenia) in 371 (i.e. LONG before the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and even before the Council of Constantinople I) is writing Bp. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (and by virtue of that office autocephalous Pope of Alexandria and All Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis) about the see of the bishop of Antioch between the two (which had autocephaly and had been trying to consolidate that into jurisdiction over all the Praetorian Prefecture of the East, exercising oversight over Caesarea-and the rest of Asia Minor-and overlapping with Egypt in Sinai and Palestine). The exiles of Pope St. Athanasius were fading into the past, Alexandria enjoying for four years by then his uninterrupted leadership. The Emperor of the East, Valens, favored the Arians, but the senior Emperor Valentinian, in the West, upheld the Creed of Nicea. Valens had exiled Met. St. Meletius of Antioch, and a faction in the city had deposed him for Homoiousian leanings and elected a Paulinus to succeed him, consecrated by a bishop Lucifer of Calaris (in Sardinia) of the Abp. of Rome, who fully supported Paulinus and condemned Met. St. Meletius. The latter took to celebrating Divine Liturgy outside the city walls. Valens settled into Antioch and revived Arian persecution and exiled Met. St. Meletius again. Pope St. Athanasius supported Paulinus with Rome, but Met. St. Basil came to support Met. St. Meletius, whom he urged to write Pope St. Athanasius. In parrallel, Met. St. Basil wrote Pope St. Athanasius for the cause of Antioch:

Note that St. Basil, autocephalous metropolitan of Cappadocia, is writing St. Athanasius, Pope of the separate autocephalous Diocese of Egypt, to prevail upon the bishops (note the plural) of a third body-that within the orbit of the autocephalous Abp. of Rome (who is not mentioned nor referred to, see below)-to restore a yet fourth autocephalous Church, and communion between all four.

It would seem that the "Universal Responsibility of the Pope for the Unity of the Churches" of the OP was being exercised in the early Church by other patriarchs and metropolitans, and even with the bishops of the Pope of Rome without bringing him necessarily into the equation for "East West Unity" "Ut Unum Sint."

Note also the "bishop of the West" and "the Westerns," and that Met. St. Basil is writing of them and about contact with them with no reference to the Abp. of Rome.

Met. St. Basil would write to the archbishop of Rome, Damasus, but the Pontiff proved the most ardent foe of Met. St. Meletius, insisting on Paulinus as primate of Antioch. The pontiff's right hand man in the East, St. Jerome, would accept ordination from Paulinus, and would travel with him back to Rome to solidify his support from the West. When Met. St. Meletius fell asleep after opening the Second Ecumenical Council-that of Constantinople I-Pontiff Damasus insisted that Paulinus be accepted as having succeeded to Antioch's see (something that Met. St. Meletius had offered, but Paulinus spurned). Instead, the Ecumenical Council consecrated St. Flavian as Metropolitan of Antioch (a precedent for the consecration of Sylvester as his successor as patriarch of Antioch. Btw, all four lines of patriarchs of Antioch recognized by the Vatican claim episcopal lineage from Met. St. Meletius, sweeping Paulinus under the rug), and Rome remained out of communion with Antioch, New Rome, Cappadocia...all the East except perhaps Alexandria, for two decades-although Paulinus' episcopal lineage died out with his successor nearly a decade before.

It would seem that Met. St. Basil knows that "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them" means that "Furthermore, it follows...that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation" (PA III 5-6).

Met. St. Basil seems not to know about a number of dogmas of the Pastor Aeternus:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202066.htm

So much for the headship of St. Peter's sole successor at Old Rome providing the font of unity of the Churches, East and West.

Strange. I thought the idea of "court of last resort" inherently indicates that there would be other head bishops that would be appealed to before the appeal to the bishop of Rome. So can you please explain to us how the fact that other bishops are appealed to undermines my point?

That's a nice, if not thoroughly biased and jaundiced account of the whole situation. There are several historical facts you neglected to include:
(1) Bishop Lucifer actually schismed from Rome over this very matter about Antioch, so your trying to paint him as the tool of Rome is rather...misleading (to put it nicely).
(2) Pope St. Athanasius eventually gave the right hand of communion to Paulinus, not St. Meletius.
(3) Because of this, St. Basil then appealed to Rome. Does the phrase "the court of last resort" sound familiar?

Amen! Just as Vatican 2 explicitly taught, ALL bishops have a responsibility for the unity of the Church as a whole. It's good to know that the teaching of Vatican 2 has patristic support.

You must have missed reading his letters to Pope St. Damasus. Look them up for some good bedtime reading.

Are you sure he wrote to him directly? I was sure that, according to you, he was really of no account. Please try to be more consistent with the storytelling.

Really? Are you sure it wasn't because St. Meletius was in exile? He had summoned both of them to Rome to settle the matter, but since St. Meletius was in exile, only Paulinus presented himself. As no one else was claiming the see, Pope St. Damasus agreed that Paulinus should have the see. Mmmm. Let's see, the choice is (1) concede it to the one who would be absent from his See without any indication of when he would return from exile; or (2) concede it to the one who could be present and did have support at Antioch. No contest. Another fact which you conveniently fail to mention is that in his letter of approval to Paulinus, Pope St. Damasus does not even mention St. Meletius. If he was such an "ardent foe," surely he would have made some judgment AGAINST St. Meletius or the Meletian party. Perfect opportunity to do so. But he didn't. Ardent foe? That's a rather laughable and insupportable statement. Another fact you fail to mention is that even after Paulinus went back to Antioch brandishing his letter of approval from Rome, St. Basil took no countenance of it, but continued to appeal to Rome on the matter. No doubt St. Basil understood that Paulinus only obtained the See because St. Meletius was absent due to exile, and did not view it as a decision AGAINST St. Meletius.

Another fact you conveniently fail to mention is that Pope St. Athanasius also gave the right hand of communion to Paulinus.

Another fact you conveniently fail to mention is that it was Pope St. Damasus who tried to broker the agreement between the Paulinist and Meletian parties (that whoever died first, the other party would simply concede the See to the other party). You are right that the Paulinist party rejected the offer (so much for the theory that Paulinus was the Pope's man), but St. Meletius agreed to it. So the Council of Constantinople (don't pretend it was ecumenical at the time) intruded another into the See, despite the wishes of St. Meletius and Pope St. Damasus.

Interesting comment. If Pope St. Athanasius was the highest authority that could settle matters at Antioch, what does it mean that St. Basil would appeal to Pope St. Damasus afterwards (since his appeal to Pope St. Athanasius came to naught)?

I thought the tradition was that he appointed Linus at his deathbed. So he was alive, but certainly not kicking.

I think St. Linus was ordained as a priest prior to his appointment to St. Peter's successorship in the primacy. That is more aligned to the general praxis of the Church.

Blessings

Nah! I'd give it 70&

Blessings

I agree with the provisional comment. We should also remember that our particular laws have not been suborned by the Code.

To be honest, I would not count many of the canons in common with the CIC as being unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Tradition. It's not as if the entire Church never had ANY canons and customs in common.

Also, I think a lot of the Code simply codifies a lot of what was only regarded as "custom" that was heretofore uncodified, such as on the Sacraments et al.

I would really only count maybe 20% of the CCEO as being historically foreign to the Eastern/Oriental Traditions, though maybe 50-60% is foreign to the Eastern/Oriental CANONICAL Traditions.

Blessings

Yes, the Rudder is different, and the Eastern mind set in connection with the canons found in the Rudder is also very different. Easterners do not see the canons as "laws," but rather as standards for conduct which the bishop administers (or not) for the good of the Church.

I have actually compared the two books, and I can assure you that 80 percent of the canons in the CCEO are identical (and in most cases word for word identical in the Latin) with the CIC, and when measured by the amount of text the figure is closer to 90 percent identical.

Postscript: Why in the world would an Eastern Christian book of canons be composed in Latin? The CCEO is the biggest Latinization ever forced on the Eastern Catholic Churches by the Pope.

You always did seem Latinized to me, and this post confirms it.

Many years.

It is pretty obvious that you are not aware of the context, because St. John Chrysostom's text "On the Priesthood" is not concerned with the papacy, but is referring to the priesthood in general and specifically to episcopacy. Thus, when he speaks about St. Peter and his successors he is not talking about the bishop of Rome, but about all the bishops. Nowhere in book II of his text on the priesthood does St. John Chrysostom ever mention the bishop or Rome or the papacy. In fact, shortly after his mentioning of St. Peter in the text, and his (i.e., St. Peter's) service to God's household he tells Basil that he (i.e., Basil) will soon take on the superintendence of the things of God. Again nowhere in the text of book II does St. John speak about the bishop of Rome as the sole successor of St. Peter, and it is simply a form of wishful thinking on the part of Roman Catholic apologists to say that he is limiting St. Peter's succession in that way. Moreover, he does not speak at all about headship in the referenced text, and so it is apparent that you are reading things into the text that simply are not there.