"Catholic-Orthodox talks on papacy" document from catholic culture; its implications?

[Peter_J]

Peter - thanks for your response. I’m hoping we can share a few details here in this discussion.

What types of issues would be referred to the Ecumenical Patriarch? Do the Patriarchs meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest? matters of faith / doctrine / discipline? Is there any collaboration regarding external challenges that may be faced by one or more of the Patriarchial Churches in a given country or geographic region (I’m thinking specifically at the moment of places like Syria, for example, and generally throughout the Middle East)?

If I may, I think the one thing that challenges Orthodox thinking about the Catholic Church is not necessarily the Papacy in and of itself, but the way in which the Papacy and the Magisterium have evolved beyond 1054 AD, and specifically that the Catholic Church has acted apart from the Orthodox Churches in doctrinal matters, including (among other matters) further definition of the role of the Papacy, henceforth.

Most Catholics don’t even think about this, or so its seems, as the operation of the Catholic Church is matter to which all members are well accustomed. As the Pope represents the successor of Peter, all is well as roots are readily traced back to the appointed leader of the twelve Apostles.

Whereas on the Orthodox side, the emphasis seems to be on continuity of tradition and doctrinal belief. And as Eastern mode of theological thought is rather different than the more scholastic approach, if you will, of the Western front, there is legitimate concern that ongoing focus on doctrinal matters and definitions (even aside from the Papacy) in the second millenium might have introduced deviation from (or at least the need for reconciliation of) widely held beliefs of the first millenial Church, as largely maintained in the Orthodox Church.

Is that a fair way of looking at it (trying my best to muster up some of those Orthodox roots as an EC)?

That’s a good question. Many Orthodox have said that the biggest issue is that (from their point of view) Rome is in heresy.

On the other hand, some Orthodox (see, for example, the opinion expressed here by one Orthodox priest) see the biggest problem as an “ontological difference”. The ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in his presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997, declared:

“The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.”

(I’m told that a Jesuit commented that this set the dialogue back 10 years, but I don’t have an exact quote.)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

(I’m told that a Jesuit commented that this set the dialogue back 10 years, but I don’t have an exact quote.)

Thanks again, Peter! Some interesting thoughts!

Personally I hate to even bring up the “H” and “S” words in this context, as they serve no purpose in the cause of restoration of unity. But I understand the view, regrettable as it may be in some respects.

But I am an admirer of the EP, and his point is valid IMO from an honest, academic point of view. His comment could just as easily have been understood to mean that the Apostolic Church as it once stood no longer exists.

I’m no philosopher, but that is what first came to mind in pondering these words.

And, after all, isn’t that what we should be trying to restore? That which no longer exixts? The unified Church?

And even if the Jesuit was right, so what? Isn’t it that the dialogue is continuing that is most important? After all, were going on almost 1,000 years of elapsed time here - no doubt a lot to catch up on!

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks again, Peter! Some interesting thoughts!

Glad you liked them.

Personally I hate to even bring up the “H” and “S” words in this context, as they serve no purpose in the cause of restoration of unity.

If that’s true, then one has to wonder why they were even invented.

His comment could just as easily have been understood to mean that the Apostolic Church as it once stood no longer exists.

I think when he said “The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different” he was talking about a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see how that is relevant. He makes a brief historical case for the development of the papacy over time rather than the Latin notion of a divinely instituted papacy. I don’t see how you could possibly call the denial of the papacy “unpatristic” when the Fathers knew not the papacy as it exists today.

He denies the direct establishment of the episcopacy and the headship of the episcopacy by Christ.

If you want to accept his argument that the headship was not divinely established, then to be consistent you should accept his argument that the episcopacy was not divinely established.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept his claim that the office of bishop gradually emerged, then it should not be a big deal for you to accept that the office of the papacy gradually emerged as well.

Btw, as an historian, he is rather lacking in the realization that many works of the early Fathers were lost during the early Christian persecutions. His dependance on the fact that there is no claim from Popes prior to the mid-3rd century on their Petrine lineage amply demonstrates his deficiency as an objective scholar.

Further, he opines that the mid-3rd century claim of the Pope to headship due to Petrine lineage was rejected by the early Church. But where is the evidence? Because the Churches did not agree with Pope St. Victor that the Asian Church should be excommunicated? Oh, please! Talk about your convoluted logic! Think about it for a moment - if you base your conclusion that the early Church rejected the claim to headship by Petrine lineage on the fact of the disagreement, then that means that if they accepted the headship, they would have simply kowtowed to anything the Pope said!!! But that’s not what headship is about. A claim to headship does not mean the head bishop is above correction. So just because the Pope was corrected in that instance, it is a logical error to conclude that the Pope was not considered the head of the Church.

I am befuddled that you pretend to see scholarship from that piece.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Roper: Now that’s a word I don’t like, Sir Thomas!
More: It’s not a likable word. It’s not a likable thing.

• A Man For All Seasons

 

[Cavaradossi]

He denies the direct establishment of the episcopacy and the headship of the episcopacy by Christ.

If you want to accept his argument that the headship was not divinely established, then to be consistent you should accept his argument that the episcopacy was not divinely established.

No, I don’t. This is a false dichotomy.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept his claim that the office of bishop gradually emerged, then it should not be a big deal for you to accept that the office of the papacy gradually emerged as well.

Btw, as an historian, he is rather lacking in the realization that many works of the early Fathers were lost during the early Christian persecutions. His dependance on the fact that there is no claim from Popes prior to the mid-3rd century on their Petrine lineage amply demonstrates his deficiency as an objective scholar.

Further, he opines that the mid-3rd century claim of the Pope to headship due to Petrine lineage was rejected by the early Church. But where is the evidence? Because the Churches did not agree with Pope St. Victor that the Asian Church should be excommunicated? Oh, please! Talk about your convoluted logic! Think about it for a moment - if you base your conclusion that the early Church rejected the claim to headship by Petrine lineage on the fact of the disagreement, then that means that if they accepted the headship, they would have simply kowtowed to anything the Pope said!!! But that’s not what headship is about. A claim to headship does not mean the head bishop is above correction. So just because the Pope was corrected in that instance, it is a logical error to conclude that the Pope was not considered the head of the Church.

I am befuddled that you pretend to see scholarship from that piece.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, I’m sure his shoddy scholarship is how he got his position as professor of Christian history at Cambridge and his position as a member of the pontifical historical commission. If you disagree with his scholarship, then provide sources to refute his arguments. Otherwise, your argument boils down to, “he’s wrong,” which isn’t much of an argument at all.

 

[mardukm]

No, I don’t. This is a false dichotomy.

That’s not a false dichotomy on my part. That’s inconsistency on your part.

Yes, I’m sure his shoddy scholarship is how he got his position as professor of Christian history at Cambridge and his position as a member of the pontifical historical commission. If you disagree with his scholarship, then provide sources to refute his arguments. Otherwise, your argument boils down to, “he’s wrong,” which isn’t much of an argument at all.

That’s called an appeal to authority, which is invalid by rhetorical standards, btw. You can’t even address the fact that he’s basing his conclusion on a premise which you yourself don’t agree with (that if he was the head, he wouldn’t have been corrected). Your silence speaks volumes that anti-papal rhetoric is muddled with inconsistencies. If you can’t defend the logic of your souce, you really shouldn’t bother to bring it up. Just bringing it up because he’s got some titles is, as noted above, an appeal to authority which amounts to squat. Look at the arguments, instead of the name.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s not a false dichotomy on my part. That’s inconsistency on your part.

No, that is a non-sequitur on your part. Because he makes an incorrect assertion x does not mean that argument y is therefore invalid. His argument has many other premises which you have not addressed. You must show that all of his premises are flawed in order to invalidate his argument.

That’s called an appeal to authority, which is invalid by rhetorical standards, btw. You can’t even address the fact that he’s basing his conclusion on a premise which you yourself don’t agree with (that if he was the head, he wouldn’t have been corrected). Your silence speaks volumes that anti-papal rhetoric is muddled with inconsistencies. If you can’t defend the logic of your souce, you really shouldn’t bother to bring it up. Just bringing it up because he’s got some titles is, as noted above, an appeal to authority which amounts to squat. Look at the arguments, instead of the name.

Blessings,
Marduk

An appeal to authority is only fallacious under certain circumstances. Quoting a biologist’s opinion on whether the use of embryonic stem-cells is ethical is a fallacious argument from authority (he is an authority on biology, not ethics). Quoting the opinion of a well known ethicist, however, is not. Quoting a well-respected Christian historian’s opinion (one with evidence to substantiate it) that the papacy is a development is not a fallacious appeal to authority, but a legitimate appeal to authority. If appeal to authority were always fallacious, then we should allow social scientists to peer review biology articles and nuclear physicists to peer review articles on linguistics.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Pope … co-rules every diocese with the exception of Rome itself under the Latin code.

Am I the only one who thinks this is just plain untrue? Where exactly does the Code of Canon Law make the pope the equivalent of each diocese’s co-Ordinary?

Thus, if he were to wish anything in any parish done in his way, or any one person transferred or dismissed in any diocese whatever he will have his way under universal jurisdiction.

No. He cannot impede a bishop’s proper authority.

Metropolitans are not seen as co-rulers in the church anywhere, there are no examples of this in the historical record.

Well, of course not. Head bishops of whatever level are not “co-rulers” of other bishops’ dioceses…

Yes, I’m sure his shoddy scholarship is how he got his position as professor of Christian history at Cambridge and his position as a member of the pontifical historical commission.

Eamon Duffy is indeed a great scholar and historian. I think Marduk was too harsh; however, Duffy’s historical expertise does not translate to theological expertise. As we’ve observed, he traces the development of both the episcopate and the papacy. Assuming that such development means they were not divinely instituted by our Lord is where he veers from his area of expertise.

Quoting a biologist’s opinion on whether the use of embryonic stem-cells is ethical is a fallacious argument from authority (he is an authority on biology, not ethics).

Yes, and quoting an historian’s opinion on whether the papacy is divinely instituted is a fallacious argument from authority (he is an authority on history, not theology/ecclesiology).

 

[Peter_J]

Where exactly does the Code of Canon Law make the pope the equivalent of each diocese’s co-Ordinary?

It’s not just Canon Law, it’s a dogmatic definition:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

 

[Peter_J]

Yet they are not often widely discussed in the West, as the position of the Pontiff and the teachings regarding such are accepted.

Actually, I did a little research. It appears that the classifications “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are pretty much unheard of outside of the Catholic Answers Forum. (That isn’t necessarily a problem, given that CAF is large enough and busy enough to be a kind of microcosm; but I think it’s good to also be aware of the “outside world”.)

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, I did a little research. It appears that the classifications “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are pretty much unheard of outside of the Catholic Answers Forum. (That isn’t necessarily a problem, given that CAF is large enough and busy enough to be a kind of microcosm; but I think it’s good to also be aware of the “outside world”.)

Yes, I’ve never encountered the definitions outside this forum.
At any rate I find it takes some gymnastics to get anything but an absolute Petrine view out of anything that predates Pius XII.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It’s not just Canon Law, it’s a dogmatic definition

Right, of course, but the sort of language Hesychios was using went far beyond what that definition asserts. He used the phrase “co-rule,” thereby implying that every Catholic diocese basically has two bishops: a local one, and the pope. At least, that’s what “co-rules” implied to me; maybe I’m mistaken. If he meant “co-rule” in the sense in which some Catholics call our Lady “co-redemptrix,” then that’s one thing, but that’s not usually what “co-” implies in English to me.

That’s all my point was.

At any rate I find it takes some gymnastics to get anything but an absolute Petrine view out of anything that predates Pius XII.

I don’t think that’s true. The so-called “absolutist Petrine” view - while far older than any of us now alive - is, in terms of Christian history, a relatively new innovation.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another thread), someone pointed out that even for the first few centuries of the second millennium, the pope always acted in synod. Then for the next several, councils were especially dominant in the history of the Latin Church.

I’m pretty sure neo-ultramontanism really found its footing only in the nineteenth century. Then - as plenty of threads here have shown, based on the history - it was contradicted by the First Vatican Council: remember that Marduk pointed out that bishops who held that view were mad after the Proem was added to Pastor Aeternus. I believe that at least until Vatican I, Pope Pius IX essentially held the absolutist Petrine view, but other than he, I’m not sure what other popes (if any) did.

Really, it’s quite a pitifully short lifespan for that interpretation of Catholic ecclesiology.

 

[Vico]

From the 1891 Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (Latin Church):

Q. 984. What double power does the Church possess and confer on her pastors?
A. The Church possesses and confers on her pastor, the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction; that is, the power to administer the Sacraments and sanctify the faithful, and the power to teach and make laws that direct the faithful to their spiritual good. A bishop has the full power of orders and the Pope alone has the full power of jurisdiction.

Q. 985. How do the pastors of the Church rank according to authority?
A. The pastors of the Church rank according to authority as follows:
(1) Priests, who govern parishes or congregations in the name of their bishop;
(2) Bishops, who rule over a number of parishes or a diocese;
(3) Archbishops, who have authority over a number of dioceses or a province;
(4) Primates, who have authority over the ecclesiastical or Church provinces of a nation;
(5) Patriarchs, who have authority over a whole country;
(6) and last and highest, the Pope, who rules the Church throughout the world.

 

[Hesychios]

Right, of course, but the sort of language Hesychios was using went far beyond what that definition asserts. …

!?!

What is Ordinary Power? What is a Diocesan Ordinary, and what is his power? What does “Pre-eminence of Ordinary Power” mean to you?

What does it mean when it say this power is EPISCOPAL and it is IMMEDIATE ?

The man’s authority is not merely supervisory, it is active and it is present in every diocese, isn’t that how you read it? … or am I missing something here?

Do I have to fish through the canons for you? I have already quoted the dogma a dozen times in the recent past and Peter quoted it again.

Explain to me how I am describing it wrongly. Show me how it is an exaggeration.

---

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

 

[Peter_J]

Right, of course, but the sort of language Hesychios was using went far beyond what that definition asserts. He used the phrase “co-rule,” thereby implying that every Catholic diocese basically has two bishops: a local one, and the pope. At least, that’s what “co-rules” implied to me; maybe I’m mistaken. If he meant “co-rule” in the sense in which some Catholics call our Lady “co-redemptrix,” then that’s one thing, but that’s not usually what “co-” implies in English to me.

That’s all my point was.

So, would you say that “co-rule” overstates the authority of the Pope, or understates it?

Edit: I “submitted” the above post before seeing Hesychios’s last post; but I think I should leave my question as is regardless.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think that’s true. The so-called “absolutist Petrine” view - while far older than any of us now alive - is, in terms of Christian history, a relatively new innovation.

While Papal power has certainly ebbed and flowed throughout history, the Popes don’t seem to have let that get to them. As I said, I find it hard to find something that can be read as anything else without gymnastics prior to Pius XII.

It is an innovation though, that I agree with you on.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

From the 1891 Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (Latin Church):

Q. 984. What double power does the Church possess and confer on her pastors?
A. The Church possesses and confers on her pastor, the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction; that is, the power to administer the Sacraments and sanctify the faithful, and the power to teach and make laws that direct the faithful to their spiritual good. A bishop has the full power of orders and the Pope alone has the full power of jurisdiction.

Q. 985. How do the pastors of the Church rank according to authority?
A. The pastors of the Church rank according to authority as follows:
(1) Priests, who govern parishes or congregations in the name of their bishop;
(2) Bishops, who rule over a number of parishes or a diocese;
(3) Archbishops, who have authority over a number of dioceses or a province;
(4) Primates, who have authority over the ecclesiastical or Church provinces of a nation;
(5) Patriarchs, who have authority over a whole country;
(6) and last and highest, the Pope, who rules the Church throughout the world.

I don’t disagree with any of that. Of course the pope “rules the Church throughout the world.” That’s not the same thing as ruling a diocese in the same sense as the proper local Ordinary does.

But if Hesychios’ rhetoric didn’t imply what I took it to imply, then I stand corrected. Maybe I’m just overly sensitive to certain prefixes.

!?!

What is Ordinary Power? What is a Diocesan Ordinary, and what is his power? What does “Pre-eminence of Ordinary Power” mean to you?

Explain to me how I am describing it wrongly. Show me how it is an exaggeration.

Sorry, perhaps you’re right. I may have been too nitpicky about the kind of language you were using. I’m honestly unsure because apparently “co-” in whatever context often doesn’t imply what I often think it does. As I said, you could call the pope “co-ruler” of each diocese if you mean “co-” in the same sense it’s used in say, calling our Lady “co-Redemptrix.”

If I had any point at all, it was just to emphasize that Catholic teaching clearly and explicitly affirms - as has been shown plenty of times on these forums with Magisterial documents - that the local bishop and not the pope has proper authority in matters that pertain specifically to that diocese (except for Rome, of course, where the pope is the local, proper Ordinary).

What does it mean when it say this power is EPISCOPAL and it is IMMEDIATE?

EPISCOPAL = the pope is a bishop
IMMEDIATE = papal authority - including the universal character of its jurisdiction - is of divine establishment

The man’s authority is not merely supervisory, it is active and it is present in every diocese, isn’t that how you read it? … or am I missing something here?

No, I agree. But this active authority should not be construed, treated, or wielded as that of a “boss” over a subordinate. As was quoted earlier from the First Vatican Council:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” - Pastor Aeternus, First Vatican Council

So of course papal authority is present in every diocese, as that which helps to confirm and strengthen the pope’s brother bishops. Note as well that the document says that local bishops govern their flocks individually.

So, would you say that “co-rule” overstates the authority of the Pope, or understates it?

Not sure. Apparently what “co-” means to me is not what it means to other native English speakers, so I really have no idea.

I can certainly agree that the pope “co-rules” each diocese in the same sense that our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is “co-Redemptrix” with our Lord.

While Papal power has certainly ebbed and flowed throughout history, the Popes don’t seem to have let that get to them. As I said, I find it hard to find something that can be read as anything else without gymnastics prior to Pius XII.

It is an innovation though, that I agree with you on.

When has a pope wielded his universal authority unilaterally, without impetus and/or guidance from some need in the Church, and gotten away with it?

 

[Mickey]

Actually, I did a little research. It appears that the classifications “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are pretty much unheard of outside of the Catholic Answers Forum.

That is because the terms were invented by a member of the Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[Hesychios]

that the local bishop and not the pope has proper authority in matters that pertain specifically to that diocese (except for Rome, of course, where the pope is the local, proper Ordinary) …

That basically means that the person you go to first with run of the mill concerns is the Diocesan bishop. Then when you don’t like the response you go to his partner the Pope.

EPISCOPAL = the pope is a bishop

Yes, and he applies this bishops authority in the local diocese.

IMMEDIATE = papal authority - including the universal character of its jurisdiction - is of divine establishment

Actually, I don’t think that is what ‘IMMEDIATE’ means in this context.

I do not think this word refers to divine establishment. I believe it means ‘without’ mediation ~ un-mediated. In other words the bishop of Rome’s power is not filtered or transmitted through any other person (like the ‘local’ ordinary) but can be applied directly as needed. However the only way to know for sure would be to read this in the original Latin, this term must have been translated into English 140 years ago. I don’t read Latin.

No, I agree. But this active authority should not be construed, treated, or wielded as that of a “boss” over a subordinate. As was quoted earlier from the First Vatican Council:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction,** …**

I don’t see how having a boss detracts from one’s authority.

If the man hires him, and can fire him and can give him a mandatory retirement date or accept a resignation he’s the boss.

If he can transfer him, promote him or demote him he’s the boss.

If he makes all the rules or codifies them he’s the boss.

If he has to approve all committee decisions before they are valid or can become effective he’s the boss.