Any chance for Nicaea III?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we believe that Truth is absolute and that part of the Truth is that Christ grants supreme ecclesiastical authority to the Pope, we cannot say that the Orthodox are 100% right. We have our differences, although minimal.
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying Orthodox Christians are bad or aren’t quite good enough, but if I believed Orthodoxy to be better than Catholicism, I would be Orthodox not Catholic. This is not favorite color kind of thing, this is simply a bit more significant choice which depends on what we view as true- not what we simply prefer. I am Catholic, so I do not believe Orthodoxy has same fullness Catholicism does. I won’t ever pretend I believe they are equal or same, or just matter of preference, because I would be lying. I hold in high esteem Orthodox Church, but in highest esteem Catholic Church. I am simply not advocating Catholics practically adopting Orthodox ecclesiology. If Orthodoxy and Catholicism were indeed equal and matter of preference, either Schism would be non-existent OR both would be wrong. In situation where Schism exists and we believe Church of Christ to subsist in one of those options (which all Catholics and Orthodox do), they are not equal. Difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is not same scenario as difference between Eastern and Western Rites (in both our Churches, for that matter).

I am up for more ordinary autonomy and power to Eastern Bishops and Patriarchs- I for one believe Patriarchates should be granted not only to Eastern Churches but also to Western Churches with same authority (Western Patriarchs exist, but they are way below Eastern Patriarchs in practice), and Patriarchate status to be granted to more Eastern Churches (based on precedent situations, not just because they did (not) get Patriarch status before becoming Catholics or holding it pre-schism).

However, by same point, I do believe Latin General Synods were inspired by Holy Spirit and hence I believe Pope should have ordinary immediate and full power in the Church- however exercising of such power is extraordinary by default. That means Pope does not just meddle in affairs of Patriarchs because he feels like it, but because he believes it is necessary. However, when he believes it is necessary he intervenes. Basically speaking, model that Pope Saint Gregory the Great exercised during his pontificate (pre-schism) or model that Saint George the Hagiorite (Eastern, Georgian Saint) fought for. For this Office which Pope Saint Gregory exercised, infallibility is a must because authority to override synods of other Patriarchs which he asserted to hold in Petrine Office would make no sense if such statements could be fallible and it would be pointless to even have Petrine Office in the first place. You will find that many Church Fathers even from East advocate Petrine Office, and very small amount of pre-schism Eastern Fathers actually opposes this assertion by Popes or supporters of such doctrine.

I mean, this is all way above my authority, but I don’t think this would disregard any dogmas by either Church and would also prevent situations that many Orthodox seem to fear- that Orthodox Church basically becomes puppet of Pope’s whims. If we however disregard dogmas of any Church, we are basically saying it was wrong entire time. Both Churches hold infallibility of Church as true hence if we disregard dogma of either Church, it can’t be real Church of Christ.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
You will find that many Church Fathers even from East advocate Petrine Office, and very small amount of pre-schism Eastern Fathers actually opposes this assertion by Popes or supporters of such doctrine.
Click to expand...
The Greek Fathers often use flowery language when speaking about Rome:

“Your Apostleship exercises a primacy granted by God, and seeks to show not by your privileges alone, but also by your merits that you hold pride of place in the Universal Church of God. Your See adorns our law and your person your See. I am bound to your worthy self by the debt I owe your generosity, and I offer you thanks through the messenger who brought the gifts, gifts that are to be valued not in price, but in the rewards of salvation. You have enriched the poverty of the end of the earth with your holy resources, and you have touched the darkness of the setting sun by sharing the light of its rising with us. The brightness of your gift has cleansed the rust of devotion grown sluggish from our provinces, and by watering it with a stream of goodness has granted a gift for our faith to contemplate. On the occasion when, once the inner regions of the celestial treasure-houses had been opened by Your Piety, we gazed upon what we, as Catholics, are ordered to worship. All that remains is for you to pray that you have sent the gifts to worthy recipients; commend us to the mystic objects that you have seen fit to entrust to us. Let our devotion be built on them; let our region be defended by them, so that, once the life-giving token has been grant to us, you render us, whom you have not deemed worthy to share in the company of the earthly Jerusalem, fit to live in the supernal and celestial one."

Wait a sec , this is St. Avitus of Vienne addressing the Patriarch of Jerusalem, not the Pope. It sure reads that way.

The East does not deny the Primacy of Rome. Just how it has been interpreted by the West.

ZP
 
Various Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in full communion with Rome currently select their own bishops without approval from Rome… so yeah, I can’t imagine that would be an obstacle to unity.
 
Last edited:
And that can change because, according to the First Vatican Council, the pope has an absolute right to change the rites of the Eastern-rite churches into something similar to the Roman Novus Ordo rites.
 
Last edited:
I deny Pope bring Only Patriarch and hence Universal Patriarch because “that what we call [Pope] to be universal denies dignity from others” (Pope Saint Gregory). I deny Church being Roman
or having One Bishop with others being his delegates or Vicars.

But in Saint Pope Gregory’s fashion, I also acknowledge power of Rome to be infallible bastion of faith, to render councils and synods null and void and to acknowledge them as general and binding. For such ministry of protection for the Church I acknowledge Papal Infallibility so powers granted to Rome are safeguarding Church and never threatening it.
This is all that Pope Saint Gregory professed, all George Hagiorite professed (atleast inerrancy of Roman Church for that regard) and what neither of Patriarchs fought against during Pope Saint Gregory’s pontificate- not just that, but they wanted to give Pope Gregory even more honor that he refused on above grounds.

This is therefore something that Church during Pope Gregory’s pontificate firmly believed and as such what Church held to in first millennium.
 
Yeah but there’s no reason because Pope has to respect dignity of Patriarchs of East and East has valid beautiful heritage - there is no reason Holy Spirit would want to abolish that.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Yeah but there’s no reason because Pope has to respect dignity of Patriarchs of East and East has valid beautiful heritage - there is no reason Holy Spirit would want to abolish that.
Click to expand...
What recourse is there if some future Pope decided not to respect the dignity of the East and did make changes to Eastern liturgies or practice?
 
What the Pope can do and should do are two different things. Catholic dogmatic propositions on the Pope’s jurisdiction focus on the abstract principles, and therefore seem very sweeping, because the “should” of every situation cannot be foreseen.

The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to destroy tradition, take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate, or that of the Patriarchates created by council and custom.

And there are plenty of times, going all the way back, when many in the Church, including saints, did not support the Pope in some act, because in good conscience they believed it was contrary to that ends of the papacy and therefore he shouldn’t do it (one of the first of such instances–the Easter controversy involving St. Victor I and opposition from St. Irenaeus and many others–is a great example).

Unfortunately, the Latin Church’s recent liturgical history can send up some major red flags. But that was not a unilateral papal act out of nowhere, but the result of the Pope being given direction and guidelines from a general council (and a subsequent partial synod). It don’t think it would have happened without that.

Bishops are to be true vicars of Christ themselves, not vicars of the Roman Pontiff (that is Catholic dogma as well).
 
Last edited:
Yea, that’s why Austria felt the need to continue it’s ban of allowing Hapsburgs into the country until pressured in order to join the EU, and why thousands showed up for Empress Rita’s funeral.

🙂
 
Last edited:
There’s no precedent for a Pope taking such drastic sweeping steps unilaterally. I find it an exercise in absurdity.
 
The problem is the the number of Catholics who, in discussions about the papal role, insist on that power existing. Absurd as it might be, papo-supremicsts (?) have made it an issue.
 
Trusting God’s providence. What recourse is there if all Bishops in Patriarchate suddenly go heretical? Trusting God’s providence. We don’t get far without that. It’s kinda funny because it’s usually West that needs everything declared and specified, and East that does not- now I know Holy Spirit’s leading of the Church is a bit more mysterious concept in the East (or in Orthodoxy for that matter) than in West, but believing Holy Spirit can do his job right is not as irrational.

And yeah, based on logic of precedent situations, I do not think Pope would be able to do that contrary to will of Eastern Church. After all, every Eastern Church follows a bit different liturgical norms (even if they follow same Rite) and I wishfully think era of imposed Latinizations and uniformity in the Church is already dead forever. We have come to better understanding of Rites than before, we now understand uniformity does not equal unity nor vice-versa.
 
Last edited:
I guess ultramontanists is the word. Thing is, historically speaking I do believe such power actually exists, I just do not believe it can be abused.

And again, my main point of this argument, nothing ever states Pope can not be Eastern-Rite. Even if he becomes Bishop of Latin Diocese, every Pope is omni-ritual by default. Same way some Eastern eparchies are under care of Latin Bishops because of lack of their Bishop’s existence in area, same way Latin Diocese would be under Eastern Catholic Pope- or entire Latin Patriarchate. I do not think I’d mind that to be honest 😃 If Eastern Pope could revise Latin Liturgy but not Eastern Liturgy, it would be a bit funny scenario at best.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I guess ultramontanists is the word.
Click to expand...
That is the word I’m looking for.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Thing is, historically speaking I do believe such power actually exists, I just do not believe it can be abused.
Click to expand...
It has been abused in the United States.

In the early 20th century, while the EC were supposed to be under their pastoral care, the RC bishops attempted to completely wipe eastern rite liturgy from the country!

(and, yes, this was the proximate cause of not just one but two schisms, and is the reason that ROCOR and ACROD exist.)
 
Last edited:
It’s also the reason the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada exists…
 
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.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if this wasn’t directly the Pope’s actions, to assume he had no knowledge or ability to stop such abuses is surprising, especially the second time.

I’ve noticed you seem to switch between the terms primacy and supremacy when describing the Popes authority depending on the point you are making. I’m assuming it’s not deliberate, but it does lead to confusion. If the Pope is supreme, he had a duty to step in against those abuses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top