www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

Todd,

Thanks for giving me credit for the ability to quote documents. It is a skill that I have been long cultivating and I appreciate your kind recognition of my efforts.

As for Gregory, it is difficult to simultaneously assert that he opposed the universal jurisdiction of the papacy when in fact he used his universal jurisdiction to inhibit the ordination of Greek bishops without his permission and reasserted the act of his predecessor in nullifying an Eastern council.

How are these quotes not proof of his claim to universal jurisdiction?

Todd,

Thanks so much for those links. Yes, indeed, it looks like he does use those interchangably (assuming that the translations on the New Advent site are all accurate): Universal Bishop, Priest and Pope, eschewing them all.

Things that make you go, "hmmmmm...."

Clearly he sees his ministry as Successor of the "prince of the apostles" not as one which preempts the ministry of the local episcopos, but rather as one which supports and strengthens it. If only some of the Medieval Popes and canonists had stuck to his script as the "servant of the servants of God" we would not be faced with many of these difficulties!

God bless,

Gordo

I do not think that these quotes oppose the notion of "universal jurisdiction" so much as set any notion of the primacy of the "Prince of the Apostles" in proper collegial perspective. The pope can speak and act in the name of the entire college without their direct consent, although I think if he failed to at least obtain it (apart from dire need) he would be acting foolishly and like a monarch. He would be acting unjustly if he attempted to micro-manage another diocese or another bishop when there was no threat to the good of the Church.

I think Gregory helps to define the proper disposition of one who serves in this capacity. He should eschew all excess, all worldly pomps in favor of identifying himself as the lowly servant of the servants of God. At the same time, his legitimate stewardship sometimes demands that he act in persona ecclesiae for the good of the common life of the universal church.

This is an interesting discussion.

Gordo

That is your interpretation of what St. Gregory is doing in his letters, but I see your interpretation as spurious. Instead, St. Gregory is simply saying that no bishop is a universal bishop or pastor.

Clearly, we will have to agree to disagree on the nature of primacy. That said, I consider the recent Western innovation that asserts the "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman see to be utterly repugnant to teaching of Christ in the Gospel (cf. Matthew 20:25-28).

No bishop is over any other bishop.

Gordo,

You and I see things differently, but there is really nothing new in that.

God bless,
Todd

It does not prove "universal jurisdiction" at all, and in fact it proves that the Pope was impotent in the matter, because to this very day the Eastern Churches, and even the Roman Church herself, calls the Patriarch of Constantinople, "the Ecumenical Patriarch." I find that most interesting.

I have no qualms in saying that I, as a Ruthenian Catholic, reject utterly the concept of papal universal jurisdiction. Moreover, I do not accept the fourteen Latin particular synods as ecumenical, and I refuse to say that the pope can bind the Church to anything canon or doctrine without the prior consent of the universal episcopate (cf. Canon 34 of the Apostles).

Thus, I agree with the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Synod, which declared in 1995 (a declaration that has never been rescinded by the Melkite Holy Synod):

Might I step in here?

Firstly, I will ask for more charity all around.

Second, I will offer a belated welcome to Father Steele.

Then I would like to ask that this discussion not just be a quote war. Rome has always had primacy. That is not the real issue. The issue is about the nature and extent of that primacy. Is he sole monarch over all Christians or is he elder brother who has the final word in settling disputes? Evidence from the early Church suggests that he was more a court of final appeal and guardian of truth than a single-voiced ruler with ordinary jurisdiction over other bishops, and all Christians.

I will now pick on Father Steele as the newcomer. Father, you seem to be starting from the perspective that universal and ordinary authority is to be assumed unless proven otherwise. That won�t work here. It is much better to approach the discussion by stating your claims and supporting them, and making sure that the supporting evidence validly supports your claim. The quote from Jaroslav Pelikan can surely be used to prove Roman primacy in areas where there is dispute but it does not support ordinary jurisdiction. The quote from Pope Gregory�s epistle clearly indicates that he believed that there were limits to the universal authority.

Perhaps the best thing to occur would be for all parties to go back and come to a common definition of the terms. When one speaks of �universal authority� what exactly is one speaking about? Are they speaking about a �right of final appeal�? Or of �universal ordinary jurisdiction�?

I hope everyone gets my meaning. If not, water pistols filled with skunk oil at dawn.

John (Admin)

I hold that the bishop of Rome has a primacy among, but not over, the ancient patriarchal sees.

Nevertheless, primacy within synodality must not be confused with the secular concept of supremacy over others that has been promoted in the West -- at least since the time of the Hildebrandian reform (cf. Dictatus Papae [fordham.edu], etc.) -- during the course of the second millennium.

Todd,

So let's put that in practical terms. How does he obtain consent? Does it have to be unanimous? 2/3 majority? Simple majority?

If it is to take place in council, how many bishops need to be present and to ratify it for it to be ecumenical? What happens if Moscow decides not to participate, yet all of the other Orthodox Churches of the Ancient Pentarchy do? What if Alexandria does not participate or ratify (which they have not, really, since after Chalcedon)?

I'm really curious how you think this would work.

God bless,

Gordo

What...you don't find it an interesting discussion?

Gordo

Gordo,

Certainly decisions are not made by papal fiat. The holy canons require consensus, and not a strong man who forces his private views on others. In other words, the pope has simply one vote at an ecumenical council, and all the other bishops are his equal, because the order of episcopacy is one and the same, although spread across the earth in many places.

Todd

P.S. - I find it interesting that the Ravenna Document does not say that a council is ecumenical simply because it has papal approval; instead, it speaks about a process of acceptance by the whole Church, hierarchy and laity together.

I did not say that the discussion was boring; instead, I simply pointed out the fact that we do not agree on this topic.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Todd,

But my question is, how does one define consensus? Also, it still does not address the point about the participation (or lack thereof) of all or some of the Patriarchal Sees.

Yves Congar did a study on the theology of reception. I recall reading it in a seminary library one day, but for the life of me I cannot recall the name of the text. Have you run across it in your research? Any idea of the title?

God bless,

Gordo

I know...just poking a little fun.

Gordo