Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

For those who have an elementary grasp of the English language (assuming of course, that the English translation accurately reflects the Greek original) and are capable of reading sentences in the context of the paragraph they are in, it should be clear that St. John Chrysostom is saying that James is not responsible for the acts (i.e., “what has been done”) of Peter and Paul, for he had no acts (those being accounts of missionary activity amongst the gentiles) of his own to declare, being locally fixed in Jerusalem.

Besides, we know that James was invested with chief rule at this council because St. John Chrysostom along with calling him teacher in the very quotation made read above, also says explicitly of St. James, “for James was invested with the chief rule.”

I would point out (again) that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[mardukm]

That’s a pretty awesome summary, brother!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

Until AD 325, there was the Petrine See of Rome, the Petrine See of Alexandria, and the Petrine See of Antioch. In AD 325, Jerusalem was added to that list.

In AD 381, the Byzantine Emperor wanted his new capital to be a metropolitan See. Constantinople was added and place above all of the other Sees except Rome. Rome and Alexandria did not accept this change. The bishop of Constantinople made sure that the bishop of Rome knew that this was not his desire.

Even in the mid-400s, Rome, in the person of Pope St Leo, still did not accept this change in ecclesiology. Byzantine Alexandria, no longer having any power do to the Miaphysite schism, no longer contested this change in ecclesiology.

Ante-Nicene Rome clearly had a primacy of more than just “honor”. However, the Byzantine Emperor supported and gave power to a See that would, with the strength of the emperor, become Rome’s first and only rival. Pope St Leo and Pope St Gregory are two pre-schism popes that are held high by the Eastern Orthodox that plainly saw Rome as having a primacy much higher than just “honor”.

The Byzantine Emperors would continue balancing out and strengthening the Byzantine Empire by calling councils in order to preserve the state religion as a unified confederation of metropolitan Sees.

The Catholic Church accepts the infallibility of doctrine and morals proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils. However, unlike the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, she does not consider the disciplinary actions of an Ecumenical Council as being infallible and unchangeable.

Not everything that was done under the power of the Byzantine Emperor was an example of how things were always done. Rome’s power might have been weakened by a rival See that was raised by the emperor, however, this does not prove Rome to only have a primacy of “honor”.

Rome would finally allow the See of Constantinople to be second to Rome after the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

 

[steve_b]

And then you continued to make it seem as though it was the appearance of 55 homilies which was your real issue.

My issue is when I’m asking for a quote, I’d like to have a quote properly referenced.
N:

I am sorry, I will do my utmost to not try to help you out in the future.

iow the answer is no, a quote is not coming.

Look, I tried to stay on point. If I quote, I give the author and the reference, properly referenced. Shoot, I even give the link.

I don’t expect people to have to hunt for quotes I give to see if they are even valid, or if I’m putting spin on someone elses quote . If I paraphrase a quote I say it is a paraphrase. But I always give the reference so someone can look at the actual quote. If someone says it’s in Chrysostom’s exegesis on Acts, fine, then give along with giving me the quote, also give me the source properly referenced.

Here’s my responses on this to validate what I’m saying. This started the digging into what Chrysostom wrote

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337252&postcount=635 I gave a quote properly referenced
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337319&postcount=640 I asked for a quote in return
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337550&postcount=651 I gave more quotes properly referenced
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337617&postcount=655 I respond to a contradiction of Chrysostom that was already quoted
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11340271&postcount=698 I reaffirm the need for needing that quote back in post 635.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11342595&postcount=750 in post 635 I posted a quote from Chrysostom from his Homily 88 on John. Then I ask for a quote in post 640 that validate what was being said by the poster. That’s fair. 115 posts later, still no quote given to my request. So when you say “I will do my utmost to not try to help you out in the future” I’m thinking to myself, you’ve done a great job of it from the beginning.

 

[Wandile]

That is stepping far beyond the authority to teach.

In schools, teachers have a curriculum. They have to teach from that, and none of them have the power to change it. Similarly the Pope has the authority to teach from the curriculum (canons, scripture Holy Tradition) he has been given, but not the authority to set the curriculum.

Who said the pope is changing anything?
The fact that he is teacher of the whole world makes his teachings binding on all. As such he can teach something and it is binding on all. Obviously the teaching is sound.

you are having an argument that I’m not even involved in. When did I assert the pope,could change what has been taught before? Not even the Catholic Church teaches this.

You argument falls flat on the onset of its first flaw which is : Assuming “Teaching authority” means just the authority to open ones mouth and say some random stuff about something and that’s the end of it.

However in the biblical context, teaching authority was a divine duty given to certain people which made those employed as teachers to teach and what they teach to be binding on the faithful. Hence Jesus even said of the Pharisees and teachers of the law “Listen to what they teach but do not do as they do”

Hence the Popes universal teaching authority enables him to teach to all and for such reaching to be binding on all.

 

[Nine_Two]

I gave this example to show that Rome has more power according to the Tradition of the Church than those that seem to be “Sola Ecumenical Councilists” admit. The bishop of Rome existed and had power before the Ecumenical Councils. Rome was given a rival by the 2nd Ecumenical Council. And, no, Rome ultimately remained in power while Constantinople lost most of its power. In fact, many would say that Moscow (aka the Third Rome) has more power than Constantinople.

First, I take issue with your use of the phrase “Sola Ecumenical Councilists”. Where has anyone declared that everything has to be in an Ecumenical Council? What people have said is that if Rome had such great powers they certainly would have been recorded by a council. A very different thing. As far as I can see you’re trying to draw a connection with those disagreeing with you, and Fundamentalist Protestants. This is a very low thing to do.

As to your example, you also note that Alexandria did not accept the act at first. In fact from what I’ve been able to read none of the Patriarchs accepted it at first. This tells me quite plainly that the Pope was not exceptional in this area.

We have seen the exact same process with the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical Councils. At first there are bits which are opposed by the Bishops, but gradually, over time, they gain acceptance. For example with Trent we saw the Gallican Church mount a very public resistance to that council’s decisions. Are we to accept that they have special privileges within the Catholic Church on these grounds?

 

[steve_b]

Until AD 325, there was the Petrine See of Rome, the Petrine See of Alexandria, and the Petrine See of Antioch. In AD 325, Jerusalem was added to that list.

Prior to 325, the ancient listing and ranking of sees is

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   In an ongoing sense, A bishop’s see is not where he -]was/-] it’s where he is…and continues to be. Peter is in Rome. That is his see.

 

[Nine_Two]

Who said the pope is changing anything?

The bit where Catholics believe the pope is infallible and can pronounce new doctrine.

The fact that he is teacher of the whole world makes his teachings binding on all. As such he can teach something and it is binding on all. Obviously the teaching is sound.

As long as he follows the curriculum. As soon as he leaves the curriculum - for example by saying that he alone is allowed to interpret the curriculum and is above the school board (such as what caused the Great Schism in the first place), then he becomes rather unsound.

you are having an argument that I’m not even involved in
when did I asset the pope,could change what has been taught before? Not even the Catholic Church teaches this.

And yet universal jurisdiction - the right of the Pope to interfere in the affairs of the other churches is itself a novel teaching, as made clear from the Ecumenical Councils which give that right to the Metropolitan of a given Church alone - Alexandria over the Alexandrian Church, Rome over Roman Church.

You argument falls flat on the onset of its first flaw which is : Assuming “Teaching authority” means just the authority to open ones mouth and say some random stuff about something and that’s the end of it.

That is the end of it. He has - rather had - the right to speak for the Churches in that manner.

However in the biblical context, teaching authority was a divine rite which made those employed as teachers to teach and what they teach to be binding on the faithful. Hence Jesus even said of the Pharisees and teachers of the law “Listen to what they teach but do not do as they do”

And Peter similarly was given teaching authority, that we should listen to what he teaches. But as you admit, he did not teach on his own authority. His authority, though granted by Christ, was through the Church.

Hence the Popes universal teaching authority enables him to teach to all and for such teaching to be binding on all.

I agree. But he still can’t come up with novel interpretations on his own, or decree doctrine, nor can he manage bishops who are not under him (while universal jurisdiction says that all bishops are under him, and he can interfere in those diocese). If the Archbishop of Crete is corrupt the Pope has no power to directly interfere and depose him. The Metropolitan-Archbishop of Athens with his Holy Synod has that prerogative, and no one else.

 

[Zekariya]

First, I take issue with your use of the phrase “Sola Ecumenical Councilists”. Where has anyone declared that everything has to be in an Ecumenical Council? What people have said is that if Rome had such great powers they certainly would have been recorded by a council. A very different thing. As far as I can see you’re trying to draw a connection with those disagreeing with you, and Fundamentalist Protestants. This is a very low thing to do.

Forgive me for not being clear. My use of “Sola Ecumenical Councilists” refers to those that believe that the Councils give an accurate picture of the extent of Rome’s authority in the Church. For example: “Rome must go back to how the Ecumenical Councils defined Rome’s primacy.” This is incorrect. Rome’s primacy beyond just honor existed before the Councils. The emperors (among others) played politics with the canons regarding ecclesiology and wanted to give power to the new capital that had no apostolic basis or tradition preceding the Byzantine Empire.

We do not see the view of equality among the Sees with Rome only having a primacy of only honor until Constantinople was raised up. Before this happening (or even after), did Alexandria (the original second See) ever try to assert its equality with Rome? Not that I have yet to read.

As to your example, you also note that Alexandria did not accept the act at first. In fact from what I’ve been able to read none of the Patriarchs accepted it at first. This tells me quite plainly that the Pope was not exceptional in this area.

Thanks. This furthers my point that the emperor established Constantinople as a metropolitan See second to Old Rome as a political move. The idea that Rome had only a primacy of honor did not exist until the emperor got involved with the Church and wanted his new capital to be honored.

We have seen the exact same process with the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical Councils. At first there are bits which are opposed by the Bishops, but gradually, over time, they gain acceptance. For example with Trent we saw the Gallican Church mount a very public resistance to that council’s decisions. Are we to accept that they have special privileges within the Catholic Church on these grounds?

The Catholic Church has never held disciplinary canons to be infallible and inviolable. I was merely making that point with the Second Ecumenical Council (and those who disagreed with its ecclesiological changes).

 

[twf]

The bit where Catholics believe the pope is infallible and can pronounce new doctrine.

As long as he follows the curriculum. As soon as he leaves the curriculum - for example by saying that he alone is allowed to interpret the curriculum and is above the school board (such as what caused the Great Schism in the first place), then he becomes rather unsound.
And yet universal jurisdiction - the right of the Pope to interfere in the affairs of the other churches is itself a novel teaching, as made clear from the Ecumenical Councils which give that right to the Metropolitan of a given Church alone - Alexandria over the Alexandrian Church, Rome over Roman Church.
That is the end of it. He has - rather had - the right to speak for the Churches in that manner.
And Peter similarly was given teaching authority, that we should listen to what he teaches. But as you admit, he did not teach on his own authority. His authority, though granted by Christ, was through the Church.

I agree. But he still can’t come up with novel interpretations on his own, or decree doctrine, nor can he manage bishops who are not under him (while universal jurisdiction says that all bishops are under him, and he can interfere in those diocese). If the Archbishop of Crete is corrupt the Pope has no power to directly interfere and depose him. The Metropolitan-Archbishop of Athens with his Holy Synod has that prerogative, and no one else.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope has the power to decree “new doctrines”. This is heresy for Catholics just as much as it is for the Orthodox. It is for this reason that we Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium chuckle to ourselves when the media wonders if the next Pope will “change” the doctrine on the male-only priesthood. That simply isn’t in his power! The vast majority of the time, the Church work through ecumenical councils to clarify doctrine by promulgating dogmatic decrees. The rare occasions when the Pope does so is always after consulting his brother bishops throughout the world and no more introduces a new doctrine than does the decrees of an ecumenical council. The Pope, with his brother bishops, is the custodian of Tradition. The Assumption of Mary, the last dogmatic decree issued by a Pope (some 60 years ago now), was simply a formal clarification of what the Church had always believed and was only dogmatically formulated after the Pope had discussed the matter at length with the bishops throughout the world. The Orthodox may believe that the Catholic Church has introduced “new” doctrines - but that is not our understanding.

 

[Nine_Two]

Prior to 325, the ancient listing and ranking of sees is

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   In an ongoing sense, A bishop’s see is not where he -]was/-] it’s where he is…and continues to be. Peter is in Rome. That is his see.

1. 
   Just an FYI, Jerusalem was added with Constantinople.

 

[Nine_Two]

Catholics do not believe that the Pope has the power to decree “new doctrines”. This is heresy for Catholics just as much as it is for the Orthodox. It is for this reason that we Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium chuckle to ourselves when the media wonders if the next Pope will “change” the doctrine on the male-only priesthood. That simply isn’t in his power! The vast majority of the time, the Church work through ecumenical councils to clarify doctrine by promulgating dogmatic decrees. The rare occasions when the Pope does so is always after consulting his brother bishops throughout the world and no more introduces a new doctrine than does the decrees of an ecumenical council. The Pope, with his brother bishops, is the custodian of Tradition. The Assumption of Mary, the last dogmatic decree issued by a Pope (some 60 years ago now), was simply a formal clarification of what the Church had always believed and was only dogmatically formulated after the Pope had discussed the matter at length with the bishops throughout the world. The Orthodox may believe that the Catholic Church has introduced “new” doctrines - but that is not our understanding.

Perhaps I’m not making clear what I mean. When I say “decree a new doctrine” I mean decreeing something, not previously a doctrine, as a doctrine. That is, adding it to the list (if there were such a thing) of doctrines. I don’t necessarily mean pulling something out of a hat and saying “this is a doctrine”, although we Orthodox might contend this has happened, it isn’t the point I’m trying to make.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father with all due respect, you didn’t address the quote. You just repeated the same claims that you’ve made previously before In this thread. You didn’t address the fact that Chrysostom says Peter had a universal teaching authority.

I’m tired of non-Catholics making it seem like the Pope , since he has universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility, doesn’t use councils and this is somehow evidence against the modern papacy… Ding ding ding ding… VATICAN II anybody? And I can without a doubt assure you father that although the pope has Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility, he was not,the only person who spoke at the council. The fact that the council happened is already detrimental to your whole “If Peter had all that the modern papacy claims now, why didn’t he just issue a papal decree instead of having a council” argument

There is a big difference between the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Vatican II. The Bishop of Rome had no veto over the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. He did have a veto at Vatican II. The 7 Ecumenical Councils were the voice of the whole Church and demanded the obedience of the Pope, while Vatican II was could only make suggestions. The Pope did not have to obey its decisions. He had to obey the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils as we see from the example of Pope Vigilus who was told that he had to accept the decisions of the 5t Ecumenical Council, or he would be excommunicated.
The problem with the papal argument is very simple. You cannot show examples of any Bishop of Rome exercising the kind of power over the rest of the Church that he claims today. He could issue doctrinal opinions, but for them to be universally binding, they had to have the approval of an Ecumenical Council. The Tome of Leo shows this. It was an opinion on the monophysite controversy. However, it had no force, until it was read, discussed and approved by the Council of Chalcedon.
Thus the issue is not the Pope having a primacy of honor. It is that through the ages the Bishops of Rome continued to expand their authority until they finally became the sole authority in the Western Church. When they tried to extend their authority over the Eastern Church the Eastern Patriarchs refused to surrender their historic rights and the schism took place. They were not the sole authority during the time of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, but had to abide by the will of the rest of the Church. They were not over the Church as modern Popes are, but were in the Church and subject to the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

Forgive me for not being clear. My use of “Sola Ecumenical Councilists” refers to those that believe that the Councils give an accurate picture of the extent of Rome’s authority in the Church. For example: “Rome must go back to how the Ecumenical Councils defined Rome’s primacy.” This is incorrect. Rome’s primacy beyond just honor existed before the Councils. The emperors (among others) played politics with the canons regarding ecclesiology and wanted to give power to the new capital that had no apostolic basis or tradition preceding the Byzantine Empire.

I can accept that this might be what you meant, but the implications are rather insulting. I would simply ask you not use the phrase in the future.

While the emperors did abuse their influence at certain times, they didn’t always. Constantine himself called Nicea together and promptly let the Bishops do their own thing. The side he sympathized with even lost.
That Emperors did interfere doesn’t mean they always did, and the point still stands regardless of the emperors, we have nothing to indicate supreme jurisdictional authority for Rome, despite jurisdictional authority being a common topic - and not always being resolved in a way that would benefit the emperor (the canonical establishment of Cyprus as Autocephalous for example, although not directly pertaining to the emperor, had it come under Antioch by virtue of secular rule that in turn would mean the Emperor could essentially shift the boundaries of Patriarchal sees at a whim by virtue of the fact of a sole secular ruler.

We do not see the view of equality among the Sees with Rome only having a primacy of only honor until Constantinople was raised up. Before this happening (or even after), did Alexandria (the original second See) ever try to assert its equality with Rome? Not that I have yet to read.

I’m not a big fan of saying Rome had a primacy of honour. It sounds like an honourary degree from a university. It means you accomplished something but is itself worthless. Rome certainly did have real powers and prerogatives. Universal jurisdiction wasn’t one of them though. With or without the councils.

Thanks. This furthers my point that the emperor established Constantinople as a metropolitan See second to Old Rome as a political move. The idea that Rome had only a primacy of honor did not exist until the emperor got involved with the Church and wanted his new capital to be honored.

Of course it was a political move. There are tons of political moves in the church (all churches) all the time. That doesn’t invalidate them, or those who do them.

The Catholic Church has never held disciplinary canons to be infallible and inviolable. I was merely making that point with the Second Ecumenical Council (and those who disagreed with its ecclesiological changes).

Of course they aren’t. I don’t think we have disagreement there. I don’t see how this contributes to the overarching idea of Rome as being special though. In the context of Constantinople II, Rome was just doing what other bishoprics regularly did.

 

[Zekariya]

I can accept that this might be what you meant, but the implications are rather insulting. I would simply ask you not use the phrase in the future.

Will do.

While the emperors did abuse their influence at certain times, they didn’t always. Constantine himself called Nicea together and promptly let the Bishops do their own thing. The side he sympathized with even lost.
That Emperors did interfere doesn’t mean they always did, and the point still stands regardless of the emperors, we have nothing to indicate supreme jurisdictional authority for Rome, despite jurisdictional authority being a common topic - and not always being resolved in a way that would benefit the emperor (the canonical establishment of Cyprus as Autocephalous for example, although not directly pertaining to the emperor, had it come under Antioch by virtue of secular rule that in turn would mean the Emperor could essentially shift the boundaries of Patriarchal sees at a whim by virtue of the fact of a sole secular ruler.

The point that I am making is that Rome had more traditional authority what can be read from the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. This was uncontested until there were political reasons to elevate a city See to a metropolitan See and made to be second to Rome. The authority of Rome was being contested by the authority of the emperor and his imperial capital. Constantinople was the emperors’ project and they certainly did not desire Rome to have its traditional authority.

I’m not a big fan of saying Rome had a primacy of honour. It sounds like an honourary degree from a university. It means you accomplished something but is itself worthless. Rome certainly did have real powers and prerogatives. Universal jurisdiction wasn’t one of them though. With or without the councils.

You are the first Orthodox Christian that I have come across to say that.

Of course it was a political move. There are tons of political moves in the church (all churches) all the time. That doesn’t invalidate them, or those who do them.

It was a political move to lessen the preeminent authority of Ante-Nicene Rome and create a pentarchy of equals (Rome being first) and to give special favor to the imperial city above the non-Roman patriarchates established by St Peter and the universal Church. The idea of the pentarchy is foreign to Ante-Nicene tradition. There is nothing to suggest that the Ante-Nicene Church had a similar ecclesiology (for example a triarchy).

 

[Wandile]

The bit where Catholics believe the pope is infallible and can pronounce new doctrine.

Straw man. Catholics do not believe the pope can pronounce new doctrine secondly th pope didn’t pronounce himself infallible (Which you assert), the 20th ecumenical council did

Oh and papal infallibility. Isn’t new at all:

From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)

As long as he follows the curriculum. As soon as he leaves the curriculum - for example by saying that he alone is allowed to interpret the curriculum and is above the school board (such as what caused the Great Schism in the first place), then he becomes rather unsound.

What if the school board says he is the only one allowed to?

Btw the catholic church says the magesterium is the sole interpreter of tradition and scripture, not the Pope alone. Another straw man.

To be continued…

 

[theistgal]

Btw the catholic church says the magesterium is the sole interpreter of tradition and scripture, not the Pope alone. Another straw man.

To be continued…

But of course the Pope can override the Magisterium, as we saw with Humanae Vitae in 1968. So although the Pope certainly can ask for help making a decision, he is ultimately the one who makes it - and takes the responsibility for it.

And that’s not a “straw man”, that’s what being Pope is all about, Charlie Brown.

 

[Wandile]

Continued…

And yet universal jurisdiction - the right of the Pope to interfere in the affairs of the other churches is itself a novel teaching, as made clear from the Ecumenical Councils which give that right to the Metropolitan of a given Church alone - Alexandria over the Alexandrian Church, Rome over Roman Church.

Novel? Have you read St maximus the confessor lately? Or Pope St Leo or Pope St.Gregory

St. Maximus the Confessor:

“” The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High."

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 24 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

he also says :

“For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”.

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

That is the end of it. He has - rather had - the right to speak for the Churches in that manner.

That’s nonsense. Anybody has the right to speak about some random stuff but itbdoesnt mean its binding. The teaching authority gives the right to not only speak, but for what is spoken of to be binding on who its is being spoken to

And Peter similarly was given teaching authority, that we should listen to what he teaches. But as you admit, he did not teach on his own authority. His authority, though granted by Christ, was through the Church.

It was directly from Christ , not the church as Christ said to him “Feed my sheep…tens my sheep”. He exercised it through th church. Yet this dos not mean that he could not have taught authoritatively on his own as Peter had done that in acts before (All foods are clean decree). Most pipes don’t even teach unilaterally but the authority still exists. This argument is ineffective.

To be continued…

 

[Wandile]

Continued…

I agree. But he still can’t come up with novel interpretations on his own, or decree doctrine, nor can he manage bishops who are not under him (while universal jurisdiction says that all bishops are under him, and he can interfere in those diocese). If the Archbishop of Crete is corrupt the Pope has no power to directly interfere and depose him. The Metropolitan-Archbishop of Athens with his Holy Synod has that prerogative, and no one else.

Of course he can’t come up with novel interpretations on his own and he hasn’t nor decree a new doctrine as that is a novelty as all has been revealed. The Catholic Church teaches this.

Nor can he manage bishops who are not under him, which amounts to 0 of such bishops.

The Pope does not have the authority to depose a bishop. It is actually the Law that deposes bishops. The power of the Pope lies in being able to dispense from the deposing power of the Law, not in being able to depose bishops

If the Archbishop of Crete is corrupt the Pope by dispensing from the deposing power of the Law can depose him. Although normally he will let the local authorities handle it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister theistgal,

But of course the Pope can override the Magisterium, as we saw with Humanae Vitae in 1968. So although the Pope certainly can ask for help making a decision, he is ultimately the one who makes it - and takes the responsibility for it.

And that’s not a “straw man”, that’s what being Pope is all about, Charlie Brown.

Actually, that’s not what happened in the least regarding Humanae Vitae. I believe Absolutist Petrine advocates have used the occasion to attempt to exaggerate the power of the papacy.

What actually occurred was that a certain South American bishop brought up the matter at one of the V2 sessions, and there were debates between some bishops, and it eventually came to the attention of the Pope. So the Pope formed a Commission of a handful of bishops to study the matter. The majority of the bishops in this small Commission wanted to relax the Church’s traditional position on contraception, but the Pope refused. The matter came up for vote at one of the general sessions (IIRC, it was included as a matter during the vote for the Decree on the Church in the Modern world). About 90% of the bishops (over 1000) voted to maintain the Church’s Tradition on the matter. It was thereafter that Humanae Vitae was promulgated by the personal authority of the Pope. The Pope could have promulgated it with the authority of the Council (since the great majority of the Fathers overwhelmingly approved the Traditional teaching of the Church on the matter), but he decided to promulgate it with his personal authority.

Because it was promulgated with his personal authority, Absolutist Petrine advocates used the occasion as propaganda for their peculiar views of papal authority, advertising it as the Pope overriding “a majority.” But the “majority” that the Pope contradicted was not the majority of the general body of bishops, but the majority of the handful of bishops in the commission he created. That’s the truth of it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If the Archbishop of Crete is corrupt the Pope has power to depose him as he is under the Pope. Although normally he will let the local authorities handle it.

Actually, brother, this is a misunderstanding of the power of the Pope. The Pope does not have the authority to depose a bishop. It is actually the Law that deposes bishops. The power of the Pope lies in being able to dispense from the deposing power of the Law, not in being able to depose bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk