A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I still don’t see any mention made of the Moscow Patriarchate - am I missing something here? 
Alex
Alex
- Status
A
Apotheoun
Guest
Why would the Moscow Patriarchate be mentioned in a spurious (arabic) canon written some time during or after the 8th century?I still don’t see any mention made of the Moscow Patriarchate - am I missing something here?
Alex
During the first millennium the ecumenical councils created five Patriarchates. All the others came into being later.
D
dcointin
Guest
I’m not certain that this canon can be used in support of the Papacy. It states: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head” I would argue that this is referring to the metropolitan level since it that’s the natural context of “bishops of every nation… among them”. Do you see any evidence in this canon for a universal primacy?
A
Apotheoun
Guest
You are correct that it applies to the Metropolitan rank, but ecumenical talks have moved in a direction that sees some kind of application of this canon at the Patriarchal and even ecumenical level. Be that as it may, I do understand that for the Eastern Orthodox this is an open question, which is why I think that the international dialogue between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches will not get too far in the short term. The Orthodox need to discuss the canon in question and come to some agreed position on its meaning beyond that of the Metropolitan rank, that is, whether it can be properly applied to the Patriarchs and to the Ecumenical Church herself.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I was having a conversation with my friend above - who asked you to come in on it?
But thank you for clearing up the source of that document.
Since it is spurious, I can let it go and not be troubled by it any further.
God bless you,
Alex
J
Joel_PF
Guest
The High Petrine view is so reasonable and historically grounded… Why can’t we all just accept it and unite once again?
D
dcointin
Guest
I have a few questions as to how this possibility would function.
Would the Pope have to approve eastern episcopal ordinations?
Would the Pope have the authority to tamper with eastern liturgies?
Would the Pope have the authority to enforce celibacy on Orthodox priests in western nations?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
One can interpret it two ways -
(1) “the bishops of EVERY nation” must acknowledge him who is head, which would support universal primacy;
(2) “the bishops of EACH nation” must acknowledge him who is head, which would support a patriarchal primacy.
With due respect to your and brother Todd’s position, the canon does not immediately support primacy on a metropolical level, since metropolitans are head bishops of uban regions, not whole nations (as the Canon asserts). However, we do have a canon from an early 3rd century council of Antioch (IIRC) that uses the same language, but with specific reference to the Metropolitan (it has “of every nation” missing from the text). That canon actually makes reference to the Apostolic canon as “ancient” and uses that model to establish the headship at the metropolical level.
I also see the Canon as evidence of how primacy works, is supposed to work, and worked in the early Church - it is not the unilateral, “by-mere-will” caricature that Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates pretend. Recall that the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 referred to the Apostolic Canon as a “Rule of Faith” (which I’m sure gives Absolutist Petrine advocates nightmares).
Blessings,
Marduk
I don’t see this Canon as being “evidence” of universal primacy per se. I see it as evidence of the principle of primacy period - whether on a metropolical, patriarchal, or universal level.
One can interpret it two ways -
(1) “the bishops of EVERY nation” must acknowledge him who is head, which would support universal primacy;
(2) “the bishops of EACH nation” must acknowledge him who is head, which would support a patriarchal primacy.
With due respect to your and brother Todd’s position, the canon does not immediately support primacy on a metropolical level, since metropolitans are head bishops of uban regions, not whole nations (as the Canon asserts). However, we do have a canon from an early 3rd century council of Antioch (IIRC) that uses the same language, but with specific reference to the Metropolitan (it has “of every nation” missing from the text). That canon actually makes reference to the Apostolic canon as “ancient” and uses that model to establish the headship at the metropolical level.
I also see the Canon as evidence of how primacy works, is supposed to work, and worked in the early Church - it is not the unilateral, “by-mere-will” caricature that Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates pretend. Recall that the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 referred to the Apostolic Canon as a “Rule of Faith” (which I’m sure gives Absolutist Petrine advocates nightmares).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Todd,
May I ask where you got your date of 8th century?
According to the NPNF, it was more likely the 6th century, because it contains laws from the period of Emperor Justinian that did not yet exist in the 4th.
It is interesting to note that:
I don’t expect any of that to mean anything to you, since you are from the Byzantine Tradition. I just wanted to mention it for the sake of our Oriental members.
Blessings,
Marduk
I agree that the arabic canons did not originate from the First Ecumenical Council.
May I ask where you got your date of 8th century?
According to the NPNF, it was more likely the 6th century, because it contains laws from the period of Emperor Justinian that did not yet exist in the 4th.
It is interesting to note that:
- The Arabic Canons come from Oriental sources, Coptic or Syriac (hence, the name “arabic canons”);
- The Oriental Orthodox Churches have always adhered to a High Petrine view;
- All the Churches of the Syriac Tradition (the region that is truly “Arabic”) have always adhered to a High Petrine view that is closest to that of the Latin Church.
I don’t expect any of that to mean anything to you, since you are from the Byzantine Tradition. I just wanted to mention it for the sake of our Oriental members.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
The Pope does not approve episcopal ordinations. He approves candidates. The approval itself is not one-sided. Though the Pope may reject the three candidates proffered by a Synod, the Synod also has the prerogatives to reject a candidate proffered by the Pope.
This is of course, merely a canon law. I believe it should, can, and will change if reunion is achieved. It exists simply because the Schism still exists.
I don’t think he does so now. I don’t think the Pope has ever done this to the Eastern Churches. He did do so with the Oriental Churches when we first joined the Catholic communion, because of what were THEN perceived to be heretical tendencies in our Liturgies (the Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian issue). That is no longer the case. Today, decisions on the Liturgy rests squarely with the Synods of the sui juris Churches.
The Pope never did enforce celibacy on Eastern and Oriental priests. What the Pope did was support the EXISTING policy of the Latin Rite bishops in their rightful territorial jurisdiction. Let me put it to you this way. When the Pope supported the removal of Latinizations from the Traditional territories of the Oriental and Eastern Churches, would you say the Pope imposed non-Latinization on these lands (despite the protests of certain Latinizing groups), or is the Pope simply supporting the rightful jurisdiction of the Oriental and Eastern hierarchs in their territory?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
I just want to make some additions and corrections to my previous post:
Since the notion of Patriarchates did not exist until the fourth century, and we don’t even have solid proof of the notion of national Primates until the third century, option #1 is the best bet.
Blessings,
Marduk
I just want to make some additions and corrections to my previous post:
There is a specific Greek word for “every” and a specific Greek word for “each,” but either one also connotes the other.
Since the notion of Patriarchates did not exist until the fourth century, and we don’t even have solid proof of the notion of national Primates until the third century, option #1 is the best bet.
OOPS! The Council I was referring to was in the early 4th century, not 3rd century. It was a Council of Antioch in 341 A.D. It replaces “of every nation” with the clause “of every province,” and, to repeat, explicitly admits that it bases its canon on the headship of a Metropolitan on the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 in these words: “according to the ancient canon which prevailed from our Fathers.”
Blessings,
Marduk
H
hazcompat
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
OK, I’ll bite. What exactly is the “High Petrine” view defined?
Blessings,
Marduk
Alex
D
dcointin
Guest
I would assume that the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Churches which have entered into communion with her would be the model for what a future reunification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism would look like. Why would you expect the practice of proffering candidates for the episcopacy would stop in the future? I see no basis for this in pre-schism history, and its frankly unacceptable interference in eastern affairs.
I don’t know if Rome had altered eastern liturgies in the past, so please don’t take my questions as an accusation that it has, I’m just concerned about the possibility of that happening in the future. I’ve read here about a revision to the Ruthenian liturgies which seem to be unpopular but don’t know anything about it; who did this and what were the changes?
I’ve also read that Rome forbade married Eastern clergy in this country in the past, saying that it was a stumbling block to the Roman Catholic faithful here, and this was a big reason for many Eastern Catholics to rejoin Orthodoxy. Could you talk a bit about that? I have no idea what the Pope did in regard to Latinizations in the East, so I really can’t comment on that.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
If I can take a stab at this, Rome has proven herself to be a good Mother to the EC churches with respect to its liturgical development and promotes a strictly Eastern tradition in that department (if anything, our local parishes, like those Ciero had difficulty finding . . ., would probably balk at the Easternized liturgical books published by Rome for the most part and stick with what they have in the pews (Oh my God, they have PEWS!).
Rome is slowly learning to leave well enough alone in the case of episcopal nominations, as it should. It should butt out completely and leave the local competent EC authorities do their job. This whole business of “territory” in canon law as applied to the EC Churches is Latin with a capital “L.” That is the kind of Latinization we should be opposing, not Adoration etc.
In North America in 1923, I believe, an agreement was in force that prevented married EC priests from exercising their priesthood here.
The reason given is that the idea of a married priest was a great scandal to the laity. Given that the EC’s were used to having married priests (a tradition that dates back to, I think it was 33 AD or so), I wonder who was truly scandalized by it.
Perhaps it was the Latin clergy who were angered by this “giving into the flesh” and all that. Nonetheless, there were obviously a lot of people who were scandalized because why else would Rome give such a reason if it were not true?
Alex
H
hazcompat
Guest
7 Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.
1 Corinthians 7:[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. [6] But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. [10] But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
peace
For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.
1 Corinthians 7:[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. [6] But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. [10] But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
peace
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alex,
Since last year, I have had lively debates with some Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF, defending the High Petrine position against them (which should show up in the Search results). As a High Petrine advocate, I have argued for the following (among other things) against the Absolutist Petrine position:
(1) The Pope has no authority to do things at his mere discretion or will, but only according to the needs of the Church;
(2) The infallibility that the Pope exercises in an ex cathedra decree is one and the same the infallibility of the Church, not a different kind of infallibility;
(3) The consensus of the teaching of the Magisterium is required for infallible ex cathedra decrees.
(4) It is not the infallibility of the Pope alone that determines the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council;
(5) It is not the authority of the Pope alone that determines the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
(6) The Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council.
As a High Petrine advocate, I am also opposed to the Low Petrine position, but that is a discussion for another day.
Reading the search results should give you a good idea of what is meant by the High Petrine view. The position has gained a steady following here in CAF since I first introduced it two years ago. At first, there was a lot of opposition to my “novel” ideas, from Catholics (Latin, Eastern, and Oriental) who felt I was misrepresenting Vatican 1, and also from non-Catholics who felt the same. But I have given what I (and many others over the past two years) believe is solid proof that Vatican 1 taught a High Petrine model of the Church. Several EO members here have also expressed support for the High Petrine position.
If you do not feel inclined to read through the posts, let me know, and I will attempt to give you a concise summary of the High Petrine position.
NOTE 1: The High Petrine view is not exclusively about the papacy. It is a general paradigm that describes the relationship between bishops and their head bishop. Apostolic Canon 34 is the primordial justification for the High Petrine position.
NOTE 2: Some members here, while agreeing that the High Petrine view is supported by the teaching of Vatican 1, feel frustration that it is not lived out to the fullest in the Catholic Church today (in other words, though the Catholic ideal is High Petrine, the praxis itself reflects an Absolutist Petrine position at least to some degree).
Blessings,
Marduk
I admit there is no formal definition for the High Petrine view. It is a distinction that I proposed here in CAF about 2 years ago (which I also presented in the Byzcath forums last year). If you go to the search function and type in “Absolutist Petrine” under KEYWORDS, and “mardukm” under USER NAME, making sure to set the time constraints to “Any Date” and SHOW RESULTS AS to “Posts,” it will give you 4 pages of posts that stretches back about 2 years.
Since last year, I have had lively debates with some Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF, defending the High Petrine position against them (which should show up in the Search results). As a High Petrine advocate, I have argued for the following (among other things) against the Absolutist Petrine position:
(1) The Pope has no authority to do things at his mere discretion or will, but only according to the needs of the Church;
(2) The infallibility that the Pope exercises in an ex cathedra decree is one and the same the infallibility of the Church, not a different kind of infallibility;
(3) The consensus of the teaching of the Magisterium is required for infallible ex cathedra decrees.
(4) It is not the infallibility of the Pope alone that determines the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council;
(5) It is not the authority of the Pope alone that determines the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
(6) The Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council.
As a High Petrine advocate, I am also opposed to the Low Petrine position, but that is a discussion for another day.
Reading the search results should give you a good idea of what is meant by the High Petrine view. The position has gained a steady following here in CAF since I first introduced it two years ago. At first, there was a lot of opposition to my “novel” ideas, from Catholics (Latin, Eastern, and Oriental) who felt I was misrepresenting Vatican 1, and also from non-Catholics who felt the same. But I have given what I (and many others over the past two years) believe is solid proof that Vatican 1 taught a High Petrine model of the Church. Several EO members here have also expressed support for the High Petrine position.
If you do not feel inclined to read through the posts, let me know, and I will attempt to give you a concise summary of the High Petrine position.
NOTE 1: The High Petrine view is not exclusively about the papacy. It is a general paradigm that describes the relationship between bishops and their head bishop. Apostolic Canon 34 is the primordial justification for the High Petrine position.
NOTE 2: Some members here, while agreeing that the High Petrine view is supported by the teaching of Vatican 1, feel frustration that it is not lived out to the fullest in the Catholic Church today (in other words, though the Catholic ideal is High Petrine, the praxis itself reflects an Absolutist Petrine position at least to some degree).
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
Mardukm,
Could you recommend a book on understanding the papacy, both its history and how it’s practiced?
Could you recommend a book on understanding the papacy, both its history and how it’s practiced?
V
Vico
Guest
dcointin,
The Gift of Infallibility by James T. O’Connor which contains the Relatio of Bishop Gasser from Vatican I, is a good source for understanding. It also includes Vatican II clarifications. ISBN: 9781586171742
The Gift of Infallibility by James T. O’Connor which contains the Relatio of Bishop Gasser from Vatican I, is a good source for understanding. It also includes Vatican II clarifications. ISBN: 9781586171742
- Status