H
Hesychios
Guest
I can only offer an opinion…
They had a common faith and desired to maintain communion with one another.
- Status
They had a common faith and desired to maintain communion with one another.
S
SusTre
Guest
Thank you… This makes a little more sense to me…
S
SusTre
Guest
I am coming again to you asking you for more clarity. This person said your canon was wrong. She too is an Orthodox and this is what she wrote to me concerning This Canon 34.
"It is Canon 34 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles which states: But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all.
I’m confused as to which are the right canons and what weight do each of them hold… Can you continue to assistant me, your eminence?
S
Soler
Guest
I really don’t want to start an argument, but you can take this for what it’s worth.
This document, the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas, was presented to the Eastern bishops and emperor at Constantinople in A.D. 519 by papal legates. It was a (successful) attempt to heal the Acacian Schism, which had arisen some years earlier as a result of Eastern toleration of Monophysite heretics.
In essence, the Formula was a series of papal demands. The papal legates could not, however enforce them by any coercive means—in Byzantium, their practical authority was dependent on the goodwill of the Byzantines.
Yet, in view of changing circumstances, the Formula was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and a majority of the Eastern bishops in March 519, over five hundred years before the Great Schism.
Monophysitism has never been tolerated since by either West or East, and Pope Hormisdas is viewed as a saint by both churches. Yet the Eastern Orthodox bishops seem to forget those parts of his Formula that make explicit reference to papal supremacy—parts which their predecessors ratified.
(There will probably be some talk about how the Eastern bishops didn’t really mean to recognize the Pope as their superior. The fact remains that they did. When discussing Church discipline, we are concerned with public acts, not with private dispositions.)
(emphases added)
This document, the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas, was presented to the Eastern bishops and emperor at Constantinople in A.D. 519 by papal legates. It was a (successful) attempt to heal the Acacian Schism, which had arisen some years earlier as a result of Eastern toleration of Monophysite heretics.
In essence, the Formula was a series of papal demands. The papal legates could not, however enforce them by any coercive means—in Byzantium, their practical authority was dependent on the goodwill of the Byzantines.
Yet, in view of changing circumstances, the Formula was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and a majority of the Eastern bishops in March 519, over five hundred years before the Great Schism.
Monophysitism has never been tolerated since by either West or East, and Pope Hormisdas is viewed as a saint by both churches. Yet the Eastern Orthodox bishops seem to forget those parts of his Formula that make explicit reference to papal supremacy—parts which their predecessors ratified.
(There will probably be some talk about how the Eastern bishops didn’t really mean to recognize the Pope as their superior. The fact remains that they did. When discussing Church discipline, we are concerned with public acts, not with private dispositions.)
H
Hesychios
Guest
I mentioned that there are probably several translations into English of this document. Mine said " **But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, **" which I think says the same thing.
I posted the text for reference.
There is also Canon 4 of the Council of Nicea (325AD), which states " It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. "
This shows that election and appointment of bishops in the early church was local, at the synodal level, and it was a choice made by all of the standing bishops. The Council of Nicea was the first Council of empire-wide importance to be held after the persecutions ended, and while they were keen to reiterate and formalize practices of the church from the earliest days under the persecutions they were probably also aware of deviations and wanted to make the discipline of the church uniform.
Canon 6 of that same Council states: " Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. "
This canon has two parts. In the first part it states that the bishops of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over Pentapolis, which is modern eastern Libya today.Apparently, the churches in Pentapolis saw themselves as being far from Alexandria, or different in some fundamental way. The reason the Pentapolis should be connected with the metropolitan and synod of Egypt might be hard for us to see right off but it was probably very obvious to them.
The Pentapolis region was in the same overall political unit as Egypt, the diocese of Aegyptus. Antioch (also mentioned) was in another political unit (diocese) and was the leading city in that area. Other political units are not named, but instructed to follow the pattern by agreement of the fathers at Nicea. The diocese of Rome is cited as an example of how the church should be structured, it has leadership of the Suburbicarian area (but apparently not Milan, or any part of Spain, Gaul or north Africa).
View attachment 10424
Significantly, the western churches of the empire had been liberated since about 312AD, and lived in peace for over ten years before the eastern part of the empire had a chance to be free of persecutions, so the churches in the west were already operating in the open. [The western churches had already held a Council, called by Constantine the emperor. This council (Arles) served as a model for Nicea, although it was not an empire-wide council. Constantine could not call al the empire’s bishops to council until he had established firm control over the east.]
The second part of the canon seems to address the matter of disputes over the election and appointments of bishops. Apparently “the majority” decision is to be the final one. As I read it this implies that if there is disagreement, they have to vote on it again, there is no one person who can decide this by fiat.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I mentioned that there are probably several translations into English of this document. Mine said " **But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, **" which I think says the same thing.
I posted the text for reference.
There is also Canon 4 of the Council of Nicea (325AD), which states " It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. "
This shows that election and appointment of bishops in the early church was local, at the synodal level, and it was a choice made by all of the standing bishops. It looks like there is a great desire for a process of consensus building. The Council of Nicea was the first Council of empire-wide importance to be held after the persecutions ended, and while they were keen to reiterate and formalize practices of the church from the earliest days under the persecutions they were probably also aware of deviations and wanted to make the discipline of the church uniform.
Canon 6 of that same Council states: " Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. "
This canon has two parts. In the first part it states that the bishops of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over Pentapolis, which is modern eastern Libya today.Apparently, the churches in Pentapolis saw themselves as being far from Alexandria, or different in some fundamental way and were arguing to be recognized as a separate church. The reason the Council decided that the Pentapolis church should be connected with the metropolitan and synod of Egypt might be hard for us to see right off but it was probably very obvious to them.
The Pentapolis region was in the same overall political unit as Egypt, the diocese of Aegyptus. Antioch (also mentioned) was in another political unit (diocese) and was the leading city in that area. Other political units are not named, but instructed to follow the pattern by agreement of the fathers at Nicea. The diocese of Rome is cited as an example of how the church should be structured, it has leadership of the Suburbicarian area (but apparently not Milan, or any part of Spain, Gaul or north Africa).
View attachment 10425
Significantly, the western churches of the empire had been liberated since about 312AD, and lived in peace for over ten years before the eastern part of the empire had a chance to be free of persecutions, so the churches in the west were already operating in the open. [The western churches had already held a Council, called by Constantine the emperor. This council (Arles: 314AD) served as a model for Nicea, although it was not an empire-wide council. Constantine could not call all the empire’s bishops to council until he had established firm control over the east.]
The second part of the canon seems to address the matter of disputes over the election and appointments of bishops. Apparently “the majority” decision is to be the final one. As I read it this implies that if there is disagreement, they have to vote on it again, there is no one person who can decide this by fiat.
S
SusTre
Guest
I don’t think either of you are wrong. I think you just compliment eachothers Traditions. For example, the Eastern Rite Churches ordain their own bishops even today…yet the Pope is only made aware of the choice… So this is not anything different…It just doesn’t show the whole methodology of papal “awareness” of installations of Bishops. This may have evolved a bit after the 400’s but I don’t think any of the bishops or councils cited were there to prove Papal Primacy. They were not speaking of doctrinal issues but that of each church’s right to jurisdictional authority… I don’t think that is not respected today. We have the perfect example of the election of the Maronite Patriarch currentle elected not by Rome but by his synod of bishops which certainly had a knowledge by The pope of Rome but that didn’t remove the Eastern Church’s own self governing choice. We have to stay in some way in tune with eachother. It is a nutty thing to think that everybybody will get along just cause some claim we are brother and “should a coulda” anything…in common when in reality it didn’t work.
zenit.org/article-32326?l=english
Many Eastern orthodox today are not in communion with each other even as this brotherly proposal should be active… But in reality it isn’t. We all know of the Greek Strife over the U.S.A.'s struggle over Jurisdiction. Well, where is there that original brotherly love of common unity being upheld now?
Ideals are great. Good wishes are super. Reality is different. You need a captain for a cruise-liner to direct passage or the crew itself will always have in fights… it’s human nature…
I don’t know why it is so hard to see the logic in this.
[/quote]
S
SusTre
Guest
And then there’s the question in later centuries as there clearly were eastern problems with The Divinity of Christ, what happens then? How do those Bishops all in Chalcedonia not take part in this unanimity? By whose authority it gets back to…and we are again at an untying knot of confusion of who has the last word on something that cannot be found to be unanimous. When is anything in both the Eastern and Western Churches EVER unanimous? Even synods will have bishops that disagree, that’s why here in the states we have synodal elections based on 2/3’s votes and then submitted for final approval to Rome. Which makes sense to me simply on logic…How does anything stay afloat if there is no one to find that IDEALISTIC “Unanimity”? I am not arguing anything, just proposing this idea. I know I am a Catholic in union with Rome. I know what heart rending issues sometimes took place…in time. But should the worst justify even more worse? Aren’t the end results confusion put back on the ordinary people who take the brunts of these actions?
But is this to be the core belief specifically and unabiguously for all time that The Pope Is To Be Considered The First Among Equals? Is This What this Decree is laying out ? Is this the INTENTION? I am not asking about it’s noteworthiness. I need to know whether the INTENT was for this to be a centerpiece for the rest of The Bishops including The Bishop of Rome or was it a sketch of what each Bishop can do because in reality every bishop in the Eastern and western can openly appoint other bishops according to thir respective Rites and Traditions short of controverting them.
In other clearer words… Was This Effort Of Canon 34 Meant to supercede all other Canons in the future and was it specifically INTENDED it’s understanding to be used FOR The Bishop Of Rome. That is my underlining question. From your perspective, sir…
The person that seems really mean to me says YES emphatically. I question whether bishops of that or any era could have understood all the implications of every exhaustive argument there exists today. It’s like micro-scoping something that has no INTENT to be …
H
Hesychios
Guest
I have three points, and then hopefully I am done with the conversation, I can’t think of anything to add beyond this…
The canons of Nicea came out in 325AD, just after the church came out of the catacomb period of persecutions. That is the early fourth century. To a great extant they were codifying church discipline that had been the earliest practice of the church, to the best of their ability.
Canon 34/35 may be older than Nicea, or possibly not, I don’t know. However, it seems to be universally accepted as genuine.
*]It seems to me that if there was a special role for the Pope in any of this, it would have been a good time to mention it, especially if he was universally acknowledged in those days as standing in the role of Saint Peter.
*]What canon 6 of Nicea says is that the bishop of Alexandria is expected to have the same role in Egypt that the bishop of Rome fulfills in Italy, so this would have been the right time to clarify that the bishop of Rome has other functions that are not intended to be shared.
*]The council also stated that Antioch is to organize itself as Rome and Alexandria have, and the other provinces (not named) are do do likewise and specifically states “…let the churches retain their privileges”.
This is the earliest formal voice of the church. This is what everyone was thinking at the time.
S
SusTre
Guest
I have three points, and then hopefully I am done with the conversation, I can’t think of anything to add beyond this…
Really…I am not trying to beat a dead horse with what you personally believe…But as you yourself said that "It seems to me that if there was a special role for the Pope in any of this, it would have been a good time to mention it, especially if he was universally acknowledged in those days as standing in the role of Saint Peter", then I can just as correctly apply that same reasoning to the Dogmas of The Trinity, Deity of Christ, (For you The Dormition) Assumption, etc etc…If these had been also so well understood and known wouldn’t they too had been mentioned to some degree as well? They were not. There was not understanding put together to apply to The “Trinity” for example as the hypo-static union of three persons in one God… It was not there in the Gospels nor in the writings preceding Nicea even though Jesus was mentioned as Son of God, still, The “Trinity” was not fully developed at that early time as was not His Deity defined. One could say the same about St. Peter’s Role.
So to say that just because the discussion was not present about the role per se of The Bishop of Rome downplays later clearer threads of faith in the unraveling of His Office as Peter understood it from Christ as as Christ would tell His Apostles that “When The Holy Spirit Comes, he will lead you into ALL Truth…since you cannot bear it all now”…There is a seamless thought here that perhaps as with many issues, Nicaea too, was not able to “Bear it all then” in the perplexities of The office Of Pope of Rome. That does not mean that we avoid the issue but experience it through the Fathers and especially The eastern Church Patriarchs that ruled the Eastern Churches.
It is clear that in the after Nicaea Periods Doctrinal and disciplinary issues arose that clearly point to the letters of These patriarchates as they write to Rome asking flro help and clarification. Wouldn’t these Canons be closer to their period than they are for us? So then why seek the Office of Bishop Of Rome to sort out issues that These same Eastern Patriarchs could assemble on their own if this is what they THOUGHT those canons meant. To my reading of The Eastern Fathers’ and Patriarchates; Early Letters to Rome it would not take much at all to say that they did not see those canons to means what you say that they meant.
With all due respect I simply assert to the authority of Those early 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th centuries of the eastern Patriarchates. Not Fathers even… Patriarchates whose authority according to those early canons they would be no strangers of.
Jesus never gave us The Holy Spirit so that we can point to a letter of one period and call it “solely authoritative” just as He never intended to make “The Bible Alone” position totally authoritative to Protestantism. The Church is a living breathing organism with an ongoing Continuity of Faith that is exemplified not so much in the writings of The fathers per se per instant but for their example in how they put those Canons into practice. It is The Holy Spirit that Teaches and it is not held bound to a canon but To the Church as a whole and How this Church is to relate clearly without deformation to The World in every generation not just in or before 325 AD… John 16:13 would then be irrelevant…
I am made more fully aware of the Eastern Orthodox positions and what they mean to you today. Thank you for your contributions to my question.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
In fact, the Eastern Churches praised the Pope of Rome and his role much more highly than anything subsequent in the West. The words they lavished on the popes of Rome at the Sixth Ecumenical Council put the greatest Western papal supremacist literally to shame.
The problem arose with later papal claims of universal and direct jurisdiction over the East (something which neither Rome nor the Orthodox East acknowledged before). And again with papal infallibility which was seen in the East as a kind of usurpation of the infallibility of the entire Church.
Alex
S
SusTre
Guest
Alex,
I’m not saying that The Pope “Lorded it over” maybe exccesively, but there was no doctrinal error in that. it was stylistic. You put someone on a high pedestal, what do you get? The fact is The Pope always governed the whole church…The minutia arguments of that time period i am sure are being carefully examined by Rome today with the Orthodox…
H
Hesychios
Guest
You have yet to show anyone how that was done.
S
SusTre
Guest
Simple Letters Of The Fathers to the Popes Of Rome to Intervene in their affairs. That is called “GOVERNING”… Ya can’t get anything done or keep the UNITY unless you are GOVERNING. What part of that don’t WE understand?
You don’t call someone to intervene in doctrinal affairs unless you know where that person stands in your heirarchical structure of “your” church, and not call it “Governing”. That’s exactly how they recognized the successor of Peter. Otherwise they would do their own governing and be their own “Cephalous”. Guess what what? They weren’t. You don’t go to an arch deacon for things that only your bishop can do… Likewise when you read letters of These early fathers of the East, Papal Primacy doesn’t need to be spelled out. it was a lived out experience. You know these letters. **Live them out. ** I don’t need to remind you where to look, i’m sure. But I will oblige if you so desire… These were very blatantly clear and concise words that would be never ever uttered by any Orthodox Bishop today. That’s a problem. If you can’t acknowledge as much, your dishonest to your history. I don’t choose to interpret it. i study and simply read it. Did Popes go too far? Sure. So did Judas and peter to some extant. Jesus never fired them for that. It appears Orthodoxy did. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism is made up of Flesh and Blood men. Not Jesus Christ. And he didn’t do things this way. He waited for repentance.
Read for yourself this. Matthew 3:12. Jesus Christ and His angels alone will be the ones to separate the Wheat from the Chaff at the end of age, not leave it up to men who will as He said quite clearly, “Pull the chaff with the wheat…” Sounds pretty reasonable to me… Lording it over by Popes is not a doctrinal offense. Pride is. And if we look at dynastic kingdoms organized by God himself in the OT, we see The Davidic Kingdom fall into great sin and Solomon’s…Did God raise a Flesh and Blood man to take down their Faith? The Torah remains intact to today. That’s the fact. It is not up to us to decide. It is up to God. Are you God? Am I God? No. And No. So… we start with the early Church and read those Letters…All of them… not pick and choose which canons tickle our ears best. And the letters i read, do not speak well of DISSENTERS. Even Jesus after having a nice rebuke of the Pharisees did what?
**Matthew 23: 2 **
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, v.2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." Looks like this is repeating itself over and over again…except in contradiction to what Christ established from the beginning. It Is Not Up To Man To Make Decisions To Break Away. It Is Up To God and God Alone.
The letters of the East are so crystal clear, one would have to twist them to find something other. Recorded history doesn’t change. Sir! But confusion sewn is not a good idea for “Flesh and Blood” men to decide for themselves cuz they don’t like to be told what to do. Too darn bad. **We all have superiors, Sir! ** We deal with it, not leave or choose our own paths.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Except for when they were, like with, oh, some of the earliest Ecumenical Councils. Are you aware that the First Council of Nicaea was made up entirely of Eastern bishops? The pope wasn’t even invited to the First Council of Constantinople. The pope wasn’t present at any of the first seven, didn’t call for any of the first seven, and didn’t even make any contribution to any of them until the fourth, which was at Chalcedon (where the Tome of Leo was accepted). The claim that the entire church has been governed by the pope is simply not supported by history.
S
SusTre
Guest
That’s not entirely accurate. His signature was on the decrees after the Councils ended and the decrees sent to him to sign. I have the decrees of all 21 Councils of the Catholic Church and all 21 have The Pope Of Rome’s signature on them. ALL. He also sent legates to every council of the early Church **after just 10 years of Christian freedom… **I think that may have played a part and just because a Pope of Rome is not at a council doesn’t take away from his Authority looking at the letters The Eastern PATRIARCHS who wrote to him from the 300’s all the way to the early 900’s and beyond that… Legates of a Pope or Bishop stand in representation oh Him and that is just as if He were there, albeit would have to be given Canonical decrees to sign right after. Why has there been no Ecumenical Council In The Orthodox Church since Council 7? Because suddenly no issues took place? Then why attend the subsequent Council of Florence in Rome by The Orthodox in order to heal the Schism? You mean they recognized the Pope then in certain times and actions but not in others? Really?
So to say that because the early Churches were somewhat scattered, would be an understatement knowing that for 300 years prior they were executed like dogs in the street…
**My question to you also be why would Eastern Patriarchs continue to attend the 8th, 9th, 10, 11th, etc …Councils and SIGN off on all their decrees if they were no longer in recognition of the way The papacy had evolved? ** Were they not then causing serious problems for themselves? Ya don’t sign something and then conveniently deny doing so… That would have to be explained as error. Are Orthodox willing to accept signing those post Council Decrees as erroneous? I doubt it.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, which “Eastern Patriarchs” attended the later Latin Councils?
V
Vico
Guest
I think that may have played a part and just because a Pope of Rome is not at a council doesn’t take away from his Authority looking at the letters The Eastern PATRIARCHS who wrote to him from the 300’s all the way to the early 900’s and beyond that… Legates of a Pope or Bishop stand in representation oh Him and that is just as if He were there, albeit would have to be given Canonical decrees to sign right after. Why has there been no Ecumenical Council In The Orthodox Church since Council 7? Because suddenly no issues took place? Then why attend the subsequent Council of Florence in Rome by The Orthodox in order to heal the Schism? You mean they recognized the Pope then in certain times and actions but not in others? Really?
So to say that because the early Churches were somewhat scattered, would be an understatement knowing that for 300 years prior they were executed like dogs in the street…
**My question to you also be why would Eastern Patriarchs continue to attend the 8th, 9th, 10, 11th, etc …Councils and SIGN off on all their decrees if they were no longer in recognition of the way The papacy had evolved? **Were they not then causing serious problems for themselves? Ya don’t sign something and then conveniently deny doing so… That would have to be explained as error. Are Orthodox willing to accept signing those post Council Decrees as erroneous? I doubt it.
The First Council of Constantinople (381) was local, later ratified. Not everything from a council is ratified by the Supreme Pontiff either. Sometimes the information from the council is not known to the Supreme Pontiff.
- Council of Nicaea (325)
ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 pontificate) - First Council of Constantinople (381)
It was a local council of the east. - Council of Ephesus (431)
ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 pontificate) - Council of Chalcedon (451)
ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 pontificate) - Council of Constantinople II (553)
reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html
Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) declared the four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.
catholic-resources.org/Church…alCouncils.htm
And there was Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 pontificate) that referred to the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as ecumenical, by reference to canon 22.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Sustre,
Apostolic Canon 34 is a general principle of the Church from the earliest times. It is based on the reality and example of the Apostolic College, which was composed of the Apostles who had St. Peter as their head (the early Church Fathers are unanimous in their testimony that St. Peter was the coryphaeus - or head - of the Apostles). Here is the full text of the Canon:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
Vatican 1 referred to this Apostolic Canon as “the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.” In praxis, every grouping of bishops is required to have a head according to this Rule of Faith. Following this Rule of Faith, the early Church recognized three levels of episcopal groupings - the metropolical level, the patriarchal level, and the universal level. Metropolitans are head bishops on a regional level who have other bishops within their jurisdiction. Patriarchs are head bishops of a larger territory than Metropolitans, and includes Metropolitans within their jurisdiction. The Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church, which includes all bishops, including Patriarchs and Metropolitans.
You had mentioned earlier that the Pope governs the entire Church. In a sense, he does, but it is important to understand that the government of the Church is not like government in the secular world. It is not strictly monarchical, and neither is it strictly democratic. There are those who pretend the Church is strictly monarchical, and tend to ignore the second part of the Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34 (the part that says, “but neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all”). That is the error of what can be called the Absolutist Petrine view. On the other hand, there are those who pretend that the Church is strictly democratic, and want to ignore the first part of Apostolic Canon 34 (the part that says, “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent”). That is the error of what can be called the Low Petrine view. The true government of the Church places equal importance on the actions of both the head bishop and his brother bishops. This is the ideal of what can be called the High Petrine view. It is the ideal that is taught by the Catholic Church, as well as several other non-Catholic Churches.
To address what I think you are asking in the OP – Apostolic Canon 34 indeed does not assign mere honor to the bishop who holds the primacy. You can glean this from the Canon itself, which asserts that the recognition and consent of the head bishop is a requirement (i.e., “must acknowledge…and do nothing without…”). But I would ask and remind that you not neglect the second part of the Canon as well, which is just as important.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. May I address you as “brother” or “sister?”
I’m not sure I understand the gist of your OP, so take what you will from the following response:What of the Canon 34 of The Apostolic Canon, which state The Pope has a “Primacy of Honor”? So how is this to be taken? A friend is badgering me about this and saying I need to convert to Orthodoxy because f it yet I quote fathers like St. Theodore The Studite when he said, “Save us oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of The Church of Heaven” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23) I told her that doesn’t sound like an Easterner calling for help to someone who has no teeth to give it nor arms to enforce it… She just kept ranting with the canons… Is there a counter canon out there? HELP???
Apostolic Canon 34 is a general principle of the Church from the earliest times. It is based on the reality and example of the Apostolic College, which was composed of the Apostles who had St. Peter as their head (the early Church Fathers are unanimous in their testimony that St. Peter was the coryphaeus - or head - of the Apostles). Here is the full text of the Canon:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
Vatican 1 referred to this Apostolic Canon as “the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.” In praxis, every grouping of bishops is required to have a head according to this Rule of Faith. Following this Rule of Faith, the early Church recognized three levels of episcopal groupings - the metropolical level, the patriarchal level, and the universal level. Metropolitans are head bishops on a regional level who have other bishops within their jurisdiction. Patriarchs are head bishops of a larger territory than Metropolitans, and includes Metropolitans within their jurisdiction. The Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church, which includes all bishops, including Patriarchs and Metropolitans.
You had mentioned earlier that the Pope governs the entire Church. In a sense, he does, but it is important to understand that the government of the Church is not like government in the secular world. It is not strictly monarchical, and neither is it strictly democratic. There are those who pretend the Church is strictly monarchical, and tend to ignore the second part of the Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34 (the part that says, “but neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all”). That is the error of what can be called the Absolutist Petrine view. On the other hand, there are those who pretend that the Church is strictly democratic, and want to ignore the first part of Apostolic Canon 34 (the part that says, “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent”). That is the error of what can be called the Low Petrine view. The true government of the Church places equal importance on the actions of both the head bishop and his brother bishops. This is the ideal of what can be called the High Petrine view. It is the ideal that is taught by the Catholic Church, as well as several other non-Catholic Churches.
To address what I think you are asking in the OP – Apostolic Canon 34 indeed does not assign mere honor to the bishop who holds the primacy. You can glean this from the Canon itself, which asserts that the recognition and consent of the head bishop is a requirement (i.e., “must acknowledge…and do nothing without…”). But I would ask and remind that you not neglect the second part of the Canon as well, which is just as important.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. May I address you as “brother” or “sister?”
H
hazcompat
Guest
first council of nicea
writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and
chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according
as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria,
which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is
the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and
last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the
bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the
bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great
cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let
every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his
province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than
they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the
rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have
established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.(2)
peace*
Code:
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are fourchief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according
as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria,
which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is
the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and
last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the
bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the
bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great
cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let
every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his
province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than
they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the
rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have
established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.(2)
peace*
- Status