Catholic book about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

[mardukm]

Are you asserting that the fathers were taking sides? In reality there is very little in any of the quotes that bears out that perspective. Instead, it seems that people were illuminating different factets of a coherent whole, without confusion or contradiction or disagreement. The idea of “taking one side or the other”, and the implicit idea that these commentaries are contradictory, and the interpretations mutual exclusive, that is the clear innovation.

VERY will said, brother.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

If you feel that is what it implies, then it contradicts what the Decree on the primacy explicitly states:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of hte oridnary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

The question is simple. Do you feel a mere implication trumps the explicit affirmation of the Vatican Decree?

You also have to understand that Vatican 1 taught that infallibility is PART OF the primacy. So infallibility must be exercised according to the standards of primacy, and those standards exclude unilaterally intervening in the affairs of local Churches:

“Moreover, this Holy See has always held that the supreme power of teaching is also included in this apostolic primacy.”

That’s the first sentence of the Decree on Infallibility, brother. I don’t know how you can miss it. As a brotherly exhortation, may I suggest reading the entirety of the Vatican Decrees on primacy and infallibility, without the benefit of the distortions by non-Catholic (and Catholic) polemical misinterpretations?

I hope that helps.

I wanted to clarify something. I don’t want to be misunderstood as saying that the Pope does not have the authority to directly, without appeal, discipline bishops or individuals if they are heretics or are violating a universal canon of the Church.

The Pope DOES have this authority, but only in the absence of the authorities that has been established by ancient custom or canon.

Let’s imagine a priest preaching heresy or is violating a universal canon of the Church. That priest is under the direct authority of his local bishop. A Pope, Patriarch, or Metropolitan at this point has no canonical authority to discipline that priest. In the normal course of events, the local bishop and him alone has all authority to discpline that priest. A priest may appeal to an authority higher than his bishop. A priest may appeal to the Pope, but only with the consent of his Metropolitan (if that is the highest level of authority in that Church) or Patriarch (if that is the highest level of authority in that Church).

Now, imagine that the priest is not only not disciplined, but the bishop himself supports his actions. IF the bishop is under the omophorion of a Metropolitan, then Pope or Patriarch has no canonical authority to discipline that priest or bishop. In the normal course of events, the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan alone has all authority to discipline that bishop (normally done in Synod, depending on local canon and custom). If the bishop has no Metropolitan head, then the Patriarch in the region has the canonical authority to discipline. If the bishop has no Patriarchal head, the Pope has the canonical authority to discpline. A bishop has the canonical right of appeal to the Pope.

Now, imagine that the Metropolitan fails in his duty or, even more, supports the irregular actions of the bishop and priest. In the normal course of events, the Patriarch and Patriarch alone has all canonical authority to discpline that Metropolitan (normally done in Synod, depending on the local canon and custom). If the Metropolitan has no Patriarchal head, then the Pope has the canonical authority to discipline. A metropolitan has the canonical right of appeal to the Pope.

Now, imagine that the Patriarch fails in his duty or, even more, supports the irregular actions of the Metropolitans, bishop and priest. In the normal course of events, the Patriarchal Synod has the authority to discipline the Patriarch. The Patriarch has the canonical right of appeal to the Pope if the decision of the Synod is adverse to him.

If the Patriarchal Synod fails in its duty or, even more, if all bishops of that Patriarchal Church support the irregular actions, the Patriarchs of other Churches may get involved with letters of correction or exhortation, but the only one canonically authorized to discpline would be the Pope. If the irregularities of that Patriarchate infect other areas outside of the Patriarchate, the Pope has the canonical right and divine obligation to intervene. If it ever gets to that point, the normative and historic procedure is to call an Ecumenical Council.

The point of all this is that the office of the papacy is not a unilateral micromanager, nor was intended to be such, by the First Vatican Council - nor has he ever been so in the history of the Church, even in the Middle Ages after the schism with the East.

Blessings

 

[Madaglan]

If you feel that is what it implies, then it contradicts what the Decree on the primacy explicitly states:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of hte oridnary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

The question is simple. Do you feel a mere implication trumps the explicit affirmation of the Vatican Decree?

You also have to understand that Vatican 1 taught that infallibility is PART OF the primacy. So infallibility must be exercised according to the standards of primacy, and those standards exclude unilaterally intervening in the affairs of local Churches:

“Moreover, this Holy See has always held that the supreme power of teaching is also included in this apostolic primacy.”

That’s the first sentence of the Decree on Infallibility, brother. I don’t know how you can miss it. As a brotherly exhortation, may I suggest reading the entirety of the Vatican Decrees on primacy and infallibility, without the benefit of the distortions by non-Catholic (and Catholic) polemical misinterpretations?

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Correct, that is what Vatican I says. I do not understand the Latin doctrine of full, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction to mean that the powers of the papal office by definition arrogate the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops and Patriarchs.

In speaking of Vatican I and supreme power of the Roman Pontiff, the late Pope John Paul II had the following to say:

In this regard it would be well to clarify immediately that this “fullness” of power attributed to the Pope in no way detracts from the “fullness” also belonging to the body of bishops. On the contrary, one must assert that both the Pope and the episcopal body have “all the fullness” of power. The Pope possesses this fullness personally, while the body of bishops, united under the Pope’s authority, possesses it collegially. The Pope’s power does not result from simply adding numbers, but is the episcopal body’s principle of unity and wholeness.
For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.

source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

Yes, there is acknowledgment that the supreme power of the Pope does not take away from the supreme power of the episcopal college in union with the Pope. This noted, the immediate power of the Pope means, as I underlined above, that the Pope does not require “permission” or “mediation” from the bishops-- and this includes matters of “discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.

Yes, there is acknowledgment that the supreme power of the Pope does not take away from the supreme power of the episcopal college in union with the Pope. This noted, the immediate power of the Pope means, as I underlined above, that the Pope does not require “permission” or “mediation” from the bishops-- and this includes matters of “discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world.”

I see your point, but here is the problem:

You perceive that statement in the sense that it is in violation of paragraph 5 of the Vatican Decree on the primacy (which I quoted earlier). You think that the Pope at any time he so chooses under any circumstances can exercise his prerogatives in place of or in contradiction to the divinely established prerogatives of local bishops, and the canonically established prerogatives of Patriarchs and Metropolitans.

In contrast, I interpret such statements in the context of paragraph 5 of the Vatican Decree. In other words, I believe the Pope exercises such prerogatives ONLY WHEN such bishops (of any grade) FAIL to properly exercise their functions (as I explained in post #42). When that happens, and only in such instances, the statement of HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory indeed applies - “he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.”

Blessings

 

[marlo]

we have known that just because we have read the scriptures, but Peter have known that because the Father gave him that information, that is where the difference comes in . The Faith of Peter comes from the Father himself, that’s why the Original Rock (christ) turned Simon to Rock, as the Original Apostle( christ) made the 12 Apostles.

We are all Peter if we speak the truth about the Lord, we are co-Peter, as we have the same faith of Peter, but we use Peter as the reference because his faith comes from the Father. That’s why we cannot separate Peter from his Faith. This is the Orthodox tradition that is now missing in the Orthodox church.

If the two can’t be seperated then you’re just as much the Rock on which Christ builds His Church as Peter when you confess that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God. "

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marlo,

Isn’t your signature line putting the cart before the horse? Don’t our Orthodox brethren need to understand before accepting?

Also, what do you mean by “accept?” Do you mean to accept it in the sense that it is complementary to the Eastern or Oriental Traditions, or accept it according to the Latin Tradition (i.e., theology and terminology)?

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

I have always seen Orthodox on this forum, using Protestant Arguments

I often see RC’s accusing Orthodox Chrstians of using “protestant” arguments when the Orthodox Christians do not agree with them.

 

[Mickey]

The idea of “taking one side or the other”, and the implicit idea that these commentaries are contradictory, and the interpretations mutual exclusive, that is the clear innovation.

I think the clear innovation, is taking one point of view, adding and expounding on it, and then creating a new doctrine around it----- hundreds of years later.

 

[John_Larocque]

Dear brother John,
4) This was written by him only AFTER his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen. He had written an earlier version that is more consistent with the Catholic position, and he obviously believed in that teaching given fact #2 above. His statements against Pope St. Stephen are nothing more than the off-the-cuff remarks or insults you might hear when two brothers are fighting over something. I don’t see how one can use them in contradiction to the Catholic teaching (given fact #1 and fact #2 above) to argue that the bishop of Rome has absolutely no authority anywhere else in the Church outside his own diocese.

I came across a quote from St. Chrysostom, where he addresses one of his Antiochian predecessors (St. Flavian) as “another Peter”, and another reference to Ignatius of Antioch as as successor of Peter. So Cyprian’s concept of the church, with it being present in its fullness at the diocesan level, with each bishop as a successor of Peter, is not unique to the African church, and is probably the common Eastern understanding. If you walk into any Eastern church, there is a chair for the local bishop, who is commemorated at every Divine liturtgy.

According to Yves Congar, “The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good.”

The point of the discussion is not to deny that a promise was made to St. Peter (and his successors in the see of Rome), but rather, that the promise extends to the bishops of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

I came across a quote from St. Chrysostom, where he addresses one of his Antiochian predecessors (St. Flavian) as “another Peter”, and another reference to Ignatius of Antioch as as successor of Peter. So Cyprian’s concept of the church, with it being present in its fullness at the diocesan level, with each bishop as a successor of Peter, is not unique to the African church, and is probably the common Eastern understanding. If you walk into any Eastern church, there is a chair for the local bishop, who is commemorated at every Divine liturtgy.

Only three Sees shared in the unique authority of the Petrine Chair - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. And of these, one was head, which was Rome. It should come as no surprise that someone would claim Petrine authority for Antioch, but this is not Cyprian’s model, and to claim that it supports Cyprian’s model is a stretch. Cyprian’s model made ALL bishops share in the unique authority of the Petrine Chair, not just the actual three (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). The good thing about Cyprian’s model, at least, is that it admits only one visible head, albeit one denuded of any actual authority.

According to Yves Congar, “The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good.”

I have the same viewpoint. The idea of “jurisdiction” was a creation of the Church in the fourth century (by virtue of the Church being wed to the State perhaps?). Before that time, the office of bishop was seen in terms of solicitude and care, instead of juridic terms, and there was only one head bishop, who had/has the same role as St, Peter had among the Apostles - of solicitude and care, who is intended to feed the sheep. The jurisdictionalism that resulted from this new paradigm is the real source, IMO, of the troubles between the EO and the CC. Bishops are more concerned about “what’s mine in my jurisdiction,” forgetting that it is all the Lord’s. Exactly what St. Paul exhorted against (the “I am of Paul, I am of Peter, I am of Apollos” mentality) became the standard of Church government (though, of course, the Faith itself was never despoiled). The bishop of Rome has taken the lead to inspire the Church to go back to that original model, by taking on the title “Servant of the Servants of God” after Vatican 2. Let’s pray that the rest of the Church follows his lead.

The point of the discussion is not to deny that a promise was made to St. Peter (and his successors in the see of Rome), but rather, that the promise extends to the bishops of the Church.

I understand, but it is rather novel, still. Where do the other Apostles come in, then? Has EVERYONE succeeded from St. Peter? I think not. Everyone can share in the Petrine “Rockiness,” because that “Rockiness” is Christ Himself. But it would be extreme to think that ALL BISHOPS (much less EVERYONE) shared in the unique apostolic authority of St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josethomas2005]

Dear brother John,

Only three Sees shared in the unique authority of the Petrine Chair - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. And of these, one was head, which was Rome. It should come as no surprise that someone would claim Petrine authority for Antioch, but this is not Cyprian’s model, and to claim that it supports Cyprian’s model is a stretch. Cyprian’s model made ALL bishops share in the unique authority of the Petrine Chair, not just the actual three (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). The good thing about Cyprian’s model, at least, is that it admits only one visible head, albeit one denuded of any actual authority.

Dear mardukm
On what basis you always say that Alexandria is of Petrine succession. It is clear from the tradition and records that they claim their first bishop as St Mark. Then how can you say that it is from Peter. Also the doubts on Rome, it is Petrine or Pauline?

 

[Formosus]

Dear mardukm
On what basis you always say that Alexandria is of Petrine succession. It is clear from the tradition and records that they claim their first bishop as St Mark. Then how can you say that it is from Peter. Also the doubts on Rome, it is Petrine or Pauline?

St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter. Peter sent Mark to Egypt to evangelize there.Hence why the see in Egypt is Petrine. Pope St. Gregory the Great refers to this in one of his letters.

As for Rome, it is both Petrine and Pauline. I see no reason why it can not be both.