Dear all,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Toward the end of the "Let's talk jursidiction" thread, which Vincent so ably began, contributors such as Silas and Brendan were really lifting the conversation back to where it ought to have been. Unfortunately it may have been too late to save that discussion from the unwieldiness that overtakes long threads. Newcomers especially are daunted by the prospect of reading dozens of posts, especially where many of those in the middle are simply irrelevant to the supposed discussion!

So, I have decided to start a new thread for those who are genuinely interested in a civilized discussion of what I consider to be THE single most significant issue in Catholic/Orthodox dialogue: the extent of papal jurisdiction. I have taken the title for the thread from canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (corresponding to canon 331 of the Western Code). The canon reads in full:

"The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office ("munus") given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office ("munus") he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power ("potestas") in the Church which he can always freely exercise."

The implications of this power are further set forth in Canon 45:

"The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office ("munus"), not only has power of the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded."

The questions I invite you to debate are very simple. Is the current canonical definition of papal jurisdiction in accord with the belief and practice of the universal Church over the first millenium? If not, is it a legitimate or illegitimate development?

Now, some ground rules. This is a discussion about the CONTENT of papal jurisdiction. It is not to be a debate over whether there is any such jurisdiction to begin with. For the sake of the discussion I would ask all participants to assume:

1. St. Peter had a primacy from the Lord over the other Apostles; and

2. The Bishops of Rome have inherited this same primacy to this day; and

3. The question of papal infallibility is irrelevant to, or at least separate from, the other papal claims.

If people wish to continue to debate these points they are welcome to on other threads. But I will simply delete from this thread any posts that try to steer debate in that direction. If any posts get by me, please just ignore them, otherwise I'll have to delete your replies as well

Pray for me.

unworthy monk Maximos



[This message has been edited by Br Maximos (edited 09-02-2000).]

Brother Maximos,

Prais be to our gracious God! This issue is the central issue dividing the Church. I thank God that you will control this discussion and keep it within the perameters offered.

Where might one find the Eastern Canons? Are they obligatory upon all Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Dan Lauffer

>For the sake of the discussion I would ask all participants to assume:

1. St. Peter had a primacy from the Lord over the other Apostles; and

2. The Bishops of Rome have inherited this same primacy to this day; and

3. The question of papal infallibility is irrelevant to, or at least separate from, the other papal claim

If people wish to continue to debate these points they are welcome to on other threads. But I will simply delete from this thread any posts that try to steer debate in that direction. If any posts get by me, please just ignore them, otherwise I'll have to delete your replies as well>

=============================================

Well that leaves us Orthodox out of the discussion. Especially number one.

Dear Dan,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The canons I quoted are from the law of the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches. This was promulgated by the present pope in 1990. They are printed, both in Latin and in an English translation, by the Canon Law Society of America. I don't know if they're on line anywhere.

The Orthodox Churches have their own body of ancient canons which are both revered and applied as appropriate. Most jurisdictions also have their own modern by-laws and other regulations promulgated by their various synods.

There is an argument that we Eastern Catholics ought to apply the same principles of law to ourselves as do our Orthodox counterparts, rather than have a law decreed for us by the Apostolic See. The promulgation of this Law is itself one of the clearest examples of the exercise by the papacy of its claims to universal, direct and ordinary jurisdiction. The Code prevents the exercise within Eastern Catholic Churches of many significant Byzantine canonical traditions. Among others these include: election of our own bishops, married clergy, canonization of saints, the application of economy when marriages breakdown.

I don't really want to get into whether any of these particular things are good or bad in themselves. It is simply a fact that in these matters Rome calls the shots. That's what this thread is designed to examine.

Side note to Robert Tallick: actually, many Orthodox are willing to accept the possibility at least of a papal primacy, even though some would call it merely a "primacy of honor." I can name several prominent figures off the top of my head: the late Fr. Meyendorff, Olivier Clement, Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, probably Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia.

Are you sure you have not simply looked at the word "primacy" and assumed it to have a mean a particular thing? It is precisely that what that word means that we are to debate here!


In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

[This message has been edited by Br Maximos (edited 09-02-2000).]

Pertaining to your parameters, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian I am in partial agreement and disagreement with your first two noted:
"1. St. Peter had a primacy from the Lord over the other Apostles;and
2. The Bishops of Rome have inherited this same primacy to this day;"

As noted by other posters, I agree that St Peter held primacy over the other Apostles as agreed to by Holy Tradition and that his last apostolic successor, the Pope and Patriarch of Rome holds a "primacy of Honor" relegated by the fact that Rome was the Primary Capitol seat of the Empire, Constantinople being second and holding the seat of second honor ---To the eastern Orthodox, Constantinople,currently de facto holds the current primacy of honor within Orthodoxy due to the separation of the sister churches---everything I have ever read notes that when communion is re-established the Orthodox expect that primacy of honor to return to the Patriarch of Rome.

The second topic is a little stickier as we know that St Peter also was Bishop of several cities and had legitimate successors in other areas that he had served as Bishop, such as Antioch. To the Antiochian Orthodox Church the second topic comes into question as they see their Patriarch as also being a successor of Peter.

I believe that it is better to just agree that Rome has traditionally held the Primacy not just based upon Peter because The Patriarch of Antioch and other Bishoprics could claim the same honor but that in accordance to Eastern Orthodox Holy Tradition, the Pope as Patriarch of Rome holds the Primacy of Honor in conjuction with being the successor of Peter AND the holder of the Patriarchate of Rome the First among equals as the Primary Capital of the Early Church.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Fine. The point is there is something we can call "primacy." When we're back in communion, the pope will get it back. What will that mean in practice from your perspective as an Orthodox? Can you define in any way how a "primacy of honor" would operate? What is the evidence that your understanding is that which prevailed among the Fathers?

Fr Maximos

>Side note to Robert Tallick: actually, many Orthodox are willing to accept the possibility >at least of a papal primacy, even though some would call it merely a "primacy of honor." >I can name several prominent figures off the top of my head: the late Fr. Meyendorff, >Olivier Clement, Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, probably Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia.

>Are you sure you have not simply looked at the word "primacy" and assumed it to have >a mean a particular thing?


But what you imply in your wording is more than a primacy. You write -

1. St. Peter had a PRIMACY from the Lord OVER THE OTHER APOSTOLES;

As soon as you use the word OVER then you indicate that it is more than a primacy of honor but an authority and supremacy over all. No Orthodox, including the ones you quote would agree with you. There is no problem amongst the Orthodox over the primacy of Rome. But it is a primacy of honor as the 'first AMONGST EQUALS'. There is a problem amongst Orthodox over the so called supremacy of Rome over the other Bishops just because St Peter died there.

THOMAS WRITES:

>I believe that it is better to just agree that Rome has traditionally held the Primacy not >just based upon Peter because The Patriarch of Antioch and other Bishoprics could >claim the same honor but that in accordance to Eastern Orthodox Holy Tradition, the >Pope as Patriarch of Rome holds the Primacy of Honor in conjuction with being the >successor of Peter AND the holder of the Patriarchate of Rome the First among equals >as the Primary Capital of the Early Church.

Let's see what one of the Roman Popes himself had to say about the 'Primacy of Peter' -

According to Pope St Gregory the Dialogist, there were 3 Petrine sees:


"To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria: Your most sweet
Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles,
saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons
of his successors...He has spoken to me about Peter's
chair who occupies Peter's chair...I greatly rejoiced
because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves
what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be
ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the
solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived
his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be
called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the
voice of Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi.19). And again it is
said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren (xxii.32). And once more, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (Joh. xxi.17).
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet
with regard to the principality itself of THE SEE OF
THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES ALONE HAS GROWN STRONG IN
AUTHORITY, WHICH IN THREE PLACES IS THE SEE OF ONE.
For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned
even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He
himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple
as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the
See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of
one, and one See, over which by divine authority three
bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this
I impute to myself...We are one in Him...'(Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XII,
Epistles of Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 40,
pp. 228-22)."

BROTHER MAXIMOS WRITES:

>Fine. The point is there is something we can call "primacy." When we're back in >communion, the pope will get it back. What will that mean in practice from your >perspective as an Orthodox? Can you define in any way how a "primacy of honor" would >operate? What is the evidence that your understanding is that which prevailed among >the Fathers?

It would once again be what it was meant to be...A primacy of honor as 'First amongst equals'. It would be that of an arbitrator in a court of last resorts when squabbles break out amongst local Bishops and can't be resolved by them. The Pope would preside over the council as judge but not jury. Kind of presiding over the 'Supreme Court'.
The EP as 'first amongst equals' can now call a council and preside over that council. But when push comes to shove he only gets one vote the same as the other Bishops present. That's what 'first amongst equals implies'.

Br. Maximos

God is with us!

You wrote:
"It would once again be what it was meant to be...A primacy of honor as 'First amongst equals'. It would be that of an arbitrator in
a court of last resorts when squabbles break out amongst local Bishops and can't be resolved by them. The Pope would preside over the council as judge but not jury. Kind of presiding over the 'Supreme Court'.
The EP as 'first amongst equals' can now call a council and preside over that council. But when push comes to shove he only gets one
vote the same as the other Bishops present. That's what 'first amongst equals implies'.


I am in agreement with what you have noted---In the days of the 5 patriarchs, He also had the ability to break the tie when the Patriarchs were divided evenly. Thus he was a sort of court of last resort, serving much the role of the Vice President who presides over the Senate but casts a vote to break a tie where the Senate is evenly divided. There are several examples of this in Church History before the schism.

In Orthodoxy, the Primacy of Honor also implies that it is a Leadership role that speaks for the entire communion with the permission of the other patriarchs when all are in agreement. We see the Patriarch of Constantinople do this on very special occassions when authorized by his fellow Patriarchs to do so. Ritually, it confirms the order of precedence for approaching the Holy Table, Receiving the gifts, giving the blessings to serve , etc when some or all the Patriarchs are present.
In Orthodoxy we see this repeated in the smallest mission church in the relationship between the lower and higher clergy as they serve at the Holy Table. In Hierarchal Liturgies with multiple bishops present, we see it in its fuller glory. It is a foretaste of the organization of heaven and the order of worship of heaven presented by St John the Beloved's Revelation. It is the epitome of true obedience and service that is selfless and without attempts at power---it emphasises the Servanthood of the Priest, Hierarch, and Patriarch.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Glory to Jesus Christ!

OK, Robert. You win. I was getting ready to be mad at you, until I realized that what you are pointing out is very relevant to the question of papal jurisdiction. There is a big difference between primacy OVER the apostles and primacy WITHIN the apostolic college. Same when we think about the pope and the bishops. I should have phrased my ground rules more carefully!

Thomas: Are you saying that in a re-united Church the pope would be a kind of "Head of State" over the federation of Churches? Was this the understanding of primacy articulated by the Fathers?

unworthy monk Maximos

[This message has been edited by Br Maximos (edited 09-02-2000).]

Dear Father Maximos: Bless,Father.

Glory to Jesus Christ. Father, would it possible to begin a thread on the practical aspects of being Byzantine Christians in union with Rome? The various debates and dialogs that center on the historical/theological aspects of the papacy and Byzantine Catholicism are certainly interesting as well as provocative and controversial. But what does being a Byzantine Christian in union/communion with Rome mean at the personal/practical level? What do we "have" that the Orthodox do not "have" because we are in union? What do the Orthodox "have" that we do not "have" because they are not in union with Rome?

We cannot turn back the clock to the first centuries and reconstruct with perfection the mind sets of the Fathers. If that is an accurate statement(and I believe it must be!) let us please look at the papal issue from a contemporary perspective.

In short, dear father in Christ, what does it mean to be a "pro-papacy Greek Catholic today? Your guidance and leadership would be very much appreciated. (At least from me.)

PS- And can this dialog or teaching session please continue without us Byzantine Catholics re-engaging in the "pro-Austro-Hungarian faction vs the Russophile faction" internecine warfare? All the emperors are dead! The fact is, we are "papists." Like it or not, that is a fact. The question remains: How do we live that fact? Not whether, but how?

DEAR BROTHER MAXIMOS,

God is with us!

You wrote to me:
Thomas: Are you saying that in a re-united Church the pope would be a kind of "Head of State" over the federation of Churches? Was
this the understanding of primacy articulated by the Fathers?


Forgive me! That is not what I meant.

The Patriarch of Rome, The Pope, as I understand the holy fathers was a presiding official, not a govenor. He intervenes only when the other jurisdictions appeal to him or for the good order of the holy catholic orthodox church, he must intervene to prevent heresy. In all things he works in conjuction with the other Patriarchs, with a consensus among equals that comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Each Patriarchate was autonomous and each patriarch presided over his sobor of bishops as the FIRST AMONG EQUALS'. Orthodoxy sees the pattern of the Holy Fathers as mirrored in the current Patriarchal synod or Sobor---its pattern is that of the pattern they had seen in the relationship between the Patriarchs in what I guess today we would call an Oecumenical Synod of Patriarchs that determined and protect the one Holy Catholic and Universal Church. Unlike the Early Church where most Patriarchs corresponded and did not meet face to face, Today with Jet travel and video conferencing, I could easily see all the Patriarchs meeting in Sobor or Council to discuss challlenegs facing the Christian Church as a whole.

Perhaps my use of the Vice President's presiding role in the Senate and role as the breaker of legistlative ties was confusing and gave the appearance of the Head of State, again forgive me.

Your Brother in Christ
Thomas

Since it is timely, perhaps we could look at the role of Pope Theodore I (642-649). He was a Greek born in Jerusalem. His election as pope was, most likely, due to his awareness of the monothelite heresy. He, along with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Maxiumus the Confessor had struggled against this heresy.

After his election he wrote to the child-emperor, constans II, to demand that the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius be withdrawn. He refused to recognize Paul II as the Patriarch of Constantinople until that worthy had rejected the monothelite heresy.

Once that was done, he then recognize Paul II as the valid Patriarch. This is a case where, without his role, things might have gone in an entirely different manner. I do believe that God is in charge of the Church and that the people who need to be in the right place will be, or that God will use whoever is in that place.

In a very real sense, the pope's "full and immediate power" is much like that of any head of an organization or state -- it works best when not used at all!

Edward, deacon and sinner

>Ritually, it confirms the order of precedence for approaching the Holy Table, Receiving the gifts, giving the blessings to serve , etc when some or all the Patriarchs are present.>

Exactly! We saw an example of this just two weeks ago at the consecration of the new 'Christ The Saviour Cathedral' in Moscow. All the Orthodox Patriarchs were present at the consecration except the EP who sent a delegation headed by Archbishop Dimitrios of the GOA instead. Out of courtesy, the EP sent a delegation instead of a personal visit. Had he been present, according to protocol as 'fisrt amongst equals' he would have presided as chief celebrant of the consecration. Patriarch Alexy would have had to take second place.
By sending a delegation instead, the EP afforded the MP the honor of dedicating one of his own Cathedrals.

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 09-04-2000).]

I have a question.

If we are attempting to identify the truth of what is meant by papal primacy as "practiced" in the first millenium, do we not also have to look at the role of the Holy Roman Emperor and his relationship to the Patriarchates as well as to the Church? Did this mutually recognized "primacy of honor" (if this was ever the case) exist only because of the strong arm of the Emperor?

It seems to me that much of the discipline that existed in this "early church" was due to the strong hand and cooporation of the secular state. In fact, this was still seen in the Russian church overtly until the death of Czar Nicholas II and covertly until the collapse of communism.

Secondly, I voice the same concerns regarding the reach of the Apostolic See as outlined in Brother Maximos' initial post. I wish to add some additional canons that are concerning:

can. 77-2 The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 81. Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case othe Apostolic See has directly communicated it.

Can. 92-1. The patriarch is to manifest hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Saint Peter, through the loyalty, veneration and obedience which are due to the supreme pastor of the entire church.

This brings up my next question: Was the CCEO meant to have an ecumenical tone or at least open the door for ecumenical possibilities?

Having no idea where I stand;

John

77-2 The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 81. Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case other Apostolic See has directly communicated it.
Can. 92-1. The patriarch is to manifest hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Saint Peter, through the loyalty, veneration and obedience which are due to the supreme pastor of the entire church.

---------------------------------------------

John:

Which Ecumenical Council are these canons from?

Dear all,

Robert--the canons John quotes are from the law that governs the Eastern Catholic Churches. They are not, and do not pretend to be, ancient. John is using them to give evidence to his disquiet about the reach of papal power.

Franz--guidance from me??? God forbid! I'm here to learn....

Having said that, is it really true that "we're all papists"? This is my big problem. How do you preserve the true faith pure and whole? Theoretically in the Catholic Church the papacy is simply one of the ways in which the Holy Spirit keeps the CHurch on the right path. Liturgy, Holy Tradition, the Episcopate and so forth are all as important. That's the theory. From my experience as a life-long Catholic, though, it seems that in practice the role of the papacy is given much greater weight, at least psychologically. A strong, centralized authority figure has created the illusion that faith and truth depend on that central authority. People seem really to believe that if the pope would just be more liberal/conservative things would be better. Like magic! The charism of Peter has become politicised.

To me the very worst aspect of a strong central papcy is the loss of a sense of the local Church. Catholic bishops are in theory all equal, at least sacramentally. In practice they often see themselves, and are seen by their people, as "middle management." Even the new Archbishop of New York thanked the pope for his "new assignment" or some such thing. I cringed when I heard that! What would St. Ignatius have said? If the true faith is not strong at a GRASS ROOTS level, in our diocese, our parish, our family, our hearts, no matter how strong the man in Rome is we have lost the battle.

Franz, how can you be a good, "pro-papacy" Greek Catholic? By just being a good Greek-Catholic! Work for the restoration of the liturgical and ascetic life of your own Church. Pray for vocations to the monastic state and to the priesthood. Preach Christ by your love and righteous living.

I do not know what the proper extent of papal authority really ought to be. I'm interested in discussing it. I am loyal to the idea of it! But my loyalty leads me to this conclusion: the best way for our Church to approach the authority of the pope is to live so that he never has to use it!

Make sense?

unworthy monk Maximos

Yes, father in Christ, you make all the sense in the world. You describe in a nutshell how most of us Greek Catholics (who struggle from day to day to serve the LORD) live our real lives as Byzantine Christians in communion with Rome.


There is a huge gap that separates loyalty from obsession.


And, yes, we live our lives in Christ at the local level; whether clergy or laity, that is where the business of being a Christian happens for the vast majority of us. I hope the Orthodox will keep this view of what it is to be a Byzantine Catholic clearly in mind. This is why some of us gently insist that we can live a fully authentic "orthodox" life, manifested in the day to day
mundane lives of ordinary Christians, and still keep the unity of faith and communion with Rome.

I know this to be the truth from my own experience.

Thank you, dear father in Christ, for your good words.

And now, a little Hungarian Byzantine Catholic musical propaganda.
www.hungary.org/users/hipcat/hundnco.mid [hungary.org]

[This message has been edited by Franz (edited 09-05-2000).]

<b><font color=blue>Beloved of the forum --

Reading this thread has been most informative and helpful, however, I find I still have questions.

It seems like the Orthodox understanding (and perhaps what actually happened in history) is that the Pope is a dictator who weilds his authority without being accountable to any other body of bishops. Is this so?

I thought the Pope could not make a binding edict outside of the boundaries of an eccumenical council and the jurisdiction of the Magisterium. Did I miss something?

If John Paul II was to produce a document and declare it to be binding upon the faithful in its pronouncements, would that make it so? Can he act outside the operation of council and Magisterium?

Just some questions from an ever seeking catechumen.

Brother Catechumen Ed

Ed,

Pius IX said, "I am Tradition."

Understand that, the pope can also say "I am the Magisterium". It makes no sense to me to ask if the pope can act outside the Magisterium. According to the RCs, the pope is the Magisterium and accountable to no one on the planet.

Moronikus,

Your statement is not, exactly, correct. The pope is circumscribed by Tradtion. He cannot act outside of that. The Magisterium is composed of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. It is not the pope by himself.

As I commented elsewhere, the "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power" of the pope works best when it is not used at all just as the power of the President of the United States works best when not used. Although, in the Latin school of thought, the pope can "do anything" the reality is quite different. He cannot do anything that would result in a teaching that is outside of the constant Tradition of the Church. Thus, he cannot say we can ordain women, that the Eucharist can use milk and cookies, or that there are 21 mysteries (it's interesting that both Catholic and Orthodox hold to the list of seven sacraments/mysteries even though this list first appeared in Peter Lombard's Sentences). Clearly the pope can institute new disciplines and can abbrogate existing disciplines. He can erect new dioceses and close existing dioceses.

Yet, in matters of theology he is as bound as any other person. He can define the teachings in ways that are more suitable for the times and conditions, but even this needs to be done in consulation with the bishops in communion with him.

Edward, deacon and sinner

FrDeaconEd,
Moronikus quoted exactly what came out of the mouth of Pope Pius IX who sat on the throne of St. Peter. He was not the first nor the last pope to proclaim blasphemey. Why do you want to defend Pius when he made it clear that he was Tradition? The reality of this all, whether in the Latin or Byzantine Catholic thought process, the Pope does as he pleases. If it's not pleasing to one pope then the successor continues in this fashion.

In matters of theology the Pope has not been bound as any other person. Then why are you separated from the Orthodox Church? Then why is Catholicism undergoing an ecclessiatical disease in the modern time? Theories are but that. Reality has demonstrated the historical functions and structure of the papacy which goes to show you that Orthodoxy is not interested in an organizational unity until unity in the faith is foremost first.
Your anology of the power of the President of the U.S. and that of the Pope is rather weak and makes no sense. Both possess power and must be utilized. Or else who cares for a U.S. President or for a Pope. Why even need a head? To look nice? Look at former President Bush who sent the armed forces to the Gulf War for a much longer stay without asking Congressional approval for it. We also know about the Popes of history who have done the same thing. Where is the checks and balances on power? But you have the audacity to award the Pope the "supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power," without the mentioning the call for unity in faith or an Ecumenical Council. Till you solve this problem of the lack of unity in the faith between you and the Latins then perhaps we can move forward. Other than that, you remain where your at---a separated brethren.

Robert,

I was not disagreeing with the citation from Pio Nono, I was qualifying his further statement regarding the pope acting alone.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are separated because of circumstances of history, both personal and theological. Yet there was, at the time, nothing that would have precluded unity save the hatred of all things Greek by Cardinal Humbert.

As for "ecclesiastical disease" -- it strikes all Churches at different times in history. This is not the first, nor will it be the last (unless Jesus returns before the next time around). Disease is caused by a foreign body present in the Body -- in this case, ideas that are foreign to the Church but which have made themselves at home. Such a disease was found in the united Church in Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, and so on. This particular heresy is called "modernism" and the West is far more prone to this disease than, say, the heresies of the first three centuries. The reason is because of the difference between the East and the West in their theological approach. By being separated the Church is greatly weakened -- a united Church would deal with this much better. The East is the antidote to the current poison, just as the West was the antidote to Arianism.

When I was referring to the power of the President it was a very good analogy (one, I might add, used by the several sitting presidents in reference to their own power). If we consider the "power" of the president it is, primarily, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. It is secondarily as the head of the nation -- but that power is moderated by Congress and the Courts. Thus, the president's chief power is best used by not using it at all.

The pope, in a similar fashion, uses his power best by not using it. Rather, he works with the bishops in consultation to arrive at decisions. This has been clearly seen in the current papacy. The level of consulation Pope John Paul II has gone to is, in fact, a good model for how the pope is to work. He is sincere about his desire to redefine the papacy so that it will be acceptable to the Orthodox (the Anglicans already have an agreement in principal about the need for the papacy).

Edward, deacon and sinner

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 09-05-2000).]