www.byzcath.org

Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

Posted By: Stephanos I

Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 12:21 AM

First I would like to thank Adam A.J. DeVille for his new book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects for East West Unity.
And I wish to highly recommend reading this book.
One thing at once struck me, instead of speaking of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope could we not phrase this in another term Universal Responsibility of the Pope for the Unity of the Churches? Just a thought give me your ideas.
Posted By: 8IronBob

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 12:31 AM

Well, we should be completely in union with each other at some point, so why not?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 12:35 AM

Communion, not union. Too much freight attached to the latter word.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Stephanos I
First I would like to thank Adam A.J. DeVille for his new book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects for East West Unity.
And I wish to highly recommend reading this book.
One thing at once struck me, instead of speaking of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope could we not phrase this in another term Universal Responsibility of the Pope for the Unity of the Churches? Just a thought give me your ideas.

No, because he neither have a universal responsibility for it, nor a prevailing jurisdiction to enforce it.

Originally Posted by StuartK
Communion, not union. Too much freight attached to the latter word.

No communion that doesn't come from unity.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 02:49 AM

Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.

I agree. And as I see it the papacy is not essential to the Church. The bishops in general are successors of all of the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by StuartK
Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.

I agree. And as I see it the papacy is not essential to the Church. The bishops in general are successors of all of the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.


Well, I suppose the Apostles didn't need St Peter, but without him they were headless. Do you not think the bishops need a Bishop?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 06:01 PM

St. Peter was rather headless himself, at times. So who was HIS bishop? In any case, there is but one Apostolic charism, just as there is but one Episcopal charism--and all members of those orders share in them equally. One is ordained a bishop, but elected Pope. Peter's role as first among the Apostles was not to tell them what to do, but to strengthen the brethren in faith and unity. Peter often did this by yielding to others--as he yielded to James at the Council of Jerusalem (and, indeed, to the entire Council itself, which directed Peter to go as Apostle to the Circumcized and Paul to the Gentiles). He yielded himself to Paul in Antioch, when Peter would not sit at table with the Gentile Christians.

So being the first is just as Christ described: the one who would be first must go last. He who would be great must first humble himself. A Pope who did that--who basically let go of his grandiose titles and perquisites, and presented himself truly as Servus Servorum Dei, would not need universal jurisdiction or claims of infallibility: he would be recognized as having those things by moral authority, without the necessity of sanction of law.
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
So being the first is just as Christ described: the one who would be first must go last. He who would be great must first humble himself. A Pope who did that--who basically let go of his grandiose titles and perquisites, and presented himself truly as Servus Servorum Dei, would not need universal jurisdiction or claims of infallibility: he would be recognized as having those things by moral authority, without the necessity of sanction of law.


What a perfectly scriptural, Christian idea. Too bad that there are way too many Catholics who won't go along with it.
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 06:58 PM

I'll definitely check this book out, along with, "His Broken Body." A friend of mine (Who's OCA) suggested he and I read it; and talk shop about it, over drinks.
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by StuartK
So being the first is just as Christ described: the one who would be first must go last. He who would be great must first humble himself. A Pope who did that--who basically let go of his grandiose titles and perquisites, and presented himself truly as Servus Servorum Dei, would not need universal jurisdiction or claims of infallibility: he would be recognized as having those things by moral authority, without the necessity of sanction of law.


What a perfectly scriptural, Christian idea. Too bad that there are way too many Catholics who won't go along with it.


Agreed. I personally don't care much for triumphalism, on either side of the fence. I'm blessed to have the friends I do - within Orthodoxy; and those friends within Catholicism.
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 07:14 PM

Let me remind posters the spirit in which this post was posted.
Let's have posts which try to foster concord and understanding.
Not gripes about the past but how can we go beyond them to build up the Church not tear it down.
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 07:27 PM

In conjunction with the book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint, and and the Prospect of East West Unity, let's take into consideration of the Speech of H.B. Patriarch Gregorios III given in Rome 10-24 October 2010 for the Special Assembly of the Middle East.
If anyone can post access to the speech please feel free to do so, thanks. (I am not that adept with computers)
smile
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stephanos I
In conjunction with the book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint, and and the Prospect of East West Unity, let's take into consideration of the Speech of H.B. Patriarch Gregorios III given in Rome 10-24 October 2010 for the Special Assembly of the Middle East.
If anyone can post access to the speech please feel free to do so, thanks. (I am not that adept with computers)
smile


I think this is the speech you have in mind and it's a good, provocative one.

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/ne...gregorios-iii-ecclesiology-and-ecumenism
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/15/12 09:52 PM

Thanks.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by StuartK
Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.

I agree. And as I see it the papacy is not essential to the Church. The bishops in general are successors of all of the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.


Well, I suppose the Apostles didn't need St Peter, but without him they were headless.

Forgetting about their Head and Ours?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.

Well, if some can go home to the Vatican Mount and chip the mountain of Pastor Aeternus away down to a molehill, irenic ecclesiastical (as opposed to, for instance, social or political pursuits, which I have no problem with collaboration on) pursuits might have some aims worthy of support. In the meantime, keep the powder dry.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 02:45 AM

Your problem is an unwillingness to discuss options. There is an ongoing discussion of the meaning and exercise of primacy, as well as the relationship of primacy to conciliarity. So the reduction of everything to a "repudiation" of Pastor Aeternus shows a certain lack of both imagination and will.
Posted By: JDC

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
...a certain lack of both imagination and will.


These are the hallmarks of humanity, are they not?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Your problem is an unwillingness to discuss options.

A "problem" I share with Popes St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, among others.
Originally Posted by StuartK
There is an ongoing discussion of the meaning and exercise of primacy, as well as the relationship of primacy to conciliarity.

Yes. We all don't have to come to the arm wrestling matches between Old and New Rome.
Originally Posted by StuartK

So the reduction of everything to a "repudiation" of Pastor Aeternus shows a certain lack of both imagination and will.
Patriarch Sophronius showed such a lack of imagination. Pope Honorius and EP Sergius certainly had the will.

Lack of imagination and will. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the limbo the Vatican has put its sui juris churches in on their married priests, among other issues. We're waiting to see its actions catch up with its words in repudiating its past on such issues. So far Pastor Aeternus is practicing what it preaches, and we have no need of another gospel.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 04:29 AM

Isa is probably going to faint but he is right in this case. Until Rome can unambigously give us meaningful autonomy without interference the Orthodox have no reason to believe anything Rome says regarding reunion and respect or Eastern tradition.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Until Rome can unambigously give us meaningful autonomy without interference the Orthodox have no reason to believe anything Rome says regarding reunion and respect or Eastern tradition.


Agreed. The Patriarch has offered some flowery and charitable ecumenical language. But the reality of the situation is much different.
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 06:18 PM

But you know part of it is self responsibility in starting to live as who you are. Your Bishops and laity alike.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 08:03 PM

After centuries of isolation from the east and domination in the west, the Church of Rome needs to develop a new role for herself in relationship to Orthodoxy which has preserved an authentic ecclesiastical tradition of national autonomous churches. The western churches are not used to this ecclesiastical structure, and are uneasy with it. Not to worry. Melkite Catholics have led the way, and will continue to lead the way in making a strong stance against this papal overbearance; thus, paving the way for eventual union among the apostolic churches. On the other hand, the east must respect the validity of the western structures that have developed from ancient times as well, and try not to impose theirs as the only way, IMHO.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 08:49 PM

Quote
Until Rome can unambigously give us meaningful autonomy without interference the Orthodox have no reason to believe anything Rome says regarding reunion and respect or Eastern tradition.


It's actually up to us to insist upon this. But too many of our bishops are enamored of the status quo, and many, in their heart of hearts, like being uniates.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Stephanos I
But you know part of it is self responsibility in starting to live as who you are. Your Bishops and laity alike.


I no longer accept this criticism, not when the deck is stacked by Rome appointing bishops willing to maintain the status quo.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 08:52 PM

You're a deacon--so you're at the beck and call of your bishop. But the laity are not, and should be standing up for the fullness of the Tradition.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
You're a deacon--so you're at the beck and call of your bishop. But the laity are not, and should be standing up for the fullness of the Tradition.

The laity can only do so much. Only the bishops can mandate standards and hold priests accountable, or ordain married men, or elect and install their brother bishops or primates.
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 11:14 PM

Quote
The laity can only do so much.


I think that the laity have an important role to play. If we lay Greek Catholics raise our youth (the future deacons, priests, and bishops) in the fullness of our patrimony we can help shape the future of our Churches. So, it starts with us living our faith to the fullness.

We, the laity, need to support our priests who share the vision of Greek Catholicism as a witness to unity with the Orthodox Church and encourage them.

Quote
Only the bishops can mandate standards and hold priests accountable, or ordain married men, or elect and install their brother bishops or primates.


I pray our Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops continue (or start in some cases) the revival of Greek Catholicism and continue to stand up for our rights as Churches.
Posted By: 8IronBob

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/18/12 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
The laity can only do so much.


I think that the laity have an important role to play. If we lay Greek Catholics raise our youth (the future deacons, priests, and bishops) in the fullness of our patrimony we can help shape the future of our Churches. So, it starts with us living our faith to the fullness.

We, the laity, need to support our priests who share the vision of Greek Catholicism as a witness to unity with the Orthodox Church and encourage them.

Quote
Only the bishops can mandate standards and hold priests accountable, or ordain married men, or elect and install their brother bishops or primates.


I pray our Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops continue (or start in some cases) the revival of Greek Catholicism and continue to stand up for our rights as Churches.


This is true, Nelson. As mentioned, we should sway some from the Latin Church to the direction of the Eastern Rite, and make sure that they understand that we could use new faces in our congregations, and make sure they understand that we are just as much Catholic as they are. This has been a tough sell for quite a few, but we have to reach to the "Other Rite/Other Lung" if you will, in order to really evangelize in a hurry.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/19/12 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Utroque
After centuries of isolation from the east and domination in the west, the Church of Rome needs to develop a new role for herself in relationship to Orthodoxy which has preserved an authentic ecclesiastical tradition of national autonomous churches. The western churches are not used to this ecclesiastical structure, and are uneasy with it. Not to worry. Melkite Catholics have led the way, and will continue to lead the way in making a strong stance against this papal overbearance; thus, paving the way for eventual union among the apostolic churches. On the other hand, the east must respect the validity of the western structures that have developed from ancient times as well, and try not to impose theirs as the only way, IMHO.

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/19/12 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Stephanos I
But you know part of it is self responsibility in starting to live as who you are. Your Bishops and laity alike.


I no longer accept this criticism, not when the deck is stacked by Rome appointing bishops willing to maintain the status quo.

Your Middle Eastern Bishops were in Synod in Rome last year, calling on the right to exercise their right to ordain married men, and the promulgation of the law enabling that. And the response? Silence. (and a few slaps in the face).
Like you say, even when they rock the boat, the deck is stacked.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/19/12 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Utroque
After centuries of isolation from the east and domination in the west, the Church of Rome needs to develop a new role for herself in relationship to Orthodoxy which has preserved an authentic ecclesiastical tradition of national autonomous churches. The western churches are not used to this ecclesiastical structure, and are uneasy with it. Not to worry. Melkite Catholics have led the way, and will continue to lead the way in making a strong stance against this papal overbearance; thus, paving the way for eventual union among the apostolic churches. On the other hand, the east must respect the validity of the western structures that have developed from ancient times as well, and try not to impose theirs as the only way, IMHO.

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.


We're all pretty mixed up, brother. As me mother used to say,"It all comes out in the wash!" Good will is the best detergent,too. The Patriarch of the West abolished the title a few years ago; not the fact that he is head of the Latin church.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago.


So, according to your reasoning, the Patriarchate of the West existed for ... what, less than two centuries?
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Do you not think the bishops need a Bishop?


Is this a common idea?
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK

So the reduction of everything to a "repudiation" of Pastor Aeternus shows a certain lack of both imagination and will.


confused Are we discussing Old Catholics?

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Lack of imagination and will. Hmmm.


Are you now, or have you even been, a robot?
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.
While certainly not an ideal situation, do not fool yourself that the Constantiopolitan Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Orthodox) have done any better. When was the last time you saw the Syriac Liturgy of St. James celebrated in Antioch, or the Coptic Liturgy of St. Mark in Alexandria, etc. by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox?
Another thread mentions this event: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.de/2012/11/a-non-chalcedonian-bishop-converts-to.html and the one linked the thread - Have any of the non-Byzantine Liturgies been preserved by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox, or were they all suppressed?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Utroque
After centuries of isolation from the east and domination in the west, the Church of Rome needs to develop a new role for herself in relationship to Orthodoxy which has preserved an authentic ecclesiastical tradition of national autonomous churches. The western churches are not used to this ecclesiastical structure, and are uneasy with it. Not to worry. Melkite Catholics have led the way, and will continue to lead the way in making a strong stance against this papal overbearance; thus, paving the way for eventual union among the apostolic churches. On the other hand, the east must respect the validity of the western structures that have developed from ancient times as well, and try not to impose theirs as the only way, IMHO.

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.


We're all pretty mixed up, brother. As me mother used to say,"It all comes out in the wash!" Good will is the best detergent,too. The Patriarch of the West abolished the title a few years ago; not the fact that he is head of the Latin church.

His predecessor got in trouble with the Romanians over such claims.

It was just more than the pretense to the title, as the post facto "explanations"(rationalizations) showed: to Orthodox objections, the consensus response I heard from the outlets of the Vatican "you'll just have to like it and deal with it." So much for "good will." Mind your nose so it doesn't get hit by the door slamming. That's "dealing with it."

They let slip the fact that the Vatican still confuses Latin and West for Catholic/Universal: what meaning does "West" have when its purported patriarch has claim on Japan, China and the Phillipines, and still has it suffragan "patriarch" in Jerusalem?

The Patriarch of the West once held sway over North Africa, the homeland of SS. Victor (introducer of the Latin Mass at Rome) and Augustine, and of the first Latin Father, Tertuillian. It now comes under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Alexandria, and , despite the musing of the former bishop of Great Britain for the Phanar, so it shall remain. If the Supreme Pontiff of the Vatican confesses the Orthodox Faith, the Patriarch of Serbia, the Archbishop of Albania, and the Metropolitans of Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia and the Orthodox Church in America will not be reduced to his suffragans, any more than they answer now to the Pariarch of Romania nor the Ecumenical Patriarch because of the Romanian Bishop of the Bishoprick of Italy at Rome or the EP's Metropolitan Archbishop of Italy in Venice.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago.


So, according to your reasoning, the Patriarchate of the West existed for ... what, less than two centuries?

About nearly a millenium, its vestige for nearly a millenium more.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by StuartK

So the reduction of everything to a "repudiation" of Pastor Aeternus shows a certain lack of both imagination and will.


confused Are we discussing Old Catholics?

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Lack of imagination and will. Hmmm.


Are you now, or have you even been, a robot?

No, I think for myself too much.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.
While certainly not an ideal situation, do not fool yourself that the Constantiopolitan Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Orthodox) have done any better. When was the last time you saw the Syriac Liturgy of St. James celebrated in Antioch, or the Coptic Liturgy of St. Mark in Alexandria, etc. by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox?
Another thread mentions this event: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.de/2012/11/a-non-chalcedonian-bishop-converts-to.html and the one linked the thread - Have any of the non-Byzantine Liturgies been preserved by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox, or were they all suppressed?

The rites were suppressed, a Constantinopolitan version of Latinization (although the DL of St. James is still celebrated periodically, and not just in Antioch). You seem to think that I let New Rome off any more than I am willing to let Old Rome.

That said, the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and the Church of Cyprus remain, never having been "abolished," as the "Patriarchate of the West" purportedly has been.

The link has nothing to do with the suppression of rites, just the reception of a non-Chalcedonian into the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
So, according to your reasoning, the Patriarchate of the West existed for ... what, less than two centuries?

About nearly a millenium, its vestige for nearly a millenium more.

(emphasis added)

I'm not the one who claimed that the Patriarchate of the West was abolished a few years ago -- presumably referring to 2005, when the title was removed from the Annuario Pontificio, which had contained it since 1863.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
So, according to your reasoning, the Patriarchate of the West existed for ... what, less than two centuries?

About nearly a millenium, its vestige for nearly a millenium more.

(emphasis added)

I'm not the one who claimed that the Patriarchate of the West was abolished a few years ago

Neither was I. As I said, it has been defunct for almost a millenium, its Eastern parts subsumed into New Rome and then autocephaly before then, its South gravitated to the Pope of Alexandria since then.

Originally Posted by Peter J

-- presumably referring to 2005, when the title was removed from the Annuario Pontificio, which had contained it since 1863.

It was 2006.

According to it, Archbishop Theodore I (Rome had not yet taken the title of "Pope" it seems) used the title for his patriarchate in 642.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
It was 2006.


Fair enough. I meant to say it was in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 till 2005. But any way you slice it, its removal wasn't nearly as significant as many make it out to be.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/20/12 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
It was 2006.


Fair enough. I meant to say it was in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 till 2005. But any way you slice it, its removal wasn't nearly as significant as many make it out to be.

Yeah, the Vatican tried to down play it at the time. No, we didn't buy it, then or now.

Any reason why we should obsess on the Annuario Pontificio? I didn't think so.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/21/12 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Any reason why we should obsess on the Annuario Pontificio? I didn't think so.


I don't think you should either.
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/23/12 02:50 AM

The Post was originally suppose to be a question as how can we go forward towards the unity which Jesus desires for His Church.
Let's get back on track. Please.
Posted By: Roman Interloper

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/27/12 02:40 AM

Well, it might be a good idea for all the various patriarchs involved--Eastern and Western, Catholic and Orthodox--to take stock of the shameful mess that the accumulation of history and all of the conflicts surrounding the issues that are under discussion here have made of the Body of Christ. Perhaps, then, they might permit themselves to back away from all the details and observe what all of their churches--all of our churches--have in common, and in observing all that we have in common, acknowledge that what unites us is so much more profoundly overwhelming than those comparatively insignificant things that divide us.

I'm sure what I'm saying sounds elementary and perhaps naive and even trite, perhaps, to those awash in the all the liturgical, traditional, jurisdictional, and historical details but, really,just for a moment, imagine that the details that we are so concerned about are actually of no importance to Jesus Christ, at all.

If they--if we--radically imagine that Christ's concern is that we live the beatitudes and come together in charity to celebrate his body and blood, pardoning one anothers' debts just as the Father pardons ours, I think it might astonish us just how unconcerned he is about all the rest of the "stuff" that we all manage to get ourselves all worked up over.

Now, maybe I'm wrong; maybe Christ really does care a great deal about patriarchates and episcopal prerogatives and infallibilities and credal pronouncements about things we have never experienced and never will and therefore cannot really understand (the procession of the Holy Spirit, for example). Maybe man-made liturgical ceremonies and traditions are of grave concern to Jesus, just as much as the essence of the celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Maybe titles and authorities and jurisdictions are of paramount concern to the Incarnate Word of God who taught his apostles that he came to serve and not to be served. Maybe he cares about the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" so much so that he is pleased to see his church divided 16 ways 'til Sunday on account of them.

Is it conceivable that perhaps the way to unity is to simply look upon the things that divide us for what they are...just that: things that unecessarily divide us...and then resolve to simply let the conflicts of history dissolve into our embarrassment at having behaved like children for well over a millenium, valuing everything that is meaningless while paying lip service to that which Jesus actually asked of us?

I am a Roman Catholic because history and circumstances so label me. I do not perceive myself that way any longer, however. I am a member of the Church of God, a follower of Jesus Christ, a walker along "The Way". Whenever I find myself in the worship space of an Orthodox community, I find it beyond absurd that I must refrain from sharing in the Eucharist with these men and women who are clearly my brothers and sisters in the Church of God, pilgrims on "The Way", who are celebrating the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that I, too, consume in the houses of worship of my own tradition.

Why can I not share the body and blood of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem? The problem is that I cannot share the body and blood of the Lord with them because of animosities based upon politics and history that neither they nor I were ever a party to. And all because even as late in the game as the year 2012, we apostolic Christians still cannot manage to see the forest through the trees.

I wonder if mankind isn't so far gone that the Church will ever be healed as long as men walk the earth. "The Way", in too many ways, has retreated from the table of the Lord and back into the temple; we've become pharisees again in so many ways. It seems, as it were, that the freshness, the liberating freedom of the Gospel, was more than we could bear. So we retreated behind the walls and curtains of the temple, again, obsessing over rules and ceremonies and titles and prerogatives and tassels and ourselves.

If Jesus Christ were to personally intervene by summoning all the bishops of every tradition in Council, I wonder just how much stuff that seems so important to all of them he would simply throw away altogether. I would bet that all of the things that the Lord would simply toss into Gehenna would bury Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And to all the arguments and disputes he would just stomp his foot and shout, "basta!" And that would be the end of that. And we would be left with a Church that I am sure would delightfully suprise all of us with its beauty, its authenticity, its freshness, and above all, its unity.
Posted By: NoahMoerbeek

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/27/12 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Well, it might be a good idea for all
If they--if we--radically imagine that Christ's concern is that we live the beatitudes and come together in charity to celebrate his body and blood, pardoning one anothers' debts just as the Father pardons ours, I think it might astonish us just how unconcerned he is about all the rest of the "stuff" that we all manage to get ourselves all worked up over.

Now, maybe I'm wrong; maybe Christ really does care a great deal about patriarchates and episcopal prerogatives and infallibilities and credal pronouncements about things we have never experienced and never will and therefore cannot really understand (the procession of the Holy Spirit, for example). Maybe man-made liturgical ceremonies and traditions are of grave concern to Jesus, just as much as the essence of the celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Maybe titles and authorities and jurisdictions are of paramount concern to the Incarnate Word of God who taught his apostles that he came to serve and not to be served. Maybe he cares about the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" so much so that he is pleased to see his church divided 16 ways 'til Sunday on account of them.


If you put any stock in the Old Testament, you should consider that God himself gave the laws of liturgical worship in absolute fine detail to the jews, and that at the Last Supper once gain God himself instituted rules for our new liturgical worship.

I understand what you are driving at, and I agree with you that charity is the highest law but I don't think showing a form of condescension to these outwards things (liturgy, canons, jurisdictions, etc) will bring forth the fruit of charity.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/27/12 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Well, it might be a good idea for all the various patriarchs involved--Eastern and Western, Catholic and Orthodox--to take stock of the shameful mess that the accumulation of history and all of the conflicts surrounding the issues that are under discussion here have made of the Body of Christ. Perhaps, then, they might permit themselves to back away from all the details and observe what all of their churches--all of our churches--have in common, and in observing all that we have in common, acknowledge that what unites us is so much more profoundly overwhelming than those comparatively insignificant things that divide us.

I'm sure what I'm saying sounds elementary and perhaps naive and even trite, perhaps, to those awash in the all the liturgical, traditional, jurisdictional, and historical details but, really,just for a moment, imagine that the details that we are so concerned about are actually of no importance to Jesus Christ, at all.

If they--if we--radically imagine that Christ's concern is that we live the beatitudes and come together in charity to celebrate his body and blood, pardoning one anothers' debts just as the Father pardons ours, I think it might astonish us just how unconcerned he is about all the rest of the "stuff" that we all manage to get ourselves all worked up over.

Now, maybe I'm wrong; maybe Christ really does care a great deal about patriarchates and episcopal prerogatives and infallibilities and credal pronouncements about things we have never experienced and never will and therefore cannot really understand (the procession of the Holy Spirit, for example). Maybe man-made liturgical ceremonies and traditions are of grave concern to Jesus, just as much as the essence of the celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Maybe titles and authorities and jurisdictions are of paramount concern to the Incarnate Word of God who taught his apostles that he came to serve and not to be served. Maybe he cares about the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" so much so that he is pleased to see his church divided 16 ways 'til Sunday on account of them.

Is it conceivable that perhaps the way to unity is to simply look upon the things that divide us for what they are...just that: things that unecessarily divide us...and then resolve to simply let the conflicts of history dissolve into our embarrassment at having behaved like children for well over a millenium, valuing everything that is meaningless while paying lip service to that which Jesus actually asked of us?

I am a Roman Catholic because history and circumstances so label me. I do not perceive myself that way any longer, however. I am a member of the Church of God, a follower of Jesus Christ, a walker along "The Way". Whenever I find myself in the worship space of an Orthodox community, I find it beyond absurd that I must refrain from sharing in the Eucharist with these men and women who are clearly my brothers and sisters in the Church of God, pilgrims on "The Way", who are celebrating the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that I, too, consume in the houses of worship of my own tradition.

Why can I not share the body and blood of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem? The problem is that I cannot share the body and blood of the Lord with them because of animosities based upon politics and history that neither they nor I were ever a party to. And all because even as late in the game as the year 2012, we apostolic Christians still cannot manage to see the forest through the trees.

I wonder if mankind isn't so far gone that the Church will ever be healed as long as men walk the earth. "The Way", in too many ways, has retreated from the table of the Lord and back into the temple; we've become pharisees again in so many ways. It seems, as it were, that the freshness, the liberating freedom of the Gospel, was more than we could bear. So we retreated behind the walls and curtains of the temple, again, obsessing over rules and ceremonies and titles and prerogatives and tassels and ourselves.

If Jesus Christ were to personally intervene by summoning all the bishops of every tradition in Council, I wonder just how much stuff that seems so important to all of them he would simply throw away altogether. I would bet that all of the things that the Lord would simply toss into Gehenna would bury Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And to all the arguments and disputes he would just stomp his foot and shout, "basta!" And that would be the end of that. And we would be left with a Church that I am sure would delightfully suprise all of us with its beauty, its authenticity, its freshness, and above all, its unity.

Nice.
Posted By: theophan

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/27/12 10:10 PM

Quote
I am a Roman Catholic because history and circumstances so label me. I do not perceive myself that way any longer, however. I am a member of the Church of God, a follower of Jesus Christ, a walker along "The Way". Whenever I find myself in the worship space of an Orthodox community, I find it beyond absurd that I must refrain from sharing in the Eucharist with these men and women who are clearly my brothers and sisters in the Church of God, pilgrims on "The Way", who are celebrating the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that I, too, consume in the houses of worship of my own tradition.


Christ is in our midst!!

Maybe what seems absurd is not so much. First of all, the Church has fought hard throughout her history to preserve the Faith in a pure form. Thats why she has called herself catholic or universal since the latter part of the first centuryto distinguish herself from the many sects that had already formed by that time. We have only to remember the letter of St. Paul where he mentions that some say they belong to one or another Apostle or teacher and he reminds the people to whom he writes that it is Christ to whom we belong and not to the person or leader who has taught us the Faith.

Then theres the issue of what communion is all about, beyond the mere exercise of the reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Being in communion means that I, the communicant, am in complete agreement with the man serving the Liturgy, with his bishop, with the doctrines that he and his bishop hold to be true and necessary. And I also reject and condemn the doctrines that he and his bishop reject. The very fact of preserving the Faith in all its purity is bound up with the Liturgy and our participation in the saving action brought to lived experience within it. When we receive the Lord, we receive within the context of community as well as individually. All of this is inseparable from the reception of the Lord. We receive the Body of the Lord within the Body fo the Lord, the Church. The importance of where the Church is and who forms the Church is bound up with the Liturgy and our reception, like it or not. To try to separate all this complexity just to some sort of "feel good" starts us down the road of syncretism and heresy--something the Church has fought to avoid.

The problem is that, through the course of history and through our living out of it, we have all become somehow parochial in our way of understanding the universal truth that the Apostles received. Through the prism of history, language, culture, custom and a whole host of other human categories, we have come to be like the Tower of Babel in that we do not understand each other any longer. That is not to say that there are not very serious doctrinal issues that separate us and these should not be taken lightly. These issues revolve around the question of Who do you say that I am? When we get the answer to that wrong, we get down the wrong path. As Chesterton observed, orthodoxy is of utmost importance. The problem here is that each of us has concluded that we and we alone have preserved the orthodoxy that is necessary for both communion with the Savior and with each other.

Please understand that I am as frustrated as you are, but we need to understand the complexity of the issues as they have developed over the millenia. There are no easy answers.

Bob

Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/28/12 02:41 AM

Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/28/12 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Why can I not share the body and blood }of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem?


For starters your assumption that they acknowledge what you claim. The vast majority do not. They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe. A minority will agree with you, while an equal minority will disagree vehemently, stating Catholic sacraments are empty rites devoid of grace.
Posted By: chadrook

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/28/12 05:55 PM

"while an equal minority will disagree vehemently."

Can you even call that a minority? Even us "crazy old calenderist schismatics," your label not ours, would agree with the statement, "They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe."

About the salvation of those who have not consciously rejected Christ, we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:

You ask, will the heterodox be saved Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such concern. Study yourself and your own sins I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.

And there are the words of the Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad a very conservative theologian:

It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or hereticsi.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, Who will have all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4) and Who enlightens every man born into the world (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.

However, Elder Nektary of Optina said:

God desires not only that the nations be saved, but each individual soul. A simple Indian, believing in his own way in the Creator and fulfilling His will as best he can, will be saved; but he who, knowing about Christianity, follows the Indian mystical path, will not. [Ivan Kontzevitch, Elder Nektary of Optina, p. 181].

Individuals within Orthodoxy might give you all sorts of different answers, but the most uniform response you will get about who God will save outside of the Church is that we simply do not know. Christ as God, and King and Judge can save whoever He wants to save, and condemn whoever He wants to condemn. Even being in the Church is no guarantee of salvation; its not a free ticket. We must cooperate with God and experience a rebirth.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/28/12 06:49 PM

I had the special blessing of attending the Liturgy of St Basil at a local Greek Orthodox Church on Christmas Eve, and when I heard the words, bring back those in error and unite them to your holy, catholic Church, I realized that they were reading the same words at my UGC parish far away. It made me happy that we are praying for each other with the same words. Perhaps, if we truly do His will, the Lord will answer our prayers.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 12/29/12 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by chadrook
Even us "crazy old calenderist schismatics," your label not ours


I have never used such a label. I thought I was clear however the majority will state they don't know. There are minorities however. One who will affirm the validity of Catholic sacraments and another who will deny them outright. This reality is far from the one Roman Interloper presumed.
Posted By: Roman Interloper

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/01/13 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
This reality is far from the one Roman Interloper presumed.


I did presume, Father Deacon Lance; thank you for clarifying that for me.

I always assumed that the Orthodox perspective on Catholicism was more or less one that viewed Catholic sacraments as entirely valid, although of perhaps questionable liceity...the way that the Catholic Church once viewed the Orthodox Church, in other words. I did not realize that some Orthodox actually regard our Sacraments and orders as no more valid than we regard those, say, of the Anglicans or Lutherans. It surprises me to hear that, in fact.
Posted By: chadrook

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/02/13 03:25 AM

"I thought I was clear however the majority will state they don't know."

I think a better way of stating it would be that they find them questionable. I don't say that to be confrontational but just keeping it real. Until a counsel it will always be speculation.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/02/13 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Isa is probably going to faint but he is right in this case. Until Rome can unambigously give us meaningful autonomy without interference the Orthodox have no reason to believe anything Rome says regarding reunion and respect or Eastern tradition.

Can you name some specific ways that the non-Latin Churches can have meaningful autonomy(the only real gripe I have is that our Liturgical books must be approved by Rome)?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/02/13 03:04 PM

1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Ten was good enough for Moses, it ought to be good enough for us.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/02/13 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Why can I not share the body and blood }of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem?


For starters your assumption that they acknowledge what you claim. The vast majority do not. They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe. A minority will agree with you, while an equal minority will disagree vehemently, stating Catholic sacraments are empty rites devoid of grace.

Just to state from the Orthodox side, Deacon Lance accurately states the Orthodox case here.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/03/13 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Ten was good enough for Moses, it ought to be good enough for us.


Good list Stuart. To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC. How they can understand their tradition when it can't be explained to them properly how it differs is beyond me.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/03/13 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

You should read the earlier discussion about that possibility:
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.
What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.
Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?
Exactly.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/04/13 08:37 AM



CCEO 209 can say what it likes. Whether it reflects correct ecclesiology is a completely different matter.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/04/13 03:29 PM

Quote
Good list Stuart. To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC.

I have to say that, in seventeen years this Sunday as a Greek Catholic, I've never heard anyone say anything from the Ambo about the immaculate conception. We discuss the significance of the Theotokos in the divine economy of salvation, particularly at the Feasts of the Annunication and the Dormition, but never one word about the immaculate conception. And not all Greek Catholic Churches in the U.S. celebrate the Feast of the Maternity of St. Ann on 9 December, or call it the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/05/13 12:16 AM

Dear brother StuartK,

Thanks for your suggestions. There are some in your list I have thought about, and some I never thought of. Of those I have pondered, there are some I am not certain counts as "papal interference." Permit me to comment on your list:

Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

Disagree, for several reasons.

(1) In the early Church, when a group of Christians of a particular Tradition moved to another jurisdiction, they simply adopted the customs of the local Church. When the group grew large enough, the local bishop or head bishop would provide for the liturgical needs of that group from the other Tradition, but there was no question that such a group was under the jurisdiction of the local bishop or head bishop, not the bishop of the original Church from which the group came. The fact that we even have jurisdictions in the Traditional Latin territories is due to a great act of oikonomia by the bishop of Rome. No head bishop of a particular Church in the first millenium had a right to appoint bishops in another head bishop's territory. The proper issue is not that your head bishops don't have the right to freely appoint bishops anywhere in the world; rather, it is that the Pope of Rome has the right to freely appoint bishops for Latin Christians in the Traditional non-Latin patriarchal territories. The remedy for an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic is not for your head bishops to insist on a right to freely appoint bishops throughout the world, but for your head bishops to also have a say in the appointment of Latin-Rite bishops in their own jurisdictional territories (the matter, I believe, is different for Oriental Catholics).

(2) The idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is unknown in the EOC, so I am not certain how you, as a Byzantine Christian, can easily justify this position. On the other hand, that reality has existed in the OOC for many centuries already (granted it is a development), and I admit I would be more willing to hear the argument from an Oriental Catholic rather than an Eastern Catholic. Please forgive me for the bias.

(3) I don't really grasp how Rome is "interfering" with the selection of our bishops. Papal involvement comes in two forms - "appointment" and the papal assent. Regarding appointment: Rome does not really "appoint," for that term signifies a unilateral action; Rome does not select our bishops unilaterally (if he did, then I would call that interference). Our Churches select the candidates, and the bishop of Rome selects one of those. Further, if the Pope of Rome selects a person not on the original list of candidates, the Synod has a right to challenge, and the process can start anew. Also, this "appointment" does not occur in the Traditional Patriarchal and Major archepiscopal territories. Furthermore, For the papal assent: It is basically a rubber stamp for new bishops as far as the non-Latin Churches are concerned. Its main (but not sole) purpose is to protect the Church against the enchroachments of the secular power, so it's never been an issue AFAIK among the sui juris Churches since it is not an interference in the rights of a local Church, but rather strengthens those rights. The papal assent has been in the spotlight recently in the Chinese Church, where the government seeks to control the local Church.

Originally Posted by StuartK
2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

Agree, with caveat. I don't believe this is a matter of interference from Rome. Cum data fuerit has never been renewed after it expired in 1949. That there is a severe restriction on the ordination of married men rests with the collegial authority in the territory at issue - it's just that such territories where the issue is prominent just happens to have mostly Latin bishops. I believe the notion that Cum data fuerit is still in force is just propaganda by some Latins (certainly, not all) who want to make it seem like there is direct papal approval for the restriction of married non-Latin clergy. We should not give in to that propaganda. The solution to this is not to complain about the papacy, but to increase the education and exposure of the local Latin Churches to married clergy.

There was an occasion when a Cardinal (the Prefect, IIRC) of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches tried to restrict Eastern married clergy in Poland, but the attempt came to naught since it was insisted by other Latin Cardinals that the Eastern Tradition had historical presence in Poland. (Though in that instance, the Congregation worked correctly, I believe it would have been better if the Congregation was not involved in the matter in the first place - i.e., the Congregation should not have such legislative/executive authority).

Originally Posted by StuartK
3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

Somewhat agree. Fr. Schmemman (IIRC) points out that divorce and remarriage was not practiced in the Church until the 10th century - is "restoration" really the proper term? There needs to be a better application of oikonomia in the Latin Church in this matter. At the same time, I believe the standards for permitting remarriage after divorce by certain EOC's is too lax. As far as the theology, I don't see what is wrong with the Latin theology on marriage, just as there is obviously nothing wrong with the non-Latin theology.

Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.

Originally Posted by StuartK
5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

In Traditional Latin jurisdictions, disagree. However, I agree that our Churches should have a right to establish exarchies anywhere in the world, after consultation with the patriarchal authority in the territory where the exarchate is to be established. In the Traditional Eastern and Oriental jurisdictions, I am not aware that Rome's permission is required. Rome is only informed and/or consulted, AFAIK.

As far as patriarchates in particular, I agree, only as long as it is recognized that such new patriarchates do not have the same standing as the original Pentarchy established by the Ecumenical Councils.

Originally Posted by StuartK
6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

Disagree, for two reasons (first, a clarification - our Churches do not select from a list of suitable candidates; rather, our Churches are the ones that select the list of candidates and the Pope chooses one of them).
(1) Patriarchs are elected without papal approval. What happens for a Patriarch is that after election, he must request explicit communion from the Pope of Rome. A Patriarchs is, upon enthronement, the legitimate Patriarch of his Church, and that status has nothing to do with any papal approval. Prior to the receipt of the explicit acknowledgement of communion from the bishop of Rome, he can do all things that belongs to a head bishop (perform DL anywhere in his Patriarchal jurisdiction, hear confession anywhere in his Patriarchal jurisdiction, bless holy myron, convoke tribunals for hearing and judging appeals, etc. etc,) except two things - convoke a synod, and ordain other bishops.

(2) Every Metropolitan must be situated within the jurisdiction of a Patriarch, and their election requires the approval of their patriarchal head bishop. Metropolitans of sui juris Churches have the bishop of Rome as their patriarchal head bishop, and thus their election requires his approval. Likewise, Metropolitans within Patriarchal Churches have the Patriarch as their head bishop, and thus their election requires patriarchal approval (not the bishop of Rome's approval).

Originally Posted by StuartK
7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

Agree.

Originally Posted by StuartK
8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

Agree. Currently, such a structure exists since V2, but only at the beck and call of the bishop of Rome. Such a Synod should be permanent on a defined, periodic basis (maybe, once a year, or once every two years, etc.), and the Patrarich of the Latins would be as much obligated to attend as all the other Patriarchs. If this is established, the ad limina visit would actually be merely redundant and can disappear.

Originally Posted by StuartK
9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Mostly agree. I strongly believe that the Congregation is the most expedient way for the Pope to provide for the financial needs of other Churches on an as-need basis. This is a very Traditional role of the bishop of Rome. The Congregation should be merely consultative on all other matters, and should not have any executive, legislative, or judicial powers with respect to the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Originally Posted by StuartK
10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Disagree, with caveat. The ad limina visit is analogous to the requirement of bishops in metropolitan provinces to meet with their head bishop at certain fixed periods for the sake of the well-being of the entire province, as well as to address local issues with the head bishop. Though the bishop of Rome is head bishop (i.e., Patriarch) of the Latins most of the time, he is also the head bishop of the Church universal. I fully recognize that the ad limina visit is a development, but I don't find anything particularly wrong with it - for the specific purpose of the universal Church's head bishop to ascertain the well-being of each local Church (as noted earlier, a permanent, periodic Synod of Patriarchs would render the ad limina visit suprefluous). However, there is one aspect of it to which I do object - the idea that it is for the purpose of honoring the papacy as the head bishopric of the Church universal. I strongly believe such a purpose is wholly superfluous and even somewhat condescending, given that the Pope is already and constantly commemorated in the Liturgy as such. Further, as long as the Congregation for the Oriental Churches exists in the same capacity as it does today, even the correct purpose for the ad limina visit becomes utterly unnecessary. The correct purpose for the ad limina visit should be acceptable, but only on the condition that the said Congregation ceases to function in the way it does today.

So I believe the ad limina visit is acceptable for its proper purpose OR it can be replaced by a permanent, periodic Synod of heads of sui juris Churches.

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/05/13 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC. How they can understand their tradition when it can't be explained to them properly how it differs is beyond me.

I agree with this. The IC should not be discussed or presented in Latin theological terms if such terminology is bound to only create confusion.

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: theophan

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/05/13 09:04 PM

Quote
Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"


Peter J:

Christ is Born!!

I think you miss the point that the Church--the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has never practiced what can be called "open communion," i.e., an open invitation to anyone who happened to be present. We can see the historic vestige of that in the Russian practice of the catechumen litany where those who are not fully initiated, that is full members of the Church, are dismissed before the Creed is even sung. The Eucharist was never shared except with those who were known to be full members. And it was so because there were many sects out there that did not have the same beliefs about so many things. Since the schisms that we are all so very much aware of, the issue of being in agreement on each and every point of doctrine seems to have become something new, but it's actually part of the Apostolic approach to guarding that which is holy--the Lord's Gift to us of His Body and Blood.

I'm very much appreciative of the charge given to Byzantine clergy, whether Orthodox or Catholic, that they are to guard the Holy Gifts and not be afraid of the civil authority in that sacred trust. While this may not seem to be something that is important in this age of relativism, it has been very important to the Church and her practice throughout the ages. It wasn't so long ago that the Catholic Church was this strict about admission to Holy Communion. It's only been since the papacy of Pope Pius X in the early part of the 20th century that things began to be loosened and begin to move us to where we are today. Some time ago I read the biography of a saint who, as a child, went to confession regularly but who had to ask her pastor if she could receive, even after she'd been to confession; often he refused ont he grounds that too much familiarlity with the sacrament was not good spiritually. While that may sound extreme to us today, it was Catholic practice in some places as late as the mid-19th century. So is it so difficult to understand a strict practice of guarding the Holy Gifts in this era when we have no immediate experience of the strict stance that the Church has had from the beginning concerning what this her most precious gift entrusted to her by the Lord?

Bob
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/06/13 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by theophan
Quote
Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"


Peter J:

Christ is Born!!

I think you miss the point that the Church--the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has never practiced what can be called "open communion," i.e., an open invitation to anyone who happened to be present. We can see the historic vestige of that in the Russian practice of the catechumen litany where those who are not fully initiated, that is full members of the Church, are dismissed before the Creed is even sung. The Eucharist was never shared except with those who were known to be full members. And it was so because there were many sects out there that did not have the same beliefs about so many things. Since the schisms that we are all so very much aware of, the issue of being in agreement on each and every point of doctrine seems to have become something new, but it's actually part of the Apostolic approach to guarding that which is holy--the Lord's Gift to us of His Body and Blood.

I'm very much appreciative of the charge given to Byzantine clergy, whether Orthodox or Catholic, that they are to guard the Holy Gifts and not be afraid of the civil authority in that sacred trust. While this may not seem to be something that is important in this age of relativism, it has been very important to the Church and her practice throughout the ages. It wasn't so long ago that the Catholic Church was this strict about admission to Holy Communion. It's only been since the papacy of Pope Pius X in the early part of the 20th century that things began to be loosened and begin to move us to where we are today. Some time ago I read the biography of a saint who, as a child, went to confession regularly but who had to ask her pastor if she could receive, even after she'd been to confession; often he refused ont he grounds that too much familiarlity with the sacrament was not good spiritually. While that may sound extreme to us today, it was Catholic practice in some places as late as the mid-19th century. So is it so difficult to understand a strict practice of guarding the Holy Gifts in this era when we have no immediate experience of the strict stance that the Church has had from the beginning concerning what this her most precious gift entrusted to her by the Lord?

Bob


That's all good and well. I was just referring to the fact that you dared to disagree with what Roman Interloper said. If I understand it right, that'll make you part of the basta/foot-stomp crowd.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/08/13 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm


Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.


What you describe does not reflect Orthodox ecclesiology. As a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I am in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is senior to my Patriarch (and depending on your understanding has "the primacy" in the Orthodox Churches). I am also in communion with bishops of other Orthodox Churches who are in the same city as me (Serbian, Greek, etc.) The Patriarch of Constantinople is not commemorated in my liturgies, nor are any of the hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches who abide in my city. This is because non Russian hierarchs have zero role in the management of my Church. This is as it should be. It does not mean we are not in communion, it just means we are autonomous.
Posted By: haydukovich

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 05:07 AM

In the original 85 basic Orthodox Canons There could be no other Bishops in your city ... period!

I realize that this is impossible and modern times has obliterated this situation but it is by it's very nature uncanonical.

The state of Orthodoxy in the United States in my humble opinion is a mess. (starting with the Bolshevik revolution and continuing today)

How good Christians can go around anathemetizing and excommunicating each other is un christian at it's core.

The common question asked by Orthodox is as bad as what the Pope and Latin Catholicism put down - What Jusrisdiction are your from?

This question I believe Jesus would have rejected wholeheartedly. It is by it's very nature - un christian.

(by the way I am leaning Orthodox - just a pet peeve of my about the state of Christianity in the world today)
Posted By: haydukovich

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 05:30 AM

I read an article that the OCA accepts Latin Rite Priests without a formal ordination - recognizing all their Mysteries as Valid ...

Accepted quickly - without much fanfare and once accepted - as valid as Priest with 20 and 30 years in Orthodoxy.

I interpreted this to mean that they do view Latin Catholic Sacraments as valid
Posted By: chadrook

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by haydukovich
I read an article that the OCA accepts Latin Rite Priests without a formal ordination - recognizing all their Mysteries as Valid ...

Accepted quickly - without much fanfare and once accepted - as valid as Priest with 20 and 30 years in Orthodoxy.

I interpreted this to mean that they do view Latin Catholic Sacraments as valid


And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 06:09 PM

Quote
And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.


Then what of the Russian Orthodox Church who also accept Latin/Byzantine Catholic priests through vesting only?

What is the practice of the Greek Orthodox? I believe it also through vesting.

Now the acceptance of a priest through vesting doesn't necessarily mean that the OCA accepts all Catholic sacraments as valid. Most Catholics, as far as I understand, are Chrismated when they enter the Orthodox Church including the OCA. This would mean that the sacraments that one received prior were lacking and the fullness of them is given in the Orthodox mystery.
Posted By: bergschlawiner

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 07:06 PM

Guess I am simple minded in my beliefs but I believe that the validity of sacraments transcends the validity of this or that pope or patriarch because all that is political and not sacramental. Sacraments come from God, hierarchs come from the organization, and real unity will only come from and through the sacraments. This probably makes no sense to those here.
Posted By: Roman Interloper

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 07:24 PM

If you ask me, I think it's tired old church politics and tired old prejudices that cause the Catholics and the Orthodox to grumble about the validity and legitimacy of each others' orders and sacraments...and nothing more.

Tell me, who do people turn to whenever they need an exorcist? If certain elements of Orthodox Church want to question the legitimacy of the Latin Church's priesthood and Sacraments, they can read report after report of successful exorcisms performed by Roman Catholic priests across the years. Clearly the Devil and his mignons realize that the Latins are legit.

If Roman Catholics want to question the legitimacy of the Orthodox, they need to pull their heads out of their private apparition diaries and read a history book for a change, not to mention the acts of the magisterium of their own hierarchy with respect to the Holy Orthodox Church.

What we all need to do, on all sides, I think, is grow up and get a grip. Questionable validity, indeed. Give me a break. It will come out in the end that we are and have been all along one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church made up of sinful children who run with scissors and don't know how to play right with one another.
Posted By: chadrook

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/09/13 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.


Then what of the Russian Orthodox Church who also accept Latin/Byzantine Catholic priests through vesting only?

What is the practice of the Greek Orthodox? I believe it also through vesting.

Now the acceptance of a priest through vesting doesn't necessarily mean that the OCA accepts all Catholic sacraments as valid. Most Catholics, as far as I understand, are Chrismated when they enter the Orthodox Church including the OCA. This would mean that the sacraments that one received prior were lacking and the fullness of them is given in the Orthodox mystery.


No argument here. Think ROCOR ten years ago. Or even twenty years. With the way it is now..........
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/10/13 02:29 AM

Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how commemorating a bishop violates anyone's ecclesiology.

Just to be clear, I am not saying the commemoration is the cause of communion, but merely a sign of it (the cause of communion is the Eucharist). I think it is important at this time to give a sign to visitors and inquirers that the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches they might visit are indeed in communion with Rome. Once reunion is acheived, we would no longer need this. But it would be premature at this time while schism yet exists between our Churches to remove commemoration of the bishop of Rome as part of Catholic Liturgies anywhere in the world.

Blessings

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm


Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.


What you describe does not reflect Orthodox ecclesiology. As a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I am in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is senior to my Patriarch (and depending on your understanding has "the primacy" in the Orthodox Churches). I am also in communion with bishops of other Orthodox Churches who are in the same city as me (Serbian, Greek, etc.) The Patriarch of Constantinople is not commemorated in my liturgies, nor are any of the hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches who abide in my city. This is because non Russian hierarchs have zero role in the management of my Church. This is as it should be. It does not mean we are not in communion, it just means we are autonomous.
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/14/13 03:29 AM

I think we should head back straight to the first recorded council of the organized Christian church: Jerusalem in Acts 15. Does the text give any indication that St. Peter called the Council and that St. Peter was the only authority whose judgment was heeded?

Does Papal Supremacy find any grounding in the pastoral event of the Council of Jerusalem? And did the other Apostles submit wholly to outright supremacy from St. Peter?
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/14/13 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how commemorating a bishop violates anyone's ecclesiology.



It's ecclesiology because it represents what Church you belong to. Essentially, we commemorate those who we are in direct communion with, through our local church. It's just that, in the Orthodox diaspora, local means jurisdiction - our metropolitan is sitting in Moscow or wherever, not in a city nearby - the patriarch of Moscow is in some sense though still a local hierarch for me. The Greek Bishop of Sydney or the Bishop of Rome however are absolutely not a part of this "local" structure.

Quote
Just to be clear, I am not saying the commemoration is the cause of communion, but merely a sign of it (the cause of communion is the Eucharist).


Agreed, but this is manifested first and foremost on a local, or within jurisdiction level, not an inter-Church level. Remember, for clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, they need permission from their bishop to con-celebrate at a non-Russian Church. Their fealty is to their own "local" Church in the first place. To "go from city to city" (jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the modern sense) needs each "local" bishops permission.

Quote
I think it is important at this time to give a sign to visitors and inquirers that the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches they might visit are indeed in communion with Rome. Once reunion is acheived, we would no longer need this. But it would be premature at this time while schism yet exists between our Churches to remove commemoration of the bishop of Rome as part of Catholic Liturgies anywhere in the world.


The problem is the kind of communion that requires the commemoration of a non-local hierarch is not a form of communion the Orthodox understand to be communion. As an Orthodox priest said to me, "if you commemorate the bishop of Rome at the liturgy, you are a Roman Catholic." I am a Russian because the patriarch of the Russian Church is commemorated at services I attend, and is my hierarch. The communion of the Russian Church as an entity with the Greek Church is a separate matter.

Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/14/13 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
I think we should head back straight to the first recorded council of the organized Christian church: Jerusalem in Acts 15. Does the text give any indication that St. Peter called the Council and that St. Peter was the only authority whose judgment was heeded?

Does Papal Supremacy find any grounding in the pastoral event of the Council of Jerusalem? And did the other Apostles submit wholly to outright supremacy from St. Peter?


I have heard it said that the part about everyone falling silent shows submission to Papal Supremacy. (If you don't agree with that ... well, I can't really blame you as I don't buy it either.)
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/14/13 07:01 PM

Quote
The problem is the kind of communion that requires the commemoration of a non-local hierarch is not a form of communion the Orthodox understand to be communion. As an Orthodox priest said to me, "if you commemorate the bishop of Rome at the liturgy, you are a Roman Catholic."



To follow up on this point Metropolitan George of Mount Lebanon (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch) has said:

Quote
In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern Liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/14/13 08:52 PM

Basically, commemoration is vertical to the level of the particular Church; i.e., priests commemorate their bishop and their or autonomous metropolitans; after that; at the Episcopal level, commemoration is both vertical and horizontal, i.e., bishops commemorate the other bishops in their synod, as well as their metropolitan or patriarch; metropolitans and patriarchs commemorate the bishops of their synod and the other metropolitans and patriarchs with whom they are in communion. So, the Patriarch of Moscow commemorates the bishops of the Church of Moscow, plus the other Orthodox patriarcharchs and metropolitans to whom he is speaking this particular Sunday.
Posted By: danman916

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/15/13 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
If you ask me, I think it's tired old church politics and tired old prejudices that cause the Catholics and the Orthodox to grumble about the validity and legitimacy of each others' orders and sacraments...and nothing more.

Tell me, who do people turn to whenever they need an exorcist? If certain elements of Orthodox Church want to question the legitimacy of the Latin Church's priesthood and Sacraments, they can read report after report of successful exorcisms performed by Roman Catholic priests across the years. Clearly the Devil and his mignons realize that the Latins are legit.

If Roman Catholics want to question the legitimacy of the Orthodox, they need to pull their heads out of their private apparition diaries and read a history book for a change, not to mention the acts of the magisterium of their own hierarchy with respect to the Holy Orthodox Church.

What we all need to do, on all sides, I think, is grow up and get a grip. Questionable validity, indeed. Give me a break. It will come out in the end that we are and have been all along one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church made up of sinful children who run with scissors and don't know how to play right with one another.


Agreed.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/15/13 05:18 PM

I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.
Posted By: danman916

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Well... if that is true, then I don't understand.
At St. Innocent of Moscow Orthodox Church, here in Carol Stream, IL, Catholic converts are baptized.
Why would they re-baptize if they recognized the legitimacy of Catholic sacraments?
In speaking to Father Jeremiah over there a few years ago, it seemed to me that they didn't recognize that the Catholic sacraments were grace-filled.

Would this count as some sort of "conditional" baptism like we Latins do for some Protestants coming into full communion with the Catholic Church?
(Does the East even perform conditional baptisms?)
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Can you back up that statement? (Of course, you could always hide behind the qualifier "I don't know of any". wink ) I think it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox do not have an official statement to the tune of "Catholic sacraments are absolutely null and utterly void."
Posted By: chadrook

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.


And this is a flaming. Or drive by if you will. Please do tell me it all hinges on what you consider reputable? That would be an untestable premises and an invalid argument. I rather enjoy your post. They always liven things up.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Well... if that is true, then I don't understand.
At St. Innocent of Moscow Orthodox Church, here in Carol Stream, IL, Catholic converts are baptized.
Why would they re-baptize if they recognized the legitimacy of Catholic sacraments?
In speaking to Father Jeremiah over there a few years ago, it seemed to me that they didn't recognize that the Catholic sacraments were grace-filled.

Would this count as some sort of "conditional" baptism like we Latins do for some Protestants coming into full communion with the Catholic Church?
(Does the East even perform conditional baptisms?)

Some Orthodox are agnostic on whether or not there is grace in Catholic sacraments.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 10:04 PM

With all respect, the questions of rebaptism, etc. are a little off the topic of the place of the papacy.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 10:11 PM

Well if Catholic sacraments are null so is the papacy. They are interrelated issues.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 10:16 PM

I have found in my conversations with Orthodox Christians that some think there is grace in Catholic sacraments, and I would call these individuals the most ecumenically open; while some are agnostic on the issue, and they tend to be neither for nor against ecumenical discussions; and finally, there are those who say Catholic sacraments are devoid of grace, and this group tends to be opposed to ecumenism. Each of these groups tends to have a view of the papacy that is in line with its overall position concerning the Catholic Church and grace.
Posted By: Epiphanius

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/16/13 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by chadrook
... it all hinges on what you consider reputable? That would be an untestable premises and an invalid argument. I rather enjoy your post. They always liven things up.

Chad,

I think Stuart is speaking here of academic "authorities," rather than ecclesiastical ones. Academics, as a rule, tend to be much more open-minded.

Originally Posted by 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.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/17/13 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Well if Catholic sacraments are null so is the papacy. They are interrelated issues.


I don't think so; the Bishop of Rome was still Pope before schism, the sacramental issue is post-schism. Totally separate questions in my mind. Where has the papacy even been mentioned in the above posts on baptism?
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/17/13 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Well if Catholic sacraments are null so is the papacy. They are interrelated issues.


I don't think so; the Bishop of Rome was still Pope before schism, the sacramental issue is post-schism. Totally separate questions in my mind. Where has the papacy even been mentioned in the above posts on baptism?

He was called "pope" just as the Patriarch of Alexandria is called "pope," but the Orthodox have never believed there was some special kind of "office" of "pope" in the Church. So I hold to what I said, the sacramental questions and the questions about primacy are interrelated. If the Catholic Church is devoid of grace, then it follows that it has no bishops. Moreover, the exaggerated claims made by Westerners during the second millennium in connection with the papacy add to the Orthodox sense that Rome has become heretical and that it has no grace in its "sacraments." The two questions are connected whether some people posting in this thread like to think so or not.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/17/13 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
[quote=Apotheoun]Where has the papacy even been mentioned in the above posts on baptism?

The papacy does not need to be explicitly mentioned. because the claims made in connection with it are perhaps the primary cause of the division between East and West. It was when the West began asserting unequivocally that the pope was some kind of "super-bishop" with universal jurisdiction, and began seeing this novel belief as a dogma, that the two sides parted company. It follows that if the Western claims about the papacy are true then the Roman Church has grace filled sacraments, but if the claims made in connection with the papacy are false - seeing that Rome has declared this to be a dogma - then the Orthodox who either deny grace is present in Western sacraments, or those who take an agnostic position on the issue, are correct.

The questions that need to be answered are: (1) what is primacy, and can it be construed as supremacy, and (2) if the West is wrong about the papacy is there grace in its sacraments. It has become pretty clear to me as an Eastern Catholic that the biggest stumbling block to the restoration of communion between the Latin Church and the whole of the East is the papacy. The Western Catholic Church sees the papacy as the visible source of unity in the Church, while the Eastern Orthodox (and the Oriental Orthodox) view it as the primary cause - although not the exclusive cause - of division.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 07:34 AM

Having discussed this matter with many Orthodox, both when I was not yet in communion with Rome, and presently, I've noticed three general ecclesiological positions present in the Churches, with varying degrees of in-between positions (which I'll explain forthwith).
(1) The Absolutist Petrine view, which is held by certain Catholics, especially Latin Catholics. This position claims:
(a) The pope can proclaim dogma and legislate laws at his mere and sole discretion.
(b) Infallibility flows from the Pope alone to the Church. Hence, the Pope is conceived as the sole determiner of Truth, or the source of all doctrine.
(c) Jurisdiction flows from the Pope alone to the Church. Hence, the jurisdiction of any bishop is regarded as a mere extension of papal jurisdiction.
Needless to say, this is not an option for orthodox apostolic Christians. Those who adhere to High and Low Petrine ecclesiologies reject these positions

(2) The High Petrine view. Primacy of jurisdiction, not mere honor, is recognized. The bishop of Rome is recognized as the orthodox head bishop of the Church universal.

(8) The Low Petrine view. Universal primacy is not recognized. Primacy is only a primacy of honor, not jurisdiction. Only local bishops have true jurisdiction. I've even met individual EO Christians claim that there is no such thing as a head bishop.

In discussions with other Orthodox Christians, I've encountered five positions that are intermediate between the High and Low Petrine views (hence, the numbering convention, giving the Low Petrine view the position of (8):
(3) The High Petrine view exists on the universal level (i.e., universal jurisdiction is recognized). The primacy of the bishop of Rome is contested not on the grounds of ecclesiology, but based on the belief that the Catholic Church (and, hence, the bishop of Rome) is not orthodox. If the bishop of Rome was orthodox, he would be (as affirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council), the head and father of all Christians. The primacy is considered a doctrinal matter, not merely ecclesiastical/disciplinary (I've encountered this position especially among apostolic Christians from the several Syriac Traditions). This position would seem to give credence to brother Todd's claim of connecting the validity of Sacraments and the papacy.

(4) The High Petrine view exists on the universal level (i.e., universal jurisdiction is recognized). The only difference with position (3) is that the primacy is regarded as a merely ecclesiastical/disciplinary matter.

(5) The High Petrine view exists only as far as the Patriarchal/metropolitan level (i.e., patriarchal/metropolitan jurisdiction is admitted). Primacy is regarded as a doctrinal matter (I've encountered this position especially among apostolic Christians from the several Syriac Traditions). Universal primacy is regarded as a primacy of mere honor.

(6) The High Petrine view exists only as far as the Patriarchal/metropolitan level (i.e., patriarchal/metropolitan jurisdiction is admitted). The only difference with position (5) is that primacy is regarded as a merely ecclesiastical/disciplinary matter.

(7) Universal and patriarchal/metropolitan primacy is recognized, but it is regarded as a primacy of mere honor.

Can the Church be united with all these different positions existing within the Orthodox Churches?

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 07:44 AM

Dear brother Dan,

A long time ago when I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I asked a Coptic priest about this, and he said that the Church (as he understood it), baptized Catholics to complete the form (triple immersion), not that the Grace is not already present. Isn't it possible that there are Eastern Orthodox who hold a similar position?

Blessings

Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Well... if that is true, then I don't understand.
At St. Innocent of Moscow Orthodox Church, here in Carol Stream, IL, Catholic converts are baptized.
Why would they re-baptize if they recognized the legitimacy of Catholic sacraments?
In speaking to Father Jeremiah over there a few years ago, it seemed to me that they didn't recognize that the Catholic sacraments were grace-filled.

Would this count as some sort of "conditional" baptism like we Latins do for some Protestants coming into full communion with the Catholic Church?
(Does the East even perform conditional baptisms?)
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Originally Posted by 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?

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 08:20 AM

Dear brother Otsheylnik,

I don't see it as a matter of ecclesiology because I agree that in a united Church, the commemoration should not be required. I believe the commemoration is a matter of self-identification, and only that, and that this self-identification is necessary at this time since our Churches are still in schism.

However, I do agree with you that your understanding of ecclesiology seems to be different from mine. I do believe, as a Catholic, of the existence and necessity of a head bishop for the universal Church. When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I did hold to the position of the non-existence of such a position. But I became convinced (even before I joined the Catholic communion) that the most popular rhetoric used by Orthodox to deny the universal head bishopric did not make any sense -- I'm talking about the idea that the a universal head bishop is not needed because Christ is our head. I came to realize that such a rationale deprives patriarchs, metropolitans, primates, etc. - in other words, any and all head bishops - of any claim to existence. But there are head bishops in the Orthodox Church.

So it became inconsistent for me to recognize the reality that my Church local had a head bishop, yet to deny that the Church universal had a head bishop. After all, if the fact that Jesus is the head of the Church is what makes the papacy unnecessary, then this fact also makes any and all head bishops and even any and all bishops unnecessary. The idea that "Jesus is head, therefore we don't need the Pope" is prefectly analogous to the Protestant claim that "Jesus is head, therefore we don't need bishops." That's what it came down to for me. It was a matter of conscience for me to be consistent in my beliefs.

Blessings

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how commemorating a bishop violates anyone's ecclesiology.

It's ecclesiology because it represents what Church you belong to. Essentially, we commemorate those who we are in direct communion with, through our local church. It's just that, in the Orthodox diaspora, local means jurisdiction - our metropolitan is sitting in Moscow or wherever, not in a city nearby - the patriarch of Moscow is in some sense though still a local hierarch for me. The Greek Bishop of Sydney or the Bishop of Rome however are absolutely not a part of this "local" structure.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 09:28 AM

Dear Brother Mardukum,


Originally Posted by mardukm

However, I do agree with you that your understanding of ecclesiology seems to be different from mine. I do believe, as a Catholic, of the existence and necessity of a head bishop for the universal Church.


The early church saw no need for such a thing, so I am not sure why it needs one now.


Originally Posted by mardukm
When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I did hold to the position of the non-existence of such a position. But I became convinced (even before I joined the Catholic communion) that the most popular rhetoric used by Orthodox to deny the universal head bishopric did not make any sense -- I'm talking about the idea that the a universal head bishop is not needed because Christ is our head. I came to realize that such a rationale deprives patriarchs, metropolitans, primates, etc. - in other words, any and all head bishops - of any claim to existence. But there are head bishops in the Orthodox Church.

So it became inconsistent for me to recognize the reality that my Church local had a head bishop, yet to deny that the Church universal had a head bishop. After all, if the fact that Jesus is the head of the Church is what makes the papacy unnecessary, then this fact also makes any and all head bishops and even any and all bishops unnecessary. The idea that "Jesus is head, therefore we don't need the Pope" is prefectly analogous to the Protestant claim that "Jesus is head, therefore we don't need bishops." That's what it came down to for me. It was a matter of conscience for me to be consistent in my beliefs.


A number of quotes from Pope Saint Gregory the Great suffice to show that the understanding that you claim is wrong (CHrist is the head, so the bishops don't need a head) WAS that of the early Church. The reason we don't need a head bishop is because the bishops share in one ministry - as they are one, they cannot be divided by having a head, and do not need one. Their head, as with all Christians, is Christ. Even Rome held the position you now claim as wrong.

Pope Gregory writes:

Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ 1 Corinthians 1:13, regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?(Book 5, letter 18)

Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. (Book 5, letter 18)

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book 7, Letter 33)

Lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. (Book 8, letter 30)

As we know from Church History, in the first half of the first millenium, Rome and the Eastern Churches regarded the Petrine ministry as shared between all bishops, but especially honoured the THREE Petrine sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. On this matter, Pope Gregory writes to the Patriarch 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. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. (Book 7, Letter 40)

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one....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. (Book 7, Letter 40)


Regarding the Petrine ministry, finally, Pope Gregory demolishes the idea that we should use the fact that he was given the keys to argue that an individual should have Universal jurisdiction. In fact he says if Peter had them, all the more should no individual bishop have them as they were a gift to the Church.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores! If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the head of all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he who is called Universal falls. But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by one. *Book 7, Letter 40)

All of these texts are available online - there are many such passages in the writings of this Pope, these are a small selection.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3602.htm

My point is that what you claim about the need for a single head bishop is a relatively new ecclesiological position, not recognised in the Roman Church as a matter of dogma, tradition or necessity at least up until the time Pope Gregory wrote (sixth century).

Peace
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/19/13 08:50 PM

Dear brother Otsheylnik,

That is a great response. But It appears your understanding of what the papacy is is different from my own. I accept the relevance of Pope St. Gregory's statements. I think we can both agree that Pope St. Gregory's assertions demolish the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy. However, as an adherent to the High Petrine view, I don't accept your interpretation of his statements.

Pope St. Gregory clearly denied the concept of a universal bishop, but he did not deny the concept of a head bishop for the Church universal. This is evident from his own actions in relation to the rest of the Church as a whole. There is a palpable difference between the concept of "universal bishop" and the concept of "head bishop of the Church universal." The difference can be understood when one considers the distinction between the concept of "bishop," on the one hand, and the concept of "head bishop," on the other. The important difference is that the authority of a bishop is monarchical in nature, while the authority of a head bishop is presidential in nature. A bishop as such can act unilaterally for the good of his Church. But a head bishop as such can never act alone. So, indeed, there is no such thing as a universal bishop - i.e., a bishop that has a prerogative to act unilaterally for the Church universal, without the agreement or involvement of his brother bishops, since all bishops share in the solicitude of the Church. The Catholic Church fully adheres to Pope St. Gregory's ecclesiology, and this is reflected in the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 on the papacy.

Of course, Absolutist Petrine advocates don't have this patristic conception of the papacy, and I have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates on their exaggerations of the papacy at the Catholic Answers Forum many times, sometimes heatedly. However, a head bishop of the Church universal is not the same thing as a universal bishop. I am with you, in agreement with Pope St. Gregory, as far as opposing the idea of a universal bishop (also, IIRC, Pope St. Leo also denied the title of "universal bishop" when the Fourth Ecum sought to grant him that title), but cannot agree with the claim that a head bishop is not a necessary reality of the Church universal. Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.

Blessings
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/20/13 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

That is a great response. But It appears your understanding of what the papacy is is different from my own. I accept the relevance of Pope St. Gregory's statements. I think we can both agree that Pope St. Gregory's assertions demolish the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy. However, as an adherent to the High Petrine view, I don't accept your interpretation of his statements.

Pope St. Gregory clearly denied the concept of a universal bishop, but he did not deny the concept of a head bishop for the Church universal.


This is a bit ingenuous, as one implies the other in this context. If there is one who has jurisdiction over all, as implied by being head of all, he is universal. And Pope Gregory clearly did deny the possibility of any such thing - both explicitly and implicitly. Most importantly, he denied the theological underpinnings for such a thing by denying that Peter had any role (as opposed to place of honour) that other apostles had - he was the head of a particular community. The only head of the Church is Christ.

Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. (Book 5, letter 18)

This passage it seems throws up a number of problems for high Petrine advocates. If Peter was the head of a particular community and a member of the Church under Christ, why should his successors have any special authority beyond that of their own particular community? Why should they need it? More to the point, why should Rome alone have it, given that in another of his letters (Book 7, Letter 40) Gregory suggests that Peter only died in Rome and was never Bishop there, but that he was in Antioch?

I think it's a distraction and a grasping at straws to say that "sometimes Pope Gregory acted as a head bishop" (by which you mean he acted unilaterally). I'm sure all of us at times have acted in ways that are contrary to principles we believe in, whether out of perceived necessity, spontaneity or simply that to err is human. Sure, the Patriarch of Moscow does things in a unilateral way sometimes. That doesn't mean he should do so. To me, how someone acts under pressures is a far less reliable indicator of what they believe than what they write, repeatedly, in over a dozen letters, for many years, with time to reflect.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.


This is also disingenuous. I am sure you are as aware as anyone else that there is more than one way to interpret this passage - it doesn't follow that just because Rome uses this verse to justify itself that its the only way that it can be interpreted. Pope Gregory specifically interprets that passage as underpinning the shared Petrine ministry of three sees:

And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. Book 7, Letter 40

What seems most odd about this discussion is that for all their talk of "doctrinal development", Roman apologists seem to be so unwilling to admit that the Church believed differently once to what it does now - why? Did the Church have a Chalcedonian Christology in the first century? Of course not, it developed over time. What I find so odd is that Roman apologists are quite willing to recognise this as a case of doctrinal development, but seem so unwilling to do so in regard to primacy. It is this continual desire to argue that governance of the church must always have fitted a model of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the historical evidence is clear that it did not, which makes it impossible to resolve this situation around primacy. Rome has an easy out clause here with its notion of doctrinal development - it can simply say that "over time we developed this understanding of primacy, but it wasn't always the way it was understood". What is wrong with saying that, as it is so obviously true? It is much better than the alternative, in which the Roman reader must employ a process of eisigesis on every patristic text so that it can read twentieth century concepts into the minds of their first millennium authors.


Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/20/13 06:44 AM

Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
This is a bit ingenuous, as one implies the other in this context.

Bishops and head bishops are two different animals. Though all head bishops are bishops, not all bishops are head bishops (obviously). There are several important differences between the two:
(1) A bishop's authority is monarchical in nature; a head bishop's authority is presidential in nature.
(2) A bishop can act unilaterally for the good of his Church; a head bishop can only act collegially for the good of his Church.
(3) A bishop has the highest and sole discretion in exercising his authority; a head bishop exercises his authority only upon appeal and in agreement with his brother bishops.

In your understanding, do you really see no difference between the two?

Quote
If there is one who has jurisdiction over all, as implied by being head of all, he is universal.

The extent of jurisdiction (i.e. universality) is not the issue. Rather, the issue is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction, and (2) the idea of having only one bishop for the whole Church, with no need for any other bishop. As explained above, the nature of a bishop's jurisdiction is different from the nature of a head bishop's jurisdiction. In fact, the same issue can potentially exist even on a patriarchal or metropolitan level. A patriarch or metropolitan who exercises his authority as if his brother bishops did not even exist (i.e., does not recognize the authority of his brother bishops) affords the identical problem with which Pope St. Gregory was concerned on the universal level

Quote
And Pope Gregory clearly did deny the possibility of any such thing - both explicitly and implicitly. Most importantly, he denied the theological underpinnings for such a thing by denying that Peter had any role (as opposed to place of honour) that other apostles had - he was the head of a particular community. The only head of the Church is Christ.

This would be disingenuous. If the only head of the Church is Christ, then there would be no head bishops at all and the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 should not exist. But your own local Church does have a head bishop, even while affirming that Christ is the true head of your local Church. Likewise, Catholics admit a head bishop for the Church universal, as well as local Churches, even while affirming that Christ is the true head of the Church universal, and all local Churches.

Quote
Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. (Book 5, letter 18)

This must be taken in context of his understanding of what it meant to say that Peter was a "universal Apostle" or that there is a "universal bishop." To Pope St. Gregory, calling Peter the "universal Apostle" meant that the rest of the Apostles had no relevance, that there would be no need for any other Apostle. This obviously cannot be the case because Christ Himself established 12 Apostles, not just one. This is the exact same reason that Pope St. Gregory rejected the concept of a "universal bishop" - because it would make other bishops unnecessary. Without this indispensable context, the extreme and unpatristic position that St. Peter was not in fact the coryphaeus of the Apostles - a fact that is admitted by ALL the early Fathers - is the result. Further, that no other bishop but the Pope is necessary for the existence of the Church is by no stretch of the imagination the teaching of the Catholic Church. I admit that the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations can give that impression, but their claims are not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy. Perhaps we can spend some time discussing what you think the CC actually teaches regarding the Primacy.

Quote
This passage it seems throws up a number of problems for high Petrine advocates. If Peter was the head of a particular community and a member of the Church under Christ, why should his successors have any special authority beyond that of their own particular community?

St. Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles, and Christ established him as such. He was the only one to be given the charge of confirming the brethren. He was also the one charged with feeding the entire household of Christ (while not denying that the other apostles also fed particular portions of the household/flock). Catholics are only asserting that these unique responsibilities given to St. Peter for the upbuilding of the Church was handed down in the Apostolic Succession. And just as St. Peter performed his unique duties WITH and ALWAYS WITH his brother Apostles, so do his successors in the bishops of Rome perform these unique duties WITH and ALWAYS WITH his brother bishops.

Quote
Why should they need it?

I think this question reflects a position that goes beyond the patristic evidence. All the Fathers of the Church admitted that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., the head) of the Apostles. Christ established him as such. St. Cyprian explained that he was established as a visible head to provide a principle of unity, because the Church is one. This visible principle of unity exists in the Catholic Church today in the papacy, just as it did for the Apostles in the person of St. Peter.

Quote
More to the point, why should Rome alone have it, given that in another of his letters (Book 7, Letter 40) Gregory suggests that Peter only died in Rome and was never Bishop there, but that he was in Antioch?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rome alone should have it." What is it you think that Rome alone has? It certainly can't be infallibility - both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 taught that the entire Magisterium shares in infallibility, not just the Pope alone. It certainly can't be jurisdiction - both V1 and V2 taught that the Church is governed by the Pope and his brother bishops together. This "Rome alone" business is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor the belief of High Petrine advocates (though the sola papa error is certainly prevalent among Absolutist Petrine advocates, who in fact do not adhere to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy).

Quote
I think it's a distraction and a grasping at straws to say that "sometimes Pope Gregory acted as a head bishop" (by which you mean he acted unilaterally).

It is very important to establish on principle the distinction between a bishop per se and a head bishop per se, because the nature of their jurisdictions is inherently different.

Quote
I'm sure all of us at times have acted in ways that are contrary to principles we believe in, whether out of perceived necessity, spontaneity or simply that to err is human. Sure, the Patriarch of Moscow does things in a unilateral way sometimes. That doesn't mean he should do so. To me, how someone acts under pressures is a far less reliable indicator of what they believe than what they write, repeatedly, in over a dozen letters, for many years, with time to reflect.

I somewhat agree with the principle you express here. As a High Petrine advocate, I recognize that a head bishop can act unilaterally in very extreme cases, and we would probably both agree that these actions must be constrained by the canons (for example, the Catholic Canons assert that not even a motu proprio by the Pope can deprive a person of their acquired rights in the Church). I think what we would disagree on is this: as a High Petrine advocate, I believe these actions in extreme cases (within the canons) are a natural (though not normative) prerogative of any head bishop, while you probably view such actions as both not natural and not normative. Would that be correct?

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.

This is also disingenuous. I am sure you are as aware as anyone else that there is more than one way to interpret this passage - it doesn't follow that just because Rome uses this verse to justify itself that its the only way that it can be interpreted.

Far from denying the different interpretations, it is actually only the Catholic Church that adheres faithfully to all the possible interpretations of this passage - we have head bishops at all levels of the hierarchy. The disingenuous position would seem to be the one that denies the plain intent of the Lord's statement that it applies to the Church universal, while only accepting it on hierarchical levels below the universal level.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Pope Gregory specifically interprets that passage as underpinning the shared Petrine ministry of three sees:
And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. Book 7, Letter 40

Yes. this would be a classic High Petrine understanding of the matter. High Petrine advocates reject the "sola papa" error (which is as objectionable as the other "sola" errors of the Protestants).

Quote
What seems most odd about this discussion is that for all their talk of "doctrinal development", Roman apologists seem to be so unwilling to admit that the Church believed differently once to what it does now - why?

Not sure how to respond to this one. I've never actually seen any reputable Catholic apologetics that claim the Primacy did not develop. I have encountered such claims from Absolutist Petrine advocates. Of course, I don't consider apologetics that defend the Absolutist Petrine view as reputable. biggrin

Blessings
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/20/13 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
This is a bit ingenuous, as one implies the other in this context.

Bishops and head bishops are two different animals.

I was talking about the terms universal bishop and head bishop implying each other - clearly the term bishop doesn't imply that a universal or head one need exist. ON the term bishop, I have never seen the term head bishop in patristic literature. Metropolitan yes (Patriarch is not strictly speaking an office, but a title of honour given to particular metropolitans). But a metropolitan is still a bishop and it is clear that they are bound by the same canons as refer to other bishops, plus some additional ones putting further parameters around their responsibilities. For example, that they can't ordain people where ever they want to in their metropolia without the local bishop's consent and they may not "go from place to place" without the consent of local bishops. In short, their bishops.

Quote
Though all head bishops are bishops, not all bishops are head bishops (obviously). There are several important differences between the two:
(1) A bishop's authority is monarchical in nature; a head bishop's authority is presidential in nature.
(2) A bishop can act unilaterally for the good of his Church; a head bishop can only act collegially for the good of his Church.
(3) A bishop has the highest and sole discretion in exercising his authority; a head bishop exercises his authority only upon appeal and in agreement with his brother bishops.


The flaw in this understanding is that all metropolitans (instead of the term head bishop which seems undefined) are local bishops first and foremost themselves (of Rome, Moscow, Jerusalem or wherever else), and that local bishops also are accountable to a synod.

Quote
Quote
If there is one who has jurisdiction over all, as implied by being head of all, he is universal.

The extent of jurisdiction (i.e. universality) is not the issue. Rather, the issue is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction, and (2) the idea of having only one bishop for the whole Church, with no need for any other bishop.


It is exactly the issue - you even have it as your point (1).

Quote
As explained above, the nature of a bishop's jurisdiction is different from the nature of a head bishop's jurisdiction.[\quote]

I don't really understand this - the limits of both are set by appropriate canons and are confined to local areas of larger or smaller scope.

Quote
[quote]And Pope Gregory clearly did deny the possibility of any such thing - both explicitly and implicitly. Most importantly, he denied the theological underpinnings for such a thing by denying that Peter had any role (as opposed to place of honour) that other apostles had - he was the head of a particular community. The only head of the Church is Christ.

This would be disingenuous. If the only head of the Church is Christ, then there would be no head bishops at all and the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 should not exist.


Are you denying that Christ is the only head of the Church here? I don't think so, but am pointing out that that is the implication of your statement. Anyway assuming that the only head of the Church is Christ, I don't see what bearing that has on the existence of Bishops, deacons or anything else. It's pretty obvious from Church history that the terms bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably for quite a long time. It's also clear that deacons used to exercise many more of the functions now assigned to priests (for example, they used to hear confessions and celebrate the Eucharist - John Chryssavgis excellent book on the diaconate covers these matters). Now, as we know over time, a different set of circumstances evolved regarding the exercise of these three ministries, regulated by the canons of various councils. The way we have grown to delimit the functions of these ministries is clearly not the only way in which they could have been delimited, the point being that the way that the roles of bishops is organised is a matter of discplinary development, so at root you are correct - we could have adopted a whole range of other structures, and I don't see that as a problem.

Quote
Quote
Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. (Book 5, letter 18)

This must be taken in context of his understanding of what it meant to say that Peter was a "universal Apostle" or that there is a "universal bishop." To Pope St. Gregory, calling Peter the "universal Apostle" meant that the rest of the Apostles had no relevance, that there would be no need for any other Apostle.[\quote]

I don't see how this addresses the main point of the piece, which is that Peter was a head of a local church but had a place of honour as first apostle - kind of like the primacy of honour advocated by Orthodox.

Quote
Perhaps we can spend some time discussing what you think the CC actually teaches regarding the Primacy.[\quote]

Given that I grew up in the Catholic Church and was a member of a religious order, I think I'm across this.

[quote][quote]Why should they need it?

I think this question reflects a position that goes beyond the patristic evidence. All the Fathers of the Church admitted that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., the head) of the Apostles. Christ established him as such. St. Cyprian explained that he was established as a visible head to provide a principle of unity, because the Church is one. This visible principle of unity exists in the Catholic Church today in the papacy, just as it did for the Apostles in the person of St. Peter.


Both Cyprian and Augustine viewed Christ as the rock not Peter. Peter's confession, which is Christ, is the source of unity in the Church, not Peter. Unity flows through Christ on the altar as Eucharist, not from an office.

Quote
Quote
More to the point, why should Rome alone have it, given that in another of his letters (Book 7, Letter 40) Gregory suggests that Peter only died in Rome and was never Bishop there, but that he was in Antioch?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rome alone should have it." What is it you think that Rome alone has? It certainly can't be infallibility - both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 taught that the entire Magisterium shares in infallibility, not just the Pope alone. It certainly can't be jurisdiction - both V1 and V2 taught that the Church is governed by the Pope and his brother bishops together. This "Rome alone" business is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor the belief of High Petrine advocates (though the sola papa error is certainly prevalent among Absolutist Petrine advocates, who in fact do not adhere to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy).


I mean the identification with Rome alone as having the Petrine succession, the Bishop of Rome alone occupying the Chair of Peter, from which erroneous interpretation all else you mention flows. For example, in the decrees of the first Vatican Council:

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching


No mention of sharing it with Antioch or Alexandria there (it would be worth noting that Cyrian's position was that all bishops shared in this chair - it's restriction to three sees was a typically Roman position, but one which however was still an improvement on identifying it with just one).

Quote
Quote
I think it's a distraction and a grasping at straws to say that "sometimes Pope Gregory acted as a head bishop" (by which you mean he acted unilaterally).

It is very important to establish on principle the distinction between a bishop per se and a head bishop per se, because the nature of their jurisdictions is inherently different.

Quote
I'm sure all of us at times have acted in ways that are contrary to principles we believe in, whether out of perceived necessity, spontaneity or simply that to err is human. Sure, the Patriarch of Moscow does things in a unilateral way sometimes. That doesn't mean he should do so. To me, how someone acts under pressures is a far less reliable indicator of what they believe than what they write, repeatedly, in over a dozen letters, for many years, with time to reflect.

I somewhat agree with the principle you express here. As a High Petrine advocate, I recognize that a head bishop can act unilaterally in very extreme cases, and we would probably both agree that these actions must be constrained by the canons (for example, the Catholic Canons assert that not even a motu proprio by the Pope can deprive a person of their acquired rights in the Church). I think what we would disagree on is this: as a High Petrine advocate, I believe these actions in extreme cases (within the canons) are a natural (though not normative) prerogative of any head bishop, while you probably view such actions as both not natural and not normative. Would that be correct?[\i]

Yes, you're correct.

Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.

This is also disingenuous. I am sure you are as aware as anyone else that there is more than one way to interpret this passage - it doesn't follow that just because Rome uses this verse to justify itself that its the only way that it can be interpreted.

Far from denying the different interpretations, it is actually only the Catholic Church that adheres faithfully to all the possible interpretations of this passage - we have head bishops at all levels of the hierarchy. The disingenuous position would seem to be the one that denies the plain intent of the Lord's statement that it applies to the Church universal, while only accepting it on hierarchical levels below the universal level.


It's a matter of opinion as to whether the Roman Church maintains the correct exegesis of this passage.

Quote
[quote]What seems most odd about this discussion is that for all their talk of "doctrinal development", Roman apologists seem to be so unwilling to admit that the Church believed differently once to what it does now - why?

Not sure how to respond to this one. I've never actually seen any reputable Catholic apologetics that claim the Primacy did not develop. I have encountered such claims from Absolutist Petrine advocates. Of course, I don't consider apologetics that defend the Absolutist Petrine view as reputable.


I'm prepared to take it as given that excesses in this area are absolutist Petrine and not reputable.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/20/13 04:46 PM

Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
I was talking about the terms universal bishop and head bishop implying each other - clearly the term bishop doesn't imply that a universal or head one need exist. ON the term bishop, I have never seen the term head bishop in patristic literature. Metropolitan yes (Patriarch is not strictly speaking an office, but a title of honour given to particular metropolitans). But a metropolitan is still a bishop and it is clear that they are bound by the same canons as refer to other bishops, plus some additional ones putting further parameters around their responsibilities. For example, that they can't ordain people where ever they want to in their metropolia without the local bishop's consent and they may not "go from place to place" without the consent of local bishops. In short, their bishops.

Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head..." Hence, head bishop. In the Oriental Othodox Tradition, Patriarchs have true jurisdiction, and regarded as the real spiritual and administrative head of his Patriarchal See. It is a position of honor, but not mere honor; it is an office that possesses real authority with responsibilities for his Patriarchal Church that no other metropolitan or local bishop within that Patriarchal Church possesses. This is also the way it is conceived of in the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Though all head bishops are bishops, not all bishops are head bishops (obviously). There are several important differences between the two:
(1) A bishop's authority is monarchical in nature; a head bishop's authority is presidential in nature.
(2) A bishop can act unilaterally for the good of his Church; a head bishop can only act collegially for the good of his Church.
(3) A bishop has the highest and sole discretion in exercising his authority; a head bishop exercises his authority only upon appeal and in agreement with his brother bishops.

The flaw in this understanding is that all metropolitans (instead of the term head bishop which seems undefined) are local bishops first and foremost themselves (of Rome, Moscow, Jerusalem or wherever else), and that local bishops also are accountable to a synod.

First, the Orthodox hierarchy does not stop at the Metropolitan level, but also has a Patriarchal level. Even metropolitans are subject to their Patriarch (well, in the OO understanding, at least; not sure about the EO understanding, which I think runs the gamut from Low Petrine to High Petrine).

Second, your last clause is exactly accomodated in the explanation of difference (2) and (3), so I'm not sure what "flaw" you are perceiving.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
If there is one who has jurisdiction over all, as implied by being head of all, he is universal.

The extent of jurisdiction (i.e. universality) is not the issue. Rather, the issue is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction, and (2) the idea of having only one bishop for the whole Church, with no need for any other bishop.

It is exactly the issue - you even have it as your point (1).

My point (1) has nothing to do with the extent of jurisdiction. As explained, the issue in the mind of Pope St. Gregory was the idea that the authority of other bishops would be rendered useless or unnecessary. This issue can exist on the metropolitan, patriarchal, or universal levels, so it is not the extent of jurisdiction that is important here. There is actually evidence of this in the EOC right now. IIRC, an EO Metropolitan in the U.S. has made all his suffragans mere auxiliary bishops. By definition, an auxiliary bishop only has a derived jurisdiction, not an ordinary and proper jurisdiction. Such a thing could never happen in the Catholic Church. Not even the Pope, in Catholic ecclesiology, would have the authority to demote a proper bishop to mere auxiliary status. In Catholic ecclesiology, bishops have an authority all their own that is directly from God, which no authority on earth has the right to take away. The Pope's responsibility (as asserted by Pastor Aeternus) is to defend and promote the rightful prerogatives of his brother bishops, not lessen or take them away.

Quote
Quote
As explained above, the nature of a bishop's jurisdiction is different from the nature of a head bishop's jurisdiction.

I don't really understand this - the limits of both are set by appropriate canons and are confined to local areas of larger or smaller scope.

Yes. The responsibilites of a Metropolitan as the head bishop of his Metropolitan See are different than his responsibilites as the bishop of his local diocese. Other local bishops do not have the same responsibilities or prerogatives as their Metropolitan head bishop. Further, the nature of a Metropolitan's jurisdiction as head bishop of his Metropolitan See is presidential, while the nature of his jurisdiction for his local diocese as its proper bishop is monarchical. You have to admit that the nature of the relationship between a bishop and the priests of whom he is head in his local Church is very different from the nature of the relationship between a head bishop and the bishops of whom he is head in a Metropolitan Church, a Patriarchal Church or the universal Church.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
And Pope Gregory clearly did deny the possibility of any such thing - both explicitly and implicitly. Most importantly, he denied the theological underpinnings for such a thing by denying that Peter had any role (as opposed to place of honour) that other apostles had - he was the head of a particular community. The only head of the Church is Christ.

This would be disingenuous. If the only head of the Church is Christ, then there would be no head bishops at all and the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 should not exist.

Are you denying that Christ is the only head of the Church here? I don't think so, but am pointing out that that is the implication of your statement.

My point was that just as the concept of a head bishop for a local Church does not contradict the dogma that Christ is the true head of the local Church, neither does the concept of a head bishop for the universal Church contradict the dogma that Christ is the true head of the universal Church.

Quote
Anyway assuming that the only head of the Church is Christ, I don't see what bearing that has on the existence of Bishops, deacons or anything else.

It has a lot of bearing because bishops are in fact the heads of their local Churches. If the bishop is the head of the local Church, does this mean Jesus is not the true head of the local Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Metropolitan is the head bishop of a Metroplitan Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Metropolitan Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Patriarch is the head bishop of a Patriarchal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Patriarchal Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the universal Church? Obviously not.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. (Book 5, letter 18)

This must be taken in context of his understanding of what it meant to say that Peter was a "universal Apostle" or that there is a "universal bishop." To Pope St. Gregory, calling Peter the "universal Apostle" meant that the rest of the Apostles had no relevance, that there would be no need for any other Apostle.

I don't see how this addresses the main point of the piece, which is that Peter was a head of a local church but had a place of honour as first apostle - kind of like the primacy of honour advocated by Orthodox.

My basic premise is the unanimous patristic belief that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., head) of the Apostles. It is obviously a false interpretation to claim that what Pope St. Gregory meant by the statement you quoted was that the Apostles did not in fact have a visible head among them in the person of St. Peter. This undeniable patristic fact that St. Peter was the acknowledged visible head of the Apostles while acknowledging the ultimate headship of Christ proves that:
(1) the belief that the Apostles (who together had a universal solicitude for the Church) can have a visible head in the person of St. Peter does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Apostles;
(2) likewise, the Catholic principle of a head bishop for the Church universal does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Church.

In other words, Pope St. Gregory's statement that each Apostle was a head of a paticular community and had Christ as their head was not a claim that the Apostles themselves did not have St. Peter as their coryphaeus (i.e., head). The point of stressing that St. Peter was just one of the Apostles who had Jesus as their head was not to deny that St. Peter was in fact established as their head by Jesus Himself (as the head servant in the parable of the faithful and wise servant set over the household when the master leaves), but rather to insist merely that St. Peter was not the ONLY Apostle created by Christ who had a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church. This was the only point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against assigning to St. Peter the role of "universal apostle." The analogy is obvious with regards to the concept of "universal bishop." The point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against the concept of a "universal bishop" was not to oppose the concept of a head bishop for the universal Church, but to oppose the idea that there was ONLY ONE bishop who has a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Perhaps we can spend some time discussing what you think the CC actually teaches regarding the Primacy.

Given that I grew up in the Catholic Church and was a member of a religious order, I think I'm across this.

Maybe you had an Absolutist Petrine conception of the papacy when you were Catholic, and perhaps you still view the Catholic teaching on the papacy through those lenses. If so, it would merit discussion and refutation (I mean, the Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy).

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
Why should they need it?

I think this question reflects a position that goes beyond the patristic evidence. All the Fathers of the Church admitted that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., the head) of the Apostles. Christ established him as such. St. Cyprian explained that he was established as a visible head to provide a principle of unity, because the Church is one. This visible principle of unity exists in the Catholic Church today in the papacy, just as it did for the Apostles in the person of St. Peter.

Both Cyprian and Augustine viewed Christ as the rock not Peter. Peter's confession, which is Christ, is the source of unity in the Church, not Peter. Unity flows through Christ on the altar as Eucharist, not from an office.

First, I admit I used to adhere to the "Christ is the rock not Peter" rationale. I don't anymore. I believe Scripture and the Fathers unanimously teach that the Rock is Christ, Peter, and Peter's Faith all at once. It is a false dichotomy to separate the three. I ask you, and please respond to this - what rationale can you offer for separating Peter from Christ and the Faith that he professed?

Second, the Council of Trent explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the source of the Church's unity (it is the Eucharist "which [Christ] desired to unify and unite all Christians"). I don't know who came up with the idea the it is an office (the papacy) that is the source of the Church's unity, but that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The papacy is simply a means by which the Church's unity is maintained, but it is not the papacy itself which causes or effects the unity of the Church. The means to maintain this unity was established by Christ Himself. Thus it is necessary, even if for that reason alone (that it was established by Christ).

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
More to the point, why should Rome alone have it, given that in another of his letters (Book 7, Letter 40) Gregory suggests that Peter only died in Rome and was never Bishop there, but that he was in Antioch?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rome alone should have it." What is it you think that Rome alone has? It certainly can't be infallibility - both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 taught that the entire Magisterium shares in infallibility, not just the Pope alone. It certainly can't be jurisdiction - both V1 and V2 taught that the Church is governed by the Pope and his brother bishops together. This "Rome alone" business is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor the belief of High Petrine advocates (though the sola papa error is certainly prevalent among Absolutist Petrine advocates, who in fact do not adhere to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy).

I mean the identification with Rome alone as having the Petrine succession,

Where does Pastor Aeternus teach that Rome alone has the Petrine succession? I haven't seen it. Obviously, the bishop of Antioch also has Petrine succession. The point of Pastor Aeternus is not that Rome alone has the Petrine succession, but that Rome alone has the primacy among bishops in the Church universal. Unless one can show from Tradition that any particular Church or group of Sees that comprise a Church has more than one primatial bishop, then this objection really doesn't hold any water. The very concept of primacy indicates that only one holds that position.

Quote
the Bishop of Rome alone occupying the Chair of Peter

It depends on what one means by "Chair of Peter." If one means the responsibility to maintain the unity of the Church as a whole, I agree that this responsibility is given to all bishops. If one means the position who holds the primacy for the sake of unity, then this can only refer to one person. And I don't know what rationale you can offer to challenge the idea that primacy can only refer to one person.

Quote
from which erroneous interpretation all else you mention flows. For example, in the decrees of the first Vatican Council:

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching

What is erroneous about this exactly? Having the highest power of teaching does not mean he is the only teaching authority in the Church. It only means that if there is a conflict in doctrine among the bishops, there should be one who can make a final decision if necessary. It does not mean he can at his mere discretion create doctrine out of the blue, nor does it mean that he has the authority to contradict Sacred Tradition. So please explain what you regard as erroneous about this?

Quote
No mention of sharing it with Antioch or Alexandria there (it would be worth noting that Cyrian's position was that all bishops shared in this chair - it's restriction to three sees was a typically Roman position, but one which however was still an improvement on identifying it with just one).

First, please explain why Antioch and Alexandria should be mentioned in a dogmatic decree. Do you think it is important as a dogma? That would be a strange claim from an Orthodox.

Second, St. Cyprian nowhere mentions that all bishops shared in this Chair. What he stated was that all bishops have a responsibility to maintain unity with this Chair. The Absolutist Petrine view goes one extreme, interpreting Petrine succession to belong to the bishop of Rome alone. The Low Petrine view goes the opposite extreme, interpreting this to mean that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. The High Petrine view understands the "Chair of Peter" to refer to the principle of unity to which all bishops, including the bishop of Rome, must adhere. The bishop of Rome himself is not excused from the responsibility of maintaining unity with this Chair of Peter. But while all bishops share in the responsibility of ensuring unity with the Chair of Peter, it is the bishop of Rome has the greatest share in this responsibility of ensuring this unity with the Chair of Peter, for he is the primatial bishop of the Church universal (having inherited this role from St. Peter). That is the greatest role of any and every head bishop at any level - to have the primary responsibility of ensuring the unity of the Church of which he is the head bishop. I believe the claim that all bishops are successors of St. Peter as if there was no such thing as a position of primacy is as much an eisegetic imposition into Church history by Low Petrine advocates as is the sola papa error of Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.

This is also disingenuous. I am sure you are as aware as anyone else that there is more than one way to interpret this passage - it doesn't follow that just because Rome uses this verse to justify itself that its the only way that it can be interpreted.

Far from denying the different interpretations, it is actually only the Catholic Church that adheres faithfully to all the possible interpretations of this passage - we have head bishops at all levels of the hierarchy. The disingenuous position would seem to be the one that denies the plain intent of the Lord's statement that it applies to the Church universal, while only accepting it on hierarchical levels below the universal level.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the Roman Church maintains the correct exegesis of this passage.

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. So the Catholic interpretation is not a novel thing. 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.

Blessings
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/21/13 01:21 AM

I just glanced through the post, but this caught my eye for immediate attention:
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm

Far from denying the different interpretations, it is actually only the Catholic Church that adheres faithfully to all the possible interpretations of this passage - we have head bishops at all levels of the hierarchy. The disingenuous position would seem to be the one that denies the plain intent of the Lord's statement that it applies to the Church universal, while only accepting it on hierarchical levels below the universal level.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the Roman Church maintains the correct exegesis of this passage.

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?
Quote
Wherefore He first says this, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over His household to give them their meat in their due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods.

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, neither does the Son know, you say He is ignorant of it; as He says, who then? what will you say? Will you say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, Peter, do you love me? John 21:16 asking it, knew He not so much as this? Nor when He said, Where have ye laid him? John 11:34

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200177.htm
LOL. It has NOTHING to do with the claims of Pastor Aeternus any more than St. John's reference to Sodom and Gomorrha (in the next, unquoted, lines) are identifying the Mother see of the Church.

Nothing on St. Peter. Nor on his successors. And not a thing on restricting his successors to those at Rome.

Originally Posted by mardukm

So the Catholic interpretation is not a novel thing.

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

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.

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. The hierarchy of the bishops comes from ecclesiastical, not divine, institution. 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.

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/21/13 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Originally Posted by 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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/21/13 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

That is a great response. But It appears your understanding of what the papacy is is different from my own. I accept the relevance of Pope St. Gregory's statements. I think we can both agree that Pope St. Gregory's assertions demolish the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy. However, as an adherent to the High Petrine view, I don't accept your interpretation of his statements.

Pope St. Gregory clearly denied the concept of a universal bishop, but he did not deny the concept of a head bishop for the Church universal. This is evident from his own actions in relation to the rest of the Church as a whole. There is a palpable difference between the concept of "universal bishop" and the concept of "head bishop of the Church universal." The difference can be understood when one considers the distinction between the concept of "bishop," on the one hand, and the concept of "head bishop," on the other. The important difference is that the authority of a bishop is monarchical in nature, while the authority of a head bishop is presidential in nature. A bishop as such can act unilaterally for the good of his Church. But a head bishop as such can never act alone. So, indeed, there is no such thing as a universal bishop - i.e., a bishop that has a prerogative to act unilaterally for the Church universal, without the agreement or involvement of his brother bishops, since all bishops share in the solicitude of the Church. The Catholic Church fully adheres to Pope St. Gregory's ecclesiology, and this is reflected in the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 on the papacy.

Of course, Absolutist Petrine advocates don't have this patristic conception of the papacy, and I have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates on their exaggerations of the papacy at the Catholic Answers Forum many times, sometimes heatedly. However, a head bishop of the Church universal is not the same thing as a universal bishop. I am with you, in agreement with Pope St. Gregory, as far as opposing the idea of a universal bishop (also, IIRC, Pope St. Leo also denied the title of "universal bishop" when the Fourth Ecum sought to grant him that title), but cannot agree with the claim that a head bishop is not a necessary reality of the Church universal. Our Lord Himself explicitly asserted that he will set one servant to take care of the other servants and his entire household by feeding them. And he indicated that this head servant will exist when He returns.

You are reading things which the Apostles did not put in the Gospel, let alone Christ.

Nor what your "magisterium" has put in them:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

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. 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

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. Have you debated him as well?

Of course Otsheylnik's understanding of the papacy differs from your own, as I've never seen anyone else but you embrace yours. Least of all, Archbishop St. Gregory or Pope Pius IX. 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.

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.

The question is not if the Catholic Church adheres to the ecclesiology of Arp. St. Gregory, but whether Abp. St. Gregory's eccelesiology adheres to that of the Catholic Church. The teachings of Vatican 1 and 2 certainly do not: "Absolutist Petrine advocates don't have [the] patristic conception of the papacy," but they did and have such authority to write such teachings into the constitution of your ecclesiastical community, and they exercised it both at Vatican I and Vatican II.

Btw, IIRC, Abp. St. Gregory claimed that the Fathers of Chalcedon (a rather odd Council of sorts for you to bring up) wanted to give him the title "Universal Bishop" to Abp. Leo almost two centuries before. I don't recall any such thing in the Acts, but lots of things that would contradict such an assertion.

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.

Do not confuse eisogesis for express statements.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/21/13 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm

Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head..." Hence, head bishop. In the Oriental Othodox Tradition, Patriarchs have true jurisdiction, and regarded as the real spiritual and administrative head of his Patriarchal See. It is a position of honor, but not mere honor; it is an office that possesses real authority with responsibilities for his Patriarchal Church that no other metropolitan or local bishop within that Patriarchal Church possesses. This is also the way it is conceived of in the Catholic Church.


That's all fine, but note the restriction to nation state - the bishops of every nation acknowledge him who is first amongst them. If Rome wants to restrict its jurisdiction to the Latin patriarchate and be the head bishop there, I have no qualms whatsoever. But a system in which people in another country (Greek, Russian whatever) acknowledge a head outside their nation is simply not envisaged in the quote you supply. Rome can do what it likes within his own see, and similarly as Metropolitan of the Roman provinces. But not in Russia, Greece, or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by mardukm

First, the Orthodox hierarchy does not stop at the Metropolitan level, but also has a Patriarchal level. Even metropolitans are subject to their Patriarch (well, in the OO understanding, at least; not sure about the EO understanding, which I think runs the gamut from Low Petrine to High Petrine).


Not really. Patriarch is a title given to senior metropolitans.

Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
If there is one who has jurisdiction over all, as implied by being head of all, he is universal.

The extent of jurisdiction (i.e. universality) is not the issue. Rather, the issue is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction, and (2) the idea of having only one bishop for the whole Church, with no need for any other bishop.

Quote
It is exactly the issue - you even have it as your point (1).

My point (1) has nothing to do with the extent of jurisdiction. As explained, the issue in the mind of Pope St. Gregory was the idea that the authority of other bishops would be rendered useless or unnecessary. This issue can exist on the metropolitan, patriarchal, or universal levels, so it is not the extent of jurisdiction that is important here. There is actually evidence of this in the EOC right now. IIRC, an EO Metropolitan in the U.S. has made all his suffragans mere auxiliary bishops. By definition, an auxiliary bishop only has a derived jurisdiction, not an ordinary and proper jurisdiction. Such a thing could never happen in the Catholic Church.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Bishop_of_Rome
Four auxiliary sees (does this concept make sense?) and some dead auxiliaries here: http://www.cam.org.au/Church-in-Melbourne/Bishops/What-are-Bishops-responsible-for.aspx
And a Coptic Catholic auxiliary (and now curial bishop, whatever that is) here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgolta.html

Quote
The responsibilites of a Metropolitan as the head bishop of his Metropolitan See are different than his responsibilites as the bishop of his local diocese. Other local bishops do not have the same responsibilities or prerogatives as their Metropolitan head bishop. Further, the nature of a Metropolitan's jurisdiction as head bishop of his Metropolitan See is presidential, while the nature of his jurisdiction for his local diocese as its proper bishop is monarchical. You have to admit that the nature of the relationship between a bishop and the priests of whom he is head in his local Church is very different from the nature of the relationship between a head bishop and the bishops of whom he is head in a Metropolitan Church, a Patriarchal Church or the universal Church.


I agree - obviously a bishop has a different relationship to bishops than to priests.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Quote
If the only head of the Church is Christ, then there would be no head bishops at all and the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 should not exist.

Are you denying that Christ is the only head of the Church here? I don't think so, but am pointing out that that is the implication of your statement.

My point was that just as the concept of a head bishop for a local Church does not contradict the dogma that Christ is the true head of the local Church, neither does the concept of a head bishop for the universal Church contradict the dogma that Christ is the true head of the universal Church.


If that was the point, I didn't really get it.

Quote
Quote
Anyway assuming that the only head of the Church is Christ, I don't see what bearing that has on the existence of Bishops, deacons or anything else.

It has a lot of bearing because bishops are in fact the heads of their local Churches. If the bishop is the head of the local Church, does this mean Jesus is not the true head of the local Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Metropolitan is the head bishop of a Metroplitan Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Metropolitan Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Patriarch is the head bishop of a Patriarchal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Patriarchal Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the universal Church? Obviously not.


You seem to be arguing here that the existence of bishops, head bishops, popes and whatever else has no bearing on the fact that Christ is the head of the Church. Whilst I don't disagree with this statement, its the precise opposite of the one that I was making.

Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. (Book 5, letter 18)

This must be taken in context of his understanding of what it meant to say that Peter was a "universal Apostle" or that there is a "universal bishop." To Pope St. Gregory, calling Peter the "universal Apostle" meant that the rest of the Apostles had no relevance, that there would be no need for any other Apostle.

I don't see how this addresses the main point of the piece, which is that Peter was a head of a local church but had a place of honour as first apostle - kind of like the primacy of honour advocated by Orthodox.

My basic premise is the unanimous patristic belief that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., head) of the Apostles. It is obviously a false interpretation to claim that what Pope St. Gregory meant by the statement you quoted was that the Apostles did not in fact have a visible head among them in the person of St. Peter. This undeniable patristic fact that St. Peter was the acknowledged visible head of the Apostles while acknowledging the ultimate headship of Christ proves that:
(1) the belief that the Apostles (who together had a universal solicitude for the Church) can have a visible head in the person of St. Peter does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Apostles;
(2) likewise, the Catholic principle of a head bishop for the Church universal does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Church.

In other words, Pope St. Gregory's statement that each Apostle was a head of a paticular community and had Christ as their head was not a claim that the Apostles themselves did not have St. Peter as their coryphaeus (i.e., head). The point of stressing that St. Peter was just one of the Apostles who had Jesus as their head was not to deny that St. Peter was in fact established as their head by Jesus Himself (as the head servant in the parable of the faithful and wise servant set over the household when the master leaves), but rather to insist merely that St. Peter was not the ONLY Apostle created by Christ who had a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church. This was the only point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against assigning to St. Peter the role of "universal apostle." The analogy is obvious with regards to the concept of "universal bishop." The point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against the concept of a "universal bishop" was not to oppose the concept of a head bishop for the universal Church, but to oppose the idea that there was ONLY ONE bishop who has a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church.


As arguments that universal doesn't actually mean universal that's a fair, if confusing, effort.

Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Perhaps we can spend some time discussing what you think the CC actually teaches regarding the Primacy.

Given that I grew up in the Catholic Church and was a member of a religious order, I think I'm across this.

Maybe you had an Absolutist Petrine conception of the papacy when you were Catholic, and perhaps you still view the Catholic teaching on the papacy through those lenses. If so, it would merit discussion and refutation (I mean, the Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy).

Like IAlmistry I'm bewildered by this tree of types of Petrine understanding. I thought there was just one position that the Catholic Church taught, but apparently I'm wrong.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Why should they need it?

I think this question reflects a position that goes beyond the patristic evidence. All the Fathers of the Church admitted that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., the head) of the Apostles. Christ established him as such. St. Cyprian explained that he was established as a visible head to provide a principle of unity, because the Church is one. This visible principle of unity exists in the Catholic Church today in the papacy, just as it did for the Apostles in the person of St. Peter.

Both Cyprian and Augustine viewed Christ as the rock not Peter. Peter's confession, which is Christ, is the source of unity in the Church, not Peter. Unity flows through Christ on the altar as Eucharist, not from an office.

First, I admit I used to adhere to the "Christ is the rock not Peter" rationale. I don't anymore. I believe Scripture and the Fathers unanimously teach that the Rock is Christ, Peter, and Peter's Faith all at once. It is a false dichotomy to separate the three. I ask you, and please respond to this - what rationale can you offer for separating Peter from Christ and the Faith that he professed?


I really don't understand what you're asking of me here. You seem to be saying that I have to some reason justify believing three exegetical perspectives are correct simultaneously. If that's what you're asking, my justification for not doing so is because it seems illogical to do so.

Quote
Second, the Council of Trent explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the source of the Church's unity (it is the Eucharist "which [Christ] desired to unify and unite all Christians"). I don't know who came up with the idea the it is an office (the papacy) that is the source of the Church's unity, but that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.


How about this?

And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. Lumen Gentium 18


Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/21/13 11:41 AM

Quote
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
from which erroneous interpretation all else you mention flows. For example, in the decrees of the first Vatican Council:

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching

What is erroneous about this exactly? Having the highest power of teaching does not mean he is the only teaching authority in the Church. It only means that if there is a conflict in doctrine among the bishops, there should be one who can make a final decision if necessary. It does not mean he can at his mere discretion create doctrine out of the blue, nor does it mean that he has the authority to contradict Sacred Tradition. So please explain what you regard as erroneous about this?


I regard as erroneous any unqualified statement that the Bishop is the successor of Peter. See, for a start, the numerous quotations I have given above from St Gregory regarding how the successors of Peter are "three bishops". Hence why I think if Rome is arguing that Pastor Aeternus is in keeping with Gregory's doctrine it should mention three bishops as successors to Peter - the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, or at least say "a successor". If they want to argue that they have a different doctrine to Gregory, they can keep what they have.

I think IAlmistry dealt with most of the other points here...
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/26/13 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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?[/quote]
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.

Quote
Nothing on restricting his successors to those at Rome.

That's in your own misinterpretation of Pastor Aeternus (along with the Absolutist Petrine advocates). 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.

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.

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. 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. The body and the head always work together, never apart from each other, for the good of the whole Church. 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. The very reality of the ecumenical council proves the error of the Low Petrine view in this regard. 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).

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.

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

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

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. 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.

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

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Originally Posted by 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?

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. 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? 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. 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.

Quote
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. 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.

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

Quote
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, or (2) you read Pastor Aeternus without understanding what the Fathers of V1 debated behind the scenes. 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. There are numerous such examples of eisegesis by Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine detractors. 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. It does not mean the Pope can do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants. 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 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. 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.

Quote
Least of all, Archbishop St. Gregory

Pope St. Gregoy did not have an Absolutist Petrine outlook.

Quote
...Pope Pius IX.

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

Quote
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 (2) any time he chooses, (3) without collaboration, (4) without consent, (5) without appeal. You say this is quite explicit, but I haven't seen it. 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).

Quote
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. When I think of "answerable," I mean being answerable to Sacred Tradition. which is the true judge in all matters. 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. Bishops, including the Pope, are servants of Sacred Tradition, and they cannot act apart from or in contradiction to it. Though there is no canonical means to depose a Pope, he can indeed lose his status by virtue of latae sententiae excommunication. 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. 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/26/13 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm

Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head..." Hence, head bishop. In the Oriental Othodox Tradition, Patriarchs have true jurisdiction, and regarded as the real spiritual and administrative head of his Patriarchal See. It is a position of honor, but not mere honor; it is an office that possesses real authority with responsibilities for his Patriarchal Church that no other metropolitan or local bishop within that Patriarchal Church possesses. This is also the way it is conceived of in the Catholic Church.


That's all fine, but note the restriction to nation state - the bishops of every nation acknowledge him who is first amongst them. If Rome wants to restrict its jurisdiction to the Latin patriarchate and be the head bishop there, I have no qualms whatsoever. But a system in which people in another country (Greek, Russian whatever) acknowledge a head outside their nation is simply not envisaged in the quote you supply.

One can infer the actual meaning of the Apostolic Canon when one compares it to the first recorded imitation of the Canon in a local Council, a Council of Antioch in 341 A.D:
"It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province, because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the times of our fathers, or such things only as pertains to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to tmanage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provisions for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle eerything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others."

Notice that the later canon is based on the more ancient one, and that the later canon refers to a smaller range of jurisdiction than the ancient one. Futher, the later canon bases the head bishopric in the metropolis (or capital), but the ancient one does not. Also, the ancient canon is not at all clear that the range of jurisdiction is being restricted to only one nation state. First of all, the ancient Greek term for "nation" had a more general meaning that was not restricted to political boundaries. Secondly, the Greek term for "every" is ambiguous. It could mean "each." Read in this way, it would support your view. But it could also mean "every" or "all." Read in this way, it can easily be interpreted as "all the bishops must acknowledge him who is head."

The Apostolic Canon is more ambiguous than the later canon from Antioch, as well it should be since the Apostolic Canon is a more general principle regarding head bishops, which can be applied at any level of the hierarchy (metropolitan, patriarchal, universal). So it would be eisegesis to restrict the Apostolic Canon to refer to only head bishops at the metropolical level, reading back into the Apostolic Canon an interpretative preference. The Catholic position (and the High Petrine position in general) does not restrict the Apostolic Canon in that way, and we recognize its relevance at all levels of the hierarchy.

Quote
Rome can do what it likes within his own see, and similarly as Metropolitan of the Roman provinces. But not in Russia, Greece, or anywhere else.

No head bishop can can do "what he likes."

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
First, the Orthodox hierarchy does not stop at the Metropolitan level, but also has a Patriarchal level. Even metropolitans are subject to their Patriarch (well, in the OO understanding, at least; not sure about the EO understanding, which I think runs the gamut from Low Petrine to High Petrine).

Not really. Patriarch is a title given to senior metropolitans.

I understand that you yourself don't conceive of a Patriarch as having real jurisdiction. But this is not the way the early Church understood it. If one reads the Canons of Nicea, one sees that the bishop of Alexandria is said to have jurisdiction in areas outside of his own local diocese. Of course, this jurisdiction is of a different nature than his jurisdiction for his own local diocese, as already explained previously. But it is a true jurisdiction nonetheless. This is one of the principal differences between the High and Low Petrine views, though we would both reject the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine view.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
The extent of jurisdiction (i.e. universality) is not the issue. Rather, the issue is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction, and (2) the idea of having only one bishop for the whole Church, with no need for any other bishop.

It is exactly the issue - you even have it as your point (1).

My point (1) has nothing to do with the extent of jurisdiction. As explained, the issue in the mind of Pope St. Gregory was the idea that the authority of other bishops would be rendered useless or unnecessary. This issue can exist on the metropolitan, patriarchal, or universal levels, so it is not the extent of jurisdiction that is important here. There is actually evidence of this in the EOC right now. IIRC, an EO Metropolitan in the U.S. has made all his suffragans mere auxiliary bishops. By definition, an auxiliary bishop only has a derived jurisdiction, not an ordinary and proper jurisdiction. Such a thing could never happen in the Catholic Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Bishop_of_Rome
Four auxiliary sees (does this concept make sense?) and some dead auxiliaries here: http://www.cam.org.au/Church-in-Melbourne/Bishops/What-are-Bishops-responsible-for.aspx
And a Coptic Catholic auxiliary (and now curial bishop, whatever that is) here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgolta.html

I did not say there is no such thing as an auxiliary bishop. I said that in the Catholic Church, a proper bishop cannot be simply demoted to an auxiliary status. Many dioceses have auxiliary bishops, and sometimes they can be promoted as a bishop of a particular diocese with proper jurisdiction. But short of heresy or a great public scandal, the proper jurisdiction of a bishop in the Catholic Church cannot be taken away, with the bishop being demoted to mere auxiliary status.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
The responsibilites of a Metropolitan as the head bishop of his Metropolitan See are different than his responsibilites as the bishop of his local diocese. Other local bishops do not have the same responsibilities or prerogatives as their Metropolitan head bishop. Further, the nature of a Metropolitan's jurisdiction as head bishop of his Metropolitan See is presidential, while the nature of his jurisdiction for his local diocese as its proper bishop is monarchical. You have to admit that the nature of the relationship between a bishop and the priests of whom he is head in his local Church is very different from the nature of the relationship between a head bishop and the bishops of whom he is head in a Metropolitan Church, a Patriarchal Church or the universal Church.

I agree - obviously a bishop has a different relationship to bishops than to priests.

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. That is not true. This is the misinterpretation that Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of V1 impose on the V1 decrees. The Catholic Church has never taught this. The relationship between the Pope and his brother bishops is the same relationship that any head bishop (patriarch, metropolitan, primate, etc.) has to his brother bishops, except the extent of jurisidction is simply greater (i.e., a Metropolitan's is for the Metropolitan See, a Patriarch's is for the Patriarchate, and the Pope's is for the whole Church). But the nature of jurisdiction is the same as that of any head bishop - i.e., it is presidential, not monarchical. The Pope is a head bishop, not a universal bishop. There are only two conceivable differences between the Pope's primacy, and the primacy of other head bishops:
(1) The Pope's primacy is considered to be from Christ as successor of St. Peter's primacy which was from Christ, while the primacy of other head bishops originated from the Church.
(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.
Here is what two national synods of bishops after V1 taught about the Decrees.
The German bishops:
"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."

The Swiss bishops:
"...he [the Pope] is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this previous line has great relevance to our discussion about the Popes relationship to his brother bishops]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society."

Both encyclicals met with approval from Pope Pius IX. These statements by no stretch of the imagination can be interpreted as Absolutist Petrine.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
It has a lot of bearing because bishops are in fact the heads of their local Churches. If the bishop is the head of the local Church, does this mean Jesus is not the true head of the local Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Metropolitan is the head bishop of a Metroplitan Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Metropolitan Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Patriarch is the head bishop of a Patriarchal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the Patriarchal Church? Obviously not. Similarly, does the fact that a Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church mean that Jesus is not the true head of the universal Church? Obviously not.

You seem to be arguing here that the existence of bishops, head bishops, popes and whatever else has no bearing on the fact that Christ is the head of the Church. Whilst I don't disagree with this statement, its the precise opposite of the one that I was making.

The basic principle is that any head in the Church (on whatever level - pope, patrarich, metropolitan, local bishop, abbot, protopriest, etc.) does not replace Christ, but simply represents Him.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
This must be taken in context of his understanding of what it meant to say that Peter was a "universal Apostle" or that there is a "universal bishop." To Pope St. Gregory, calling Peter the "universal Apostle" meant that the rest of the Apostles had no relevance, that there would be no need for any other Apostle.

I don't see how this addresses the main point of the piece, which is that Peter was a head of a local church but had a place of honour as first apostle - kind of like the primacy of honour advocated by Orthodox.

My basic premise is the unanimous patristic belief that St. Peter was the coryphaeus (i.e., head) of the Apostles. It is obviously a false interpretation to claim that what Pope St. Gregory meant by the statement you quoted was that the Apostles did not in fact have a visible head among them in the person of St. Peter. This undeniable patristic fact that St. Peter was the acknowledged visible head of the Apostles while acknowledging the ultimate headship of Christ proves that:
(1) the belief that the Apostles (who together had a universal solicitude for the Church) can have a visible head in the person of St. Peter does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Apostles;
(2) likewise, the Catholic principle of a head bishop for the Church universal does not diminish in any way the dogma that Christ is the head of the Church.

In other words, Pope St. Gregory's statement that each Apostle was a head of a paticular community and had Christ as their head was not a claim that the Apostles themselves did not have St. Peter as their coryphaeus (i.e., head). The point of stressing that St. Peter was just one of the Apostles who had Jesus as their head was not to deny that St. Peter was in fact established as their head by Jesus Himself (as the head servant in the parable of the faithful and wise servant set over the household when the master leaves), but rather to insist merely that St. Peter was not the ONLY Apostle created by Christ who had a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church. This was the only point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against assigning to St. Peter the role of "universal apostle." The analogy is obvious with regards to the concept of "universal bishop." The point of Pope St. Gregory's argument against the concept of a "universal bishop" was not to oppose the concept of a head bishop for the universal Church, but to oppose the idea that there was ONLY ONE bishop who has a sole, unilateral responsibility for the whole Church.

As arguments that universal doesn't actually mean universal that's a fair, if confusing, effort.

Thanks. But the argument is not that "universal" does not mean "universal." The argument is that the term "universal" does not mean "absolute with free license to do whatever one pleases." Asserting the geographical range of jurisdiction of a head bishop (metropolitan, patriarchal, or universal) is by no means equivalent to saying that the head bishop can simply replace his brother bishops within that geographical range of jurisdiction. As already affirmed, the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops is very different from the relationship between a bishop and his priests.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Perhaps we can spend some time discussing what you think the CC actually teaches regarding the Primacy.

Given that I grew up in the Catholic Church and was a member of a religious order, I think I'm across this.

Maybe you had an Absolutist Petrine conception of the papacy when you were Catholic, and perhaps you still view the Catholic teaching on the papacy through those lenses. If so, it would merit discussion and refutation (I mean, the Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy).

Like IAlmistry I'm bewildered by this tree of types of Petrine understanding. I thought there was just one position that the Catholic Church taught, but apparently I'm wrong.

To be perfectly clear, the Absolutist and High Petrine views exist in the Catholic Church. The High and Low Petrine views exist in the Orthodox Churches in general, with the Low Petrine view seemingly restricted to the EOC.

The difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views was very evident at Vatican 1. The Absolutist Petrine view was held by a group called the neo-ultramontanists. Their beliefs were very new, and actually originated only in the early 19th century from England. There were two types of neo-ultramontantists - political and theological. Political neo-ultramontanists were known for their belief in the deposing power of the Pope. Theological neo-ultramontanists held/hold the views that are most often criticized by non-Catholics (Orthodox and Protestant). Neo-ultramontanism was rejected by Vatican I. What non-Catholics call and criticize as "Ultramontanism" is actually "Neo-ultramontanism." Many V1 Fathers (of both the Minority and Majority parties) had commented that many are likely to misinterpret the words of [i]Pastor Aeternus on the Primacy - how true that is. This misinterpretation is the basis for the Absolutist Petrine view, and it is NOT the teaching of V1.[/i] Here is an interesting piece of information on Neo-ultramontanism: There is a popular report among detractors of V1 that a certain Bishop Lecourtier was so disgusted by the V1 Decrees that he tossed his copy of the Decrees into the river. Detractors of V1 advertise this incident to prove that the Minority Party at V1 thoroughly rejected the V1 Decrees. The truth of the matter is that Bishop Lecourtier was actually a member of the NEO-ultramontanist party at V1, not a member of the Minority party.

Despite the more obviously collegial intentions of V2, there was a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism after V2. These modern neo-ultramontantists believe more centralization is the only solution to the apparent liturgical chaos in the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, it is little wonder that the Absolutist Petrine view is very common among members of the SSPX and Traditional Catholics in general. I've also read that a contributing factor to the resurgence of neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) is the apparent (but false) belief that the Catholic Church has relaxed its teaching as being the one, true Church. These Absolutist Petrine advocates believe V2's teaching on collegiality is a symptom of this weakening in the Church's self-perception of being the one, true Church, and have reacted accordingly in their rejection or diminution of the Catholic Church's Traditional teaching and belief in collegiality.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Quote
Both Cyprian and Augustine viewed Christ as the rock not Peter. Peter's confession, which is Christ, is the source of unity in the Church, not Peter. Unity flows through Christ on the altar as Eucharist, not from an office.

First, I admit I used to adhere to the "Christ is the rock not Peter" rationale. I don't anymore. I believe Scripture and the Fathers unanimously teach that the Rock is Christ, Peter, and Peter's Faith all at once. It is a false dichotomy to separate the three. I ask you, and please respond to this - what rationale can you offer for separating Peter from Christ and the Faith that he professed?

I really don't understand what you're asking of me here. You seem to be saying that I have to some reason justify believing three exegetical perspectives are correct simultaneously. If that's what you're asking, my justification for not doing so is because it seems illogical to do so.

You don't seem to think it is illogical to believe that the Rock can simultaneously be Christ and St. Peter's confession. Why do you think it is illogical to regard St. Peter as the rock also?

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Second, the Council of Trent explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the source of the Church's unity (it is the Eucharist "which [Christ] desired to unify and unite all Christians"). I don't know who came up with the idea the it is an office (the papacy) that is the source of the Church's unity, but that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

How about this?
And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. Lumen Gentium 18

Thanks for the quote. When you mentioned "source," I interpreted that to mean the source of ontological unity. The papacy is not by any means the source of the Church's ontological unity. That can only be achieved with and by the Eucharist. On the other hand, I have no problem with the teaching that the papacy is the VISIBLE source of the Church's unity. The distinction between the ontological source of unity and the visible source of unity is evident in Jesus exhortation for unity in John 17. Christ taught that our unity is for a witness to those who are not in the Church. The Eucharist is not real for those who are outside the Church, so the Eucharist is not the sign of unity to the world that Christ intended. The Eucharist is indeed OUR sign and source of unity as Christians, members of the Church, but we need something else to be a sign and source of unity to the world, those who are not in the Church and who have no conception of or belief in the Eucharist. On this point, I have no doubt in my conscience that the papacy serves this purpose for the world who does not know Christ. The basic principles of sociology and psychology dictate that it is leadership which is the most evident sign and source of unity in any ordered society. I suspect (and believe) this is why Christ established St. Peter as the coryphaeus of the Apostles, as the VISIBLE source and sign of unity of His Church for those who did not know Him. In St. Cyprian's words, he was the principle of unity of the Apostles. Just as the Apostles needed this principle of unity - something to consider: maybe just as much for themselves as for a witness to the world who did not know Christ - so does the Church today.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
from which erroneous interpretation all else you mention flows. For example, in the decrees of the first Vatican Council
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching

What is erroneous about this exactly? Having the highest power of teaching does not mean he is the only teaching authority in the Church. It only means that if there is a conflict in doctrine among the bishops, there should be one who can make a final decision if necessary. It does not mean he can at his mere discretion create doctrine out of the blue, nor does it mean that he has the authority to contradict Sacred Tradition. So please explain what you regard as erroneous about this?

I regard as erroneous any unqualified statement that the Bishop is the successor of Peter.

But it's not unqualified. The context clearly indicates that the Decree is about the succession of the Primacy, not succession in general.

Quote
See, for a start, the numerous quotations I have given above from St Gregory regarding how the successors of Peter are "three bishops". Hence why I think if Rome is arguing that Pastor Aeternus is in keeping with Gregory's doctrine it should mention three bishops as successors to Peter - the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, or at least say "a successor." If they want to argue that they have a different doctrine to Gregory, they can keep what they have.

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.

I once debated an Absolujtist Petrine advocate at CAF, and it was a shock for me to learn that he was completely UNaware that the following statement from Pastor Aeternus existed:
"The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeed in the place of the Apostles, to feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather their power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by the same aupreme and universal shepherd."

He could probably recite the dogma by heart, but he had not laid his eyes on anything else in the Decree apart from the other sections which, when taken out of context, can be imagined to support an Absolutist Petrine misunderstanding of the Decree. So devoid of the knowledge of this context, he had the belief that the Pope could indeed replace any bishop in a local diocese at his mere discretion. Needless to say, the one I debated never heard of the official Relatio of Vatican 1 either.

It is a rather unfortunate fact that many Latin Catholics, when they speak of dogma, think that the only thing that is authoritative is the dogma itself, and often neglect anything else that is taught by the Magisterium. A perfect example is the idea that Mary did not die. The Apostolic Constitution on the dogma of the Assumption clearly mentions her death several times. Yet, it amazes me that certain Catholics can have such an easy conscience about rejecting the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium of the Church, which is reflected in the statements that accompany any dogma. Eastern and Oriental Catholics generally do not have this same outlook on Sacred Tradition. To us, what is dogmatized is NOT the only authoritative kind of teaching in the Church. Dogma really only reflects that a certain belief has come into focus due to disagreement or special concern. It does not mean that what is not dogmatized can so easily be neglected or rejected. A lot of Catholics (and "non-"Catholics) fail to realize that infallibility exists not just in the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (responsible for the proclamation of dogma), but also in the universal, ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei of the Church. A lot of Catholics (and "non-"Catholics) fail to consider that perhaps a teaching is not dogmatized simply because it has never been questioned, and its lack of dogmatization should not be taken as a gauge of the authority (or lack thereof) of a certain teaching for the Church. I think what happens is that former Latin Catholics unintentionally carry their Latin outlook over into their new Church environment. Despite their claim to adhere to the Eastern or Oriental phrenoma, they still view the concept of dogma in the same way as it is popularly conceived in the Latin Catholic Tradition. So in their criticism of the Catholic Church, they only focus on this or that little snippet that is the dogmatic statement, neglecting its proper context. Again, I'm not saying this is done intentionally.

Blessings
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Notice that the later canon is based on the more ancient one, and that the later canon refers to a smaller range of jurisdiction than the ancient one. Futher, the later canon bases the head bishopric in the metropolis (or capital), but the ancient one does not. Also, the ancient canon is not at all clear that the range of jurisdiction is being restricted to only one nation state. First of all, the ancient Greek term for "nation" had a more general meaning that was not restricted to political boundaries. Secondly, the Greek term for "every" is ambiguous. It could mean "each." Read in this way, it would support your view. But it could also mean "every" or "all." Read in this way, it can easily be interpreted as "all the bishops must acknowledge him who is head."

The Apostolic Canon is more ambiguous than the later canon from Antioch, as well it should be since the Apostolic Canon is a more general principle regarding head bishops, which can be applied at any level of the hierarchy (metropolitan, patriarchal, universal). So it would be eisegesis to restrict the Apostolic Canon to refer to only head bishops at the metropolical level, reading back into the Apostolic Canon an interpretative preference. The Catholic position (and the High Petrine position in general) does not restrict the Apostolic Canon in that way, and we recognize its relevance at all levels of the hierarchy.


I must object that the eisegesis here is in your reading of the Greek. Firstly, the Greek word for every, hekaston takes the meaning of all in the plural. When it appears in the singular, it takes the meaning of each. Secondly, while you are right that ethnos has more meanings than "nation," there is no reading of the term ethnos which supports your reading of the canon in a universal manner.

The first clause of the Canon reads: tous episkopous hekastou ethnous eidenai chre ton en autois proton... (The bishops of each province must recognize the first among them...)

"Of each nation" appears in the singular, which makes it highly untenable to argue that this clause is establishing any sort of universal jurisdiction. The first among them cannot be a bishop beyond their ethnos, as such a bishop would not be en autois; (among them). Only if the canon read tous episkopous hekaston ethnon (the bishops of all nations) would your argument hold, and even then, it would not be definitive, but only open to two interpretations, because there would be an ambiguityowing to the fact that hekaston, when it appears in the plural means all severally (as opposed to all in a collective manner)as to whether en autois would refer to the collection of bishops of one ethnos, or to the collection of bishops from all ethne.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
First, the Orthodox hierarchy does not stop at the Metropolitan level, but also has a Patriarchal level. Even metropolitans are subject to their Patriarch (well, in the OO understanding, at least; not sure about the EO understanding, which I think runs the gamut from Low Petrine to High Petrine).

Not really. Patriarch is a title given to senior metropolitans.

I understand that you yourself don't conceive of a Patriarch as having real jurisdiction.

I think that's a really unfair characterisation of my position. Of course they have jurisdiction. The fact is that in the ante-Nicene Church the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, etc. were talked of as metropolitans. Various canons set the limits of the jurisdiction of these metropolitans. They were given the title of Patriarch later on, but this didn't necessarily imply anything additional to that previously given to them.


Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
You have to admit that the nature of the relationship between a bishop and the priests of whom he is head in his local Church is very different from the nature of the relationship between a head bishop and the bishops of whom he is head in a Metropolitan Church, a Patriarchal Church or the universal Church.

I agree - obviously a bishop has a different relationship to bishops than to priests.

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.


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?


Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik

You seem to be arguing here that the existence of bishops, head bishops, popes and whatever else has no bearing on the fact that Christ is the head of the Church. Whilst I don't disagree with this statement, its the precise opposite of the one that I was making.

The basic principle is that any head in the Church (on whatever level - pope, patrarich, metropolitan, local bishop, abbot, protopriest, etc.) does not replace Christ, but simply represents Him.

Again, I'm not really sure why you're making this point - I was making the opposite one. I don't disagree with the point you're making. What I do disagree with is the suggestion that a particular ecclesiastical structure exists by divine right (as in the points from the German and Swiss bishops above saying that bishops existed by divine intent). I don't think it's that simple. Did Jesus appoint people bishops or deacons? No, of course not. These offices came to exist in the Apostolic Church by a process of discernment, and their functions were similarly delimited over time. As I noted, there was for some time only a very vague distinction between the presbyterate and the episcopate, so much so that the terms were used interchangeably, and it is beyond contention that the diaconate did not function in the way it dopes now (for example, they used to celebrate the Eucharist and hear confessions). My point is that the way these things have now been decided to work is a long historical process. It can't be said that "because Christ is head of the Church we must have this structure", which is more or less what people are arguing when they read things about the episcopate into the dialogue with Peter. I argue that the most that can be argued that the structure we have come to use is not contradictory to the message of Christ. Our ecclesiastical structures are not the only ones we could have had, we could have had different ones.

Originally Posted by mardukm
To be perfectly clear, the Absolutist and High Petrine views exist in the Catholic Church. The High and Low Petrine views exist in the Orthodox Churches in general, with the Low Petrine view seemingly restricted to the EOC.

The difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views was very evident at Vatican 1. The Absolutist Petrine view was held by a group called the neo-ultramontanists. Their beliefs were very new, and actually originated only in the early 19th century from England. There were two types of neo-ultramontantists - political and theological. Political neo-ultramontanists were known for their belief in the deposing power of the Pope. Theological neo-ultramontanists held/hold the views that are most often criticized by non-Catholics (Orthodox and Protestant). Neo-ultramontanism was rejected by Vatican I. What non-Catholics call and criticize as "Ultramontanism" is actually "Neo-ultramontanism." Many V1 Fathers (of both the Minority and Majority parties) had commented that many are likely to misinterpret the words of [i]Pastor Aeternus on the Primacy - how true that is. This misinterpretation is the basis for the Absolutist Petrine view, and it is NOT the teaching of V1.[/i] Here is an interesting piece of information on Neo-ultramontanism: There is a popular report among detractors of V1 that a certain Bishop Lecourtier was so disgusted by the V1 Decrees that he tossed his copy of the Decrees into the river. Detractors of V1 advertise this incident to prove that the Minority Party at V1 thoroughly rejected the V1 Decrees. The truth of the matter is that Bishop Lecourtier was actually a member of the NEO-ultramontanist party at V1, not a member of the Minority party.

Despite the more obviously collegial intentions of V2, there was a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism after V2. These modern neo-ultramontantists believe more centralization is the only solution to the apparent liturgical chaos in the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, it is little wonder that the Absolutist Petrine view is very common among members of the SSPX and Traditional Catholics in general. I've also read that a contributing factor to the resurgence of neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) is the apparent (but false) belief that the Catholic Church has relaxed its teaching as being the one, true Church. These Absolutist Petrine advocates believe V2's teaching on collegiality is a symptom of this weakening in the Church's self-perception of being the one, true Church, and have reacted accordingly in their rejection or diminution of the Catholic Church's Traditional teaching and belief in collegiality.


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?

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Both Cyprian and Augustine viewed Christ as the rock not Peter. Peter's confession, which is Christ, is the source of unity in the Church, not Peter. Unity flows through Christ on the altar as Eucharist, not from an office.

First, I admit I used to adhere to the "Christ is the rock not Peter" rationale. I don't anymore. I believe Scripture and the Fathers unanimously teach that the Rock is Christ, Peter, and Peter's Faith all at once. It is a false dichotomy to separate the three. I ask you, and please respond to this - what rationale can you offer for separating Peter from Christ and the Faith that he professed?
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
I really don't understand what you're asking of me here. You seem to be saying that I have to some reason justify believing three exegetical perspectives are correct simultaneously. If that's what you're asking, my justification for not doing so is because it seems illogical to do so.

You don't seem to think it is illogical to believe that the Rock can simultaneously be Christ and St. Peter's confession. Why do you think it is illogical to regard St. Peter as the rock also?


Peter's confession is not the rock, it is "rocky" or "rock-like". There's a distinction.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
from which erroneous interpretation all else you mention flows. For example, in the decrees of the first Vatican Council
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching

What is erroneous about this exactly? Having the highest power of teaching does not mean he is the only teaching authority in the Church. It only means that if there is a conflict in doctrine among the bishops, there should be one who can make a final decision if necessary. It does not mean he can at his mere discretion create doctrine out of the blue, nor does it mean that he has the authority to contradict Sacred Tradition. So please explain what you regard as erroneous about this?
Quote
I regard as erroneous any unqualified statement that the Bishop is the successor of Peter.

But it's not unqualified. The context clearly indicates that the Decree is about the succession of the Primacy, not succession in general.

I think that's a semantic defense. It's like arguing that "Alexandria and Antioch are successors to the chair of Peter, but only Rome is successor to both the Chair and primacy of Peter". It seems like casuistry to me. Or a bit like episcopi vagantes who ordain people and say "I'm going to give you only one of my lines of succession". Either you're a successor or you're not.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
See, for a start, the numerous quotations I have given above from St Gregory regarding how the successors of Peter are "three bishops". Hence why I think if Rome is arguing that Pastor Aeternus is in keeping with Gregory's doctrine it should mention three bishops as successors to Peter - the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, or at least say "a successor." If they want to argue that they have a different doctrine to Gregory, they can keep what they have.

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.

Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 07:43 PM

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.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Not really. Patriarch is a title given to senior metropolitans.

I understand that you yourself don't conceive of a Patriarch as having real jurisdiction.

I think that's a really unfair characterisation of my position. Of course they have jurisdiction. The fact is that in the ante-Nicene Church the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, etc. were talked of as metropolitans. Various canons set the limits of the jurisdiction of these metropolitans. They were given the title of Patriarch later on, but this didn't necessarily imply anything additional to that previously given to them.

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?

Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
You have to admit that the nature of the relationship between a bishop and the priests of whom he is head in his local Church is very different from the nature of the relationship between a head bishop and the bishops of whom he is head in a Metropolitan Church, a Patriarchal Church or the universal Church.

I agree - obviously a bishop has a different relationship to bishops than to priests.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik

You seem to be arguing here that the existence of bishops, head bishops, popes and whatever else has no bearing on the fact that Christ is the head of the Church. Whilst I don't disagree with this statement, its the precise opposite of the one that I was making.

The basic principle is that any head in the Church (on whatever level - pope, patrarich, metropolitan, local bishop, abbot, protopriest, etc.) does not replace Christ, but simply represents Him.

Again, I'm not really sure why you're making this point - I was making the opposite one. I don't disagree with the point you're making. What I do disagree with is the suggestion that a particular ecclesiastical structure exists by divine right (as in the points from the German and Swiss bishops above saying that bishops existed by divine intent). I don't think it's that simple. Did Jesus appoint people bishops or deacons? No, of course not. These offices came to exist in the Apostolic Church by a process of discernment, and their functions were similarly delimited over time. As I noted, there was for some time only a very vague distinction between the presbyterate and the episcopate, so much so that the terms were used interchangeably, and it is beyond contention that the diaconate did not function in the way it dopes now (for example, they used to celebrate the Eucharist and hear confessions). My point is that the way these things have now been decided to work is a long historical process. It can't be said that "because Christ is head of the Church we must have this structure", which is more or less what people are arguing when they read things about the episcopate into the dialogue with Peter. I argue that the most that can be argued that the structure we have come to use is not contradictory to the message of Christ. Our ecclesiastical structures are not the only ones we could have had, we could have had different ones.

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.

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
The difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views was very evident at Vatican 1. The Absolutist Petrine view was held by a group called the neo-ultramontanists. Their beliefs were very new, and actually originated only in the early 19th century from England. There were two types of neo-ultramontantists - political and theological. Political neo-ultramontanists were known for their belief in the deposing power of the Pope. Theological neo-ultramontanists held/hold the views that are most often criticized by non-Catholics (Orthodox and Protestant). Neo-ultramontanism was rejected by Vatican I. What non-Catholics call and criticize as "Ultramontanism" is actually "Neo-ultramontanism." Many V1 Fathers (of both the Minority and Majority parties) had commented that many are likely to misinterpret the words of [i]Pastor Aeternus on the Primacy - how true that is. This misinterpretation is the basis for the Absolutist Petrine view, and it is NOT the teaching of V1.[/i] Here is an interesting piece of information on Neo-ultramontanism: There is a popular report among detractors of V1 that a certain Bishop Lecourtier was so disgusted by the V1 Decrees that he tossed his copy of the Decrees into the river. Detractors of V1 advertise this incident to prove that the Minority Party at V1 thoroughly rejected the V1 Decrees. The truth of the matter is that Bishop Lecourtier was actually a member of the NEO-ultramontanist party at V1, not a member of the Minority party.

Despite the more obviously collegial intentions of V2, there was a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism after V2. These modern neo-ultramontantists believe more centralization is the only solution to the apparent liturgical chaos in the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, it is little wonder that the Absolutist Petrine view is very common among members of the SSPX and Traditional Catholics in general. I've also read that a contributing factor to the resurgence of neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) is the apparent (but false) belief that the Catholic Church has relaxed its teaching as being the one, true Church. These Absolutist Petrine advocates believe V2's teaching on collegiality is a symptom of this weakening in the Church's self-perception of being the one, true Church, and have reacted accordingly in their rejection or diminution of the Catholic Church's Traditional teaching and belief in collegiality.

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. As far as "papal infallibility" is concerned, the official position of the Catholic Church is contained in the official Relatio. The Relatio was the official interpretation of the Decree on "Papal Infallibility" given a few days before the final voting on the Decrees. The interpretation was proposed by Bishop Gasser of Brixen, the official spokesperson for the Committee De Fide, the committee responsible for drafting the Decrees. He was specifically chosen for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the Decree on "Papal Infallibility." It basically demolishes most of the misinterpretations imposed on the Church's teaching on "Papal Infallibility" proposed by Catholic Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and non-Catholic detractors. Unfortunately, not too many people know about the official Relatio.

As far as the Primacy, there is not a more ready explanation as there is with "papal infallibility" (though one can infer some things about the Primacy from the official Relatio). One really needs to investigate the debates - what the member bishops stated - and the changes that were made to the Decree on the Primacy as a result of these debates in order to understand its true meaning. This is how we come to understand the intentions of the Fathers of our common Councils in the first millenium, and we should apply the same standard to the Vatican Council. There are several statements in the Decree on the Primacy that, without a proper knowledge of the background debates, can lead to the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine view. I asked brother Isa where in Pastor Aeternus he feels he finds support for his opinion that the Pope can act without appeal, without counsel, etc. , etc., etc. I assume his position is different from mine because he does not have the same knowledge about the background of the V1 Decrees that I came to possess due to my study of the matter in the process of whether I should join the Catholic Church. If he will respond to my question and give the specific portions of Pastor Aeternus that he feels supports his opinions, I will offer appropriate responses to demonstrate that his understanding was not the intention of the Council Fathers.

Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Quote
Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
First, I admit I used to adhere to the "Christ is the rock not Peter" rationale. I don't anymore. I believe Scripture and the Fathers unanimously teach that the Rock is Christ, Peter, and Peter's Faith all at once. It is a false dichotomy to separate the three. I ask you, and please respond to this - what rationale can you offer for separating Peter from Christ and the Faith that he professed?

I really don't understand what you're asking of me here. You seem to be saying that I have to some reason justify believing three exegetical perspectives are correct simultaneously. If that's what you're asking, my justification for not doing so is because it seems illogical to do so.

You don't seem to think it is illogical to believe that the Rock can simultaneously be Christ and St. Peter's confession. Why do you think it is illogical to regard St. Peter as the rock also?

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."

Originally Posted by otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
I regard as erroneous any unqualified statement that the Bishop is the successor of Peter.

But it's not unqualified. The context clearly indicates that the Decree is about the succession of the Primacy, not succession in general.

I think that's a semantic defense. It's like arguing that "Alexandria and Antioch are successors to the chair of Peter, but only Rome is successor to both the Chair and primacy of Peter". It seems like casuistry to me. Or a bit like episcopi vagantes who ordain people and say "I'm going to give you only one of my lines of succession". Either you're a successor or you're not.

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.

Blessings
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 08:04 PM

That's a lot of bandwidth burn't for very little illumination.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik

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.


I do not know if I will provide more enlightenment, but I will try to use less bandwidth. Here is my answer to your question: Because it might be supposed that whomever he appointed to oversee the churches of Antioch and Alexandria succeeded him as bishops of those churches. Peter moved on and took the primacy of the Apostolic College with him. It seems that it was the common belief in the ancient Church that Peter ended his sojourn in Rome where he was martyred. It might be supposed that those appointed to preside there in his place inherited his primacy in the Church. That seems to be the simple logic behind Catholic belief, and I do not think it is far-fetched.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/27/13 11:41 PM

Dear Cavaradossi,

THANK YOU for providing the Greek original and for helping to resolve this matter, but not in the way you migh think. If you have copied the original Greek text correctly, I'm afraid it actually supports the Catholic position without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
I must object that the eisegesis here is in your reading of the Greek. Firstly, the Greek word for every, hekaston takes the meaning of all in the plural. When it appears in the singular, it takes the meaning of each. Secondly, while you are right that ethnos has more meanings than "nation," there is no reading of the term ethnos which supports your reading of the canon in a universal manner.

First of all, hekaston can take on the meaning of "all" even if it is not in the plural; it can take on the meaning of "each" even if it is not in the singular. As an adjective, it will be plural or singular only depending on the noun it is modifying. If the noun is in the plural form, it will be in the plural; if the noun is in the singular form, it will be in the singular. You cannot restrict the meaning of hekaston merely on whether it is in the singular or plural form.

Secondly, it is obvious from the Greek (if you have copied it correctly) that hekastos is in fact not acting as an adjective. If it was acting as an adjective, it would have to agree in number with what it is modifying. However, ethnous is in plural, while hekastou is in the singular. This indicates that hekastou is not acting as an adjective, but as a substantive. It is ethnous that is in fact acting as an adjective, modifying the noun episkopous. Thus, the correct reading of the text in English is "The national bishops of every one [that is, all people] must recognize who is first among them..."

Quote
The first clause of the Canon reads: tous episkopous hekastou ethnous eidenai chre ton en autois proton... (The bishops of each province must recognize the first among them...)

I'm not sure why you translate ethnous as "province." And I don't understand the point about being "among them." Even if taken in a universal context, the bishop of Rome would still be one of the bishops of the Church universal, and hence "among them." I'd be more inclined to agree with your point if it was to stress that the Canon underscores that the head bishop is "among them," not "above them." smile

But Greek is Greek. smile It is extremely, extremely difficult to interpret the Greek as "the bishops of each nation," but perhaps there was a gloss from the copyists. So I am willing to concede the possibility that it can apply merely to the context of one nation. But this possibility admits it is only a possibility, and that the universal context is an equally cogent understanding. On the whole, there is no good reason to restrict the meaning to only one interpretation.

Blessings
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/28/13 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear Cavaradossi,

THANK YOU for providing the Greek original and for helping to resolve this matter, but not in the way you migh think. If you have copied the original Greek text correctly, I'm afraid it actually supports the Catholic position without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
I must object that the eisegesis here is in your reading of the Greek. Firstly, the Greek word for every, hekaston takes the meaning of all in the plural. When it appears in the singular, it takes the meaning of each. Secondly, while you are right that ethnos has more meanings than "nation," there is no reading of the term ethnos which supports your reading of the canon in a universal manner.

First of all, hekaston can take on the meaning of "all" even if it is not in the plural; it can take on the meaning of "each" even if it is not in the singular. As an adjective, it will be plural or singular only depending on the noun it is modifying. If the noun is in the plural form, it will be in the plural; if the noun is in the singular form, it will be in the singular. You cannot restrict the meaning of hekaston merely on whether it is in the singular or plural form.

Hekastos has the meaning of each or of all severally. The idea expressed really changes very little in Greek, but in English, the word "each" does not agree with nouns in the plural (e.g., "each nations" is grammatically incorrect), and "all" does not agree with nouns in the singular (e.g., "all nation" is also a grammatical error). In English, all can carry both a several meaning and a joint or collective meaning. So for example, to tell a group of people, "you are all liable," could have different meanings: it could be meant that they are all severally liable, i.e., they each have a limited liability separate from the liability of other members of the group, such that if one of them dies, the other members are not liable for whatever the dead member was liable for individually; or it could be meant that they are jointly liable, which means that they are all liable as a whole, so that if one of them dies the group as a whole still carries the same liability.

Hekastos, however, only has the meaning of all severally, and not of all jointly, and it is translated as "all" in order to maintain agreement between the adjective and the noun without changing the number of the noun. Thus as a rule of thumb, if keeping the number of the noun the same it is proper to translate hekastos as "each" and hekastoi as "all." Hekastos, however, simply does not carry the meaning of "all jointly." If the canon read something like "Tous episkopous pantwn ethnwn," you might have a definitive case for reading the canon in a universal fashion, but as I pointed out earlier, the word hekastos is problematic for your reading of this canon, because of the meaning it carries, such that even trying to read "tous episkopous hekastwn ethnwn" (the bishops of all nations severally) in a universal way is not really the most natural reading, and reading "tous episkopous hekastou ethnous" in a universal way is untenable.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Secondly, it is obvious from the Greek (if you have copied it correctly) that hekastos is in fact not acting as an adjective. If it was acting as an adjective, it would have to agree in number with what it is modifying. However, ethnous is in plural, while hekastou is in the singular. This indicates that hekastou is not acting as an adjective, but as a substantive. It is ethnous that is in fact acting as an adjective, modifying the noun episkopous. Thus, the correct reading of the text in English is "The national bishops of every one [that is, all people] must recognize who is first among them..."

Evidently, the Greek is not "obvious" at all, because there are several egregious errors in your analysis of the Greek. Ethnos is a third declension noun, not second declension. Ethnous is not the plural accusative of ethnos, but it is the contracted form of the singular genitive of ethnos (i.e., ethnoos-->ethnous, instead of the alternative form ethneos for the genitive singular). Hekastou, a singular genitive adjective (not noun) is modifying the singular genitive noun ethnous, and hekastou ethnous is acting as a partitive genitive modifying episkopous.

To run through the syntax of just this phrase, we have tous (article pl masc acc) episkopous (noun pl masc acc) hekastou (adj sg neut gen, modifies ethnous) ethnous (noun sg neut gen, limits episkopous as a partitive genitive), which should unquestionably be translated as "The bishops of each nation." If you disagree, then please supply some sort of analysis based on proper Greek grammar.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
The first clause of the Canon reads: tous episkopous hekastou ethnous eidenai chre ton en autois proton... (The bishops of each province must recognize the first among them...)

I'm not sure why you translate ethnous as "province."

Because you objected that ethnos has several meanings, so I am simply translating it with multiple meanings (nation, province, etc., with province being an especially likely meaning, since the word ethnos commonly carried this meaning in Roman times) to demonstrate that no matter what meaning of ethnos is used, the canon simply cannot be read to support a universal primacy.

Originally Posted by mardukm
And I don't understand the point about being "among them." Even if taken in a universal context, the bishop of Rome would still be one of the bishops of the Church universal, and hence "among them." I'd be more inclined to agree with your point if it was to stress that the Canon underscores that the head bishop is "among them," not "above them." smile

"En autois" uses a construction of the preposition "en" which shows that something is taken from a collection of things of which it is also part. The term autois here refers back to the subject of the clause, tous episkopous hekastou ethnous. If the intention here were to detail a universal primacy, the use of the term hekastou would make no sense with the later use of en autois, because bishop of Rome is not a member of the bishops of each ethnos, but only a member of the bishops of his particular ethnos. Again, if it had read "tous episkopous pantwn ethnwn," your reading of the canon would make sense, as the bishop of Rome is definitely en tois episkopois pantwn ethnwn, but he is not en tois episkopois hekastou ethnous, and that is why the canon reading, "tous episkopous hekastou ethnous," is problematic for your interpretation.

Originally Posted by mardukm
But Greek is Greek. smile It is extremely, extremely difficult to interpret the Greek as "the bishops of each nation," but perhaps there was a gloss from the copyists.

Actually that would be the standard interpretation of the canon, and I would contend the only one that makes sense grammatically.

Originally Posted by mardukm
So I am willing to concede the possibility that it can apply merely to the context of one nation. But this possibility admits it is only a possibility, and that the universal context is an equally cogent understanding. On the whole, there is no good reason to restrict the meaning to only one interpretation.

Again, it simply does not work well when en autois is referring back to tous episkopous hekastou ethnous.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/28/13 07:19 AM

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
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/28/13 11:37 PM

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?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/30/13 04:02 PM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/31/13 01:13 AM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/31/13 09:50 AM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 01/31/13 08:59 PM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 12:20 AM

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.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 11:31 AM

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
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 06:52 PM

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 headthe 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.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 07:36 PM

Quote
What weve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. Theres no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what weve made out of the papacy. That doesnt mean that I dont believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But theres no reason on Gods earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.

Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Interview with Father Robert Taft, SJ.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 08:19 PM

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 Mara Claret y Clar (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 alsounder 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).
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/01/13 11:05 PM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 02:11 AM

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 infallibilityeven 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 writera 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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 04:20 AM

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.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 05:32 AM

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.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 03:29 PM

Quote
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.


And, ah, poor we, the heterodox Catholic have been hoodwinked by the Vatican, and our own ignorance of history, Scripture, Tradition and the Fathers all these many centuries. It's even worse to think that our sacramental life has been devoid of grace all these years. You've laid us very low, indeed.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
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.


And, ah, poor we, the heterodox Catholic have been hoodwinked by the Vatican, and our own ignorance of history, Scripture, Tradition and the Fathers all these many centuries. It's even worse to think that our sacramental life has been devoid of grace all these years. You've laid us very low, indeed.

Done no such thing. They are what they are.

Btw, in the schema Apotheon outlined above (pretty accurately IMHO), I fall among those "that some think there is grace in Catholic sacraments." I don't go for re-baptism, re-ordination. I'm not crazy about re-chrismation. If I happen to go into a church were adoration is going on, I prostrate.

Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.

Did the Vatican not accurately outline and portray what it sees as the workings of "both lungs" breathing together in CCEO?
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.

It is wishful thinking to claim that the body of canons of the Orthodox Churches today is completely identical to that of the early Church. New canons are established that meet new situations and needs for local Churches, and even the Church as as a whole.

So of course there are different Canons. Our Churches are living in a situation which was not the reality of the first Millenium. It is natural that the Canons should be different because our situation is different. The different canons relate to maintaining and ensuring a unity that was not an issue in the first millenium united Church (e.g., commemoration of the bishop of Rome in the Liturgy, etc.). I have hope that these particular canons will disappear once reunion is achieved. But a perceived difference in disciplinary canons is no argument that the Catholic Church has not maintained the Traditions of the Fathers.

Blessings

P.S. I'll reply to your posts soon. Thanks for the responses.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/02/13 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.


One could say the Divine Liturgy as offered today bears little resemblance to the Eucharistic assembly recorded in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11; but to say that it bears no resemblance is rather gratuitous as is your assumption that history is on the side of the Orthodox churches with regard to this issue of ecclesiastical constitution. I am still waiting for these churches to find the same constitutional unity that the bishops of the Catholic Church found, in union with their "supreme pontiff", to make the following proclamation:

Quote
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.


The closest intimacy! That Rome is treated as some kind of Trojan Horse by some Orthodox circles, I find little better than something scripted by Dan Brown or Rev. Ian Paisley. I'm sure you'll come up with all the mud from the past to prove that their fears are justified. Marduk has offered some thoughtful understandings concerning Pastor Aeternus that present material for reaching some rapprochement, but you seem intent on responding with the detritus of history's ills.
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 02:07 AM

I do sometimes feel that Rome (and for that matter the whole Catholic Communion of Churches) speaks more in irenic terms towards the Orthodox Church than vice versa. She considers them "True Particular Churches" and "Sister Churches." Now, historically this has not always been the case, but it seems Rome has read the old saying that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I think the Catholic Church, since Vatican II, has done just that: learned from the past. Are we closer to reunion and agreement on all the issues that divide the two sister Churches? Yes and no, but Rome is doing her part.

Now, I think Rome can show her seriousness about reunion by treating the Eastern Catholic Churches as true Sister Churches, but that is a different issue all together.

Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.

It is wishful thinking to claim that the body of canons of the Orthodox Churches today is completely identical to that of the early Church.

Actually, it is literally quite easy, as the canonical collections among the Orthodox e.g. the Pedalion/Rudder , consist of only canons from the first millenium. In fact, the core collection consists of canons from the era of the first Four Ecumenical Councils, with the Pentheke and Seventh Ecumenical Councils' canons acting as capstones. There are a few canons before and after 1054, but none of much consequence. Although we have held several Pan-Orthodox synods since then, they have mostly just issued doctrinal statements or applied the canons, e.g. Constantinople 1593, which elevated Moscow into a Patriarchate.

Not adding to the texts does not make the way to keep practice identical to the practice of the Early Church, though in some ways it helps (but harms in others). When the Vatican issued its first Code of Canon Law in 1917, that did not, per se, signal a change from first millenium practice. Gratian's use of scholasticism to reconstitute the canons into an Ultramontanist framework did that in 1150.

The canons have proved reliable even until today. They have set up the road blocks to cause the problems that the Phanar faces in promoting an Ultramarist-the Phanar lies beyond the sea for most of us-agenda, very much in imitation of Old Rome. By the quirks of history, the rise of Kiev-Moscow and the decline of Constantinople's political fortunes have replicated the very circumstances in the first millenium-with the rivalry between Old Rome and New Rome-in the second millenium. Knowing that, the Great Council that Constantinople promised/threatened to hold this year will not come about: the Phanar learned at Chambesy the past few years that it cannot be guaranteed of what a Pan-Orthodox Council will do. It doesn't want Moscow granted its own modern 28 Chalcedon canon.

Originally Posted by mardukm

New canons are established that meet new situations and needs for local Churches, and even the Church as as a whole.

We could, but haven't, yet. Most do not see a need, and the Greek Church, the chief promoters of it (somewhat in imitation of Vatican II and Old Rome's Ultramontanism), now fear that they might not like the new rules-namely Moscow's role will rise at their expense.

Each autocephalous Church has issued and revised their statutes as the need has arose and situations changed, of course. But that has not changed the constitution of the Orthodox Church. Even the two centuries of the aberration of the Holy Governing Synod did not do that: the normal operation has reasserted itself and is sweeping the last vestiges away.
Originally Posted by mardukm

So of course there are different Canons.

The difference was put in place a millenium ago, not in 1990.
Originally Posted by mardukm

Our Churches are living in a situation which was not the reality of the first Millenium.

Ours are, at least again since the end of the Communist interlude. New Rome of the second Millenium does not differ much from Old Rome in the first Millenium. And the Third Rome has grown as the New Rome of the second Millenium.
Originally Posted by mardukm

It is natural that the Canons should be different because our situation is different.

Other than the conforming the canons to Pastor Aeternus, what situation "is different."
Originally Posted by mardukm

The different canons relate to maintaining and ensuring a unity that was not an issue in the first millenium united Church

that isn't any more an issue among the Orthodox Churches in the second millenium than it was in the first Millenium.
Originally Posted by mardukm

(e.g., commemoration of the bishop of Rome in the Liturgy, etc.). I have hope that these particular canons will disappear once reunion is achieved.

The reading of dyptichs date from the earliest organization of the Church, not the second half of the second millenium. The reading manifests a theology in both millenia. That called by the CCOE and the last five centuries does not match that of the first millenium, an honest admission of a real difference. We don't need to, nor should we, mask it. Unless Pastor Aeternus abandons its claims and embraces again the theology and ecclesiology of the first millenium Church.

(btw, the rules the Phanar issues for the diptychs-ignored AFAIK by the autocephalous Churches-also attempts an Ultramarist ecclesiology)

Originally Posted by mardukm

But a perceived difference in disciplinary canons is no argument that the Catholic Church has not maintained the Traditions of the Fathers.

the tradition embodied in the CCOE contradicts directly the Tradition of canons 3 of Constantinople I and 28 of Chalcedon of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils and the first Millenium Church.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Blessings

P.S. I'll reply to your posts soon. Thanks for the responses.

no problem. I happened on some free time (although not as much as I took).
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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:

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.

Yes, I am aware of the context. I quoted it to demonstrate that this passage can indeed refer to St. Peter and his successors, which you were denying. It is the concept of headship that is the issue here. The passage regarding the wise and faithful servant, as I already affirmed a few times, concerns the notion of headship (VISIBLE headship, to be exact) in general, so it can indeed be used to apply to ANY hierarchical situation, which would include the situation of a bishop, who is indeed the visible head of his diocese -- but it can just as easily apply to the metropolitan, patriarchal and universal levels. St. John Chrysostom specifically mentions St. Peter and his successors to underscore the principle of headship, using St. Peter's own headship among the Apostles to demonstrate the principle of headship in the Church, a principle of headship given by Christ Himself.

I also used the passage to definitely refute the argument made by certain "non-"Catholics that to be the visible head of the ecclesia somehow deprives Christ of headship. Here we see Christ Himself establishing the principle of a visible headship for HIS household when He "leaves." Christ certainly did not think it wrong, so I don't know what possible merit can be possessed by the argument that a visible head for the ecclesia somehow deprives Christ of the true headship of the ecclesia.

There is a certain gap in the logic that would try to use the "context" of this letter to prove the Low Petrine view that the bishops as a general body cannot have a true, visible head. Namely, the logic cannot explain why St. Chrysostom singles out St. Peter (and his successors) as the exemplar for his explanation to bishop Basil. Why not use the name of any other Apostle and their successors? It is obvious that St. Chrysostom here is highlighting only the general idea of headship among any group of Christians, and sInce St. Peter was indeed the visible head of the Apostles, his name is used in particular. A bishop is a true, visible head of a diocese, so there is no question that the principle of headship applies to him. But it is a leap in logic to claim that St. Chrysostom is somehow claiming that all bishops are successors of St. Peter and that there cannot be a position of primacy among all the bishops, just as there was among all the Apostles.

I have never encountered a cogent explanation why, if all the Apostles themselves had a visible head among them, then all the bishops who are their successors cannot have a visible head among them too. Perhaps you or someone else can respond to that. It was a question, I admit, that was never in my consciousness for most of my years when I was in the Coptic Orthodox Church. I never looked beyond my local Coptic Church consciously. But when I was challenged by the idea of a Church universal, and the structure for it, I really had no response. I had no response primarily because I never thought about a visible structure for the Church universal, but also because, even after I thought about it, I could not offer any reasons to deny that the structure of the Church universal can (and should) have a structure similar to the Patriarchal Church or the Metropolitan Church. My initial impression was, of course, the usual canards by non-Catholics against the papacy - that the Pope is an absolute monarch who replaces Christ, and can do anything in the Church at his mere discretion, not constrained by anything. But as I studied the Catholic Church from her own magisterial documents (not by listening to popular opinions by non-Catholics), I discovered my initial impression was completely false.

Finally, remember that St. Chrysostom himself admitted that even though they had St. Peter, they gave him up to glorious Rome.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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...
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.

I'm not at all sure what this proves. St. Shenoute was an abbot AFAIK. He was not a head bishop. So I don't know why you could possibly think a threat of an excommunication to an abbot by a bishop demonstrates that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. Please explain.

Quote
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.

As already stated, St. John was only explaining the principle of headship, which can indeed apply to a bishop, though nothing you have stated proves that the principle of headship cannot be applied on other levels of the hierarchy (such as metropolitan, patriarch, pope, even abbot or protopriest, etc.), nor, even further, does it prove that all bishops are successors of St. Peter.

Quote
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

FIrst of all, there is nothing here about all bishops being the successors of St. Peter.

Secondly, all it states is that bishops also possess the keys of St. Peter. which is the exact Tradition of the Catholic Church. It does nothing to refute the Catholic teaching that the bishop of Rome succeeds to the PRIMACY of St. Peter. One can also read the Tradition that ALL bishops hold the government (i.e., the keys) of the Church from the documents of Vatican 1 and 2 (if you think that precept was absent from Vatican 1, then you do not know as much about Vatican 1 as you think - you need to have knowledge of other background documents of Vatican 1 aside from Pastor Aeternus to properly assess its decrees). That ONLY the bishop of Rome possesses the keys (and hence is the monarchical, unilateral ruler of the Catholic Church) is another of the Absolutist Petrine distortions of Catholic teaching. There is nothing in Pastor Aeternus that would indicate that possession of the keys is restricted to the papacy. To claim that it does is a clear act of eisegesis.

Thirdly, what Pastor Aeternus states is merely that the bishop of Rome holds the succession of PRIMACY. It makes no statement about the apostolic succession of other bishops from St. Peter (i.e., Antioch, and maybe Alexandria, if one takes St. Peter's commission of St. Mark to go to Alexandria to be evidence of "succession" from St. Peter).

Quote
"the Church is founded upon the bishops" NOT "the supreme pontiffs.

The premise here is erroneous. The Church is not founded upon bishops NOR the supreme pontiffs, but on the Apostles, St. Peter as their coryphaeus, with Christ as the cornerstone.

Quote
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

Yes. Insofar as each bishop (including the bishop of Rome) has a responsibility to maintain unity with the Chair of Peter, and that each bishop must act as a head servant among his brother priests just as St. Peter was the head servant among the Apostles, that's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. So what exactly is your objection? I haven't seen any objections to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church so far from you, but you have indeed expressed objections to the Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations of the Catholic Church's teaching, for which I commend you.

Quote
nor any "successors" other than those consecrated into the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church.

Not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to St. Cyprian's claim that every schismatic and/or heretical group cannot have true Orders, that is not the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, and St. Cyprian was wrong on that point.

Quote
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaching no such thing, I have no understanding to misunderstand.

Yet, you cannot offer a response to the corrections I offered for (1) the misinterpretation that Pastor Aeternus teaches that the bishop of Rome is the ONLY successor of St. Peter, and for (2) the more popular misunderstanding that the term "freely" or "unhindered" means "uninhibited" (instead of its actual meaning of "uncoerced").

Originally Posted by mardukm
I'm not stuck to their perceptions, but you are (look at the anathema's in Pastor Aeternus)
Originally Posted by mardukm

Unless you can offer any well-reasoned responses to my explanations of Pastor Aeternus, it is actually you who is enslaved to the Absoutist Petrine MISinterpretations, don't you think? I know you responded more concisely in your more recent posts (while I was responding to this current set of posts from you, but I'll demonstrate soon that your responses don't demonstrate the Absolutist Petrine misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching (on some responses, you actually only avoided the issue, and did not even respond).

[quote=Ialmisry]You are misinterpreting the plain text contained in it, a novelty of a novelty.

That's exactly what the pneumatomachi, Semi-Arians, and monothelites said. They had a different understanding of prior conciliar decrees "on the face" of the texts. That goes to prove what I have been saying all along - that a particular text needs to be properly interpreted according to the context of what the Fathers at a Council state and of Sacred Tradition. The mere text of formal decrees are often not enough to obtain a proper interpretation of that text. Divorced from context, errors in the interpretation of a text will abound.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

When St. Peter taught that the Gentiles should be members of the People of God, that was by no means a conciliar doctrinal teaching. And St. Paul's and St. Peter's authority were certainly not restricted to when they were in council with others. So Scripture demonstrates that neither the Church's infallibility nor her authority is restricted to councils. The Catholic Church teaches that infallibility graces the Church even outside the formal setting of a council. God protects His Church with HIS infallibility even outside the formal setting of a Council. The Catholic teaching is that not only the EXTRAordinary Magisterium of an Ecum Council or of the Pope ex cathedra, but also the universal, ORDINARY Magisterium, as well as the sensus fidei of the Church as whole, is protected by God's infallibility. If you feel that infallibility or authority is restricted to Councils, that's your prerogative, but this is not the teaching of Scripture nor of the Church down through history.

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

To think that the Church's infallibility and/or authority is restricted to only when she acts in council is the novelty.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
[quote=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.

This statement demonstrates how much you misunderstand the Catholic position. The papacy is not a "fourth order," nor has it ever been taught as such by the Catholic Church. Nor has any Pope ever been consecrated to become Pope in the Catholic Church down to the present day - which only proves that it is not a "fourth order."

Quote
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.

So you make the commemoration of the Pope a doctrinal matter? It seems the heresy would then lie with your pov? The commemoration per se of the bishop of Rome is only an identifier, a matter of discipline, not a doctrine.

Quote
That came with Ultramontanism-but Ultramontanism, as a heresy, lies outside the Church.
Originally Posted by mardukm

You confuse ultramontanism with neo-ultramontanism.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Quote
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.

And that's the teaching of the Catholic Church, of Vatican 1 and 2.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
[quote=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

You focus on terminologies instead of concepts. You have yet to address the conceptual differences between the Absolutist, High and Low Petrine views. There is a difference between the view that the Pope can act unilaterally (the Absolutist Petrine view), and the view that the Pope must act collegially (the High Petrine view). And there is a difference between the view that head bishops have real jurisdiction - though different in nature from the jurisdiction of a local bishop in relation to his priests - (the High Petrine view), and the idea that only local bishops have real jurisdiction, while head bishops only have a primacy of honor (the Low Petrine view). We should apply St. Paul's scriptural exhortation not to focus on mere words in the discussion here.

Quote
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.

Something we agree on. But I have encountered a lot of EO who believe that each local Church is independent of other local Churches. There is even a recently-former Catholic at CAF who describes local Churches as "independent" and "wholly apart" from each other. He is currently a catechumen in the EOC. He must be getting this aberrant idea from his teachers. Or perhaps overly polemical Orthodox works. I can grant that maybe these expressions are just exaggerations, but they seem common enough for any casual observer to perhaps mistakenly assign these aberrant expressions as the teaching of the EOC as a whole. If you want to join Catholics in correcting this misunderstanding among certain Orthodox, great.

Quote
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.

Neither were you -- so what is the point of this statement?

Quote
As a summary of St. Cyprian states:
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."

I don't see anything contrary to Catholic teaching here. There is something you perhaps do not know about Catholic doctrine:
(1) All bishops are equal in sanctifying power.
(2) There is an hierarchy of jurisdiction for the sake of the good order of the Church (some bishops have greater jurisdiction than others, but only in terms of territorial extent - with the usual, imporatnt caveat that the plenary jurisdiction of a <head bishop> is different in nature from the local juirsdiction of a <bishop>).
(3) The sanctifying power is greater than the power of jurisdiction.
But your understanding is based on the misconception that the power of jurisdiction is considered the greater power in the Catholic Church. It is not. Obviously, Catholic teaching affirms that all bishops are more equal than they are not.

I also doubt whether anyone actually agrees with St. Cyprian's statement that all bishops are equal in honor. Even Low Petrine advocates admit the concept of "primacy of honor. " I think St. Cyprian was being overly polemic when he made that statement. It's obvious he recognized the bishop of Rome's primacy, having appealed to him to discipline other bishops (before the disagreement with Pope St. Stephen). But since he was on the receiving end of the correction, it seems he resorted to some exaggerated statements to get his point across.

Quote
In other places he says...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.

You're preaching to the choir. This is PERFECTLY in accord with Catholic teaching. St. Cyprian was not denying the primacy. This is impossible since we know that he appealed to Pope St. Cornelius to discpline other bishops. The context here is that St. Cyprian thought the Pope was wrong, and that the Pope should humble himself for correction, and not claim "primacy" as a pretext to be obeyed even when he is wrong. St. Cyprian was by no means advocating the idea that there can be no primacy among the bishops, or that this primacy does not entail a real authority. He was only arguing that having primacy does not mean one is always right and thus must always (i.e., "the present and future generation") be obeyed. St. Robert Bellarmine basically preached the same thing - that if a Pope is found to be tearing down the Church, Christians are bound by conscience to resist him. Ironically, future Ecumenical Councils affirmed Pope St. Stephen's position on the baptism of the Novatians, not St. Cyprian's.

Absolutist Petrine advocates might have a problem with the Pope being corrected, but High Petrine advocates do not. The correction of a head bishop (on whatever level) is a natural part of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church - just another difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views. And NO - Pastor Aeternus does not teach that the Pope cannot be corrected. I'll address this when I respond to your more recent posts.

Quote
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.

I'm afraid this one passage from you is riddled with misrepresentations of the actual Catholic position. Let's assess these erroneous statements:
(1) "In fact, the same Ecumenical Council who declared "Peter speakes through Leo" (but only AFTER examining his tome for Orthodoxy)"
I don't know what you think it proves that the Council examined his Tome. The official Relatio of V1 states that in an Ecumenical Council, ALL the bishops are judges together with the Pope. So why do you think it is so strange that the bishops examined Pope St. Leo's Tome? That you think it strange only means you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's teaching on infallibility.
(2) "also acclaimed of his suffragan bishop Peter at Corinth "Peter thinks like Peter. Orthodox one you are welcome."" What does it prove exactly that someone is said to "think" like Peter? I should hope every bishop thinks with the orthodoxy of St. Peter. But what do you claim that proves? Do you actually think that the Catholic Church teaches that bishops (even lay persons) do not or should not THINK (or believe) in agreement with St. Peter, or that the Pope is the ONLY one that can or should think/believe like St. Peter? That would be another erroneous misunderstanding on your part.
(3) "...the error of falsely attributing a different responsibility..."
The error here is the idea that the job of the Pope as primate of the Church universal is different from the job of an Ecumenical Council. The papacy is a function of the Church and for the Church (not for the Pope), just as the Ecumenical Council is a function of the Church and for the Church. Please define what you mean by "different responsibility?"
(4) "...to a so-called Petrine office separate from the episcopate which assembles in Council." The error here is the falseness of claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is separated from the episcopate in his actions as primate of the Church universal. The official Relatio of V1 asserted: "We do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church...we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church...we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope's infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance." You can also read the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus in another thread in this forum, which refutes this idea of the Pope being separated from the Church in making an ex cathedra decree. Our canons state "The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church." I seriously do not know where you got your ideas, but it is certainly not from the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

Quote
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.

The differences are there, despite your focus on mere terminologies.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Quote
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.

Nice try, but no cigar. wink

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
[quote=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"?

Christ set up the principle of a head servant for his entire household. How does "Why doesn't Christ answer 'Peter'?" even respond to that? You seem to be avoiding the issue. But to answer your question, Christ was explaining to the Apostles what it means to be "greatest" in the Church. Christ knew their mind (i'm sure you'll agree) and realized that he first had to address what "greatest" means in His Church, because the Apostles did not have a proper understanding of "greatest" when they asked the question. If Christ intended it according to the intentions of Low Petrine advocates, he would have said, "NO ONE among you can be considered 'greatest'." But He did not do that. Instead, He gave them His condition for how one will be considered "greatest" in His Church. So the "greatest" must be a servant to others, not that there shall never be a "greatest" among them.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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.

Indeed, when He stated that He would set a head servant over the other servants and for HIS household, he was referring to the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I'm glad we agree.

CONT'd
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 03:20 PM

CONT'd

Quote
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)

You are confusing the primacy of a particular Church with the primacy of St. Peter. Though Jerusalem held the primacy among the churches, the primacy among the Apostles stayed with St. Peter. He was always the head of the Apostles because Christ Himself established him as such. There is another EO participant here who is of the opinion that the primacy of the Church of Rome was conditioned by history, and not divinely established. I actually agree with him on that point. But this cannot be conflated with the bishop who holds the primacy, a headship that is inherited from the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles, a personal primacy that was established by Christ Himself. No matter in what city a primatial bishop (metropolitan, patriarch, pope) establishes his residence, the primacy always belongs to that bishop in a personal manner. It's not as if he loses his primacy just because he moves somewhere else. This is, btw, one of the reasons why it cannot be the case that the bishop of Antioch, though obtaining apostolic succession from St. Peter, cannot be considered to have succeeded in his primacy -- because St. Peter, who held the primacy, was still alive and kicking.

Quote
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.

I seriously don't know why it matters that St. James made the final decision at the Council of Jerusalem as far as a discussion on papal primacy. Yes, St. James was the bishop of the primatial Church of Jerusalem, but St. Peter was still the primatial head of the Apostles, and thus of the Church as as a whole (I don't know what you think you can say that would change this latter fact).

Quote
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.

I don't know what you think this proves. It doesn't diminish the fact that St. Peter was the acknowledged visible head of the Apostles, who together were the foundation of the Church universal.

Quote
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.

Nice theory, but Jesus Himself said He would set one servant over the other servants - no doubt to manifest the oneness that Jesus expected of His body the Church, as explained by St. Cyprian. As already explained, this principle of headship applies in many contexts and on many levels (protopriest, abbot, bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, pope, etc.). The onus is on certain "non-"Catholics to explain why it cannot apply to the papacy. I've never encountered any cogent reasons.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

The Council of Sardica was called with the help of the Emperor, who was more than willing to promote the peace of his empire. That's about all you can cay about the Emperor's involvement. Do the canons of Sardica according to the copies possessed by the EOC say the emperor is involved in these appeals and the courts of appeal? What is your reason for saying the Canons have more to do with the Emperor than the Bishop of Rome? Doesn't seem to be based on any facts, but only on a preconceived preference to diminish the acknowledged plenary authority of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church.

Quote
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..

These facts do not touch upon the actual orthodoxy of Sardica and its Canons.

Quote
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.

Constantinople was understood to only have appellate authority in all the "Eastern" Churches, not the Church as as a whole. He was second after the bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical matters, as the canon plainly states. Only the bishop of Rome had appellate authority in the Church as a whole. Even after Chalcedon, Eastern bishops were appealing to the bishop of Rome from decisions of the bishop of Constantinople, which demonstrates exactly what the Canon indicates - that the bishop of Constantinople was second after the bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical matters.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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,

But bishops "East" and "West" were appealing to the bishop of Rome before Sardica (I give examples later), so its canons cannot be creating this prerogative.

Quote
...if not restrict to the particular circumstances of the time.

But bishops were appealing to the bishop of Rome before and after this time, so this cannot be the case.

Quote
The fact cannot be disputed that the Council of Sardica failed as an Ecumenical Council

But the orthodoxy of the Council and its canons is beyond dispute. And it should be noted that the Council of Sardica failed to have Ecumenical status only because almost all the bishops in the East were Arian heretics and would not agree to the Council.

Quote
...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.

The Canons of Sardica were accepted by the Fourth Ecum in its 1st Canon. "We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, shold remain in force." This, of course, refers to orthodox local synods, of which Sardica was definitely one. I've read that the Council of Trullo makes explicit which synods are being referred to by Canon 1 of Chalcedon, though the Canon of Chalcedon does not itself do so. It was probably just common custom by which Christians at the time of Chalcedon knew which synods were referred to in Canon 1, a custom handed down by oral Tradition and finally codified at Trullo.

Besides, your statement here is inconsistent with your admission that the bishop of Constantinople was given an appellate authority similar to the bishop of Rome's. If this is so, then the Fathers of the Fourth Ecum must already have recognized the primordial appellate authority of the bishop of Rome.

Quote
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."

The bishop of Rome can be a co-judge through his representatives, so he can retry the case (but not unilaterally, of course).

Quote
"If it seems good...to honor the memory of St. Peter...let..." NOT "Remember St. Peter, so you must..."

First, what is the distinction between the two statements that you perceive? Second, why mention St. Peter at all?

Quote
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."

That's backwards. It is the bishop of Rome who decides if the case has merit to be retried, and then he forwards it to the bishops of the neighboring provinces for the new trial, with the prerogative to send his representatives as co-judges. The initial involvement of other bishops is only to forward the request (by the accused bishop) for a retrial to the bishop of Rome, and it is the bishop of Rome who decides if the case merits a retrial. The canon makes this so plain, I am rather surprised at your claim that the bishops of the neighboring regions are the ones who decide if the case merits a new trial. That's eisegesis, brother.

Quote
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.

Where is it stated that metropolitans and the bishops of Constantinople can hear cases unilaterally? Are you sure you are not an absolutist Petrine advocate? wink If it is true the bishop of Constantinople can hear local cases and their appeals by himself, that only proves the point I made earlier - that the appellate jurisdiction of Constantinople was only local (i.e., for Eastern Churches), not the Church as a whole (unlike the bishop of Rome's).

Quote
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.

That's backwards. It was actually upon Pope St. Victor's direction that the Churches held the local synods, and thereafter report the resuilts back to him. An excerpt preserved by Eusebius from St. Polycrates, primate of the Asian Churches (who held to a different date than Rome), addressed to Pope St. Victor regarding the results of their Synod on the matter of the date of Easter testifies to this fact:
"I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire, whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."

The report of the Palestinian Synod is very interesting, as it seems to indicate that they supported an action of excommunication:
"Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day."

NOTE: the timeline given by the old Catholic Encyclopedia is: (1) Pope St. Victor notices disturbances in his own local Church due to the different observances by visiting Christians from Asia; (2) the Pope asks the bishops of Asia to hold a synod on the matter and report back to him; (3) the Asian Synod convenes and replies to the Pope, affirming their own practice; (4) the Pope directs all Churches to hold local synods on the matter, in order to determine what he should do; (5) the response is unanimous that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday (with some responses containing very strong language against the Quartodecimans); (6) Thereafter, the Pope gives instruction to the Asian Churches to celebrate Easter along with the rest of the Church, with a threat of excommunication; (7) Some bishops object to Pope St. Victor's threat of excommunication.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

The examples of the bishop of Rome's primacy being exercised with a real (yet not unilateral) authority are too numerous to recount, but some examples that immediately comes to mind, aside from the Pope St. Victor incident are: (1) Pope St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians; (2) St. Cyprian's appeal to Pope St. Cornelius to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain; (3) Pope St. Cyril's appeal to Pope St. Celestine on the matter of Nestorius; (4) the correction of Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria by Pope St. Dionysius of Rome; (5) the appeals of Eutyches and St. Flavian to Pope St. Leo. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc., said appeals contributing to the formation of the Fourth Ecum at the behest of Pope St. Leo (though the Emperor did not hold it in the West); etc.; etc; etc; etc. This is not to mention the numerous appeals to bishops of Rome by bishops from the East (e.g., St. John Chrysostom's appeal to Pope St. Innocent to fix the ecclesiastical problems in the East, the Council of Carthage's appeal to Pope St. Damasus to confirm its canon of Scripture, St. Photius' appeal to Pope St. Innocent to confirm his patriarchal status, etc. etc., etc., etc. - appeals that indicate a recognition of primacy with actual authority).

It should also be noted that Eusbebius records in Book II of his Ecclesiastical History that there is an ecclesiastical canon that "commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome." He makes this statement in criticism of a Council of Antioch! I'm not sure what else he could be referring to except the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which would indicate the normal understanding of that Canon for Catholics.


Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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

I agree that there is not more than one Petrine view evident in Church history; the only Petrine view you will find in Church history is the High Petrine view. The Absolutist and Low Petrine views have no place in the history of the united Church, and neither can they have a place in serious attempts at reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Quote
and Pastor Aeternusdepends on an "Absolutist Petrine" revision of history for its theology.

The fact that Absolutist Petrine advocates claim that the Pope has the power to daily intervene in the affairs of local Churches, while HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory asserted he does not, demonstrates your claim is false.

Quote
The apologists for your Pastor Aeternus make much (too much) of the prominence of St. Peter in the Mother Church of Jerusalem.

I've read some Absolutist Petrine advocates claim that St. Peter was the head of the Council of Jerusalem, which is obviously not true. But Low Petrine advocates go the opposite extreme and do not give any relevance to St. Peter at the Council, except as someone who gives some purely coincidental testimony.

Quote
Yet the see of Jerusalem is never accounted a Petrine See, nor its Patriarch ever draw his authority from St. Peter,

What is the relevance of bringing up something that Catholics, even Absolutist Petrine advocates, have never claimed? That's clear evidence of eisegesis.

Quote
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.

Can you please point out where Pastor Aeternus even mentions Jerusalem? That's very creative, I'll grant you that.

Quote
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,

St. Mark was not merely the disciple of St. Peter. Tradition recounts that it was actually St. Peter who sent St. Mark to Alexandria from Rome due to a vision from God.

Quote
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.

First, there is really no actual "ordering" of the Sees in the primordial Canons of the Second Ecum. Second, while the ordering of Sees was influenced by civil considerations, the primacy of the bishop of Rome was not. This is evident from: (1) while there was always a very evident rivalry between Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch for ecclesiastical prominence, everyone recognized the primacy of the See of Rome; (2) When the seat of the empire was transferred to Constantinople, the bishop of Rome still retained the primacy.

Quote
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.

No Absolutist Petrine advocate has ever been able to refute my presentations of the HIgh Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church, and I have debated them many times at CAF. I suppose Absolutist Petrine advocates would not even venture here in Byzcath. But you represent their misunderstanding well enough (please, that is not intended as an insult). I hope that instead of mere claims from you that I am misrepresenting the Catholic teaching, and of non-analytic, overly general, quotations from Pastor Aeternus, you (or anyone else reading this) will be willing to engage in a well-reasoned discussion on Pastor Aeternus point-by-point (which is the purpose of this thread, if I'm not mistaken).

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

You claim that you do not see the difference between the Petrine views, but your statement here demonstrates one of these differences. The difference evinced here is between the High Petrine view, on the one hand, and both the Absolutist and Low Petrine views, on the other. The High Petrine view (with its collegial ecclesiology) understands an action by the Church (at whatever level) as an action of the ENTIRE magisterIal authority of that Church acting in agreement with each other as a unified authority, both head and body together, NEVER APART. In distinction, Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates cannot seem to get over the notion of constantly setting the head bishop and the rest of the bishops as separate, even opposing, entities. To HIgh Petrine advocates, the action of "the Apostles sending Peter" is an action of the Apostles which includes Peter. So it was the decision of the ENTIRE body of Apostles by which St. Peter was sent out from among them. It was NOT a decision imposed on Sts. Peter and John by the "other" Apostles. Your claim here demonstrates one of the excesses of the Low Petrine view. Both your apparent position and the Absolutist Petrine view share a common penchant for splitting apart the head from the body in your ecclesiological ideologies, one setting the head over, even against, the body, and the other setting the body over, even against, the head. Both positions constantly view the head and body as separate, and oftentimes opposing, entities, instead of the unified authority it was meant to be by Christ and the Apostles.

Primacy is not meant to be the imposition of the authority of a head bishop over his orthodox brother bishops, much less an authority that is intended to be separate or separated from his brother bishops or the Church. That is the false misunderstanding of both Catholic Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and "non-"Catholic detractors of the papacy (actually, I also view Absolutist Petrine advocates as detractors of the papacy). The Primacy of any head bishop (at whatever level) is NEVER meant to be exercised at the mere and/or sole discretion of a head bishop, to impose his will on others, and this is so according to both the ecclesiastical and divine constitution of the Church. I hope you can agree with that, though you may not currently agree that this is what the CC teaches with regards to the Pope.

Quote
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.

Where do Sts. Paul and James confirm the other Apostles in the faith? The only thing found in Scripture is that St. Paul corrected St. Peter in his actions[/i], even while admitting that St. Peter [u]taught differently from how he acted. No confirming in the faith going on there. In fact, Scripture records it was St. Paul who visited St. Peter to make sure he was himself not running in vain. And St. James instituted a disciplinary measure for certain Christians at the Council of Jerusalem. No confirming in the faith going on there either. In fact, it was St. Peter who ended the debate, based on the teaching "from his mouth" according to God's own ordinance. And what does it prove that other Apostles are feeding portions of the flock of Christ? The Catholic Church NOwhere teaches that the other Apostles (nor individual bishops) do NOT feed their flocks, but rather affirms the exact opposite. The objection here is clearly based on a distorted understanding of Catholic teaching.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
[quote=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.
Quote

The comment about "Patrairchate of the West" is an anachronism. There was no such distinction prior to the 4th Ecum, when the Council of Constantinople (with its novel claims for the Church of Constantinople) was finally accepted by the Eastern Church in general to have ecumenical force. So any bishop appealing to the bishop of Rome, from "West" or "East," prior to that time proves the point.

Given this proper understanding of Church history, permit me to give just SOME examples (in no definite chronological order):
- Bishops appealed to Pope St. Clement to settle the matter in the Church of Corinth.
- St. Polycarp travelled all the way to Rome on the matter of the date of Easter.
- bishops from Alexandria appealed to Pope St. Dionysius of Rome about what they perceived to be incorrect teaching from Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria. This resulted in an epistle of brotherly correction to Pope St. DIonysius of Alexandria.
- St. Cyprian appealed to Pope St. Cornelius to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain over the Novatian heresy.
- A Council of Carthage affirmed the Pope's appellate jurisdiction in relation to bishops (but not to local priests)
- Pope St. Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome (even before the Council of Sardica).
- the Church of Antioch appealed to the bishop of Rome on a matter of doctrine (at the bidding of St. Basil). The result of this response was actually a basis for the Second Ecum's teaching on the divinity of the Holy Spirit - it is referred to as the Tome of Damasus. And don't bother trying to impose an Absolutist Petrine misunderstanding on me. I am a High Petrine advocate, and oppose the Absolutist Petrine excesses. I realize full well that the Tome of Damasus was produced in synod, not a unilateral production by the bishop of Rome.
- the Second Ecum itself, which tried to establish a division between "West" and "East" appealed to the bishop of Rome in 382 to confirm its decisions. There is no record of this confirmation, which is why the Third Ecum did not regard the Second Ecum at that time as an Ecum Council. This demonstrates the importance of the bishop of Rome's confirmation for a Council's decrees to be considered as having Ecumenical authority.
- the Third Ecum appealed to Pope St. Celestine to confirm its decrees. The Acts of the Third Ecum indicate clearly that the bishops understood the confirmation of the bishop of Rome to be of a different nature than the general agreement of the bishops.
- Pope St. Cyril appealed to Pope St. Celestine on the matter of Nestorius.
- Patriarch St. John Chrysostom appealed to Pope St. Innocent to redress the ills affecting the Eastern Churches.
- Both Eutyches and Patriarch St. Flavian appealed to the Pope of Rome for the actions perpetrated against them.
- Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to Pope St. Leo against the decisions of the Council under Pope St. Dioscorus.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
[quote=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.

Actually, the Canons codify exactly the High Petrine view. There are no Absolutist or Low Petrine excesses that can be derived from Sacred Tradition taken in full context (though both Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates take little snippets of Sacred Tradition to support their novel views).

Quote
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.

I can agree that the primacy of the Church of Rome was borne of historic circumstances and can be said to be "invested by the Church." And I don't see what possible objection Catholics would have to that notion (though Absolutist Petrine advocates might have a fit). But the very concept of a head servant for the Church universal who is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy is from Christ Himself, and this, I believe, is the only non-negotiable.

Blessings
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.


One could say the Divine Liturgy as offered today bears little resemblance to the Eucharistic assembly recorded in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11; but to say that it bears no resemblance is rather gratuitous as is your assumption that history is on the side of the Orthodox churches with regard to this issue of ecclesiastical constitution.

Hardly. Canly you show any instance of the first Millenium Church operating in accord with the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium?

Originally Posted by Utroque

I am still waiting for these churches to find the same constitutional unity that the bishops of the Catholic Church found, in union with their "supreme pontiff", to make the following proclamation:

Quote
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.

Let them confess the Orthodox Faith. We don't look for any constitutional unity elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Utroque

The closest intimacy! That Rome is treated as some kind of Trojan Horse by some Orthodox circles, I find little better than something scripted by Dan Brown or Rev. Ian Paisley. I'm sure you'll come up with all the mud from the past to prove that their fears are justified. Marduk has offered some thoughtful understandings concerning Pastor Aeternus that present material for reaching some rapprochement, but you seem intent on responding with the detritus of history's ills.

How about something from the mud of the present? Like the silence that still meets your synod of middle eastern bishops at the Vatican calling for the law promised two decades ago to allow them to exercise the rights supposedly guaranteed to them by the "supreme pontiff", and ordain married men? Has any Latin ordinary in the West been disciplined to take it upon himself to dictate to the heads of the sui juris? Why do the sui juris not have the same status in their own church when in the West that Latin ordinaries have in the sui juris homelands?

Once can debate how well the sui juris churches serve as bridges, but no one can deny they make excellent canaries in the mine shaft.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm

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


Let the Baltimore Catechism, Q. 323, answer:
A schismatic is one who believes everything the Church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its headthe 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.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that our Churches are separated by schism, not heresy. There is also the principle of invincible ignorance to take into account. The CC understands that indoctrination can affect the free will of a person, and so does not immediately assign the accusation of heresy to those who have been born into a belief system outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. And there is enough evidence that a lot of people reject Catholic teachings based on misunderstanding, and sincere misunderstanding is not a basis for an accusation of sinful heresy according to Catholic principles.

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

So Group A claims that for Group B to claim that the primacy was established by Christ is a heresy, but there is no patristic support to claim that it is a heresy. Wouldn't that make the claim of Group A a heresy as well?

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

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

But it was Christ who said he would set one servant over his entire household to feed the other servants. The most you can say is that there is a difference in interpretation, but you cannot definitely assign heresy to the belief that Christ Himself established the principle of primacy of a head servant for His entire Church. So these quotes biblical passages really have no relevance for the discussion.

Quote
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.

It is utterly laughable to connect the institution of celibacy in the Western Church to Gnosticism or Manicheism. The West basis it on (a perhaps extreme emphasis of) St. Paul's words that those who are unmarried will be able to focus more on their ministry than those who are married. It has nothing to do with the idea that matter or marriage is evil.

Quote
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.

Again you seem to assume that to teach that Christ Himself established the primacy of the head servant for His Church as a whole (i.e., his household) is a heresy. Yet, there is no patristic evidence for your opinion that it is a heresy.

Blessings

Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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 Mara Claret y Clar (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.

Interesting. It was actually, Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, who was the single greatest proponent of papal infallibility at the Council. Has he been canonized?

And AFAIK, Archbishop Antonio was not even present for the voting since prior to that he was given leave due to illness to leave the Council.

Your citation of the fact of his canonization doesn't prove anything.

Quote
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,

Unam Sanctam was enacted in a Roman Synod of 80 bishops, and (even apart from that consideration) its contents were written or influenced by other bishops aside from the Pope. It is laughable for Absolutist Petrine advocates to use Unam Sanctam as a testament to unilateral absolute papal power when it was not even produced under those conditions.

Quote
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

The debate over Honorius was quite clear. Someone said if anyone can show a single ex cathedra statement by the Pope opposed to the Church's Sacred teachings, then papal infallibility falls on its face. Hefele proved quite ably that Honorius was condemned as a heretic, but he never actually even addressed the challenge question - i.e., he never proved that Pope Honorius had taught monothelism ex cathedra.

Quote
[quote]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.

No you don't, as even the issue of Honorius with Bishop Hefele proves.

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 argument here does not apply to the Pneumatomachi in the least. The Pneumatomachi did not think their beliefs were contrary in the least to the Nicene Creed as it was. As far as the Semi-Arians, there was a whole range of Arian philosophies. There were certain Semi-Arians such as at Antioch (during the time of St. Meletius) who adhered to the classic creed of Nicea, not the different Creed of other Arians (with the difference in iota). St. Meletius tolerated them for a while, which was A basis for the opposition of the Paulinist party.

Quote
Your Pastor Aeternsu doesn't even approach such abstraction.

A statement that proves a lack of knowledge of what actually went on behind the scenes.

Quote
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 alsounder 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).

Of course there is evidence of a belief that the Roman Church was somehow especially protected by God. Every Council that requested the Pope's confirmation of its decrees testifies to it. Every bishop who has appealed to the Pope on a doctrinal-related issue testifies to it. I think the issue here is a great misunderstanding that "papal infallibility" is an infallibility possessed by the Pope alone separated from the Church. That is not what the Church teaches, but I know that is what Absolutist Petrine advocates believe, and it is that Absolutist Petrine distortion that seems to be the cause of the rejection of this teaching by "non-"Catholics.

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 05:05 PM

I need to go, so I will have to respond to your other posts later in the week. Thanks for the discussion so far.

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/03/13 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

Interesting comment. I've only come across one Absolutist Petrine advocate who has done something more than parrot the usual myopic snippets from Pastor Aeternus, V2 documents, and the Catholic canons. This one appealed to some papal statements from the 19th century. He was trying to prove the unilateral authority of the Pope. But I was able to demonstrate that he had taken it out of context. Perhaps you can present a particular example of me taking something out of context. I look forward to it.

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

Yeah, I know. I had debated two separate Absolutist Petrine advocates on two different occasions at CAF. One believed that there can come a time when the Pope is the only orthdox bishop left on earth; another claimed there can come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox person left on earth. I told the first that it is the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church that the episcopacy, not just the papacy, is of divine institution and is, like the papacy, protected by infallibility. I asked that if the episcopacy shares in the same divine institution and infallibility as the papacy, why he believes there can ever be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth. He said that since the Pope is a bishop, then that preserves the teaching of the Catholic Church that the episcopacy is divinely established and possesses infallibility. The same with the other Absolutist Petrine advocate, despite the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Church AS A WHOLE is protected by infallibility. He stated that since the Pope is a member of the Church, that preserves the teaching that the Church as as a whole is protected by infallibility. AAARGH! How do you debate with such a twisted mentality about the nature of the Church?! To some (maybe most) Absolutist Petrine advocates, the Pope is the Church and the Church is the Pope! There is absolutely no way you can even begin to demonstrate that these Absolutist Petrine aberrations were the intentions of the Fathers of the Vatican Council.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
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.

I'm not at all sure what the point of this is.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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.

There is much reason to suspect you actually do not understand or are even aware of the relevant background debates, given the objections you have expressed (which I'll address below in the appropriate places).

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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.

If you doubt the Petrine primacy in particular, then the issue cannot be Petrine succession in general. So there is a distinction and a difference. Since you admit the issue is the Petrine primacy, then would you agree that the argument that "Pastor Aeternus (and the Catholic Church) dogmatically teaches that no other bishop obtained apostolic succession from St. Peter" is a straw man?

On the issue of "supremacy," I am an Oriental Christian, not Eastern. In the Oriental Tradition, the application of the term "supreme" to head bishops is rather common. Orientals do not understand the term to mean "absolute and unilateral." I understand and accept that you as an Eastern conceive of the term "supremacy" to mean the exact opposite of how I concieve of it as an Oriental. To an Oriental, "supremacy" and "primacy" can mean the same thing. It is probably harder for you to see it from my perspective than for me to see it from your perspective, so I don't mind not using the term "supremacy" when speaking to Eastern Christians about ecclesiology.

Quote
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):...
Only a brief and ambiguous allusion to any other successors of St. Peter:
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."

OK. Now it's my turn to say "that's a distinction without a difference." Those statements are explicitly premised on the idea that episcopacy and primacy are "reciprocally related and INSEPARABLE." I do not understand how you can misinterpret the statements "a relation to" and "considered Petrine" to mean that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria do not actually share in the Petrine prerogative of headship.

Quote
As Card. Ratzinger et alia referenced (Decree Eastern Churches):
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.

I do not understand what you mean by "cannot have the title of the see he claims." So your final point is lost on me. Can you please explain.

Quote
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?

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is a prelate of the Latin Rite. Why should it need to be "sui juris?" The original Latin Patriarchs set up by the Crusaders were not meant to replace the legitimate Patriarchs of those Sees. Even if some Crusaders intended it that way, the Pope never did. So what is your point?

Quote
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?

I don't understand your point. The term "Pope" is a title that has at best a disciplinary relevance, and can change. I personally regard my Patriarch as the Pope of my Church, and the bishop of Rome as the Pope of the Church universal. What's the big deal with a title which has never had any doctrinal relevance attached to it?

Quote
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.

Again, the plain text of your Pastor Aeternus states it quite explicitely:
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.

Yes, this portion of the Decree is rather explicit. That the Pope cannot be obstructed by the civil government means exactly that the Pope cannot be forced to do or not do what his office demands of him. It is eisegesis to presume this means the Pope has a laissez-faire authority to do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants at his mere discretion.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
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:
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"...

My assertion - that this does not mean that the Pope can do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants - is not a mere claim, unlike (I must say) the eisegesis that pretends that this excerpt from Pastor Aeternus can prove the Absolutist Petrine pretensions (and the concurrent canard by "non-"Catholics). My assertion is based on the proper context of that excerpt from Pastor Aeternus and Sacred Tradition. First, notice that it explicitly asserts the context of the excerpt in the first sentence - the Pope as JUDGE. This means that the excerpt is referring to cases in lieu of APPEALS to the Pope on a matter that requires him to render a decision. This excerpt is basically a mere restatement of the Canons of Sardica. There is absolutely nothing in this excerpt from the Decree that can cause one to conclude that it is referring to some fantastic and imaginary laissez-faire authority of the Pope. The Pope is considered in the Sacred Tradition of the Church of the first millenium as the last court of appeal, the court of last resort. If one takes this excerpt in the proper context of Sacred Tradition, one will understand it already assumes that all other authorities have been tried and failed to achieve the appellant's concern. If you doubt the patristic orthodoxy of this excerpt from Pastor Aeternus, then please provide for us a single patristic canon that claims that after appeal has been made to the bishop of Rome (as court of final appeal), there is another court of appeal to which someone can resort. THIS is the proper context of the excerpt you cited, as immediately indicated in the very first sentence of the excerpt. It is an eisegetic piece of Absolutist Petrine drivel to claim that the excerpt is giving the Pope some imaginary unilateral and absolute power to do as he pleases at his mere discretion.

Quote
no end of examples of supreme pontiffs behaving badly (have you seen "the Borgias"?) can be provided.

Facts which have no bearing on the primacy intended by Christ and taught by the Catholic Church. If a Pope is behaving badly, it is an utter non-sequitur to assume that is because of the Catholic Church's teaching on the primacy. One can see bishops on every level of the hierarchy throughout history behaving badly even without having the prerogative of being a head bishop, so the belief in primacy cannot be the cause of this bad behavior. Please explain what relevance you perceive this has.

Quote
It would be nice if the question of why Card. Law is in Vatican City could be pursued.

Go ahead. wink

Quote
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?

None. What canon in the early Church empowers the Church to judge a bishop of Rome and depose him? Produce one if you believe there is one. There are one or two examples on how it was done in the Latin Church during the Avignon period. I'll explain it in more detail later in the appropriate section of our discussion (about the Avignon period).

In any case, this new issue is a red herring. It really has nothing to do with the fact that "freely" or "unhindered" does not mean "uninhibited." Your assumption that it does neglects the proper context of the excerpt you provided earlier that it is referring to the Pope as a JUDGE.

Quote
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.

I'm not sure the painful recollections had anything to do with "abuse of power." I think he was referring to the Crusades, an event that actually demonstrated a lack of power by the Pope more than anything else. The sacking of Constantinople, the subsequent expulsion of local hierarchs in the ancient Sees, were all done CONTRARY to explicit commands to the Crusaders by the Pope NOT do do so.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

No he didn't. That's a straight answer. But Catholics are bound by conscience to adhere to the Pope's orthodox teachings even if they are not proclaimed ex cathedra. This, one can't deny, even according to the wildest Absolutist Petrine fantasies.

Quote
Your supreme pontiff, in your link, says
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.

That would be an interpretation wrenched out of the context of the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church. As explained to brother Otsheylnik, our canons explicitly assert that the prerogative of the Primacy rests purely in the responsibility of the Pope to RESPOND to the needs of the Church, and ALWAYS in communion with his brother bishops, not to be able to unilaterally determine what HE feels are the needs of the Church, and thereafter make up some law or impose a decision on his mere discretion. So one has to understand what are the responsibilities of "primacy" in order to properly understand what HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory was saying. The responsibilites of the Primacy, as he already explicitly asserted, does NOT include the prerogative to daily intervene in the affairs of local Churches (contrary to the opinions of Absolutist Petrine advocates). In conjunction with our canons, this prerogative only involves an ability to RESPOND while ALWAYS in communion with his brother bishops. And in conjunction with the statement from Pastor Aeternus that the Primacy BY NO MEANS stands in the way of his brother bishops' exericse of their own immediate and ordinary jurisdiction, this means the response can only be activated when his brother bishops initiate an appeal to him.

I have to go for now, I will address the rest of your posts at the end of the week (it's Monday here in the Philippines). Thanks for your patience, and, once again, thank you for the discussion.

Blessings
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
You are confusing the primacy of a particular Church with the primacy of St. Peter. Though Jerusalem held the primacy among the churches, the primacy among the Apostles stayed with St. Peter. He was always the head of the Apostles because Christ Himself established him as such. There is another EO participant here who is of the opinion that the primacy of the Church of Rome was conditioned by history, and not divinely established. I actually agree with him on that point. But this cannot be conflated with the bishop who holds the primacy, a headship that is inherited from the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles, a personal primacy that was established by Christ Himself. No matter in what city a primatial bishop (metropolitan, patriarch, pope) establishes his residence, the primacy always belongs to that bishop in a personal manner. It's not as if he loses his primacy just because he moves somewhere else. This is, btw, one of the reasons why it cannot be the case that the bishop of Antioch, though obtaining apostolic succession from St. Peter, cannot be considered to have succeeded in his primacy -- because St. Peter, who held the primacy, was still alive and kicking.


But when St. Linus was ordained bishop of Rome (if we are to believe that Peter ordained Linus), Peter was alive then too. In fact, I am quite inclined to believe that no bishop received apostolic succession directly from Peter while he was not alive and kicking.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Simply put, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, promulgated by the same author of Ut Unum Sint, bears no resemblance to the operation of the Church of the first millenium, whereas the Orthodox Churches still operate under that constitution of the first millenium. Holy Tradition, consisting of Scripture and the Fathers backed by history, demonstrate that.


One could say the Divine Liturgy as offered today bears little resemblance to the Eucharistic assembly recorded in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11; but to say that it bears no resemblance is rather gratuitous as is your assumption that history is on the side of the Orthodox churches with regard to this issue of ecclesiastical constitution.

Hardly. Canly you show any instance of the first Millenium Church operating in accord with the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium?



Originally Posted by Utroque

I am still waiting for these churches to find the same constitutional unity that the bishops of the Catholic Church found, in union with their "supreme pontiff", to make the following proclamation:

Quote
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.

Let them confess the Orthodox Faith. We don't look for any constitutional unity elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Utroque

The closest intimacy! That Rome is treated as some kind of Trojan Horse by some Orthodox circles, I find little better than something scripted by Dan Brown or Rev. Ian Paisley. I'm sure you'll come up with all the mud from the past to prove that their fears are justified. Marduk has offered some thoughtful understandings concerning Pastor Aeternus that present material for reaching some rapprochement, but you seem intent on responding with the detritus of history's ills.

How about something from the mud of the present? Like the silence that still meets your synod of middle eastern bishops at the Vatican calling for the law promised two decades ago to allow them to exercise the rights supposedly guaranteed to them by the "supreme pontiff", and ordain married men? Has any Latin ordinary in the West been disciplined to take it upon himself to dictate to the heads of the sui juris? Why do the sui juris not have the same status in their own church when in the West that Latin ordinaries have in the sui juris homelands?

Once can debate how well the sui juris churches serve as bridges, but no one can deny they make excellent canaries in the mine shaft.


For one, the Church of the first millennium included the primatial see of Rome as does the CCEO, and her role as court of final appeal is explicitly affirmed in accordance with Canon III of Sardica in the 4th century. Do the Orthodox canons?

Not mud at all. This is a pastoral problem that arises when two distinct church disciplines come into conflict. Something Orthodoxy does not have to deal with since, as far as I know, there are no Latin eparchies, within the fold. Eastern bishops can certainly ordain married men within their own canonical territories, and I think it is a matter of time before it is openly permitted in territories that are clearly Latin. Most of the rumbling comes from individual Latin bishops, uneasy with EC neighbors, and not the Pope. Who said that Latin prelates, at least in 2013, have more latitude or status when operating in eastern canonical territories than their eastern counterparts do when in the west?

Asphyxiation is your assessment of Eastern Catholic churches, but the people of my EC church are breathing clear air, thank you.

Pace e Bene!
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 12:52 PM

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.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 08:00 PM

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.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
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.
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/04/13 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by StuartK
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.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 01:46 PM

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)

Quote
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:
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.

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.

Quote
Can. 333 1. [/i]By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them.[/i]
3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

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 wink?
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.

Quote
So yes, your supreme pontiff issues a disclaimer

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

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...

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
"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.
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?

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.

Quote
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"?

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

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Can you please point out exactly where Pastor Aeternus states that the Pope can
(1) act alone

I 2-4 II 1, 3
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
.

confused 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.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm

(2) any time he chooses

II 2, 4-5
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.

confused 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.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
(3) without collaboration

I 4-5
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.

confused 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.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
(4) without consent,

III 2 IV 9
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...

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.

Quote
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable[/i].

I won't express confused 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.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
(5) without appeal.

III 8
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.

confused 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.

Quote
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?

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

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

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.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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.

How so?

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

Cite your authority for that.

"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.

Quote
Because Pope Greogory VII's "Dictatus Papae" says otherwise:
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Please explain what the relevance of this for our discussion?

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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 destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution 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.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
Though there is no canonical means to depose a Pope

see.

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.

Quote
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).

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

Quote
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.

What did they repudiate? The canons? Please clarify.

Quote
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.

"...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."

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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

Blessings
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 06:37 PM

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.

Originally Posted by mardukm
The comment about "Patrairchate of the West" is an anachronism. There was no such distinction prior to the 4th Ecum, when the Council of Constantinople (with its novel claims for the Church of Constantinople) was finally accepted by the Eastern Church in general to have ecumenical force. So any bishop appealing to the bishop of Rome, from "West" or "East," prior to that time proves the point.


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:

Quote
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

To Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.

No one, I feel sure, is more distressed at the present condition, or, rather to speak more truly, ill condition of the Churches than your excellency; for you compare the present with the past, and take into account how great a change has come about. You are well aware that if no check is put to the swift deterioration which we are witnessing, there will soon be nothing to prevent the complete transformation of the Churches. And if the decay of the Churches seems so pitiful to me, what must so I have often in my lonely musings reflected be the feelings of one who has known, by experience, the old tranquillity of the Churches of the Lord, and their one mind about the faith? But as your excellency feels most deeply this distress, it seems to me only becoming that your wisdom should be more strongly moved to interest itself in the Church's behalf. I for my part have long been aware, so far as my moderate intelligence has been able to judge of current events, that the one way of safety for the Churches of the East lies in their having the sympathy of the bishops of the West. For if only those bishops liked to show the same energy on behalf of the Christians sojourning in our part of the world which they have shown in the case of one or two of the men convicted of breaches of orthodoxy in the West, our common interests would probably reap no small benefit, our sovereigns treating the authority of the people with respect, and the laity in all quarters unhesitatingly following them. But, to carry out these objects, who has more capacity than yourself, with your intelligence and prudence? Who is keener to see the needful course to be taken? Who has more practical experience in working a profitable policy? Who feels more deeply the troubles of the brethren? What through all the West is more honoured than your venerable gray hairs? O most honoured father, leave behind you some memorial worthy of your life and character. By this one act crown your innumerable efforts on behalf of true religion. Dispatch from the holy Church placed under your care men of ability in sound doctrine to the bishops in the West. Recount to them the troubles whereby we are beset. Suggest some mode of relief. Be a Samuel to the Churches. Share the grief of the beleaguered people. Offer prayers for peace. Ask favour from the Lord, that He will send some memorial of peace to the Churches. I know how weak letters are to move men in matters of such importance; but you yourself no more need exhortation from others than the noblest athletes need the children's cheers. It is not as though I were instructing one in ignorance; I am only giving a new impulse to one whose energies are already roused. For the rest of the affairs of the East perhaps you may need the aid of more, and we must wait for the Westerns.

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.

Quote
But plainly the discipline of the Church of Antioch depends upon your reverence's being able to control some, to reduce others to silence, and to restore strength to the Church by concord.

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:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body. Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy. To unite the sundered parts again, and bring about the harmony of one body, belongs to Him alone Who by His ineffable power grants even to the dry bones to come back again to sinews and flesh. But the Lord always works His mighty works by means of them that are worthy of Him. Once again, in this case too, we trust that the ministry of matters so important may beseem your excellency, with the result that you will lay the tempest of the people, do away with the party superiorities, and subject all to one another in love, and give back to the Church her ancient strength.

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.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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."

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?

Quote
In the context, Bp. St. Basil of Caesarea...is writing Bp. St. Athanasius of Alexandria...

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? wink

Quote
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."

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.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
Met. St. Basil would write to the archbishop of Rome, Damasus,

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.

Quote
but the Pontiff proved the most ardent foe of Met. St. Meletius, insisting on Paulinus as primate of Antioch.

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.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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)?
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
But when St. Linus was ordained bishop of Rome (if we are to believe that Peter ordained Linus), Peter was alive then too. In fact, I am quite inclined to believe that no bishop received apostolic succession directly from Peter while he was not alive and kicking.

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

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
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

Nah! I'd give it 70& grin

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/05/13 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

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
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by StuartK
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.

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.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

Nah! I'd give it 70& grin

Blessings

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.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
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.

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

Many years.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Yes, I am aware of the context. I quoted it to demonstrate that this passage can indeed refer to St. Peter and his successors, which you were denying. It is the concept of headship that is the issue here. The passage regarding the wise and faithful servant, as I already affirmed a few times, concerns the notion of headship (VISIBLE headship, to be exact) in general, so it can indeed be used to apply to ANY hierarchical situation, which would include the situation of a bishop, who is indeed the visible head of his diocese -- but it can just as easily apply to the metropolitan, patriarchal and universal levels. St. John Chrysostom specifically mentions St. Peter and his successors to underscore the principle of headship, using St. Peter's own headship among the Apostles to demonstrate the principle of headship in the Church, a principle of headship given by Christ Himself.

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.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 02:00 AM

As the study document (a.k.a., the Cyprus Document) of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church makes clear, East and West - at least since the 4th or 5th century - have understood petrine succession and primacy differently. Here is how the authors of that document put it:


"In the West, the accent placed on the link between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter, particularly from the fourth century onwards, was accompanied by an increasingly more specific reference to Peter's role within the college of the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles (cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 94, 2; 95, 3). The position of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was understood in terms of the position of Peter among the apostles. In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur. Such an interpretation was never explicitly rejected in the East in the first millennium, but the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.).

In a somewhat similar way, the West did not reject the idea of the Pentarchy (cf. above, n. 13) indeed it carefully observed the taxis of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, around which the five patriarchates of the ancient Church developed (cf. Ravenna document, n. 28). However, the West never gave the same significance to the Pentarchy as a way of governance of the Church as the East did.

It is notable that these rather different understandings of the position of the bishop of Rome and the relationship of the major sees in West and East, respectively, based on quite different biblical, theological and canonical interpretations, co-existed for several centuries until the end of the first millennium, without causing a break of communion."


The Western developments in connection with the papacy and its role never occurred in the East, which is why they seem so foreign to Eastern Christians. Perhaps on this issue East and West will have to agree to disagree.
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
Originally Posted by mardukm
You are confusing the primacy of a particular Church with the primacy of St. Peter. Though Jerusalem held the primacy among the churches, the primacy among the Apostles stayed with St. Peter. He was always the head of the Apostles because Christ Himself established him as such. There is another EO participant here who is of the opinion that the primacy of the Church of Rome was conditioned by history, and not divinely established. I actually agree with him on that point. But this cannot be conflated with the bishop who holds the primacy, a headship that is inherited from the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles, a personal primacy that was established by Christ Himself. No matter in what city a primatial bishop (metropolitan, patriarch, pope) establishes his residence, the primacy always belongs to that bishop in a personal manner. It's not as if he loses his primacy just because he moves somewhere else. This is, btw, one of the reasons why it cannot be the case that the bishop of Antioch, though obtaining apostolic succession from St. Peter, cannot be considered to have succeeded in his primacy -- because St. Peter, who held the primacy, was still alive and kicking.


But when St. Linus was ordained bishop of Rome (if we are to believe that Peter ordained Linus), Peter was alive then too. In fact, I am quite inclined to believe that no bishop received apostolic succession directly from Peter while he was not alive and kicking.


I would like to submit a followup statement, a question of sorts for Marduk. If the primacy of the bishop of Rome is attached not to the office of the bishop of Rome, but personally to the successor of Peter, how exactly is this power of primacy passed on from successor to successor?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
But when St. Linus was ordained bishop of Rome (if we are to believe that Peter ordained Linus), Peter was alive then too. In fact, I am quite inclined to believe that no bishop received apostolic succession directly from Peter while he was not alive and kicking.

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

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


The Apostolic Constitutions:
Quote
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Csarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratas the son of Lois; and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Coloss;, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of gin, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 08:00 AM

I'll fill in the rest of the facts later, but this paragraph can conveniently be taken care of:
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
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.

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)

I didn't fail to mention it because Pontiff St. Damasus did no such thing. Met. St. Meletius made the offer, and since Pontiff St. Damasus had no dealings with him (Met. St. Basil complaining of the Archbishop of Rome being uninvolved and misinformed about the East), Pontiff St. Damasus had no part in it. In fact, he held a synod in Rome in 380 which precluded both communion with Met. St. Meletius, or him serving as bishop in Antioch.
Originally Posted by mardukm

You are right that the Paulinist party rejected the offer (so much for the theory that Paulinus was the Pope's man)

Au contraire: it would seem that he rejected the offer because he enjoyed Rome (and Alexandria's) support.

That he was Rome's man in 382 stands as a fact, not postulated as a theory.

Originally Posted by mardukm

but St. Meletius agreed to it.

Not really, but I'd be interested in you recounting what your sources say otherwise.

Originally Posted by mardukm

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.

So much for Pastor Aeternus. At the time, it was made quite clear that his wishes were not dispositive. And no, he didn't wish to see Met. St. Meletius restored to his see.

I don't have to pretend: it was Ecumenical. But before going into that again, perhaps you should tell us when exactly it became Ecumenical. You do believe it is Ecumenical, no?

Since the Metropolitan of Antioch opened the Council, with his bishops in attendance, by definition it did not "intrude another into the See." Aside from its position as an Ecumenical Council.

The resolution of the Meletian Schism shows that "Ut Unum Sint" would not be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, who set their seal on the standard of Orthodoxy, from which we cannot deviate. They accepted neither a universal jurisdiction of Abp. Damasus for unity, nor depended on any overarching responsibility of his for the same.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Originally Posted by mardukm

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.

I don't have to pretend: it was Ecumenical. But before going into that again, perhaps you should tell us when exactly it became Ecumenical. You do believe it is Ecumenical, no?

And, if you could, explain what does it matter, between 381 and whatever date you accept as when it "became Ecumenical."
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/06/13 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
(3) Because of this, St. Basil then appealed to Rome. Does the phrase "the court of last resort" sound familiar? wink


No, because there is no indication that St. Basil viewed Rome as a court of last resort. He attempted to sway many influential bishops in favor of St. Meletius, like St. Athanasius (and if I recall, St. Athanasius gave St. Basil the cold shoulder, never replying to his epistles), and there is no indication that he believed that swaying the bishop of Rome in Meletius' favor would resolve the situation any more than swaying the bishop of Alexandria. In fact, upon hearing of a rumor that Rome had given to the Paulinians a letter of recognition, St. Basil, contradicting this idea that Rome is a court of final appeals wrote in letter 214 to Count Terentius:

Quote
But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth; and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavour to conceal the reasons which led the blessed Bishop Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information. I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith;" and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/07/13 02:11 AM

Cavaradossi is correct, because there is no evidence that St. Basil saw the bishop of Rome as the court of last resort. Moreover, even the Sardican canons do not promote the idea that the bishop of Rome can - on his own initiative - simply overturn a prior Synodical decision; instead, those canons allow a person to appeal to the pope in order to see if a new Synodical trial is warranted. If he (i.e., the pope) decides that a new trial is warranted, he calls a new synod of the bishops of the area, and at that new Synod he is allowed to cast one vote along with the other bishops. Clearly the pope does not by himself decide the outcome of the case; and in fact, he can be on the losing side in the new trial. Whether certain papal apologists wish to admit it or not, the Sardican canons do not support the later Roman Catholic idea that the pope is some kind of supreme judge, who on his own authority can simply issue decrees binding upon the whole Church.
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/08/13 06:00 AM

But St. James spoke and concluided the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Why would the first Pope not do such? Heck, if any church should be granted ecclesiastical lordship, it should be Jerusalem. Or perhaps the first See of St. Peter, Antioch. God bless.

At the end of the day, I think the Vatican has to be cautious in not roughing up the Orthodox and giving them the "Canossa treatment," ala Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV crawling in the snows to bed forgiveness of the Pope. It is not clear cut necessity for conversion, such as for Protestants, Calvinists, Anglicans, Mormons, and others.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/08/13 12:12 PM

Let us not forget that Henry IV had the last laugh, and Gregory VII Hildebrand was the one who died alone, in exile.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/08/13 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by mardukm
Yes, I am aware of the context. I quoted it to demonstrate that this passage can indeed refer to St. Peter and his successors, which you were denying. It is the concept of headship that is the issue here. The passage regarding the wise and faithful servant, as I already affirmed a few times, concerns the notion of headship (VISIBLE headship, to be exact) in general, so it can indeed be used to apply to ANY hierarchical situation, which would include the situation of a bishop, who is indeed the visible head of his diocese -- but it can just as easily apply to the metropolitan, patriarchal and universal levels. St. John Chrysostom specifically mentions St. Peter and his successors to underscore the principle of headship, using St. Peter's own headship among the Apostles to demonstrate the principle of headship in the Church, a principle of headship given by Christ Himself.

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.

Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome. Thus the work does teach Orthodoxy well, but rather undermines the claims of the Pastor Aeternus, and the suggestions of Ut Unum Sint, which presupposes the PA.

As Apotheum points out, there is no talk of headship. I contend (and I do not know Apotheum's agreement or disagreement with the following) that St. John Chrysostom does not speak of it because no such order as "head bishop" exists in the divine institution of the episcopate. Christ and the Holy Spirit did not consecrate any Apostle to any such office, a fact that Pastor Aeternus denies, alleging "To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures" i.e. Ultramontanism, "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," and, as it follows, Ut Unum Sint:
Quote
"Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good...as I acknowledged on the important occasion of a visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva on 12 June 1984, the Catholic Church's conviction that in the ministry of the Bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity...After centuries of bitter controversies, the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities are more and more taking a fresh look at this ministry of unity.
The Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of the Church which preserves the mark of the martyrdom of Peter and of Paul: "By a mysterious design of Providence it is at Rome that [Peter] concludes his journey in following Jesus, and it is at Rome that he gives his greatest proof of love and fidelity. Likewise Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, gives his supreme witness at Rome. In this way the Church of Rome became the Church of Peter and of Paul".
In the New Testament, the person of Peter has an eminent place. In the first part of the Acts of the Apostles, he appears as the leader and spokesman of the Apostolic College described as "Peter ... and the Eleven" (2:14; cf. 2:37, 5:29). The place assigned to Peter is based on the words of Christ himself, as they are recorded in the Gospel traditions...
As the heir to the mission of Peter in the Church, which has been made fruitful by the blood of the Princes of the Apostles, the Bishop of Rome exercises a ministry originating in the manifold mercy of God. This mercy converts hearts and pours forth the power of grace where the disciple experiences the bitter taste of his personal weakness and helplessness. The authority proper to this ministry is completely at the service of God's merciful plan and it must always be seen in this perspective. Its power is explained from this perspective...The mission of the Bishop of Rome within the College of all the Pastors consists precisely in "keeping watch" (episkopein), like a sentinel, so that, through the efforts of the Pastors, the true voice of Christ the Shepherd may be heard in all the particular Churches. In this way, in each of the particular Churches entrusted to those Pastors, the una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia is made present. All the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ. With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches...
The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, isin God's planan essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the communityall the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.



Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/12/13 09:19 PM

Dear Cavaradossi,

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
No, because there is no indication that St. Basil viewed Rome as a court of last resort. He attempted to sway many influential bishops in favor of St. Meletius, like St. Athanasius (and if I recall, St. Athanasius gave St. Basil the cold shoulder, never replying to his epistles), and there is no indication that he believed that swaying the bishop of Rome in Meletius' favor would resolve the situation any more than swaying the bishop of Alexandria. In fact, upon hearing of a rumor that Rome had given to the Paulinians a letter of recognition, St. Basil, contradicting this idea that Rome is a court of final appeals wrote in letter 214 to Count Terentius:
But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth; and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavour to conceal the reasons which led the blessed Bishop Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information. I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith;" and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.


Your statements here don't really address the issue. Of course we can find instances when a certain bishop appeals to the bishop of Rome SIMULTANEOUS with appeal to other bishops. That was rather normal, since bishops, in communion with each other, naturally looked to each other for support. But the idea of "court of last resort" pertains to another completely different situation and context. The idea of a court of last resort refers to a situation where a bishop appeals to another bishop (in this case, the bishop of Rome), not just for the sake of support among many bishops, but specifically as a means to overcome the decision of a prior authority.

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

Finally, I have to wonder what exactly is the basis for your statement "there is no indication that he believed that swaying the bishop of Rome in Meletius' favor would resolve the situation." It can't possibly be from the letter you quoted to Count Terentius. The only things one can conclude from the letter are: (1) The Romans are ignorant of the facts regarding Antioch; (2) the Paulinians have given a FALSE impression of Meletius to Rome; (3) St. Basil did not accept the Paulinians, despite their letter from Rome, because he thought the Paulinians did "not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith." So very far from saying the decision of Pope St. Damasus would not resolve the situation, he was simply saying that he regarded the approval of Pope St. Damasus and the Westerns to have been based on a false impression of Meletius given to them by the Paulinians. You'll have to look for another source to support your claim that the decision of the bishop of Rome would not have resolved the situation, because it can't be from the letter you quoted.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
I would like to submit a followup statement, a question of sorts for Marduk. If the primacy of the bishop of Rome is attached not to the office of the bishop of Rome, but personally to the successor of Peter, how exactly is this power of primacy passed on from successor to successor?

Perhaps I was unclear in my statement that there is a distinction between the primacy of a Church among Churches and the primacy of the bishop (of that primatial Church) among his brother bishops.

The primacy of a particular Church (i.e., locale) was based on several religious factors. The city (and thus the See) of Jerusalem held the primacy for obvious, religious reasons (where our Lord lived, preached and died). The city (and thus the See) of Rome held the primacy, also for obvious, religious reasons (where the two greatest Apostles lived for a time, preached and died). The primacy of a particular Church might also be obtained because of the apostolic succession of its bishop.

In distinction, the primacy of a bishop is based on apostolic succession alone, and is not because of (though related to) the primacy of the Church of which he is the bishop. The office of which you wrote was established because of apostolic succession, not because of the honor or primacy given to that particular Church (i.e., locale).

This is the reason why Rome resisted the assignment of primacy to Constantinople among Churches in the East for so long. Constantinople's original claim to primacy was not based on any religious reason or apostolic succession, but due to purely secular motives. Only after Constantinople started claiming apostolic succession from St. Andrew (in the 6th century?), and after Trullo stopped claiming that Constantinople held its status merely because it was the capital of the Empire (7th century), did Rome finally accept the status of Constantinople (at the so-called 8th Ecum Council) among the Patriarchates.

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/12/13 09:36 PM

Dear brother Apotheoun,

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
You always did seem Latinized to me, and this post confirms it.

That's OK. I've had some Easterns accuse me of being Latinized just because I don't sign the same way they do. smile It's a common enough hazard, especially when certain Easterns might think they are the only non-Latin Tradtion in existence. My assessment of the Canons does not mean I am latinized. It just means I am not anti-Latin. I am 100% secure in my identity as an Oriental (i.e., non-Latin), and do not feel the least bit threatened to admit the similarities with my Latin brethren.

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

The idea that identity in Canons indicates lack of faithfulness to the Eastern or Oriental Canonical Tradition is very poor rhetoric. I recall the time in college when I was exposed to the fact that the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ is exactly mirrored by several pagan religions even more ancient than Christianity. This has caused not a few to claim that Christianity should be rejected as a myth just like the ancient pagan religions. Tempting analysis, but ultimately injudicious and unacceptable. There is a name for that particular rhetorical error, but I forget it at the moment. It's sufficient to point out that your argument evinces that exact error.

Let's check out some of these identical canons that are SUPPOSEDLY unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition:
Canon 11 (which is CIC Canon 208) - In vitue of their rebirth in Christ there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality with regard to dignity and the activity whereby all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ in accord with each one's own condition and function.

Canon 673 (which is CIC Canon 837) - The celebration of the sacraments, above all the Divine Liturgy, as an action of the Church, inasmuch as possible, should be done with active participation of the Christian faithful.

Canon 595 (which is CIC Canon 747) - The Church, to whom Christ the Lord entrusted the depost if faith, assisted by the Holy Spirit, it might reverently safeguard revealed truth, more closely examine it and faithfully proclaim and expound it, has the innate duty and right to preach the gospel to all nations, independent of any human power whatever.

It's rather ridiculous to pretend that these Canons are unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Traditions. It's interesting that non-Latins often claim that we live according to the SPIRIT of the law, not its letter, but in your own assessment of this issue, you depend wholly on the LETTER of the law, and not its spirit. It should also be noted that just because something is canonized does not make it unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Traditions. The singular difference between the Latin Canonical Tradition, on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition, on the other, is the perception of what "Canon" means. To Latins, it refers to a rule that must always be followed except in extenuating circumstances. To Easterns/Orientals, a canon is as a guide, the exceptions as much a part of the "rule" of living the Christian life as the "rule" itself.

In light of this, I'd like to amend my original assessment - as a whole, I believe only about 20% of the CCEO has matter foreign to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition (caveat: "foreign" but not "opposed").

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

Probably because its coordination was acheived at Rome, and the official language of Rome is Latin. The desire to have a separate Code of Canons for the non-Latin Churches was not a brainchild of the Latins, but was explicitly expressed by Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans way back during Vatican 1. Also, this general body of laws does not suborn our particular laws.

Further, as someone else pointed out, the Church today is living in a reality that was not a big factor in the early Church - non-Latin Churches being established in jurisdictional territories that Traditionally belong to the Latins. If we have new canons based on this new reality, that should come as no surprise.

I have encountered several Easterns on the I-net who interpret Eucharistic ecclesiology to mean that each member Church is totally "independent" and "wholly apart" from other Churches - which is in fact the exact opposite of what Eucharistic ecclesiology is all about according to Scripture (see St. Paul's teaching in Romans 12 and I Cor 12). As a High Petrine advocate, this idea of Churches being totally "independent and wholly apart" is one of the Low Petrine excesses I oppose.

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
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.

Interesting. I never stated that St. Chrysostom was making a specific statement on Rome, only that he was making a statement on the principle of headship, which can just as much apply to the headship of a bishop in his diocese, as to any ecclesiastical reality that has a coryphaeus. I suppose one can read anything into what other people write and pretend one has made a point.

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
As the study document (a.k.a., the Cyprus Document) of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church makes clear, East and West - at least since the 4th or 5th century - have understood petrine succession and primacy differently. Here is how the authors of that document put it:

"In the West, the accent placed on the link between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter, particularly from the fourth century onwards, was accompanied by an increasingly more specific reference to Peter's role within the college of the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles (cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 94, 2; 95, 3). The position of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was understood in terms of the position of Peter among the apostles. In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur. Such an interpretation was never explicitly rejected in the East in the first millennium, but the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.).

In a somewhat similar way, the West did not reject the idea of the Pentarchy (cf. above, n. 13) indeed it carefully observed the taxis of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, around which the five patriarchates of the ancient Church developed (cf. Ravenna document, n. 28). However, the West never gave the same significance to the Pentarchy as a way of governance of the Church as the East did.

It is notable that these rather different understandings of the position of the bishop of Rome and the relationship of the major sees in West and East, respectively, based on quite different biblical, theological and canonical interpretations, co-existed for several centuries until the end of the first millennium, without causing a break of communion."

Thanks for this. I'd never read this before. This Eastern viewpoint expressed here is defintely High Petrine. Whereas the document states that the East understands each bishop as "the successor of all the apostles, including Peter," many Eastern pundits on the I-net rather like to pretend that each bishop is the successor of Peter, period. BIG difference. I believe the Catholic Church can work with the former position, but not the latter.

Quote
The Western developments in connection with the papacy and its role never occurred in the East, which is why they seem so foreign to Eastern Christians. Perhaps on this issue East and West will have to agree to disagree.

"So foreign" is hardly a descriptive I would attach to the comparision of Eastern and Western viewpoints contained in that document. It states that the Western understanding was "never explicitly rejected" in the first millenium. That it was never explicitly rejected is easily proven - it is evinced in the normal praxis of appealing to the bishop of Rome as court of last appeal (in honor of the memory of St. Peter, no less), and of the confirmation of Ecumenical Councils by the bishop of Rome. But certain Easterns today want to affirm that it must be explicitly rejected. These particular Easterns have what I have often referred to as the "Low Petrine view." According to the document, it is not patristic.

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
even the Sardican canons do not promote the idea that the bishop of Rome can - on his own initiative - simply overturn a prior Synodical decision;

Who here said he could?

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
instead, those canons allow a person to appeal to the pope in order to see if a new Synodical trial is warranted. If he (i.e., the pope) decides that a new trial is warranted, he calls a new synod of the bishops of the area, and at that new Synod he is allowed to cast one vote along with the other bishops. Clearly the pope does not by himself decide the outcome of the case; and in fact, he can be on the losing side in the new trial. Whether certain papal apologists wish to admit it or not, the Sardican canons do not support the later Roman Catholic idea that the pope is some kind of supreme judge, who on his own authority can simply issue decrees binding upon the whole Church.

AMEN!!!

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/12/13 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
I didn't fail to mention it because Pontiff St. Damasus did no such thing. Met. St. Meletius made the offer, and since Pontiff St. Damasus had no dealings with him (Met. St. Basil complaining of the Archbishop of Rome being uninvolved and misinformed about the East), Pontiff St. Damasus had no part in it. In fact, he held a synod in Rome in 380 which precluded both communion with Met. St. Meletius, or him serving as bishop in Antioch.

I guess you have a different understanding of what "brokered" means. It doesn't mean that Pope St. Damasus was the one that made the offer. It just means he was a middle-man of sorts between the parties, promoting a resolution (whatever that would be) between the parties.

Secondly, I'm not sure about the events of the Synod in 380, except that it declared anathemas against several heresies. But I do know that Pope St. Damasus was concerned about the welfare of Antioch. In fact, there was also another Roman Synod in 382, and part of its purpose was to heal the schism at Antioch.

Thirdly, can you please explain what you mean by "precluded both communion with Met. St. Meletius, or him serving as bishop in Antioch?"

Fourthly, I'm not sure what your source is that claims it was St. Meletius that proposed the resolution, but Socrates Scholasticus suggests that it was actually the Paulinians who proposed it, since they were the ones eager to have St. Meletius connected with their party. I have read one source that claims it was St, Meletius who proposed it, but it also wrongly stated that Paulinus rejected the offer.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
You are right that the Paulinist party rejected the offer (so much for the theory that Paulinus was the Pope's man)

Au contraire: it would seem that he rejected the offer because he enjoyed Rome (and Alexandria's) support.

OOPS! I was wrong. According to Socrates and Sozomen (the Church historians), Paulinus actually DID accept the offer. The statement from Paulinus often bandied about that he rejected St. Meletius because he could not accept his ordination by Arians has been wrenched out of context. According to both historians, Paulinus was weakening due to old age, and so the Paulinians desired to make peace with the Meletians. At the initial overture, Paulinus made the statement that he could not accept St. Meletius' ordination. Thus, Meletius was ordained again on that same day. Thereafter, the agreement between the Paulinians and Meletians was achieved. Together the two groups selected 6 who had good qualifications to be bishop, and there was an OATH made that none of these 6 would attempt to be ordained bishop immediately, but that the government of the Church in Antioch would be handed over to either the Paulinist or Meletian party depending on whether it was Paulinus or Meletius who outlived the other (meanwhile, Meletius and Paulinus simply governed their particular camps as usual) - this was the agreement brokered by Rome. When St. Meletius died, the oath was broken, and several bishops installed Flavian as their leader - Flavian was actually one of the 6 priests from the Meletian party who, upon oath, had promised NOT to be ordained bishop upon the death of either Meletius or Paulinus. It is not clear if it was the Meletian party that caused the oath to be broken, or if certain parties outside of Antioch (i.e., at Constantinople) were the ones who (perhaps forcibly) installed Flavian as bishop of Antioch. It seems the decision was reactionary - those who installed Flavian did not want a bishop of obvious "Western" influence into an "Eastern" See.

Quote
That he was Rome's man in 382 stands as a fact, not postulated as a theory.

The situation was complicated. The idea that is false and not a fact is the pretense that Pope St. Damasus was opposed to St. Meletius just because he conceded the See to Paulinus. That is the suggestion of saying that Paulinus was "Rome's man," which is why I said it was false.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by Mardukm
but St. Meletius agreed to it.

Not really, but I'd be interested in you recounting what your sources say otherwise.

Already given above.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
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.

So much for Pastor Aeternus. At the time, it was made quite clear that his wishes were not dispositive.

The ones who exacerbated the schism were the ones who installed a member of the Meletian party at the Church of Antioch, breaking the oath made by both parties. So basically, your best argument is to support the breaking of oaths and causing the continuation of schism. I'd agree with you - Pastor Aeternus opposes such aberrations in the Chuch of God, and has nothing to do with that. This reminds me of the arguments I've encountered from certain non-Catholics, using St. Cyprian's opposition to Pope St. Stephen, and the rejection of the Council of Sardica by most Easterns at the time, as proof against the primacy of the bishop of Rome. But St. Cyprian was wrong on the matter on which he opposed Pope St. Stephen, and the Easterns who rejected Sardica were heretics. So basically, the arguments from Low Petrine advocates depend on (1) those who are in error, (2) those who are heretics, (3) those who break oaths and perpetuate schism. Upon thoughtful consideration, I am even more inclined to reject the Low Petrine excesses.

Quote
And no, he didn't wish to see Met. St. Meletius restored to his see.

You haven't presented any proof so far. If he was so against St. Meletius and the Meletians, surely the Pope would have made it evident in his letter of approval to Paulinus. Let me ask again, where is your proof for this statement?

Quote
I don't have to pretend: it was Ecumenical. But before going into that again, perhaps you should tell us when exactly it became Ecumenical. You do believe it is Ecumenical, no?

It was accepted as Ecumenical for the first time at Chalcedon (the 4th Ecum). It was not recognized as such by Ephesus (the 3rd Ecum) - read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum. You are actually the first one I've met who claims that the Second Ecum was ecumenical from the get-go.

Quote
Since the Metropolitan of Antioch opened the Council, with his bishops in attendance, by definition it did not "intrude another into the See."

The Paulinists and Meletians made a common OATH that Paulinus should have the See after Meletius died. That local council intruded another into the See of Antioch.

Quote
Aside from its position as an Ecumenical Council.

At the time, it is false to claim it was an Ecum Council. It did not have the confirmation of the bishop of Rome, and thus was only a local council, and did not have ecumenical authority (which means it did not have the authority on its own to intrude a bishop upon the Church of Antioch).

Quote
The resolution of the Meletian Schism shows that "Ut Unum Sint" would not be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, who set their seal on the standard of Orthodoxy, from which we cannot deviate. They accepted neither a universal jurisdiction of Abp. Damasus for unity, nor depended on any overarching responsibility of his for the same.

Yes, oath breakers and perpetuators of schism would not agree with Ut Unum Sint. The Fathers of the Second Ecum were thoroughly orthodox, but they also let secular considerations intrude too much into the government of the Church.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
And, if you could, explain what does it matter, between 381 and whatever date you accept as when it "became Ecumenical."

It didn't have the proper authority to intrude someone into the See of another autonomous Church.

Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome.

There are several problems with your statement.
(1) John Chrysostom was not the bishop of Constantinople when he wrote "On the Priesthood." It was written when he was a deacon about 386.
(2) St. Meletius was never out of communion with Rome. In fact, the Meletians appealed to Rome on a matter of doctrine in 378/9, and the reply from Rome was a partial basis for the Decrees of the Second Ecum (under St. Meletius) on the Holy Spirit. Though the Pope chose Paulinus as bishop (only because of the circumstance that St. Meletius was in exile), it does not mean that the Pope was against St. Meletius, nor that St. Meletius was against Rome. You keep claiming some sort of animus between Rome and the Meletians, yet no evidence has been offered. Certain people make too much of the fact that Rome chose Paulinus. Though he chose Paulinus, there is actually no evidence that he chose Paulinus in preference against St. Meletius.
(3) John Chrysostom actually separated himself for a while from the Meletians after St. Meletius's death (perhaps because he deplored the fact that the Meletians had broken their oath), and soon after accepted ordination to the priesthood at the hands of Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus (see Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History).
(4) As bishop of Constantinople, St. Chrysostom was the one who proactively tried to establish friendly relations between the Church of Rome under Pope St. Siricius and the Antiochenes under St. Flavian. In fact, Pope St. Siricius had given instructions to a Council of Caesarea concerning the acceptance of Flavian, which regularized the relations between Rome and the Meletians. What are your reasons and sources for claiming that St. Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome?

Quote
Thus the work does teach Orthodoxy well, but rather undermines the claims of the Pastor Aeternus, and the suggestions of Ut Unum Sint, which presupposes the PA.

It only demonstrates that creative (to put it nicely)interpretations of history by Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates don't agree with Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint.

Quote
As Apotheum points out, there is no talk of headship.

Apotheoun seems to be a Low Petrine advocate, so it's probably little wonder you agree with him. That doesn't prove anything. The concept of headship was established by Christ. A bishop is a head in his local Church, but now you are denying that such a headship can even exist. The rhetoric of the Low Petrine view is rather inconsistent.

Quote
I contend (and I do not know Apotheum's agreement or disagreement with the following) that St. John Chrysostom does not speak of it because no such order as "head bishop" exists in the divine institution of the episcopate. Christ and the Holy Spirit did not consecrate any Apostle to any such office

There seems to be a confusion over the matter. The visible headship of the Church as a whole is of divine institution (WHERE it's located, that's another matter), but it is not a different Order. The Sacrament of Orders is for the SANCTIFICATION of the Church, not its government, so please stop pretending that the headship has anything to do with Orders.

The visible headship is for the government of the Church, and the primordial visible headship was established by Christ Himself. As the Church grew, it became evident that the principle of visible headship needed to be applied to smaller, and progressively smaller sections of the Church (as the membership of those local Churches grew). Thus, the Church established primates, patriarchs, metropolitans, etc. This all came out of the primordial model established by Christ Himself for His Church as a whole.

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/12/13 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
But St. James spoke and concluided the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Why would the first Pope not do such? Heck, if any church should be granted ecclesiastical lordship, it should be Jerusalem. Or perhaps the first See of St. Peter, Antioch. God bless.

First, I believe it's rather common knowledge and belief that the Apostles conceded the bishopric to St. James because the Lord expected the Apostles to be ITINERANT, instead of remaining in one place.

Second, as St. Chrysostom indicated, St. James was the teacher of Jerusalem, but St. Peter was the teacher of the whole world.

Third, I'm not aware of any Ecum Council that was presided over by the bishop of Rome, but every Council that has been graced with that status required the confirmation of the bishop of Rome. Read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum Council, and you might notice that the confirmation of the bishop of Rome is considered a different kind of animal than the general agreement of the bishops.

Blessings
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/13/13 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
But St. James spoke and concluided the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Why would the first Pope not do such? Heck, if any church should be granted ecclesiastical lordship, it should be Jerusalem. Or perhaps the first See of St. Peter, Antioch. God bless.

First, I believe it's rather common knowledge and belief that the Apostles conceded the bishopric to St. James because the Lord expected the Apostles to be ITINERANT, instead of remaining in one place.

Holy Tradition records it as an issue of "glory" (doxa), not of mobility and immobility.

Acts 1:4 And eating together with them, He commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith He) by My mouth.
Acts 8:1 AND at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the Apostles.

Acts 12:17 But he [St. Peter] beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.

That was a decade or so after the Ascension.

And he came back:
Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question....6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them...

And it seems the Apostles were associated with Jerusalem:
Gal. 2:1 Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. 2 And I went up according to revelation; and communicated to them the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude. 5 To whom we yielded not by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. 7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. 8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [i.e. Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: 10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.
11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Second, as St. Chrysostom indicated, St. James was the teacher of Jerusalem, but St. Peter was the teacher of the whole world.

Not here he doesn't:
Quote
Then all the multitude kept silence, etc. Acts 15:12 There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered, etc. Acts 15:13 (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm
Originally Posted by mardukm

Third, I'm not aware of any Ecum Council that was presided over by the bishop of Rome, but every Council that has been graced with that status required the confirmation of the bishop of Rome. Read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum Council, and you might notice that the confirmation of the bishop of Rome is considered a different kind of animal than the general agreement of the bishops.

Rather than a fishing expedition, why don't you quote the Acts of the IIIrd Ecumenical Council?

Btw, when do you believe the Second Ecumenical Council became Ecumenical?

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was held over the Abp. of Rome's explicit opposition. The IIIrd Ecumenical Council did not differ in its opinion on "confirmation of the bishop of Rome" versus "the general agreement of the Bishops."
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/13/13 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome.

There are several problems with your statement.
(1) John Chrysostom was not the bishop of Constantinople when he wrote "On the Priesthood." It was written when he was a deacon about 386.

Lord willing, I'll get to the rest (as I am working on the rest), but this caught my eye.

Yes, I'm aware of those facts. In fact, I mentioned in passing that he was not a bishop at the time. What makes you think that presents a problem for me?

It doesn't, btw.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/14/13 04:16 PM

I am working on the rest of the posts, but this stuck out for its oddity:
Originally Posted by mardukm

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

I'll skip over the last part-which contradicts both what Ut Unum Sint and Pastor Aeternus say on the matter-which deals with generalities (to be dealt with in time, Lord willing), and get to specifics.

Why Rome's influence in the matter might carry more weight doesn't present a mystery: the Emperor at Rome (actually, Milan) confessed the Orthodox Faith and supported the Catholic Church, while heretics ruled at Constantinople over the East-including Alexandria-who persecuted the Church and exiled her bishops. How fast things moved-i.e. a matter of weeks-to secure Abp. St. Meletius on his throne in Antioch after the heretics were removed from the imperial throne underscores that.

In 376 Met. St. Basil writes that he had lost his patience with Rome in its safe haven, and reproaches its bishop for dictating to the Church instead of using his influence with the Emperor for good:
Quote
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

To Eusebius, bishop of Samosata.

1. The Lord has granted me the privilege of now saluting your holiness by our beloved and very reverend brother, the presbyter Antiochus, of exhorting you to pray for me as you are wont, and offering in our communication by letter some consolation for our long separation. And, when you pray, I ask you to beg from the Lord this as the first and greatest boon, that I may be delivered from vile and wicked men, who have gained such power over the people that now I seem to see, indeed, a repetition of the events of the taking of Jerusalem. For the weaker grow the Churches the more does men's lust for power increase. And now the very title of bishop has been conferred on wretched slaves, for no servant of God would choose to come forward in opposition to claim the seeno one but miserable fellows like the emissaries of Anysius the creature of Euippius, and of Ecdicius of Parnassus: whoever has appointed him has sent into the Churches a poor means of aiding his own entry into the life to come.

They have expelled my brother from Nyssa, and into his place have introduced hardly a man a mere scamp worth only an obol or two, but, so far as regards the ruin of the faith, a match for those who have put him where he is.

At the town of Doara they have brought shame upon the poor name of bishop, and have sent there a wretch, an orphans' domestic, a runaway from his own masters, to flatter a godless woman, who formerly used George as she liked, and now has got this fellow to succeed him.

And who could properly lament the occurrences at Nicopolis? That unhappy Fronto did, indeed, for a while pretend to be on the side of the truth, but now he has shamefully betrayed both the faith and himself, and for the price of his betrayal has got a name of disgrace. He imagines that he has obtained from these men the rank of bishop; in reality he has become, by God's grace, the abomination of all Armenia. But there is nothing that they will not dare; nothing wherein they are at a loss for worthy accomplices. But the rest of the news of Syria my brother knows better, and can tell you better, than I.

2. The news of the West you know already, on the recital of brother Dorotheus. What sort of letters are to be given him on his departure? Perhaps he will travel with the excellent Sanctissimus, who is full of enthusiasm, journeying through the East, and collecting letters and signatures from all the men of mark. What ought to be written by them, or how I can come to an agreement with those who are writing, I do not know. If you hear of any one soon travelling my way, be so good as to let me know. I am moved to say, as Diomede said,

Would God, Atrides, your request were yet to undertake;
...he's proud enough.

Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphus nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it. I would say, generally, that they ought not to press hard on men who are crushed by trials. They must not take dignity for pride. Sin only avails to produce enmity against God.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ccxl.html
Now, there's a reference to the bishop of Rome as "Coryphus," as that "soul...haughtier than ever" refers to Abp. Damasus: it seems that the Emperor granting him the ancient imperial title "pontifex maximus" had gone to his head. Note too that Met. St. Basil points out that Abp. Damasus' spurns communion with Abp. St. Meltius, but communes with the heretic Marcellus of Ancyra, i.e. in the same Diocese as Met. St. Gregory. On Marcellus, St. Jerome reports him among the Illustrious Men (Chapter 85):
Quote
Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, flourished in the reign of Constantinus and Constantius and wrote many volumes of various Propositions and especially against the Arians. Works of Asterius and Apollinarius against him are current, which accuse him of Sabellianism. Hilary too, in the seventh book of his work Against the Arians, mentions him as a heretic, but he defends himself against the charge through the fact that Julius and Athanasius bishops of Rome and Alexandria communed with him.


Btw, Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria fell asleep in 373 (and we have a letter to him from Met. St. Basil on these matters from 372), not 377. In that latter year, however, Met. St. Basil did write to the successor to the see of Alexandria, then in exile in Rome:
Quote
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

To Petrus, bishop of Alexandria.
1. You have very properly rebuked me, and in a manner becoming a spiritual brother who has been taught genuine love by the Lord, because I am not giving you exact and detailed information of all that is going on here, for it is both your part to be interested in what concerns me, and mine to tell you all that concerns myself. But I must tell you, right honourable and well-beloved brother, that our continuous afflictions, and this mighty agitation which is now shaking the Churches, result in my taking all that is happening as a matter of course. Just as in smithies where men whose ears are deafened get accustomed to the sound, so by the frequency of the strange tidings that reach me I have now grown accustomed to be undisturbed and undismayed at extraordinary events. So the policy which has been for a long time pursued by the Arians to the detriment of the Church, although their achievements have been many and great and noised abroad through all the world, has nevertheless been endurable to me, because of their being the work of open foes and enemies of the word of truth. It is when these men do something unusual that I am astonished, not when they attempt something great and audacious against true religion. But I am grieved and troubled at what is being done by men who feel and think with me. Yet their doings are so frequent and so constantly reported to me, that even they do not appear surprising. So it comes about that I was not agitated at the recent disorderly proceedings, partly because I knew perfectly well that common report would carry them to you without my help, and partly because I preferred to wait for somebody else to give you disagreeable news. And yet, further, I did not think it reasonable that I should show indignation at such proceedings, as though I were annoyed at suffering a slight. To the actual agents in the matter I have written in becoming terms, exhorting them, because of the dissension arising among some of the brethren there, not to fall away from charity, but to wait for the matter to be set right by those who have authority to remedy disorders in due ecclesiastical form. That you should have so acted, stirred by honourable and becoming motives, calls for my commendation, and moves my gratitude to the Lord that there remains preserved in you a relic of the ancient discipline, and that the Church has not lost her own might in my persecution. The canons have not suffered persecution as well as I. Though importuned again by the Galatians, I was never able to give them an answer, because I waited for your decision. Now, if the Lord so will and they will consent to listen to me, I hope that I shall be able to bring the people to the Church. It cannot then be cast in my teeth that I have gone over to the Marcellians, and they on the contrary will become limbs of the body of the Church of Christ. Thus the disgrace caused by heresy will be made to disappear by the method I adopt, and I shall escape the opprobrium of having gone over to them.

2. I have also been grieved by our brother Dorotheus, because, as he has himself written, he has not gently and mildly reported everything to your excellency. I set this down to the difficulty of the times. I seem to be deprived by my sins of all success in my undertakings, if indeed the best of my brethren are proved ill-disposed and incompetent, by their failure to perform their duties in accordance with my wishes. On his return Dorotheus reported to me the conversation which he had had with your excellency in the presence of the very venerable bishop Damasus, and he caused me distress by saying that our God-beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Meletius and Eusebius, had been reckoned among the Ariomaniacs. If their orthodoxy were established by nothing else, the attacks made upon them by the Arians are, to the minds of all right thinking people, no small proof of their rectitude. Even your participation with them in sufferings endured for Christ's sake ought to unite your reverence to them in love. Be assured of this, right honourable sir, that there is no word of orthodoxy which has not been proclaimed by these men with all boldness. God is my witness. I have heard them myself. I should not certainly have now admitted them to communion, if I had caught them tripping in the faith. But, if it seem good to you, let us leave the past alone. Let us make a peaceful start for the future. For we have need one of another in the fellowship of the members, and specially now, when the Churches of the East are looking to us, and will take your agreement as a pledge of strength and consolidation. If, on the other hand, they perceive that you are in a state of mutual suspicion, they will drop their hands, and slacken in their resistance to the enemies of the faith.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cclxvii.html
Note that here Met. St. Basil is writing overtures to Pope St. Peter, although the latter is living in exile from his see with Abp. Damusus in Rome. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried no more weight than Alexandria's, as Met. St. Basil praises Pope Peter in the letter for his guidance and instruction, but reproaches Abp. Damasus for the latter's ill-disposition and incompetence for failing to perform his duties in accordance with Met. St. Basil's wishes.

Met. St. Basil wrote to a number of bishops in exile, including Bps. Eulogios, Alexander and Harpocration, suffragans of Pope St. Peter, on these matters. He also wrote many letters to "the Westerners," including one addressed to "the bishops of Gaul and Italy" (in that order): are you going to tell us that he was speaking, as a prophet, of Avignon?

From what St. Basil says, one wonders if the issue of St. Meletius is one of those "certain painful recollections" that Ut Unum Sint refers to. "When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him," so Ut Unum Sint tells us: what does that say of shunning communion with Abp. St. Meletius and embracing communion with Marcellus, as Met. St. Basil points out? "By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity," so Ut Unum Sint tells us: what of when he is wrong, or "proved ill disposed and incompetent," as Met. St. Basil says of Abp. St. Damasus of Rome?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/14/13 08:41 PM

I responded to the first part in the new thread "Orthodoxy and the Vatican Papacy: Abp. St. Meletius of Antioch," but the later part might be answered here.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
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.

So much for Pastor Aeternus. At the time, it was made quite clear that his wishes were not dispositive.

The ones who exacerbated the schism were the ones who installed a member of the Meletian party at the Church of Antioch, breaking the oath made by both parties. So basically, your best argument is to support the breaking of oaths and causing the continuation of schism. I'd agree with you - Pastor Aeternus opposes such aberrations in the Chuch of God, and has nothing to do with that. This reminds me of the arguments I've encountered from certain non-Catholics, using St. Cyprian's opposition to Pope St. Stephen, and the rejection of the Council of Sardica by most Easterns at the time, as proof against the primacy of the bishop of Rome. But St. Cyprian was wrong on the matter on which he opposed Pope St. Stephen, and the Easterns who rejected Sardica were heretics.

Not quite. Sardica was held as an Ecumenical Council, and it was approved by the authority Pastor Aeternus says has to confirm it. However, Pope St. Athanasius wasn't the only one exonerated at Sardica: the Council also exonerated Marcellus of Ancyra and put him back in his see. The same Marcellus that the letters of Met. St. Basil-posted in the ""Orthodoxy and the Vatican Papacy: Abp. St. Meletius of Antioch" thread-condemned as a heretic and reproached him whom Pastor Aeternus makes the judge and guardian of orthodoxy and Ut Unum Sint charges with responsibility for the unity of the Catholic Church, i.e. the bishop of Rome St. Damasus, for communing with the same Marcellus-while refusing communion with Abp. St. Meletius, the rightful bishop of Antioch.
Socrates Scholasticus, Bk. II
Quote
Chapter 20. Of the Council at Sardica.
The Western prelates on account of their being of another language, and not understanding this exposition, would not admit of it; saying that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and that they would not waste time on anything beyond it. But when the emperor had again written to insist on the restoration to Paul and Athanasius of their respective sees, but without effect in consequence of the continual agitation of the people these two bishops demanded that another Synod should be convened, so that their case, as well as other questions in relation to the faith might be settled by an ecumenical council, for they made it obvious that their deposition arose from no other cause than that the faith might be the more easily perverted. Another general council was therefore summoned to meet at Sardica, a city of Illyricumby the joint authority of the two emperors; the one requesting by letter that it might be so, and the other, of the East, readily acquiescing in it. It was the eleventh year after the death of the father of the two Augusti, during the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius, that the Synod of Sardica met. According to the statement of Athanasius about 300 bishops from the western parts of the empire were present; but Sabinus says there came only seventy from the eastern parts, among whom was Ischyras of Mareotes, who had been ordained bishop of that country by those who deposed Athanasius. Of the rest, some pretended infirmity of body; others complained of the shortness of the notice given, casting the blame of it on Julius, bishop of Rome, although a year and a half had elapsed from the time of its having been summoned: in which interval Athanasius remained at Rome awaiting the assembling of the Synod. When at last they were convened at Sardica, the Eastern prelates refused either to meet or to enter into any conference with those of the West, unless they first excluded Athanasius and Paul from the convention. But as Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and Hosius, bishop of Cordova, a city in Spain, would by no means permit them to be absent, the Eastern bishops immediately withdrew, and returning to Philippopolis in Thrace, held a separate council, wherein they openly anathematized the term homoousios; and having introduced the Anomoian opinion into their epistles, they sent them in all directions. On the other hand those who remained at Sardica, condemning in the first place their departure, afterwards divested the accusers of Athanasius of their dignity; then confirming the Nicene Creed, and rejecting the term anomoion, they more distinctly recognized the doctrine of consubstantiality, which they also inserted in epistles addressed to all the churches. Both parties believed they had acted rightly: those of the East, because the Western bishops had countenanced those whom they had deposed; and these again, in consequence not only of the retirement of those who had deposed them before the matter had been examined into, but also because they themselves were the defenders of the Nicene faith, which the other party had dared to adulterate. They therefore restored to Paul and Athanasius their sees, and also Marcellus of Ancyra in Lesser Galatia, who had been deposed long before, as we have stated in the former book.
Quote
Chapter 36. Of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist.

The bishops assembled at Constantinople deposed also Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, a city of Galatia Minor, on this account. A certain rhetorician of Cappadocia named Asterius having abandoned his art, and professed himself a convert to Christianity, undertook the composition of some treatises, which are still extant, in which he commended the dogmas of Arius; asserting that Christ is the power of God, in the same sense as the locust and the palmer-worm are said by Moses to be the power of God, Joel 2:25 with other similar utterances. Now Asterius was in constant association with the bishops, and especially with those of their number who did not discountenance the Arian doctrine: he also attended their Synods, in the hope of insinuating himself into the bishopric of some city: but he failed to obtain ordination, in consequence of having sacrificed during the persecution. Going therefore throughout the cities of Syria, he read in public the books which he had composed. Marcellus being informed of this, and wishing to counteract his influence, in his over-anxiety to confute him, fell into the diametrically opposite error; for he dared to say, as the Samosatene had done, that Christ was a mere man. When the bishops then convened at Jerusalem had intelligence of these things, they took no notice of Asterius, because he was not enrolled even in the catalogue of ordained priests; but they insisted that Marcellus, as a priest, should give an account of the book which he had written. Finding that he entertained Paul of Samosata's sentiments, they required him to retract his opinion; and he being thoroughly ashamed of himself, promised to burn his book. But the convention of bishops being hastily dissolved by the emperor's summoning them to Constantinople, the Eusebians on their arrival at that city, again took the case of Marcellus into consideration; and as Marcellus refused to fulfil his promise of burning his untimely book, those present deposed him, and sent Basil into Ancyra in his stead. Moreover Eusebius wrote a refutation of this work in three books, in which he exposed its erroneous doctrine. Marcellus however was afterwards reinstated in his bishopric by the Synod at Sardica, on his assurance that his book had been misunderstood, and that on that account he was supposed to favor the Samosatene's views. But of this we shall speak more fully in its proper place.
At that time indeed he exerted himself to the utmost to procure the revocation of the sentence pronounced against him, declaring that his being suspected of entertaining the error of Paul of Samosata arose from a misunderstanding of some expressions in his book. It must, however, be noticed that Eusebius Pamphilus wrote three entire books against Marcellus, in which he quotes that author's own words to prove that he asserts with Sabellius the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, that the Lord [Jesus] was a mere man.


Sozomen Bk. III:
Quote
Chapter 11. The Long Formulary and the Enactments issued by the Synod of Sardica. Julius, Bishop of Rome, and Hosius, the Spanish Bishop, deposed by the Bishops of the East, because they held Communion with Athanasius and the Rest.

Three years afterwards, the bishops of the East sent to those of the West a formulary of faith, which, because it had been framed with verbiage and thoughts in excess of any former confession, was called &#956;&#945;&#954;&#961;&#972;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#967;&#959;&#962; &#7956;&#954;&#952;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#962; . In this formulary they made no mention of the substance of God, but those are excommunicated who maintain that the Son arose out of what had no previous existence, or that He is of Another hypostasis, and not of God, or that there was a time or an age in which He existed not. Eudoxius, who was still bishop of Germanicia, Martyrius, and Macedonius, carried this document, but the Western priests did not entertain it; for they declared that they felt fully satisfied with the doctrines established at Nica, and thought it entirely unnecessary to be too curious about such points.

After the Emperor Constans had requested his brother to reinstate the followers of Athanasius in their sees, and had found his application to be unavailing, on account of the counteracting influence of those who adopted a hostile heresy; and when, moreover, the party of Athanasius and Paul entreated Constans to assemble a Synod on account of the plots for the abolition of orthodox doctrines, both the emperors were of the opinion that the bishops of the East and of the West should be convened on a certain day at Sardica, a city of Illyria. The bishops of the East, who had previously assembled at Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, wrote to the bishops of the West, who had already assembled at Sardica, that they would not join them, unless they would eject the followers of Athanasius from their assembly, and from communion with them, because they had been deposed. They afterwards went to Sardica, but declared they would not enter the church, while those who had been deposed by them were admitted there. The bishops of the West replied, that they never had ejected them, and that they would not yield this now, particularly as Julius, bishop of Rome, after having investigated the case, had not condemned them, and that besides, they were present and ready to justify themselves and to refute again the offenses imputed to them. These declarations, however, were of no avail; and since the time they had appointed for the adjustment of their differences, concerning which they had convened, had expired, they finally wrote letters to one another on these points, and by these they were led to an increase of their previous ill-will. And after they had convened separately, they brought forward opposite decisions; for the Eastern bishops confirmed the sentences they had already enacted against Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, and deposed Julius, bishop of Rome, because he had been the first to admit those who had been condemned by them, into communion; and Hosius, the confessor, was also deposed, partly for the same reason, and partly because he was the friend of Paulinus and Eustathius, the rulers of the church in Antioch. Maximus, bishop of Treves, was deposed, because he had been among the first who had received Paul into communion, and had been the cause of his returning to Constantinople, and because he had excluded from communion the Eastern bishops who had repaired to Gaul. Besides the above, they likewise deposed Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and Gaudentius; the one because he favored Marcellus, although he had previously condemned him, and the other because he had adopted a different line of conduct from that of Cyriacus, his predecessor, and had supported many individuals then deposed by them. After issuing these sentences, they made known to the bishops of every region, that they were not to hold communion with those who were deposed, and that they were not to write to them, nor to receive letters from them. They likewise commanded them to believe what was said concerning God in the formulary which they subjoined to their letter, and in which no mention was made of the term consubstantial, but in which, those were excommunicated who said there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God, or that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that there was a time or an age in which He existed not.

Chapter 12. The Bishops of the Party of Julius and Hosius held another Session and deposed the Eastern High Priests, and also made a Formulary of Faith.

The adherents of Hosius, in the meantime, assembled together, and declared them innocent: Athanasius, because unjust machinations had been carried on against him by those who had convened at Tyre; and Marcellus, because he did not hold the opinions with which he was charged; and Asclepas, because he had been re-established in his diocese by the vote of Eusebius Pamphilus and of many other judges; that this was true he proved by the records of the trial; and lastly, Lucius, because his accusers had fled. They wrote to the parishes of each of the acquitted, commanding them to receive and recognize their bishops. They stated that Gregory had not been nominated by them bishop of Alexandria; nor Basil, bishop of Ancyra; nor Quintianus, bishop of Gaza; and that they had not received these men into communion, and did not even account them Christians. They deposed from the episcopates, Theodore, bishop of Thrace; Narcissus, bishop of Irenopolis; Acacius, bishop of Csarea, in Palestine; Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus; Ursacius, bishop of Sigidunus in Msia; Valens, bishop of Mursia in Pannonia; and George, bishop of Laodicea, although this latter had not attended the Synod with the Eastern bishops. They ejected the above-named individuals from the priesthood and from communion, because they separated the Son from the substance of the Father, and had received those who had been formerly deposed on account of their holding the Arian heresy, and had, moreover, promoted them to the highest offices in the service of God. After they had excided them for these perversions and decreed them to be aliens to the Catholic Church, they afterwards wrote to the bishops of every nation, commanding them to confirm these decrees, and to be of one mind on doctrinal subjects with themselves. They likewise compiled another document of faith, which was more copious than that of Nica, although the same thought was carefully preserved, and very little change was made in the words of that instrument. Hosius and Protogenes, who held the first rank among the Western bishops assembled at Sardica, fearing perhaps lest they should be suspected of making any innovations upon the doctrines of the Nicene council, wrote to Julius, and testified that they were firmly attached to these doctrines, but, pressed by the need of perspicuity, they had to expand the identical thought, in order that the Arians might not take advantage of the brevity of the document, to draw those who were unskilled in dialectics into some absurdity. When what I have related had been transacted by each party, the conference was dissolved, and the members returned to their respective homes. This Synod was held during the consulate of Rufinus and Eusebius, and about eleven years after the death of Constantine. There were about three hundred bishops of cities in the West, and upwards of seventy-six Eastern bishops, among whom was Ischyrion, who had been appointed bishop of Mareotis by the enemies of Athanasius.

Chapter 13. After the Synod, the East and the West are separated; the West nobly adheres to the Faith of the Nicene Council, while the East is disturbed by Contention here and there over this Dogma.

After this Synod, the Eastern and the Western churches ceased to maintain the intercourse which usually exists among people of the same faith, and refrained from holding communion with each other. The Christians of the West separated themselves from all as far as Thrace; those of the East as far as Illyria. This divided state of the churches was mixed, as might be supposed, with dissentient views and calumnies. Although they had previously differed on doctrinal subjects, yet the evil had attained no great height, for they had still held communion together and were wont to have kindred feelings. The Church throughout the whole of the West in its entirety regulated itself by the doctrines of the Fathers, and kept aloof from all contentions and hair-splitting about dogma. Although Auxentius, who had become bishop of Milan, and Valens and Ursacius, bishops of Pannonia, had endeavored to lead that part of the empire into the Arian doctrines, their efforts had been carefully anticipated by the president of the Roman see and the other priests, who cut out the seeds of such a troublesome heresy. As to the Eastern Church, although it had been racked by dissension since the time of the council of Antioch, and although it had already openly differed from the Nican form of belief, yet I think it is true that the opinion of the majority united in the same thought, and confessed the Son to be of the substance of the Father. There were some, however, who were fond of wrangling and battled against the term consubstantial for those who had been opposed to the word at the beginning, thought, as I infer, and as happens to most people, that it would be a disgrace to appear as conquered. Others were finally convinced of the truth of the doctrines concerning God, by the habit of frequent disputation on these themes, and ever afterwards continued firmly attached to them. Others again, being aware that contentions ought not to arise, inclined toward that which was gratifying to each of the sides, on account of the influence, either of friendship or they were swayed by the various causes which often induce men to embrace what they ought to reject, and to act without boldness, in circumstances which require thorough conviction. Many others, accounting it absurd to consume their time in altercations about words, quietly adopted the sentiments inculcated by the council of Nica. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the entire multitude of monks, Antony the Great, who still survived, his disciples, and a great number of Egyptians and of other places in the Roman territory, firmly and openly maintained the doctrines of the Nican council throughout the other regions of the East. As I have been led to allude to the monks, I shall briefly mention those who flourished during the reign of Constantius.

Theodoret, Church History, Bk. II:
Quote
Chapter 6. Council held at Sardica

Two hundred and fifty bishops assembled at Sardica , as is proved by ancient records. The great Athanasius, Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, already mentioned , and Marcellus , bishop of Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, who also held this bishopric at the time of the council of Nica, all repaired there. The calumniators, and the chiefs of the Arian faction, who had previously judged the cause of Athanasius, also attended. But when they found that the members of the synod were staunch in their adherence to sound doctrine, they would not even enter the council, although they had been summoned to it, but fled away, both accusers and judges. All these circumstances are far more clearly explained in a letter drawn up by the council; and I shall therefore now insert it.

Synodical Letter from the Bishops assembled at Sardica, addressed to the other Bishops.

The holy council assembled at Sardica, from Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Msia, Dacia, Dardania, Lesser Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace, Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithynia, the Hellespont, Phrygia, Pisidia, Cappadocia, Pontus, the lesser Phrygia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lydia, the Cyclades, Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, Galatia, Palestine and Arabia, to the bishops throughout the world, our fellow-ministers in the catholic and apostolic Church, and our beloved brethren in the Lord. Peace be unto you.

The madness of the Arians has often led them to the perpetration of violent atrocities against the servants of God who keep the true faith; they introduce false doctrines themselves, and persecute those who uphold orthodox principles. So violent were their attacks on the faith, that they reached the ears of our most pious emperors. Through the co-operation of the grace of God, the emperors have summoned us from different provinces and cities to the holy council which they have appointed to be held in the city of Sardica, in order that all dissensions may be terminated, all evil doctrines expelled, and the religion of Christ alone maintained among all people. Some bishops from the east have attended the council at the solicitation of our most religious emperors, principally on account of the reports circulated against our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Perhaps the calumnies of the Arians have already reached you, and they have endeavoured thus to forestall the council, and make you believe their groundless accusations of the innocent, and prevent any suspicion being raised of the depraved heresy which they uphold. But they have not long been permitted so to act. The Lord is the Protector of the churches; for them and for us all He suffered death, and opened for us the way to heaven.

The adherents of Eusebius, Maris, Theodorus, Theognis, Ursacius, Valens, Menophantus, and Stephanus, had already written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and our fellow-minister, against our aforesaid fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Some bishops of the opposite party wrote also to Julius, testifying to the innocence of Athanasius, and proving that all that had been asserted by the followers of Eusebius was nothing more than lies and slander. The refusal of the Arians to obey the summons of our beloved brother and fellow-ruler, Julius, and also the letter written by that bishop, clearly prove the falseness of their accusation. For, had they believed that what they had done and represented against our fellow-minister admitted of justification, they would have gone to Rome. But their mode of procedure in this great and holy council is a manifest proof of their fraud. Upon their arrival at Sardica, they perceived that our brethren, Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and others, were there also; they were therefore afraid to come to the test, although they had been summoned, not once or twice only, but repeatedly. There were they waited for by the assembled bishops, particularly by the venerable Hosius, one worthy of all honour and respect, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith, and his labours for the church. All urged them to join the assembly and avail themselves of the opportunity of proving, in the presence of their fellow-ministers, the truth of the charges they had brought against them in their absence, both by word and by letter. But they refused to obey the summons, as we have already stated, and so by their excesses proved the falsity of their statements, and all but proclaimed aloud the plot and schemes they had formed. Men confident of the truth of their assertions are always ready to stand to them openly. But as these accusers would not appear to substantiate what they had advanced, any future allegations which they may by their usual artifices bring against our fellow-ministers, will only be regarded as proceeding from a desire of slandering them in their absence, without the courage to confront them openly.

They fled, beloved brethren, not only because their charges were slander, but also because they saw men arrive with serious and manifold accusations against themselves. Chains and fetters were produced. Some were present whom they had exiled: others came forward as representatives of those still kept in exile. There stood relations and friends of men whom they had put to death. Most serious of all, bishops also appeared, one of whom exhibited the irons and the chains with which they had laden him. Others testified that death followed their false charges. For their infatuation had led them so far as even to attempt the life of a bishop; and he would have been killed had he not escaped from their hands. Theodulus , our fellow-minister, of blessed memory, passed hence with their calumny on his name; for, through it, he had been condemned to death. Some showed the wounds which had been inflicted on them by the sword; others deposed that they had been exposed to the miseries of famine.

All these depositions were made, not by a few obscure individuals, but by whole churches; the presbyters of these churches giving evidence that the persecutors had armed the military against them with swords, and the common people with clubs; had employed judicial threats, and produced spurious documents. The letters written by Theognis, for the purpose of prejudicing the emperor against our fellow-ministers, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, were read and attested by those who had formerly been the deacons of Theognis. It was also proved that they had stripped virgins naked, had burnt churches, and imprisoned our fellow-ministers, and all because of the infamous heresy of the Ariomaniacs. For thus all who refused to make common cause with them were treated.

The consciousness of having committed all these crimes placed them in great straits. Ashamed of their deeds, which could no longer be concealed, they repaired to Sardica, thinking that their boldness in venturing there would remove all suspicion of their guilt. But when they perceived the presence of those whom they had falsely accused, and of those who had suffered from their cruelty; and that likewise several had come with irrefragable accusations against them, they would not enter the council. Our fellow-ministers, on the other hand, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, took every means to induce them to attend, by tears, by urgency, by challenge, promising not only to prove the falsity of their accusations, but also to show how deeply they had injured their own churches. But they were so overwhelmed by the consciousness of their own evil deeds, that they took to flight, and by this flight clearly proved the falsity of their accusations as well as their own guilt.

But though their calumny and perfidy, which had indeed been apparent from the beginning, were now clearly perceived, yet we determined to examine the circumstances of the case according to the laws of truth, lest they should, from their very flight, derive pretexts for renewed acts of deceitfulness.

Upon carrying this resolution into effect, we proved by their actions that they were false accusers, and that they had formed plots against our fellow-ministers. Arsenius, whom they declared had been put to death by Athanasius, is still alive, and takes his place among the living. This fact alone is sufficient to show that their other allegations are false.

Although they spread a report everywhere that a chalice had been broken by Macarius, one of the presbyters of Athanasius, yet those who came from Alexandria, from Mareotis, and from other places, testified that this was not the fact; and the bishops in Egypt wrote to Julius, our fellow-minister, declaring that there was not the least suspicion that such a deed had been done. The judicial facts which the Arians assert they possess against Macarius have been all drawn up by one party; and in these documents the depositions of pagans and of catechumens were included. One of these catechumens, when interrogated, replied that he was in the church on the entry of Macarius. Another deposed that Ischyras, whom they had talked about so much, was then lying ill in his cell. Hence it appears that the mysteries could not have been celebrated at that time, as the catechumens were present, and as Ischyras was absent; for he was at that very time confined by illness. Ischyras, that wicked man who had falsely affirmed that Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred books, and had been convicted of the crime, now confessed that he was ill in bed when Macarius arrived; hence the falsehood of his accusation was clearly demonstrated. His calumny was, however, rewarded by his party; they gave him the title of a bishop, although he was not yet even a presbyter. For two presbyters came to the synod, who some time back had been attached to Meletius, and were afterwards received back by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and are now with Athanasius, protesting that he had never been ordained a presbyter, and that Meletius had never had any church, or employed any minister in Mareotis. Yet, although he had never been ordained a presbyter, they promote him to a bishopric, in order that his title may impose upon those who hear his false accusations.
The writings of our fellow-minister, Marcellus, were also read, and plainly evinced the duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what Marcellus had simply suggested as a point of inquiry, they accused him of professing as a point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before and after the inquiry, were read, and his faith was proved to be orthodox. He did not affirm, as they represented, that the beginning of the Word of God was dated from His conception by the holy Mary, or that His kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that His kingdom had had no beginning, and would have no end. Asclepas, our fellow-minister, produced the reports drawn up at Antioch in the presence of the accusers, and of Eusebius, bishop of Csarea, and proved his innocence by the sentence of the bishops who had presided as judges.

It was not then without cause, beloved brethren, that, although so frequently summoned, they would not attend the council; it was not without cause that they took to flight. The reproaches of conscience constrained them to make their escape, and thus, at the same time, to demonstrate the groundlessness of their calumnies, and the truth of those accusations which were advanced and proved against them. Besides all the other grounds of complaint, it may be added that all those who had been accused of holding the Arian heresy, and had been ejected in consequence, were not only received, but advanced to the highest dignities by them. They raised deacons to the presbyterate, and thence to the episcopate; and in all this they were actuated by no other motive than the desire of propagating and diffusing their heresy, and of corrupting the true faith.

Next to Eusebius, the following are their principal leaders; Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Georgius , bishop of Laodicea, Acacius , bishop of Csarea in Palestine, Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum in Msia, and Valens, bishop of Mursa in Pannonia. These bishops forbade those who came with them from the east to attend the holy council, or to unite with the Church of God. On their road to Sardica they held private assemblies at different places, and formed a compact cemented by threats, that, when they arrived in Sardica, they would not join the holy council, nor assist at its deliberations; arranging that, as soon as they had arrived they should present themselves for form's sake, and immediately betake themselves to flight. These facts were made known to us by our fellow-ministers, Macarius of Palestine , and Asterius of Arabia , who came with them to Sardica, but refused to share their unorthodoxy. These bishops complained before the holy council of the violent treatment they had received from them, and of the want of right principles evinced in all their transactions. They added that there were many among them who still held orthodox opinions, but that these were prevented from going to the council; and that sometimes threats, sometimes promises, were resorted to, in order to retain them in that party. For this reason they were compelled to reside together in one house; and never allowed, even for the shortest space of time, to be alone.

It is not right to pass over in silence and without rebuke the calumnies, the imprisonments, the murders, the stripes, the forged letters, the indignities, the stripping naked of virgins, the banishments, the destruction of churches, the acts of incendiarism, the translation of bishops from small towns to large dioceses, and above all, the ill-starred Arian heresy, raised by their means against the true faith. For these causes, therefore, we declare the innocence and purity of our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and of all the other servants of God who are with them; and we have written to each of their dioceses, in order that the people of each church may be made acquainted with the innocence of their respective bishops, and that they may recognise them alone and wait for their return. Men who have come down on their churches like wolves , such as Gregorius in Alexandria, Basilius in Ancyra, and Quintianus in Gaza, we charge them not even to call bishops, nor yet Christians, nor to have any communion with them, nor to receive any letters from them, nor to write to them.

Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea in Europe, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Acacius, bishop of Csarea in Palestine, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum in Msia, Valens, bishop of Mursa in Pannonia, Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea (for though fear kept him from leaving the East, he has been deposed by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and has imbibed the infatuation of the Arians), have on account of their various crimes been cast forth from their bishoprics by the unanimous decision of the holy council. We have decreed that they are not only not to be regarded as bishops, but to be refused communion with us. For those who separate the Son from the substance and divinity of the Father, and alienate the Word from the Father, ought to be separated from the Catholic Church, and alienated from all who bear the name of Christians. Let them then be anathema to you, and to all the faithful, because they have corrupted the word of truth. For the apostle's precept enjoins, if any one should bring to you another gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed. Command that no one hold communion with them; for light can have no fellowship with darkness. Keep far off from them; for what concord has Christ with Belial? Be careful, beloved brethren, that you neither write to them nor receive their letters. Endeavour, beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, as though present with us in spirit at the council, to give your hearty consent to what is enacted, and affix to it your written signature, for the sake of preserving unanimity of opinion among all our fellow-ministers throughout the world.
We declare those men excommunicate from the Catholic Church who say that Christ is God, but not the true God; that He is the Son, but not the true Son; and that He is both begotten and made; for such persons acknowledge that they understand by the term 'begotten,' that which has been made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all ages, they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all time, a beginning and an end.
Valens and Ursacius have, like two vipers brought forth by an asp, proceeded from the Arian heresy. For they boastingly declare themselves to be undoubted Christians, and yet affirm that the Word and the Holy Ghost were both crucified and slain, and that they died and rose again; and they pertinaciously maintain, like the heretics, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of diverse and distinct essences. We have been taught, and we hold the catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession which teach, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one essence, which is termed substance by the heretics. If it is asked, 'What is the essence of the Son.' we confess, that it is that which is acknowledged to be that of the Father alone; for the Father has never been, nor could ever be, without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. It is most absurd to affirm that the Father ever existed without the Son, for that this could never be so has been testified by the Son Himself, who said, ' I am in the Father, and the Father in Me ;' and ' I and My Father are one. ' None of us denies that He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten before all things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels and angels, and of the world, and of the human race. It is written, ' Wisdom which is the worker of all things taught me ,' and again, ' All things were made by Him. '

He could not have existed always if He had had a beginning, for the everlasting Word has no beginning, and God will never have an end. We do not say that the Father is Son, nor that the Son is Father; but that the Father is Father, and the Son of the Father Son. We confess that the Son is Power of the Father. We confess that the Word is Word of God the Father, and that beside Him there is no other. We believe the Word to be the true God, and Wisdom and Power. We affirm that He is truly the Son, yet not in the way in which others are said to be sons: for they are either gods by reason of their regeneration, or are called sons of God on account of their merit, and not on account of their being of one essence , as is the case with the Father and the Son. We confess an Only-begotten and a Firstborn; but that the Word is only-begotten, who ever was and is in the Father. We use the word firstborn with respect to His human nature. But He is superior (to man) in the new creation (of the Resurrection), inasmuch as He is the Firstborn from the dead.

We confess that God is; we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence , nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son. The words uttered by our Lord, ' I and My Father are one ,' are by those men explained as referring to the concord and harmony which prevail between the Father and the Son; but this is a blasphemous and perverse interpretation. We, as Catholics, unanimously condemned this foolish and lamentable opinion: for just as mortal men on a difference having arisen between them quarrel and afterwards are reconciled, so do such interpreters say that disputes and dissension are liable to arise between God the Father Almighty and His Son; a supposition which is altogether absurd and untenable. But we believe and maintain that those holy words, ' I and My Father are one,' point out the oneness of essence which is one and the same in the Father and in the Son.

We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father, that His reign has neither beginning nor end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor can ever cease: for that which always exists never begins to be, and can never cease.

We believe in and we receive the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the Lord both promised and sent. We believe in It as sent.

It was not the Holy Ghost who suffered, but the manhood with which He clothed Himself; which He took from the Virgin Mary, which being man was capable of suffering; for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal. We believe that on the third day He rose, the man in God, not God in the man; and that He brought as a gift to His Father the manhood which He had delivered from sin and corruption.

We believe that, at a meet and fixed time, He Himself will judge all men and all their deeds.

So great is the ignorance and mental darkness of those whom we have mentioned, that they are unable to see the light of truth. They cannot comprehend the meaning of the words: ' that they may be one in us. ' It is obvious why the word ' one' was used; it was because the apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none among them who were the Spirit, neither was there any one of them who was Word, Wisdom, Power, or Only-begotten. ' As You,' He said, ' and I are one, that they, may be one in us.' These holy words, ' that they may be one in us,' are strictly accurate: for the Lord did not say, 'one in the same way that I and the Father are one,' but He said, 'that the disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in faith and in confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the Father, and by the indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to become one.'

From this letter may be learned the duplicity of the calumniators, and the injustice of the former judges, as well as the soundness of the decrees. These holy fathers have taught us not only truths respecting the Divine nature, but also the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Constans was much concerned on hearing of the easy temper of his brother, and was highly incensed against those who had contrived this plot and artfully taken advantage of it. He chose two of the bishops who had attended the council of Sardica, and sent them with letters to his brother; he also dispatched Salianus, a military commander who was celebrated for his piety and integrity, on the same embassy. The letters which he forwarded by them, and which were worthy of himself, contained not only entreaties and counsels, but also menaces. In the first place, he charged his brother to attend to all that the bishops might say, and to take cognizance of the crimes of Stephanus and of his accomplices. He also required him to restore Athanasius to his flock; the calumny of the accusers and the injustice and ill-will of his former judges having become evident. He added, that if he would not accede to his request, and perform this act of justice, he would himself go to Alexandria, restore Athanasius to his flock which earnestly longed for him, and expel all opponents.

Constantius was at Antioch when he received this letter; and he agreed to carry out all that his brother commanded.

The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I judged differently:
Quote
1

The profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force. Every heresy is to be anathematised and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.

7

Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinariansthese we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: "Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit". But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians [i.e. the followers of Marcellus of Ancyra] we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks [i.e. pagans]. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.ix.html

As for St. Cyprian, the Ultramontanists and other believers in a "Petrine office" favor him as a quote mine. The upholders of Orthodox ecclesiology favor him on his own merits, and for fighting fire with fire.

Originally Posted by mardukm

So basically, the arguments from Low Petrine advocates depend on (1) those who are in error

Like St. Basil and the Second Ecumenical Council wink
Originally Posted by mardukm
(2) those who are heretics

Like St. Basil and the Second Ecumenical Council wink
Originally Posted by mardukm
(3) those who break oaths and perpetuate schism

Like St. Basil, St. Flavian of Antioch and the Second Ecumenical Council. wink
Originally Posted by mardukm
Upon thoughtful consideration, I am even more inclined to reject the Low Petrine excesses.

In solitaire you can shuffle your cards any way you like.
Posted By: Yuhannon

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/14/13 11:10 PM

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Sorry I have not been active, but I have been very sick.

As to the Communion of the Eastern and Western Churches we should also focus on the Oriental Orothodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Under formal documentation the Catholic Church and the above mentioned Churches have stated that they are in agreement, and that they issues that had divided them where based on cultural misunderstandings and not true doctrinare ones. Therefore there is nothing standing in the way of re-Communion between these Churches formally, but informally there are a number of issues. The high points are theseL:

1) What is the role of the Pope within the Universal Church;
2) How are the Ecumenical Councils rulling to be handled that occured after said schism;
3) How is said re-Communion to be handled vis-a-vis both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox organization. (For example in Alexandria, Egypt you have three Patriarchs - one each for the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental [Coptic] Churches. While the Catholic and Coptic Churches share liturgical traditions, the Eastern Orthodox does not and further, the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite adament that THERE eparch is the only legitimate one.

I would hope that the Catholic Church move away from a one on one dialog with Our Sister Churches to one that included all of them at the same time so that we can have a comprehensive solution to these and other issues. What I would like to see is a Grand Ecumenical Council (un-numbered) that would take in ALL of the living points of all the Canons from previous councils and have the eparchs/bishops vote them into being for the newly restored Catholic (Universal) Church.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/15/13 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
I am working on the rest of the posts, but this stuck out for its oddity:
Originally Posted by mardukm

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

Btw., it was Abp. St. Meletius who refused communion with Pope St. Athanasius, in 363, right after the Council of Alexandria, not the other way around. In the last year (372) of Pope St. Athanasius' life, Met. St. Basil wrote to Abp. St. Meletius concerning that sad fact:
Quote
Letter 89

ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

To Meletius, bishop of Antioch.

1. The eagerness of my longing is soothed by the opportunities which the merciful God gives me of saluting your reverence. He Himself is witness of the earnest desire which I have to see your face, and to enjoy your good and soul-refreshing instruction. Now by my reverend and excellent brother Dorotheus, the deacon, who is setting out, first of all I beg you to pray for me that I be no stumbling block to the people, nor hindrance to your petitions to propitiate the Lord. In the second place I would suggest that you would be so good as to make all arrangements through the aforementioned brother; and, if it seems well that a letter should be sent to the Westerns, because it is only right that communication should be made in writing even through our own messenger, that you will dictate the letter. I have met Sabinus the deacon, sent by them, and have written to the bishops in Illyria, Italy, and Gaul, and to some of those who have written privately to myself. For it is right that some one should be sent in the common interests of the Synod, conveying a second letter which I beg you to have written.

2. As to what concerns the right reverend bishop Athanasius, your intelligence is already aware of what I will mention, that it is impossible for anything to be advanced by my letters, or for any desirable objects to be carried out, unless by some means or other he receives communion from you, who at that time postponed it. He is described as being very anxious to unite with me, and to be willing to contribute all he can, but to be sorry that he was sent away without communion, and that the promise still remains unfulfilled.
What is going on in the East cannot have failed to reach your reverence's ears, but the aforementioned brother will give you more accurate information by word of mouth. Be so good as to dispatch him directly after Easter, because of his waiting for the answer from Samosata. Look kindly on his zeal strengthen him by your prayers and so dispatch him on this commission.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xc.html
After the falling asleep of Pope St. Athanasius, Met. St. Basil wrote to Abp. St. Epiphanius in the year (377) before Met. St. Meletius' final entry into his see of Antioch, lamenting the fact, and echoing Pope St. Athanasius' lament over it.
Quote
Letter 258
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

To Epiphanius the bishop.
...As to the Church at Antioch (I mean that which is in agreement in the same doctrine), may the Lord grant that one day we may see it united. It is in peril of being specially open to the attacks of the enemy, who is angry with it because there the name of Christian first obtained. There heresy is divided against orthodoxy, and orthodoxy is divided against herself. My position, however, is this. The right reverend bishop Meletius was the first to speak boldly for the truth, and fought that good fight in the days of Constantine. Therefore my Church has felt strong affection towards him, for the sake of that brave and firm stand, and has held communion with him. I, therefore, by God's grace, have held him to be in communion up to this time; and, if God will, I shall continue to do so. Moreover the very blessed Pope Athanasius came from Alexandria, and was most anxious that communion should be established between Meletius and himself; but by the malice of counsellors their conjunction was put off to another season. Would that this had not been so! I have never accepted communion with any one of those who have since been introduced into the see, not because I count them unworthy, but because I see no ground for the condemnation of Meletius. Nevertheless I have heard many things about the brethren, without giving heed to them, because the accused were not brought face to face with their accusers, according to that which is written, Does our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he does? John 7:51 I cannot therefore at present write to them, right honourable brother, and I ought not to be forced to do so. It will be becoming to your peaceful disposition not to cause union in one direction and disunion in another, but to restore the severed member to the original union. First, then, pray; next, to the utmost of your ability, exhort, that ambition may be driven from their hearts, and that reconciliation may be effected between them both to restore strength to the Church, and to destroy the rage of our foes. It has given great comfort to my soul that, in addition to your other right and accurate statements in theology, you should acknowledge the necessity of stating that the hypostases are three. Let the brethren at Antioch be instructed by you after this manner. Indeed I am confident that they have been so instructed; for I am sure you would never have accepted communion with them unless you had carefully made sure of this point in them....

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cclix.html

It is not known for certain, but it seems that the lingering issue for Abp. St. Meletius lay in Pope St. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus of Ancyra, whom the Council of Sardica restored along with Pope St. Athanasius. In his final years Pope St. Athanasius also repudiated communion with Marcelllus.

Given that Pope St. Athanasius was in full communion with Abp. Damasus of Rome, according to Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint, he should not have felt so much anxiety to establish communion with someone out of communion with the bishop of Rome, such as Met. St. Meletius of Antioch.

It would seem, according to you, Met. St. Meletius was the court of last resort. Certainly that Pope St. Athanasius did not share the definition of Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint of Catholic as "being in communion with the bishop of Rome."
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/16/13 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
But St. James spoke and concluided the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Why would the first Pope not do such? Heck, if any church should be granted ecclesiastical lordship, it should be Jerusalem. Or perhaps the first See of St. Peter, Antioch. God bless.

First, I believe it's rather common knowledge and belief that the Apostles conceded the bishopric to St. James because the Lord expected the Apostles to be ITINERANT, instead of remaining in one place.

Holy Tradition records it as an issue of "glory" (doxa), not of mobility and immobility.

The issue is not "mobility and immobility." The issue is about spreading the Gospel. None of the passages you brought up refutes the plain fact that the Lord expected the Apostles to spread the Gospel throughout the world.

Quote
Acts 1:4 And eating together with them, He commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith He) by My mouth.

Contrary to your claim, Jesus here is expecting them to leave Jerusalem to spread the Gospel after He has sent the HS.

Quote
Acts 8:1 AND at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the Apostles.

The point of this passage is that a lot of people fled in fear because of the persecution, but the Apostles held their ground, not they were going to remain in Jerusalem the rest of their lives, in opposition to the Lord's command to spread the Gospel throughout the world.

Quote
Acts 12:17 But he [St. Peter] beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.

Not sure what your citation of this passage is supposed to prove.

Quote
That was a decade or so after the Ascension.

So what? Do you expect that the Apostles would contravene the Lord's command to spread the Gospel to the world?

Quote
And he came back:

You mean he wasn't in Jerusalem? And so what if he came back? Do you expect that the Apostles would contravene the Lord's command to spread the Gospel to the world?

Quote
And it seems the Apostles were associated with Jerusalem:

Of course they were associated with Jerusalem. That's where it all started. Does this fact mean the Apostles would contravene the Lord's command to spread the Gospel to the world?

Quote
Not here he doesn't:
Then all the multitude kept silence, etc. Acts 15:12 There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered, etc. Acts 15:13 (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

Yes, James had the principal seat in the See of Jerusalem because he was its bishop, a position conceded to him by the Apostles, because the Lord had another job for the Apostles. James had high authority in Jerusalem, but he did not have the highest authority in the Church as a whole. That status belonged to the Apostles, with St. Peter as their coryphaeus. Note that this episode merely reflects the common belief of High and Low Petrine advocates that those who hold the headship should not interfere in the affairs of local Churches (as reflected in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34). The problem of the Judaizers was basically a local problem, having originated from the Jerusalem Church. But whatever decision St. James would eventually make, it could not dogmatically contradict the universal teaching that was already established by the Apostles.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm

Third, I'm not aware of any Ecum Council that was presided over by the bishop of Rome, but every Council that has been graced with that status required the confirmation of the bishop of Rome. Read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum Council, and you might notice that the confirmation of the bishop of Rome is considered a different kind of animal than the general agreement of the bishops.

Rather than a fishing expedition, why don't you quote the Acts of the IIIrd Ecumenical Council?

Do you happen to have an online link to the 3rd Ecum off hand? Otherwise, I'd have to type it out from my hardcopy of V.7 of the NPNF, and I don't have the time right now.

Quote
The Fifth Ecumenical Council was held over the Abp. of Rome's explicit opposition. The IIIrd Ecumenical Council did not differ in its opinion on "confirmation of the bishop of Rome" versus "the general agreement of the Bishops."

False. Pope Vigilius expressed his desire for an Ecumenical Council from the beginning. The only issue was where it was to be held -- he and the Emperor did not agree. Pope Vigilius wanted a fair Council with fair representation from the Western bishops, but the Emperor did not want that. That Pope Vigilius had an "explicit opposition" to the Council is just another one of your inventive misinterpretations of historical facts, I'm sorry to say.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome.

There are several problems with your statement.
(1) John Chrysostom was not the bishop of Constantinople when he wrote "On the Priesthood." It was written when he was a deacon about 386.

Yes, I'm aware of those facts. In fact, I mentioned in passing that he was not a bishop at the time. What makes you think that presents a problem for me?

Just a passing and minor correction to the statement that he was a priest when he wrote it. Socrates informs that he had just been ordained a deacon by St. Meletius when he wrote it. I know that certain historians have made a mystery of it from a dependence on "internal evidence." But direct evidence already exists that it was written when he was a deacon.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
I am working on the rest of the posts, but this stuck out for its oddity:
Originally Posted by mardukm

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

I'll skip over the last part-which contradicts both what Ut Unum Sint and Pastor Aeternus say on the matter-which deals with generalities (to be dealt with in time, Lord willing), and get to specifics.

I'll be waiting eagerly for what else you can offer to try to prove your caricature of the Catholic Church's teaching about the papacy. Perhaps we can jump to that at this point. I really think your position here about St. Meletius is not very cogent anyway. Though you are making the Meletian issue all about the papacy, while I have a more collegial understanding of the situation (i.e., it's not all about the Pope to me), I'm sure we already both agree that the Pope cannot impose his will on his brother bishops on his mere discretion, so let's move on to the real issue of this thread.

Quote
Why Rome's influence in the matter might carry more weight doesn't present a mystery: the Emperor at Rome (actually, Milan) confessed the Orthodox Faith and supported the Catholic Church, while heretics ruled at Constantinople over the East-including Alexandria-who persecuted the Church and exiled her bishops. How fast things moved-i.e. a matter of weeks-to secure Abp. St. Meletius on his throne in Antioch after the heretics were removed from the imperial throne underscores that.

When you say "Rome," you must also mean the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome's influence was great in the Church because of the perception of her steadfast orthodoxy. Rome has held the greatest record of orthodoxy among all the Churches in the history of the Church, something you cannot deny (Alexandria comes a good second). Her steadfast orthodoxy has nothing to do with the religion professed by the secular power.

Quote
In 376 Met. St. Basil writes that he had lost his patience with Rome in its safe haven, and reproaches its bishop for dictating to the Church instead of using his influence with the Emperor for good:
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA To Eusebius, bishop of Samosata...
The news of the West you know already, on the recital of brother Dorotheus. What sort of letters are to be given him on his departure? Perhaps he will travel with the excellent Sanctissimus, who is full of enthusiasm, journeying through the East, and collecting letters and signatures from all the men of mark. What ought to be written by them, or how I can come to an agreement with those who are writing, I do not know. If you hear of any one soon travelling my way, be so good as to let me know. I am moved to say, as Diomede said,

Would God, Atrides, your request were yet to undertake;
...he's proud enough.

Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphus nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it. I would say, generally, that they ought not to press hard on men who are crushed by trials. They must not take dignity for pride. Sin only avails to produce enmity against God.[/b]

Now, there's a reference to the bishop of Rome as "Coryphus," as that "soul...haughtier than ever" refers to Abp. Damasus: it seems that the Emperor granting him the ancient imperial title "pontifex maximus" had gone to his head.

First of all, you are as creative as ever in your cut and paste of the documents. Readers might note that whereas the original states "really lofty souls [PLURAL]...get haughtier than ever," in brother Isa's hands, it becomes singular. The purposeful transformation is obvious - you want to try to demonstrate that it is referring specifically to Pope St. Damasus. But St. Basil is referring to the Westerns in general, not specifically to Damasus - his use of the plural third person throughout the excerpt proves it.

Secondly, you seem not aware of it, but there was a Roman Synod in 375 (the year before this letter you quoted from) wherein an Apollinarian (its representative at that time was named Vitalis, and he had been ordained by St. Meletius) had deceived the fathers of the Synod with dubious phrases into believing he was orthodox and was thus admitted into communion. Consequently, Pope St. Damasus sent a letter to bishop Paulinus to admit him into communion. Vitalis had also succeeded in deceiving others such as St. Gregory Nazianzen into admitting him into communion. This Vitalis had been accused by many in the East of heresy before he came to Rome. St. Basil is more likely referring to this episode rather than the case of St. Meletius, as it has more similarities with the incident of Marcellus, than with anything regarding St. Meletius. Further evidence that St. Basil is referring to this incident is the statement "by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy." As a matter of fact, Vitalis belonged to the Apollinarian group that was one of the rival factions at Antioch. Pope St. Damasus very soon (after this letter by St. Basil) was somehow convinced of Vitalis' error and sent another letter to bishop Paulinus to admit only those who would sign the Nicene profession of Faith. Vitalis and his group would not sign the Nicene Profession, and the group was thus condemned. Basically, your statement "St. Basil had lost all patience with Rome" as if it referred to the case of St. Meletius is just another piece of eisegesis.

Btw, if it was the case that St. Basil lost all patience with Rome, why did he bother to try to influence the Meletians to appeal to Rome on the doctrinal matters affecting the Antiochenes? Rome's positive response (btw) came the year after the letter to Eusebius which you quoted above.

Finally, regarding your underlining of "their coryphaeus." I am perhaps 80% certain that the original Greek did not have the possessive "their," but is an interpretative addition. If Cavaradossi is reading this, maybe he can confirm or correct my suspicion (as he seems to have access to a lot of patristic Greek texts).

Quote
Note too that Met. St. Basil points out that Abp. Damasus' spurns communion with Abp. St. Meltius, but communes with the heretic Marcellus of Ancyra, i.e. in the same Diocese as Met. St. Gregory.

Yes, and as he just as obviously points out, those who defended Marcellus did so out of a lack of knowledge of what he actually taught. Of course, Rome was orthodox as it had condemned the modalism of Marcellus even before 370 (Marcellus died in 374, btw, so I don't know why you mention "in the same Diocese as Met. St. Gregory" as if he was still alive at the time St. Basil wrote this letter). The Roman Synod of 380 condemned again the heresy of Marcellus (as did the Council of Constantinople the following year).

Quote
Btw, Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria fell asleep in 373 (and we have a letter to him from Met. St. Basil on these matters from 372), not 377.

That's right; my finger must have worked doubletime when I was typing the 7 and did not notice.

Quote
In that latter year, however, Met. St. Basil did write to the successor to the see of Alexandria, then in exile in Rome:
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA...To Petrus, bishop of Alexandria.

And what was the result of this letter to Pope St. Peter? Please tell us.

Quote
Note that here Met. St. Basil is writing overtures to Pope St. Peter, although the latter is living in exile from his see with Abp. Damusus in Rome. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried no more weight than Alexandria's, as Met. St. Basil praises Pope Peter in the letter for his guidance and instruction, but reproaches Abp. Damasus for the latter's ill-disposition and incompetence for failing to perform his duties in accordance with Met. St. Basil's wishes.

Where does he "reproach" Pope St. Damasus? I didn't see that anywhere in the letter. He addressed Pope St. Damasus as "the very venerable." Are you sure you are not reading into things again? A careful reading of the excerpt indicates that the one who grieved him was the presbyter Dorotheus - for not having done his proper duty - and the "ill-disposition and incompetence" refers to Dorotheus, not Pope St. Damasus. Btw, "ill-disposition" is not the same thing as "ill-disposed." To be "ill-disposed" (what the text actually says) simply means that someone is not well suited (i.e., for the task given him). "Ill-disposition" is simply slanderous. It sure seems you are willing to twist anything into a monstrosity for the sake of a bias against the papacy. I must say it is really difficult to communicate with a person of such glaring and unthinking prejudice.

Quote
Met. St. Basil wrote to a number of bishops in exile, including Bps. Eulogios, Alexander and Harpocration, suffragans of Pope St. Peter, on these matters. He also wrote many letters to "the Westerners," including one addressed to "the bishops of Gaul and Italy" (in that order): are you going to tell us that he was speaking, as a prophet, of Avignon?

Yes, as explained to Cavaradossi, it's rather natural to seek the support of many bishops. I'm not sure what it proves to simply repeat what I stated. I'm also not sure what you mean about Avignon. Please explain.

Quote
From what St. Basil says, one wonders if the issue of St. Meletius is one of those "certain painful recollections" that Ut Unum Sint refers to.

Nah. You're just reading into things again.

Quote
"When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him," so Ut Unum Sint tells us: what does that say of shunning communion with Abp. St. Meletius and embracing communion with Marcellus, as Met. St. Basil points out?

It means he was misinformed, or ignorant of the facts (if you want to use harsher words) -- as Met. St. Basil points out.

Quote
"By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity," so Ut Unum Sint tells us: what of when he is wrong, or "proved ill disposed and incompetent," as Met. St. Basil says of Abp. St. Damasus of Rome?

Well, you botched that interpretation, so no point responding to this.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
The ones who exacerbated the schism were the ones who installed a member of the Meletian party at the Church of Antioch, breaking the oath made by both parties. So basically, your best argument is to support the breaking of oaths and causing the continuation of schism. I'd agree with you - Pastor Aeternus opposes such aberrations in the Chuch of God, and has nothing to do with that. This reminds me of the arguments I've encountered from certain non-Catholics, using St. Cyprian's opposition to Pope St. Stephen, and the rejection of the Council of Sardica by most Easterns at the time, as proof against the primacy of the bishop of Rome. But St. Cyprian was wrong on the matter on which he opposed Pope St. Stephen, and the Easterns who rejected Sardica were heretics.

Not quite. Sardica was held as an Ecumenical Council, and it was approved by the authority Pastor Aeternus says has to confirm it. However, Pope St. Athanasius wasn't the only one exonerated at Sardica: the Council also exonerated Marcellus of Ancyra and put him back in his see. The same Marcellus that the letters of Met. St. Basil-posted in the ""Orthodoxy and the Vatican Papacy: Abp. St. Meletius of Antioch" thread-condemned as a heretic and reproached him whom Pastor Aeternus makes the judge and guardian of orthodoxy and Ut Unum Sint charges with responsibility for the unity of the Catholic Church, i.e. the bishop of Rome St. Damasus, for communing with the same Marcellus-while refusing communion with Abp. St. Meletius, the rightful bishop of Antioch.

And no orthodox Father has ever been deceived by heretics into believing they were orthodox. Is that what you are saying? Your quotes exonerate Sardica of any wrongdoing because it is plain that Marcellus deceived them.
Socrates: At that time indeed he exerted himself to the utmost to procure the revocation of the sentence pronounced against him, declaring that his being suspected of entertaining the error of Paul of Samosata arose from a misunderstanding of some expressions in his book.
Sozomen: The adherents of Hosius, in the meantime, assembled together, and declared them innocent: Athanasius, because unjust machinations had been carried on against him by those who had convened at Tyre; and Marcellus, because he did not hold the opinions with which he was charged.
Theodoret: Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, took every means to induce them to attend, by tears, by urgency, by challenge, promising not only to prove the falsity of their accusations, but also to show how deeply they had injured their own churches...The writings of our fellow-minister, Marcellus, were also read, and plainly evinced the duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what Marcellus had simply suggested as a point of inquiry, they accused him of professing as a point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before and after the inquiry, were read, and his faith was proved to be orthodox. He did not affirm, as they represented, that the beginning of the Word of God was dated from His conception by the holy Mary, or that His kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that His kingdom had had no beginning, and would have no end.
You must also remember that it was not an orthodox Synod who first deposed him, but a Synod of Arians.

Quote
The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I judged differently:

Yes, we know (though, it must be repeated it was not "ecumenical" at the time). It's not big news - the Synod of Rome had made the same judgment on the matter the year before. And everyone for at least a decade before that had already rejected the modalism of Marcellus.

Quote
As for St. Cyprian, the Ultramontanists and other believers in a "Petrine office" favor him as a quote mine. The upholders of Orthodox ecclesiology favor him on his own merits, and for fighting fire with fire.

The issue is not about his quotability. It's the fact that if St. Cyprian had conceded his error (and Pope St. Stephen was not so overbearing about the matter), the whole episode would not have occurred. But it remains a fact that St. Cyprian's statements were made by a man who was in objective error. I'm not saying his ecclesiology was in error in the least, even according to his revised De Unitate, but if it wasn't written in the context of a disagreement, I seriously doubt Low Petrine advocates would have any ammunition from the incident. IOW, it was not his ecclesiology that was wrong, but his disagreement.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
So basically, the arguments from Low Petrine advocates depend on (1) those who are in error

Like St. Basil and the Second Ecumenical Council wink

My statement referred to St. Cyprian. If you stop with the eisegesis, you might see your response makes no sense.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
(2) those who are heretics

Like St. Basil and the Second Ecumenical Council wink

My statement referred to the Arians. If you stop with the eisegesis, you might see your response makes no sense.

Quote
Originally Posted by mardukm
(3) those who break oaths and perpetuate schism

Like St. Basil, St. Flavian of Antioch and the Second Ecumenical Council. wink

Not St. Basil. He was dead. But yes, I would regard St. Flavian to have broken his oath, and he and the local (at that time) council of Constantinople as guilty of perpetuating the schism.

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Btw., it was Abp. St. Meletius who refused communion with Pope St. Athanasius, in 363, right after the Council of Alexandria, not the other way around.

Who said otherwise? Please try to stop with the eisegesis.

Quote
After the falling asleep of Pope St. Athanasius, Met. St. Basil wrote to Abp. St. Epiphanius in the year (377) before Met. St. Meletius' final entry into his see of Antioch, lamenting the fact, and echoing Pope St. Athanasius' lament over it.
[quote]Letter 258
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA...To Epiphanius the bishop.

I'm not sure what your point is for bringing up St. Epiphanius. You are aware, I hope, that St. Epiphanius sided with the Paulinians?

Quote
It is not known for certain, but it seems that the lingering issue for Abp. St. Meletius lay in Pope St. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus of Ancyra, whom the Council of Sardica restored along with Pope St. Athanasius. In his final years Pope St. Athanasius also repudiated communion with Marcelllus.

So did Pope St. Damasus. Why do you fail to mention that? Your prejudice is glaring.

Quote
Given that Pope St. Athanasius was in full communion with Abp. Damasus of Rome,

Now, you don't even have the decency to refer to Pope St. Damasus as a Saint. Your prejudice is glaring.

Quote
according to Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint, he should not have felt so much anxiety to establish communion with someone out of communion with the bishop of Rome, such as Met. St. Meletius of Antioch.

It's only your prejudice that causes you to be blind to the historic facts. Both Popes St. Damasus and St. Athanasius had repudiated the Marcellian heresy at least by 370. As you stated, it was St. Meletius who rejected Pope St. Athanasius first, so trying to divine Pope St. Athanasius' actions on any other basis is just empty rhetoric. As often stated, please try to be consistent with the storytelling.

Quote
It would seem, according to you, Met. St. Meletius was the court of last resort. Certainly that Pope St. Athanasius did not share the definition of Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint of Catholic as "being in communion with the bishop of Rome."

Not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

Blessings

P.S. It's a long post. Forgive me if some of my responses seem terse. I'm going through a trying time in my life right now.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 02/16/13 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm

P.S. It's a long post. Forgive me if some of my responses seem terse. I'm going through a trying time in my life right now.

Godspeed. I'm still consolidating the previous posts, which might take a while, so attend to the real life world. The net is a luxury, after all.

In the meantime, just some little points:

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
[Given that Pope St. Athanasius was in full communion with Abp. Damasus of Rome,

Now, you don't even have the decency to refer to Pope St. Damasus as a Saint. Your prejudice is glaring. ,

Just an inadvertent omission, nothing more. I believe I have referred to Abp. Damasus as "St." elsewhere. I could have just as easily forgotten to put it before Pope "" Athanasius.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm

Third, I'm not aware of any Ecum Council that was presided over by the bishop of Rome, but every Council that has been graced with that status required the confirmation of the bishop of Rome. Read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum Council, and you might notice that the confirmation of the bishop of Rome is considered a different kind of animal than the general agreement of the bishops.

Rather than a fishing expedition, why don't you quote the Acts of the IIIrd Ecumenical Council?

Do you happen to have an online link to the 3rd Ecum off hand? Otherwise, I'd have to type it out from my hardcopy of V.7 of the NPNF, and I don't have the time right now.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html
the search function is at the lower right.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM03.HTM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by Ialmisry
Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome.

There are several problems with your statement.
(1) John Chrysostom was not the bishop of Constantinople when he wrote "On the Priesthood." It was written when he was a deacon about 386.

Yes, I'm aware of those facts. In fact, I mentioned in passing that he was not a bishop at the time. What makes you think that presents a problem for me?

Just a passing and minor correction to the statement that he was a priest when he wrote it. Socrates informs that he had just been ordained a deacon by St. Meletius when he wrote it. I know that certain historians have made a mystery of it from a dependence on "internal evidence." But direct evidence already exists that it was written when he was a deacon.[/quote]
In the same passage Socrates misinforms us also that Evagrius, whom Paulinus ordained as his successor in absolute disregard of the canons and the decision of the Church, ordained St. John a priest (Abp. St. John's friend (and later suffragan) Palladius tells us that Abp. St. Flavian ordained St. John a priest, giving a date at which Evagrius had already died).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QSNWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22ordained+him+presbyter.++For+twelve+years%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IeMfUa-YEaSy2wWk9oEI&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22ordained%20him%20presbyter.%20%20For%20twelve%20years%22&f=false
Socrates does constitute a source, but (unlike Paulinus' "Dialogue concerning the life of John") not direct evidence. On this point, however, it doesn't matter: not being a bishop, the question of your "magisterium" does not come up. In fact, if Socrates is correct on the dating and circumcstances, it just underlines (since it would mean St. John communed with Abp. St. Meletius at a time when Abp. St. Damasus had chosen his rival Paulinus) that the treatise has no support for its use by you to argue a "Petrine office" and impute belief in it to St. John.

Despite his disqualification for the "magisterium" as Vatican I and II defines it, he was qualified for bishop:
Quote
CHAPTER IV.—Chrysostom Evades Election to a Bishopric, and Writes His Work on the Priesthood.

About this time several bishoprics were vacant in Syria, and frequent depositions took place with the changing fortunes of orthodoxy and Arianism, and the interference of the court. The attention of the clergy and the people turned to Chrysostom and his friend Basil as suitable candidates for the episcopal office, although they had not the canonical age of thirty. Chrysostom shrunk from the responsibilities and avoided an election by a pious fraud. He apparently assented to an agreement with Basil that both should either accept, or resist the burden of the episcopate, but instead of that he concealed himself and put forward his friend whom he accounted much more worthy of the honor. Basil, under the impression that Chrysostom had already been consecrated, reluctantly submitted to the election. When he discovered the cheat, he upbraided his friend with the breach of compact, but Chrysostom laughed and rejoiced at the success of his plot. This conduct, which every sound Christian conscience must condemn, caused no offense among the Christians of that age, still less among the heathen, and was regarded as good management or “economy.” The moral character of the deception was supposed to depend altogether on the motive, which made it good or bad. Chrysostom appealed in justification of laudable deception to the stratagems of war, the conduct of physicians in dealing with refractory patients, to several examples of the Old Testament (Abraham, Jacob, David), and to the conduct of the Apostle Paul in circumcising Timothy for the sake of the Jews (Acts xvi. 3) and in observing the ceremonial law in Jerusalem at the advice of James (Acts xxi. 26).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.iii.iv.html

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
In 376 Met. St. Basil writes that he had lost his patience with Rome in its safe haven, and reproaches its bishop for dictating to the Church instead of using his influence with the Emperor for good:
Quote
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA To Eusebius, bishop of Samosata...
The news of the West you know already, on the recital of brother Dorotheus. What sort of letters are to be given him on his departure? Perhaps he will travel with the excellent Sanctissimus, who is full of enthusiasm, journeying through the East, and collecting letters and signatures from all the men of mark. What ought to be written by them, or how I can come to an agreement with those who are writing, I do not know. If you hear of any one soon travelling my way, be so good as to let me know. I am moved to say, as Diomede said,

Would God, Atrides, your request were yet to undertake;
...he's proud enough.

Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryph�us� nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it. I would say, generally, that they ought not to press hard on men who are crushed by trials. They must not take dignity for pride. Sin only avails to produce enmity against God.[/b]

Now, there's a reference to the bishop of Rome as "Coryph�us," as that "soul...haughtier than ever" refers to Abp. Damasus: it seems that the Emperor granting him the ancient imperial title "pontifex maximus" had gone to his head.

Finally, regarding your underlining of "their coryphaeus." I am perhaps 80% certain that the original Greek did not have the possessive "their," but is an interpretative addition. If Cavaradossi is reading this, maybe he can confirm or correct my suspicion (as he seems to have access to a lot of patristic Greek texts).

You're right there: it says the coryphaeus.

Quote
Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ αὐτός , ἄνευ τοῦ κοινοῦ σχήματος , ἐβουλόμην αὐτῶν ἐπι στεῖλαι τῷ κορυφαίῳ· περὶ μὲν τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν οὐδέν , εἰ μὴ ὅσον παραινίξασθαι ὅτι οὔτε ἴσασι τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὔτε τὴν ὁδὸν δι ' ἧς ἂν μανθάνοιεν καταδέχονται

English, but not Greek, usage preferring the possessive pronoun (supplied before) instead of the article.


Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

Btw, Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria fell asleep in 373 (and we have a letter to him from Met. St. Basil on these matters from 372), not 377.

That's right; my finger must have worked doubletime when I was typing the 7 and did not notice.

It happens all the time to all of us, especially perhaps in them most unfortunate of places at times. The point being that in answer to your questions:
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
I am working on the rest of the posts, but this stuck out for its oddity:
Originally Posted by mardukm

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

Met. St. Basil "gave up" because Pope St. Athanasius had fallen asleep.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
From what St. Basil says, one wonders if the issue of St. Meletius is one of those "certain painful recollections" that Ut Unum Sint refers to.

Nah. You're just reading into things again.

LOL. A Rhetorical question. I'm quite sure the issue of Abp. St. Meletius is quite forgotten in Ut Unum Sint, as the Ultramontanists have swept Rome's opposition to him as far under the rug as possible.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Btw., it was Abp. St. Meletius who refused communion with Pope St. Athanasius, in 363, right after the Council of Alexandria, not the other way around.

Who said otherwise? Please try to stop with the eisegesis.

Doesn't even involve exogesis. You asked why did Met. St. Basil "gave up" on Pope St. Athanasius, who, as the facts show, didn't refuse communion: Abp. St. Meletius did

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
After the falling asleep of Pope St. Athanasius, Met. St. Basil wrote to Abp. St. Epiphanius in the year (377) before Met. St. Meletius' final entry into his see of Antioch, lamenting the fact, and echoing Pope St. Athanasius' lament over it.
Quote
Letter 258
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA...To Epiphanius the bishop.

I'm not sure what your point is for bringing up St. Epiphanius. You are aware, I hope, that St. Epiphanius sided with the Paulinians?

I'll deal with the final point later; but to answer your question-because Met. St. Basil wrote to him about the matter at a date that shows that Pope St. Athanasius fell asleep anxious for communion with Abp. St. Meletius, as I indicated.
.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

It would seem, according to you, Met. St. Meletius was the court of last resort. Certainly that Pope St. Athanasius did not share the definition of Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint of Catholic as "being in communion with the bishop of Rome."

Not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.


You made an issue of an alleged "giving up" on procuring communion with Abp. St. Meletius from Pope St. Athanasius, contrasting that "with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up," which comports with Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint, just not with the facts. PA, UUS etc. define Catholic as "being in communion with the bishop of Rome." Pope St. Athanasius, however, shows the same anxiety for communion with Abp. St. Meletius as he did for communion with Pontiff St. Damasus. Not more. Rome might speak, but the case remains open.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint - 03/07/13 11:10 PM

This thread is a rich mine, but it is also very much unwieldy--both for the detail of specific arguments that emerge in it and also for the variety of themes that get discussed. I wish that the conversation could be moved into several more specific themes.
For example, 'Vatican I and Papal Primacy' could easily get its own thread. Just a thought.
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum