Any chance for Nicaea III?

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If the Pope is supreme, he had a duty to step in against those abuses.

Agreed. I take it as failure of Pope to intervene that made this a huge issue. However, Papal Infallibility does extend to statements about morals or faith- hence he can issue whether Council was Ecumenical, Robber, or he can choose to not react. Choosing not to react when needed is also option in which Pontiff disregards his Petrine Authority such as Pope Honorius (who did not depose heretics neither did he invoke Petrine Authority to protect dogmas of Church but fell to heresy, while maintaining status of Pope). Popes are fallible humans when not invoking Petrine Authority, and I consider above Schisms failure of Pontiffs on disciplinary or diplomatic grounds.

While Pope is indeed not infallible in regards to discipline, he should be obeyed same way Bishops are not infallible yet should be obeyed.

I switch between Primacy and Supremacy almost interchangeably, I do not mean to twist my words. I simply consider Supremacy as outcome of Primacy understood in Catholic sense. I consider Pope “first among equals” with regards to other Bishops as Bishop of Rome, but as unique Pastor of Church as outcome of being Peter’s successor. As Peter of Church, Pope is unique and only one who holds such Office.

 

[ziapueblo]

The Petrine Ministry and the Roman Primacy are two different things. The Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. Note that the CHURCH holds the primacy, not the man. The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy. But Rome itself acknowledged that, to be ecumenical, any general council has to involve representatives of the other Churches, AND BE RECEIVED BY THEM (Second Council of Nicaea). Therefore, by Rome’s own canons, there has not been a true Ecumenical Council since 787. Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

I switch between Primacy and Supremacy almost interchangeably, I do not mean to twist my words.

Fair enough. I would suggest though not doing so. The official dialogues between our churches definitely do not use these terms interchangeably.

Orthodox are very familiar and comfortable with the idea of primacy. Within each Orthodox Church, the primate (whether titles patriarch, metropolitan, or Archbishop) exercises primacy amongst his brother bishops. Amongst all the churches, there is an order of precedence and the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises a certain primacy. Supremacy, however, is not a concept the Orthodox have. Although Primates do indeed have have both greater privileges and responsibilities, they can’t act outside of the consensus of their brother bishops.

This is why these terms are very important and care should be taken to not mix the two, especially in Ecumenical discussion.

 

[Isaac14]

Trusting God’s providence. What recourse is there if all Bishops in Patriarchate suddenly go heretical?

In Orthodoxy, there is always some sort of recourse. If the primate goes astray, his brother bishops hold him to account, to the point of deposing him if necessary. If all the bishopric goes astray, the priests, deacons, and laity are called to hold their bishops to the true faith, not to mention the other churches would do the same for the wayward church. This would certainly be a painful and messy process if it got that bad, but we all have a part to play in holding each other accountable.

We do indeed believe the Holy Spirit will protect his church; we also believe that by our baptism, chrismation, and reception of the Eucharist, all believers are called to hold those above us accountable if they go astray.

 

[dochawk]

Minor correction to an otherwise good post - it’s OCA & ACROD. Not ROCOR.

Uhm, yeah. That.

I was kind of exhausted yesterday . . . and it was too late for a nap.

ROCOR would happen for a few more decades.

I had expected a leisurely day, and as I read my morning news, my computer rudely reminded me that I was supposed to be helping at a car show . . . but then, we did raise a few thousand dollars for St. Jude’s Ranch, and the 1929 Packard touring sedan was amazing . . . unrestored, and in spectacular shape!

That was not abusement of Papal Primacy nor Infallibility, but of Episcopate. I don’t think it involved Papacy in any way, but correct me if I’m mistaken.

That specific act was abuse from the local episcopacy.

Cum data fuerit, however, was direct abuse by the Roman pontiff.

He should have protected us from something like that, but instead was the boot on our neck . . .

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Within each Orthodox Church, the primate (whether titles patriarch, metropolitan, or Archbishop) exercises primacy amongst his brother bishops. Amongst all the churches, there is an order of precedence and the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises a certain primacy. Supremacy, however, is not a concept the Orthodox have. Although Primates do indeed have have both greater privileges and responsibilities, they can’t act outside of the consensus of their brother bishops.

That is not exactly true, I know Russian Patriarch has deposing power over his Bishops and also two votes in Synod. While not exactly like Papal Supremacy, it is not exactly in line of fraternal equality. Pre-Schism most primates in East enjoyed higher privileges than nowadays anyway.

Fair enough. I would suggest though not doing so.

I’ll try to, it’s just that in official Vatican documents I’ve been reading Primacy is used in terms of Supremacy a lot, so I got a bit used to such terms- but I’ll try to limit that on this forum.

If all the bishopric goes astray

As far as I understand, it’s actually some sort of dogma in Orthodoxy that never will all Bishops go heretical (since that would mean no power remains in the Church to ordain priests etc). I think it’s the same in Catholicism anyway.

all believers are called to hold those above us accountable if they go astray.

Yes, way Paul rebuked Peter. However, we must respect authorities especially when it comes to Bishops- those who are successors of Apostles and guardians of Faith and Truth. Private interpretations of faith are explicitly forbidden in the Bible and hence we can not be sure about our own interpretation, therefore recourse to always higher authority should exist, as well as way to tell which side is correct ultimately, as faith requires absolute belief (Venerable Apostle Thomas gave us example on how to not do that).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Cum data fuerit, however, was direct abuse by the Roman pontiff

Depends, while I do not think it was wise nor good to issue such thing, I can imagine cultural reasons for doing so- which do not overweight any of prior reasons against it in my opinion. It was fueled by unwise fear of losing celibacy in Latin Church being devalued because Latin Priests would require to promise it while Eastern wouldn’t. It’s an example of Pope erring based on discipline, where I think he should have been corrected by any other competent authority in the Church. Reminds me of when Pope Victor wanted to excommunicate East because they did not comply with his request to unify date of Easter.

Even to this day there are Catholics who (not formally educated nor very knowledgeable about faith or Eastern Churches, I admit) are unsure if married Priest can celebrate in Latin Church with bi-ritual faculties, or if he really is a priest or if it that is not some way of going around the rules etc. Simply speaking, idea of Celibacy bound with Priesthood has grown almost too much in the West (to the point where it is not distinguished, which is very unwise). Just wait until they hear that some Protestant pastors who convert are sometimes married yet ordained Latin Priests

I think Church should care more to educate it’s members about Rites and I’ve been saying that for a long time now.

 

[Isaac14]

it is not exactly in line of fraternal equality.

No it isn’t, nor is it right.

Private interpretations of faith are explicitly forbidden in the Bible

I said nothing about using “private interpretation.” If it came to the bishops needing correction, I can imagine the priests, deacon, and laity would deliberate seriously as doing so would be a very difficult thing to do. Does our chrismation/confirmation (i.e. sealing with the Holy Spirit) mean nothing? Based on what you’re saying the only solution is to wait for the wayward bishops to die, while doing nothing to stop whatever damage to the faith they may inflict out of “respect” for higher authority. How is this acceptable?

Depends, while I do not think it was wise nor good to issue such thing, I can imagine cultural reasons for doing so

It wasn’t just “unwise” or an “error” for the Pope to issue this, it was a direct violation of the Treaty of Brest wherein the Ruthenians established communion with Rome. Lack of education is no excuse to deny the rights of Eastern Christians.

 

[whatistrue]

the 1929 Packard touring sedan was amazing . . . unrestored, and in spectacular shape!

There is only one way that I can express my reaction to the thought of owning such a machine: …drool…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

How is this acceptable?

It’s not, hence I believe that unless we wanna go Protestant mode, clearly established authority needs to exist to act in such cases of extreme necessity. Simply speaking Peter forbids private interpretation but without that, we can never know which part truly holds authority and is therefore true. That’s why I believe Papacy to be essential.

it was a direct violation of the Treaty of Brest wherein the Ruthenians established communion with Rome

It was an error though, and it was unwise. Contrary belief would mean it was either not an error or it was not unwise. Lack of education is not an excuse, but it was the reason. Pope directly violated Treaty of Brest, which is very wrong in itself and reason I am all for educating people (including Pontiffs apparently) about Eastern Catholics.That does not take any authority from Papacy as institution- Peter violated laws of charity when he ignored Gentiles yet that did not mean he ceased being First among Apostles. Same way many Bishops denied Florence or Lyons, or Rome’s authority to proclaim it’s own doctrine (Filioque being prime example), both East and West make mistakes. It’s actually quite harder to find mistakes on side of Eastern Catholics than Eastern Orthodox or Latin Catholics, thanks to the fact they remain obedient despite unjust things happening to them, and because they do not hold burden of authority over other Churches. Let’s learn from them, from all mistakes that each side has done,and all damage each side has suffered.

 

[Isaac14]

Orbis: we continue to talk past each other. I don’t understand why you keep bringing up personal interpretation. If the priests, deacons, and laity come together and with great deliberation resolve to correct their bishops, how is this personal interpretation? If the clearly established authority is in error what happens? Is our only option to what until they die?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If the priests, deacons, and laity come together and with great deliberation resolve to correct their bishops, how is this personal interpretation?

Because they can try to correct their Bishops, but if Bishops do not comply, they have no authority to correct them- after all, Bishops are successors of Apostles who guard the Truth. If Bishops stay in heresy Church falls (which is why we all believe that can not happen to all Bishops at once anyway). If they correct them nevertheless, disregarding their Apostolic authority, it’s just private interpretation.

 

[Isaac14]

So our only option is to wait for bishops in error to die?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No, he can get corrected by other Bishops, by Synod or such. Laity of Priests/Deacons deposing Bishop would not make it any different from Protestantism. Bishops are those responsible for authentic interpretation of Faith, therefore one should recourse to higher authority, never to lower. Even if your perception is that Bishop is in error, there is a chance he is not. Only one who can judge that are other Bishops.

 

[Isaac14]

Orbis,
You’re introducing things I didn’t realize were part of our discussion. I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation of most/all bishops being in error. Although I’ve indeed talked about the priests, deacons, and laity holding those bishops to account, I never stated these could depose the wayward bishops. There aren’t easy answers, but I don’t believe sitting idly by because there isn’t a higher authority to appeal to isn’t an option either.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’ve been making point with that entire time- that unless we believe Bishops as College are preserved from error, or at least preserved from completely succumbing to it entirely, then even infallibility of Church has no real meaning. Same way, to recognize truly which side is right, we use Papal Supremacy as a way.

 

[AlNg]

My feeling is most Catholics want a reunion, most Orthodox do not

No. Both Catholics and Orthodox say that they want reunion, but each Church wants reunion on their own terms. Neither side is willing to make the compromises necessary for reconciliation and the restoration of full communion.

Orbis: we continue to talk past each other.

Yes. That is how it is and that is why IMHO I don’t see a reunion of East and West anytime soon.

 

[Neithan]

But Rome itself acknowledged that, to be ecumenical, any general council has to involve representatives of the other Churches, AND BE RECEIVED BY THEM (Second Council of Nicaea). Therefore, by Rome’s own canons, there has not been a true Ecumenical Council since 787. Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

Is this a significant obstacle? I can imagine that us Roman Catholics could call those councils Western councils or something; but I think there were some Eastern Catholic bishops at some of those councils, particularly after * Laetentur Caeli* and I’m curious what they think about them, if they consider them ecumenical. Without the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch though, I can see how they can hardly be called truly ecumenical.

 

[dochawk]

It’s an example of Pope erring based on discipline,

But that’s game, set, and match for Orthodox concerns about a papal role with communion restored!

There is only one way that I can express my reaction to the thought of owning such a machine: …drool…

Yes, I’m afraid I may be responsible for a bit of rust that way . . . a couple of summers ago, I spent a lot of time behind the wheel of a 1927 Cadillac survivor, which had just taken Best of Show at the Cadillac Grand National. I’ve never enjoyed driving anything that much . . .

Orbis: we continue to talk past each other.

That’s very close to a direct quote from Brest! :crazy_face: But it went further, noting that the reason was that we don’t want to understand one an other . . .

that unless we believe Bishops as College are preserved from error,

But we’re a good millennium from such an episcopal function having been exercised . . .

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But we’re a good millennium from such an episcopal function having been exercised . . .

I don’t quite get your point. Does that mean Episcopate no longer holds authority?

But that’s game, set, and match for Orthodox concerns about a papal role with communion restored!

Perhaps limit Pope to proclaiming and guarding doctrine, not discipline then?