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

[TrueLight]

Thus the confusion some new converts might have. As we can see they can become distressed to find that the arguments which ultimately convinced them to become Roman Catholics are sometimes actually contested vehemently by Eastern Christians, some of these Eastern Christians actually in communion with the Pope and calling themselves Eastern Catholic or even Orthodox (in communion with Rome).

Yes, that’s exactly it.

Ghosty, in response to your question as to why these threads pain me, Hesychios, has it in a nutshell.

Very distressing.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You have to understand that the context of Sardica was not merely disciplinary, but theological. Sardica affirmed that the bishop of Rome AS A GENERAL RULE possessed the orthodoxy (for whatever reason) to be the court of final appeal, a fact re-affirmed by the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils in their acceptance of the Sardican canons. Note that the Canon you quote leaves the FINAL decision to a court in which the Pope is HIMSELF present through representatives as a judge. Did you miss that?

Blessings,
Marduk

I posted the canon for you in English translation. It says clearly that he has the ability to ask that a retrial take place in a neighboring province and the option to send legates to work with the bishops of the neighboring province to ensure a fair trial. Do you think that I am too stupid to read the things I post? That power clearly is not the power of a court of final appeal; rather, it is the power to demand a retrial in cases when the verdict seems unfair. The prescription that the retrial take place in a neighboring province, where the accusers and the accused can show up and where the neighboring bishops would likely have knowledge of local conditions and factors that Rome would not have, is of utmost importance.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Thus the confusion some new converts might have. As we can see they can become distressed to find that the arguments which ultimately convinced them to become Roman Catholics are sometimes actually contested vehemently by Eastern Christians, some of these Eastern Christians actually in communion with the Pope and calling themselves Eastern Catholic or even Orthodox (in communion with Rome).

That is a worthy point. On the other hand, I have communicated with recent converts who have thanked me profusely for my explanations.

Bottom line - our Lord did not leave the government of the Church or the gift of infallibility to St. Peter ALONE, as all Magisterial Catholic sources admit. The tension is between actual Church teaching, and what people desperately want or perceive the papacy to be in order to cure the ills of society. I guess there is a certain mentality that believes that central authority is the only way to go about it. I can understand that, actually, being head of a family and a business. But experience has taught me that while being authoritarian only works SOMETIMES, working WITH people works ALL the time. I believe in my heart that God knows that, which is why He set up His Church on collegial principles.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sadly, my resources are a little more limited than the Holy Father’s. That’s partly why I’m hoping for some document or other that’s available on the internet.

Mine too! I’ll see if I can help dig something up for you …

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Scanning some of the results on Google, I saw some reference to an “Oriental understanding of Ecclesiology”.
*
Is this why “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are unfamiliar to us in the west?*

Assuming that’s true, what about the *Eastern *Orthodox (as distinct from the Oriental Orthodox, e.g the Coptic Orthodox)? Is this classification system standard for them?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter!

Hi.

I can see that I might have misinterpreted the above comment, but from where I stand the bishop of Rome has no ‘special power’ anywhere.

Fair enough.

 

[Peter_J]

I posted the canon for you in English translation. It says clearly that he has the ability to ask that a retrial take place in a neighboring province and the option to send legates to work with the bishops of the neighboring province to ensure a fair trial.

Interesting.

How would you see the role of said legates in the retrial?

Do you think that I am too stupid to read the things I post?

Well, we can hope. (Take that how you will. )

 

[Peter_J]

Sadly, my resources are a little more limited than the Holy Father’s. That’s partly why I’m hoping for some document or other that’s available on the internet.

Thanks. I’d love to see an example of the Holy Father using those classifications.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t expect Orthodox to see the Pope in the same light because otherwise, they would be in communion with Rome. But yes, to see Eastern Catholics contest these views as well, and some Roman Catholics agree, makes me feel that the Church I entered is not quite the Church I thought it was.

Yes, that’s exactly it.

Ghosty, in response to your question as to why these threads pain me, Hesychios, has it in a nutshell.

Very distressing.

 

[mardukm]

I posted the canon for you in English translation…Do you think that I am too stupid to read the things I post?

Not stupid, but clearly glossing over things to support your preconceived position.

For example:

It says clearly that he has the ability to ask that a retrial take place

To “ASK?” Like I said, do you know what the word “JUDGE” means? The canon says that it is HIS JUDGEMENT whether a new trial should take place. You make it seem like he asks nicely and the bishops have an option to deny a new trial.

in a neighboring province and the option to send legates to work with the bishops of the neighboring province to ensure a fair trial.

An “OPTION?” The Canon says it is HIS JUDGEMENT, AS HE SEES FIT, to send legates or to decide if the local judges are sufficient.

That power clearly is not the power of a court of final appeal;

rather, it is the power to demand a retrial in cases when the verdict seems unfair.

Yes, “DEMAND.” Thank you.

The prescription that the retrial take place in a neighboring province, where the accusers and the accused can show up and where the neighboring bishops would likely have knowledge of local conditions and factors that Rome would not have, is of utmost importance.

Yes, it is the most practical and expedient consideration. I don’t know what relevance of “utmost importance” you attach to it. Prior to Sardica, the bishop of Rome judged matters in a Roman Synod and sent his judgment out accordingly. That’s what happened, for example, with the Easter controversy, Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria and Pope St. Athanasius. So contrary to your assertion in another thread, there is ample precedence for the bishop of Rome to judge a matter in his home Synod. The case of Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria is noteworthy because it was not him who presented his own case to the Pope, but other clerics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

*P.S. Scanning some of the results on Google, I saw some reference to an “Oriental understanding of Ecclesiology”.

Alright, I’ll try to get to those today.

In the meantime, can you tell me approximately when those classifications were invented? I get the impression that it is just in the current generation – but of course I’m just basing that on what can be found on the internet (see earlier comments about limited resources).

 

[mardukm]

I don’t expect Orthodox to see the Pope in the same light because otherwise, they would be in communion with Rome. But yes, to see Eastern Catholics contest these views as well, and some Roman Catholics agree, makes me feel that the Church I entered is not quite the Church I thought it was.

What views are being contested? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Assuming that’s true, what about the *Eastern *Orthodox (as distinct from the Oriental Orthodox, e.g the Coptic Orthodox)? Is this classification system standard for them?

See the post of our brother Hesychios above - that will give you some insight as to the Orthodox perspective. He can likely clarify and distinctions between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox viewpoints, but I fail to see and significant distinctions from what I have read and heard.

BTW - you may want to check out the resources available here on CAF for further study.

catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

All of the documents I’ve seen here are marked with a Nihil Obstat declaration and Imprimatur.

Also, our brother mardukm, who studied this subject with great discernment before becoming Catholic, is well versed in this subject matter. Some time ago, on another forum, he offered these definitions:

Absolutist Petrine view: There is only one head bishop - the bishop of Rome. All other bishops of whatever grade are merely an extension of papal authority. Even the Ecumenical Council is merely an extension of papal authority. If there is a disagreement between the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) and his brother bishops, the head bishop’s will dominates to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. Anyone not agreeing is excommunicated. The head has an overarching importance over the body.

High Petrine view: The constitution of the Church, on its several hierarchical levels, is modeled after the Apostles, who had St. Peter as their head. The head bishop has the same role as St. Peter had among the Apostles. The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church), and has a unique authority among his brother bishops. He is bound by the principle of the unity of the Church, and the divine rights of his brother bishops, to always work with his brother bishops in all matters affecting the Church as a whole. He is also bound by those same principles to not interfere in the proper and ordinary jurisdiction of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, there must be constant exchange until agreement is reached, not that he can impose his singular will on all. The head and the body are equally indispensable.

Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. There is often a denial that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. A head bishop has only a primacy of honor, and no primacy of jurisdiction, and possesses a merely local jurisdiction of his own See/diocese. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority. Those who hold this view sometimes deny that there is even such a thing as a head bishop.

I hope this helps your understanding.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Interesting.

How would you see the role of said legates in the retrial?

Well, we can hope. (Take that how you will. )

Likely to ensure that the trial was run fairly. I find it curious that they would suggest sending presbyters. Perhaps this has to do with the early ambiguity between presbyter and episcopi, although I think that by the time of sardica the two terms would have been clearly delineated. Regardless, it seems to have been common practice for both priests and bishops to be sent.

It is interesting to note the function of the legates throughout history, such as at the council of Constantinople 879-880, who essentially helped edit all of pope John’s letters to the council, because they contained some information in them which was not factual (many rumors were flying around in the West about Photius). Go back four hundred and thirty years to the robber synod of Ephesus, and you will see that curiously, the legates’ disapproval did not automatically annul the council (otherwise appeals against the council’s judgments would not have been made to Rome). Similarly, if we examine the acts of Chalcedon, it is clear that the senate is moderating and controlling the flow of the council, not the legates.

I think then we can say the legates really just were the eyes and ears of the pope. If they ran back telling horror spirits of gross misconduct (like Ephesus II), then other means like breaking communion and calling general synods could probably be used to try and ensure a fair outcome.

 

[Peter_J]

                          in a neighboring province and the option to send legates to work  with the bishops of the neighboring province to ensure a fair trial.

Mardukm and Cavaradossi,

I sorry but I just don’t see the distinction between you what each of you, respectively, are saying. Are you saying that, if he has the “option” to do something, that doesn’t mean that it is “his judgement” to do it or not?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not stupid, but clearly glossing over things to support your preconceived position.

For example:

To “ASK?” Like I said, do you know what the word “JUDGE” means? The canon says that it is HIS JUDGEMENT whether a new trial should take place. You make it seem like he asks nicely and the bishops have an option to deny a new trial.

An “OPTION?” The Canon says it is HIS JUDGEMENT, AS HE SEES FIT, to send legates or to decide if the local judges are sufficient.



Yes, “DEMAND.” Thank you.

Yes, it is the most practical and expedient consideration. I don’t know what relevance of “utmost importance” you attach to it. Prior to Sardica, the bishop of Rome judged matters in a Roman Synod and sent his judgment out accordingly. That’s what happened, for example, with the Easter controversy, Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria and Pope St. Athanasius. So contrary to your assertion in another thread, there is ample precedence for the bishop of Rome to judge a matter in his home Synod. The case of Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria is noteworthy because it was not him who presented his own case to the Pope, but other clerics.

Blessings,
Marduk

This again. Not only did Ignatius not submit an appeal, he even stated that he did not wish for an appeal to be sent. You are really thinking no differently from ultramontanists on this point of history. The rest of your post consists of you nitpicking over words. I think you should read the scripture quoted in your signature line several times.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Mardukm and Cavaradossi,

I sorry but I just don’t see the distinction between you what each of you, respectively, are saying. Are you saying that, if he has the “option” to do something, that doesn’t mean that it is “his judgement” to do it or not?

I don’t either. I think Marduk is needlessly nitpicking here. If he would like to, he may send legates. That sounds like an option to me.

 

[Peter_J]

Likely to ensure that the trial was run fairly. I find it curious that they would suggest sending presbyters. Perhaps this has to do with the early ambiguity between presbyter and episcopi, although I think that by the time of sardica the two terms would have been clearly delineated. Regardless, it seems to have been common practice for both priests and bishops to be sent.

It is interesting to note the function of the legates throughout history, such as at the council of Constantinople 879-880, who essentially helped edit all of pope John’s letters to the council, because they contained some information in them which was not factual (many rumors were flying around in the West about Photius). Go back four hundred and thirty years to the robber synod of Ephesus, and you will see that curiously, the legates’ disapproval did not automatically annul the council (otherwise appeals against the council’s judgments would not have been made to Rome). Similarly, if we examine the acts of Chalcedon, it is clear that the senate is moderating and controlling the flow of the council, not the legates.

I think then we can say the legates really just were the eyes and ears of the pope. If they ran back telling horror spirits of gross misconduct (like Ephesus II), then other means like exbreaking communion and calling general synods could probably be used to try and ensure a fair outcome.

Yes, that seems reasonable. Thanks.

 

[Ghosty]

But wasn’t that the case in the early church? They leaders of each of the major churches (including Rome) was a Patriarch.

Until recently the Pope also used the title Patriarch of the West. The sudden discontinuance of the usage of this title caused great surprise and disbelief in the Orthodox world.

Actually, the Pope didn’t even use the title “Patriarch of the West” until relatively recently (late 1800s, IIRC). It was not a traditional title for the Pope in the West, though it had occasionally been used prior to its official adoption at the end of the 19th century. The irony is that the dropping of the title was viewed as an abandonment of a traditional role in favor of Papal Supremacy, but the title itself wasn’t used by the Latin Church officially until after Vatican I.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Actually, the Pope didn’t even use the title “Patriarch of the West” until relatively recently (late 1800s, IIRC). It was not a traditional title for the Pope in the West, though it had occasionally been used prior to its official adoption at the end of the 19th century. The irony is that the dropping of the title was viewed as an abandonment of a traditional role in favor of Papal Supremacy, but the title itself wasn’t used by the Latin Church officially until after Vatican I.

Yes, but then why all the fuss?

At any rate, if you take the Orthodox path back to first millenium, the reference to Patriarchiates (specifically, the Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) is fairly evident, reasonably well-defined and seemingly generally accepted. At some point, the Church of Rome functioned more like a Patriarchiate than perhaps it does today. Pehaps I attempted to make a point using a poor reference.

Good to see you active on CAF again! Haven’t seen you in a while …