Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[mardukm]

What I meant to convey is that the point I highlighted in your post Mardukm, is the point Scott is making, at least approximately; my possible miscommunication of this above notwithstanding.

A further point about the “flowery language.” Notwithstanding the obviously non-literal attribution of the title “Judge of the Universe” to the Coptic Pope, I’d like to add a comment about the title “Universal Patriarch” attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

That title was not “flowery language” but needs to be understood in its proper sense (a sense that is borne of explanations from EO themselves). The term “universal” was not in reference to the entire Church, but rather a reference to the Eastern portion of the Empire. That was the “universe” of Eastern Christendom. Indeed, the title does not indicate a jurisdiction in the entire Church, but it does indicate a true jurisdiction in Eastern Christendom, not a mere “primacy of honor,” and this is plainly indicated by the historical manner in which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch regularly acted in relation to other Churches within Eastern Christendom.

The idea that the primacy of head bishops (on whatever level) is one of mere honor is not patristic. The ancient Nicene Canons clearly give to head bishops true jurisdiction in the plenary geographical jurisdiction of which they were head. But it was not a jurisdiction that could normally or ordinarily intervene in the affairs of any singular diocese or eparchy, and this according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which is a sure standard for ALL the Churches. This is the same type of jurisdiction that is conceived of by the Catholic Church in its Magisterial documents (e.g., V1, V2, Canons, etc.) when the term “universal jurisdiction” is used. It does not mean (again, contrary to the exaggerations of Absolute Petrine advocates) that the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction in every particular diocese/eparchy of the Church, as if he had the authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in that local bishop’s own diocese.

Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Catholic Church like to disparage the value of the Apostolic Canon 34 based on the fact that the Latin Catholic Church has historically deemed this canon to be spurious. What these exaggerators fail to realize is that the term “spurious” has two distinct meanings:
(1) the author of the article is unknown or in doubt;
(2) the actual content of the article is deemed to be heterodox.

It is ONLY according to the first definition that the term “spurious” is applied to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 by the Latin Catholic Church, but the actual merit of its contents has never been doubted by Traditional Latin Catholic authorities - LEAST OF ALL THE FATHERS OF VATICAN 1. The official Relatio of Bishop Gasser (the official interpretation of the V1 decrees) in fact directly appeals to the doctrinal authority of this Canon when it stated that the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium is a necessary condition for an ex cathedra decree of a Pope.

At this point, it might be well to fully explain Catholic ecclesiology for our readers (especially new members), as far as the use of such terms as “immediate,” “ordinary,” and “proper.” I will do so very soon in the thread entitled “the Petrine Views.”

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Clearly.

But let me ask: All things occur because God either wills them or allows them to happen, correct? So, which is it? Did God will for the papacy to develop? Or did God allow the papacy develop?

Why did He do that?

God has given man free will. He has allowed the Papacy to develop because man willed it.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
But a timeline can be a useful tool.

Huh … Now I only wish I had said that a long time ago.

Should I take a bow? :thankyou: (Or is that showboating?)

 

[Peter_J]

Well, if we accept flowery language at face value then Alexandria is home to the judge of the universe, and Constantinople is home to the universal patriarch. According to titles that long predate the schism.

Which I guess means that we Orthodox either use a lot of flowery language, or we are heretics (because believing that a man is judge of the universe is undeniably heretical from a Catholic position - even the most ultramontane).

Heretical? I’m not so sure. I’d agree it’s heretical if taken as saying that only he is judge of the universe, but what if you said that every one of us is judge of the universe?

 

[Randy_Carson]

God has given man free will. He has allowed the Papacy to develop because man willed it.

And why?

Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct (and I do disagree), then what type of authority did Jesus give to Peter? Was it REAL authority to bind and to loose? Or was all that talk just for show?

If Jesus invested Peter with REAL authority, then would Peter have the authority to establish a more powerful papacy than…well, than you are presently comfortable with?

1. God gave real authority to Peter (and his successors).
2. God has allowed Peter (and his successors) to develop a powerful papacy.

Why would God allow the development of a powerful papacy? For what purpose?

 

[dzheremi]

Why would God allow the development of a powerful papacy? For what purpose?

Heresies arise so as to make clear who holds the correct faith and who does not. As men are allowed to choose (the root of the word “heresy” is the Greek word for “choice”), they can either choose correctly or not. It’s just like when some other sect might choose to ordain women to their priesthood, or bless unacceptable unions, etc. That’s your signal, as a faithful Christian, not to be among such people.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Clearly.

But let me ask: All things occur because God either wills them or allows them to happen, correct? So, which is it? Did God will for the papacy to develop? Or did God allow the papacy develop?

Why did He do that?

That explanation is rather questionable. It sounds like something that would come from a Calvinist and not a Roman Catholic. I could argue that since the Protestant Reformation took place and following it the splintering of Western Christianity into dozens of competing groups that God willed it because He allowed it to happen. Just because something happens does not mean that it it God’s will, because God has given us free will and we can misuse our free will.
If the papacy were the will of God for His Church, why did 4 of the 5 Patriarchs of the ancient Church reject the papal claims? I believe that the papacy was shaped more from its role as the prince and ruler of the papal states in central Italy than from its role as a Bishop of the Church. When Pepin made the Pope the prince of Rome and central Italy in 756 it changed the nature of the papacy. I believe that the Popes began to treat the other Bishops and Patriarchs the way that a prince treats his subjects. . Princes think of their own power and try to find ways to extend their rule to new areas. I think that the Bishops of Rome began to think like princes in their dealings with the other Bishops of the Church, including the Eastern Patriarchs.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Randy,

Following your discussion with brother Nine_Two, he is not questioning that the papacy has a purpose in God-directed history, nor that he has a primacy that is not a mere primacy of honor.

You have to understand that the matter of primacy to most EO is a canonical matter, not a doctrinal matter. I don’t believe brother Nine_Two is claiming by his statement “men willed it” (unless he indicates otherwise) that this was the development of evil men. The ones responsible for this development were the Fathers of the Church, after all. But I think his point is that he is challenging the “divine origin” concept of the papacy.

FYI, you would not be having this discussion with apostolic Christians from the various Churches of the Syriac Tradition (eastern or western). Though discussion is still ongoing about exactly what primacy entails on the universal level, they do agree with us (and they are not conceding anything on this point since it is merely part of their own Tradition) that the primacy is a doctrinal matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

And why?

Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct (and I do disagree), then what type of authority did Jesus give to Peter? Was it REAL authority to bind and to loose? Or was all that talk just for show?

If Jesus invested Peter with REAL authority, then would Peter have the authority to establish a more powerful papacy than…well, than you are presently comfortable with?

1. God gave real authority to Peter (and his successors).
2. God has allowed Peter (and his successors) to develop a powerful papacy.

Why would God allow the development of a powerful papacy? For what purpose?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother Randy,

Following your discussion with brother Nine_Two, he is not questioning that the papacy has a purpose in God-directed history, nor that he has a primacy that is not a mere primacy of honor.

You have to understand that the matter of primacy to most EO is a canonical matter, not a doctrinal matter.

That is a very good point. In the East the status of a Bishop depended more on the status of his see city than on any claims that his see was established by an Apostle. The ancient Church was organized following the divisions of the Roman Empire with the Metropolis of the provincial capital the see city of the leading Bishop of the province, who was called the Metropolitan. If one looks at Canon 28 of Chalcedon, one sees that the Old Rome has a primacy of honor not because of any claim to foundation by St. Peter, but because Rome was the capital of the Empire. Therefore its Bishop should be the leading Bishop of the Empire. That is why the Patriarch of Constantinople was given equal rank by Chalcedon because Constantinople was the New Rome that took the place of the Old Rome.
Remember in the East almost every Church could claim Apostolic foundation while in the West only Rome could claim Apostolic foundation. As a result Apostolic foundation was much more important in the West than in the East. If the East had believed that foundation by St. Peter gave a see a special status, Antioch, would have been the second in rank instead of 4th, because St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. But, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria were larger and more important cities at that time than Antioch, so the Patriarch of Antioch ranked after them in seniority.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That explanation is rather questionable. It sounds like something that would come from a Calvinist and not a Roman Catholic. I could argue that since the Protestant Reformation took place and following it the splintering of Western Christianity into dozens of competing groups that God willed it because He allowed it to happen. Just because something happens does not mean that it it God’s will, because God has given us free will and we can misuse our free will.

If the papacy were the will of God for His Church, why did 4 of the 5 Patriarchs of the ancient Church reject the papal claims? I believe that the papacy was shaped more from its role as the prince and ruler of the papal states in central Italy than from its role as a Bishop of the Church. When Pepin made the Pope the prince of Rome and central Italy in 756 it changed the nature of the papacy. I believe that the Popes began to treat the other Bishops and Patriarchs the way that a prince treats his subjects. . Princes think of their own power and try to find ways to extend their rule to new areas. I think that the Bishops of Rome began to think like princes in their dealings with the other Bishops of the Church, including the Eastern Patriarchs.

Good points. I personally don’t find this discussion on development is very productive for the Catholic position. I think Catholics should simply concede that Western Christendom’s estrangement from Eastern Christendom was in good measure responsible for the centralizing tendency of the Western mindset. I read a great and fair article from SCOBA a few weeks ago on the Byzcath forum stating that while the centralizing tendency of Western Christendom developed due to its estrangement from Eastern Christendom, the DEcentralizing tendency of Eastern Christendom was also the result of its own estrangement from Western Christendom.

However, I believe we need to distinguish between the Pope’s role within Western Christendom, from his role in the Church universal. It is true that within Western Christendom, the Pope became a princely ruler. But I don’t believe this has any application to his role in the Church universal. For example, at the Council of Florence, the Bull of Union with the Copts plainly asserted that it would not be effective until the Holy Synod of the COC accepted it. If the Pope truly believed his authority was absolute in relation to Churches outside of Western Christendom, such a statement would have no place in an official decree from the Church of Rome. I believe that the centralizing tendency of Rome in relation to the other Churches is not borne of any interest to impose its princely authority in Western Christendom onto the context of the Church universal. Rather, the centralizing tendency was borne only from the erroneous understanding of Westerns that the Easterns and Orientals had fallen into heterodoxy.

What do you think? Since you are a professional historian, your comments and opinion would be much appreciated and of great value.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

A further point about the “flowery language.” Notwithstanding the obviously non-literal attribution of the title “Judge of the Universe” to the Coptic Pope, I’d like to add a comment about the title “Universal Patriarch” attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

That title was not “flowery language” but needs to be understood in its proper sense (a sense that is borne of explanations from EO themselves). The term “universal” was not in reference to the entire Church, but rather a reference to the Eastern portion of the Empire. That was the “universe” of Eastern Christendom. Indeed, the title does not indicate a jurisdiction in the entire Church, but it does indicate a true jurisdiction in Eastern Christendom, not a mere “primacy of honor,” and this is plainly indicated by the historical manner in which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch regularly acted in relation to other Churches within Eastern Christendom.

Firstly, the use of flowery language in appeals was so common in classical and medieval literature that it has a name. It is called the Asiatic style. So to dismiss out of hand that many appeals were written in this style would be a tremendous mistake in the interpretation and analysis of historical documents.

Secondly, the relationship of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the others was far more nuanced than it is actually being presented. The Patriarch had no canonical right to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchates, which can be shown by numerous conflicts between other bishops and the patriarchate, where the patriarchate was powerless to respond. Take St. Sophronius, for example. He, having been beyond the effective reach of imperial law, was able to oppose Patriarch Sergius without ever having been removed from his office. The converse is true with the Patriarchs of Alexandria who were able to resist subscribing to Chalcedon for decades after the Henotikon was repudiated in Constantinople. It was, in fact, only when Justinian intervened that there occurred a final split between the ‘Melkite’ (or ‘Greek’) Patriarchate of Alexandria and the ‘Coptic’ Patriarchate of Alexandria. In short, the primacy of honor of which we speak is not just some sort of primacy which comes with being placed first in the diptychs, (rather it is one of mediate jurisdiction), and yet it is not one of immediate jurisdiction, which this apology for the papacy absolutely requires to be the case, for the argument to work.

The idea that the primacy of head bishops (on whatever level) is one of mere honor is not patristic. The ancient Nicene Canons clearly give to head bishops true jurisdiction in the plenary geographical jurisdiction of which they were head.

I disagree, and it seems that we must be reading different Nicene canons, for the Nicene canons only mention the primacy of the Metropolitan as it relates to the confirmation of episcopal elections, not to any sort of plenary jurisdiction over their metropolis as the Pope holds today. The very Catholic Encyclopedia, in fact, mentions that the Latin Church traditionally considered the jurisdiction of Archbishops and Metropolitans outside of their dioceses to be mediate jurisdiction, which is in line with our own ecclesiology as well.

But it was not a jurisdiction that could normally or ordinarily intervene in the affairs of any singular diocese or eparchy, and this according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which is a sure standard for ALL the Churches.

But if this jurisdiction comes with limitations, then by definition, it cannot be plenary.

This is the same type of jurisdiction that is conceived of by the Catholic Church in its Magisterial documents (e.g., V1, V2, Canons, etc.) when the term “universal jurisdiction” is used. It does not mean (again, contrary to the exaggerations of Absolute Petrine advocates) that the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction in every particular diocese/eparchy of the Church, as if he had the authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in that local bishop’s own diocese.

But if the Pope does not possess proper jurisdiction, what kind of jurisdiction does he possess? Improper Jurisdiction? Perhaps we can have union after all, if we agree that the jurisdiction exercised by the Pope is improper, but I think there would be a bit of equivocation going on there.

But on a serious note what magisterial documents or theologians teach the distinction between proper jurisdiction and whatever jurisdiction the Pope has?

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: It is nice that you are a PHD in History. Now you may not fall into those historians who interpete to suit their own agenda I have followed your thinking and I had no problem in what you are writing as this is just a forum for discussion that one might come to some understanding to where one is coming from even if one does not agree with any given position taken. I wrote according to my understanding of Church history. If what I read on the history of Christianity and the Church is wrong, than it is not me but those historians I’ve read. I am a amature( which means a lover of), so I have a love of history. Because of our fallen human nature with free will to choose, it seems to me that and I think Herodious the Greek Historian might be correct in that’ there are things people believe to be true that are false and things people believe to be false that are true.’ I interpete it to mean one never knows with perfect certainity whether something is true or false. In the end, one will believe what one wants to believe whether true or not. It seems to me that throughout Church history whether Catholic or Orthodox people have debated and argued over so many things concerning Jesus’ words and what the Apostles taught and what is in Scripture and what it means. It also appears to me that there are those who do not wish or desire any union between Catholic and Orthodox, just there are those who look for unionifacation between Orthodox and Catholic.There will, it seems to me to be those who will be in disagreement over any issue they do not like, and others who never be convienced one way or the other. It is my own personal belief that if people tried to live as Christ taught and as the Catholic Church and I believe the Orthodox Church teaches, we would live in a much better world bringing praise, honor and glory to God.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Good points. I personally don’t find this discussion on development is very productive for the Catholic position. I think Catholics should simply concede that Western Christendom’s estrangement from Eastern Christendom was in good measure responsible for the centralizing tendency of the Western mindset. I read a great and fair article from SCOBA a few weeks ago on the Byzcath forum stating that while the centralizing tendency of Western Christendom developed due to its estrangement from Eastern Christendom, the DEcentralizing tendency of Eastern Christendom was also the result of its own estrangement from Western Christendom.

However, I believe we need to distinguish between the Pope’s role within Western Christendom, from his role in the Church universal. It is true that within Western Christendom, the Pope became a princely ruler. But I don’t believe this has any application to his role in the Church universal. For example, at the Council of Florence, the Bull of Union with the Copts plainly asserted that it would not be effective until the Holy Synod of the COC accepted it. If the Pope truly believed his authority was absolute in relation to Churches outside of Western Christendom, such a statement would have no place in an official decree from the Church of Rome. I believe that the centralizing tendency of Rome in relation to the other Churches is not borne of any interest to impose its princely authority in Western Christendom onto the context of the Church universal. Rather, the centralizing tendency was borne only from the erroneous understanding of Westerns that the Easterns and Orientals had fallen into heterodoxy.

What do you think? Since you are a professional historian, your comments and opinion would be much appreciated and of great value.

Humbly,
Marduk

That does not fit the historical record. The Popes claimed ecumenical authority on the basis of their vision of their rights as successors to St. Peter. The Popes objected to Canon 28 of Chalcedon on purely grounds of their claim to universal jurisdiction. At first, the whole affair of St. Photius had nothing to do with the filioque. That came later.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

That does not fit the historical record. The Popes claimed ecumenical authority on the basis of their vision of their rights as successors to St. Peter. The Popes objected to Canon 28 of Chalcedon on purely grounds of their claim to universal jurisdiction. At first, the whole affair of St. Photius had nothing to do with the filioque. That came later.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Interestingly though, it was not on the grounds of any pretension to universal jurisdiction which Pope St. Leo rejected canon 28 in his communications with the East, but on canonical grounds, that it violated the canons of Nicaea.

 

[Anthony86]

Interestingly though, it was not on the grounds of any pretension to universal jurisdiction which Pope St. Leo rejected canon 28 in his communications with the East, but on canonical grounds, that it violated the canons of Nicaea.

According to papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum04.htm :

Because of canon 28, which the Roman legates had opposed, the emperor Marcian and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, sought approval for the council from the pope. This is clear from a letter of Anatolius which tries to defend the canon, and especially from a letter of Marcian which explicitly requests confirmation. Because heretics were misinterpreting his withholding approval, the pope ratified the doctrinal decrees on 21 March 453, but rejected canon 28 since it ran counter to the canons of Nicaea and to the privileges of particular churches.

Does anyone know where to find online copies of these letters of Marcian, Anatolius, and St. Leo?

 

[Tomdstone]

Clearly.

But let me ask: All things occur because God either wills them or allows them to happen, correct? So, which is it? Did God will for the papacy to develop? Or did God allow the papacy develop?

Why did He do that?

This is similar to the question as to why God allows evil in the world. If God loves the world, why does He allow young children to suffer from sickness and from wars?

 

[Tomdstone]

If the papacy were the will of God for His Church, why did 4 of the 5 Patriarchs of the ancient Church reject the papal claims?

This is an interesting question. If the four Eastern Patriarchs of the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal supremacy, why then did they all stay in communion with His Holiness Michael Cerularius when he was excommunicated from Rome? Why would they not have stayed in communion with Rome?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe that if the Pope were infallible it would not take until 1870 for the Church to declare it an essential dogma.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Newman’s Own: A Father Responds to Fr. John

The following excerpt explains why an explicit demonstration of papal infallibility in the early Fathers is neither necessary nor fatal to the Catholic claims later defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

From: Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.

---

Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.

As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .

. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops,and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him:so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.

 

[mardukm]

Firstly, the use of flowery language in appeals was so common in classical and medieval literature that it has a name. It is called the Asiatic style. So to dismiss out of hand that many appeals were written in this style would be a tremendous mistake in the interpretation and analysis of historical documents.

I’m not dismissing the use of flowery language. What I am claiming is that this flowery language often had an actual basis in what they were intending to convey symbolically. Flowery language used of the emperor does not mean that the ones who used it did not think the emperor was actually the emperor with real authority, does it?

Secondly, the relationship of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the others was far more nuanced than it is actually being presented. The Patriarch had no canonical right to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchates, which can be shown by numerous conflicts between other bishops and the patriarchate, where the patriarchate was powerless to respond.

True, it was only intended to be an appellate authority, not a unilateral authority.

Take St. Sophronius, for example. He, having been beyond the effective reach of imperial law, was able to oppose Patriarch Sergius without ever having been removed from his office. The converse is true with the Patriarchs of Alexandria who were able to resist subscribing to Chalcedon for decades after the Henotikon was repudiated in Constantinople. It was, in fact, only when Justinian intervened that there occurred a final split between the ‘Melkite’ (or ‘Greek’) Patriarchate of Alexandria and the ‘Coptic’ Patriarchate of Alexandria. In short, the primacy of honor of which we speak is not just some sort of primacy which comes with being placed first in the diptychs, (rather it is one of mediate jurisdiction), and yet it is not one of immediate jurisdiction, which this apology for the papacy absolutely requires to be the case, for the argument to work.

I understand and accept what you are saying, but I believe you are misunderstanding what “immediate” means in the context of Catholic ecclesiology. I’ll explain it further in the Petrine Views thread soon.

I disagree, and it seems that we must be reading different Nicene canons, for the Nicene canons only mention the primacy of the Metropolitan as it relates to the confirmation of episcopal elections, not to any sort of plenary jurisdiction over their metropolis as the Pope holds today.

Can you please clarify? His jurisdiction was plenary because it applied to every single diocese in his Metropolitan jurisdiction. He had a direct say in who or who was not a bishop in every single diocese in his Metropolitan jurisdiction. I understand “plenary” to be referring to the geographical extent of the jurisdiction. Perhaps I am not understanding how you are using the term, for I do not comprehend at this point what your disagreement is about.

The very Catholic Encyclopedia, in fact, mentions that the Latin Church traditionally considered the jurisdiction of Archbishops and Metropolitans outside of their dioceses to be mediate jurisdiction, which is in line with our own ecclesiology as well.

Again, this seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the full breadth of what “immediate” means in Catholic ecclesiology. But I’ll explain it further in the Petrine Views thread soon. The authority of Metropolitans and Archbishops in their plenary jurisdiction, according to your own understanding, was indeed immediate. It was his personal authority to confirm every bishop, and without this confirmation, no bishop could be a bishop. In that sense, it was immediate. But, again, the term “immediate” in Catholic canonical languages has a different, more specific meaning than this, which I’ll explain in the other thread – soon.

But if this jurisdiction comes with limitations, then by definition, it cannot be plenary.

Again, I think we are understanding “plenary” differently. When the term “plenary jurisdiction” (or “universal jurisdiction,” for that matter) is used, it is only referring to the geographical extent of the jurisdiction. I’m not intending it to connote the depth or level or content of the jurisdiction.

But if the Pope does not possess proper jurisdiction, what kind of jurisdiction does he possess? Improper Jurisdiction? Perhaps we can have union after all, if we agree that the jurisdiction exercised by the Pope is improper, but I think there would be a bit of equivocation going on there.

That is funny. I appreciate the humor.

But on a serious note what magisterial documents or theologians teach the distinction between proper jurisdiction and whatever jurisdiction the Pope has?

I’ll explain it further in the Petrine Views thread – soon. I appreciate your patience.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Btw, I am sending you a P.M.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is similar to the question as to why God allows evil in the world. If God loves the world, why does He allow young children to suffer from sickness and from wars?

Yes, it is similar. Now, assuming you meant nothing by associating the development of the papacy with the suffering of children, how would you go about answering the question?