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

[Hesychios]

Ever see the following quote? See any similarities?

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that ]tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles…

That’s from Irenaeus year ~180 a.d.

It is predictable that Roman Catholic apologists do not quote Saint Ireneaus in full.

In book 3 chapter II he does say this …

[in referring to heretics he lists, mostly gnostics] we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches

Churches, not church.
Then in chapter three he says this …

… if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest [a gnostic claim], they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves …

And then …

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches … He could have recounted the succession of many churches, perhaps dozens in his day, if he had the means, the time, or if it was practical. But he didn’t, he had to cut back.

Then he goes on to describe two churches! Rome and the church of Asia.

But Roman Catholic apologists only report what he said about Rome, just like you did.

…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority …

Which the Orthodox do to this day.

Orthodox are in full agreement with what the church of Rome believed in 180AD because it was what all Orthodox Christians believed and that was as correct then as it is now. Rome was a great church, it was a touchstone, a well known measure against which the gnostics of his day could compare their own beliefs!

Sadly, Rome no longer shares this faith, Rome is no longer Orthodox.

… that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere

The faith does not come through the church at Rome to the faithful everywhere, they have (as Saint Irenaeus points out) had it from the beginning in their own Apostolic origins.

The proper role of an Orthodox Catholic bishop is to preserve and conserve the faith, passing it along to the next generation unadulterated. Nothing less and nothing more than what is received from the Apostles. This is the true role of the Magisterium of bishops, and in the second century Rome was not a church of novelties but a forthright vehicle of the Apostolic Truth.

Bishop Irenaeus was a saint, but he was no prophet and he was not infallible. He was writing against the heresies of his day to the people of his day, and in his day Rome believed what Orthodox teach. He could not have known that the church at Rome would have changed it’s own teachings over the next 18 centuries.

And if it had not changed it’s teaching? Rome would be Orthodox still, but there is no warrant here for Rome to control the other churches of Christianity, nor to change their faith for them. You are making a common mistake by using Saint Irenaeus to try and support Papal Universal Jurisdiction, when the quote does not address jurisdiction but theology.

 

[Hesychios]

Ever see the following quote? See any similarities?

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that ]tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles…

That’s from Irenaeus year ~180 a.d.

It is predictable that Roman Catholic apologists do not quote Saint Ireneaus in full.

In book 3 chapter II he does say this …

[in referring to heretics he lists, mostly gnostics] we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches

Churches, not church.
Then in chapter three he says this …

… if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest [a gnostic claim], they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves …

And then …

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches …
He could have recounted the succession of many churches, perhaps dozens in his day, if he had the means, the time, or if it was practical. But he didn’t, he had to cut back.

Then he goes on to describe two churches! Rome and the church of Asia.

But Roman Catholic apologists only report what he said about Rome, just like you did.

…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority …

Which the Orthodox do to this day.

Orthodox are in full agreement with what the church of Rome believed in 180AD because it was what all Orthodox Christians believed and that was as correct then as it is now. Rome was a great church, it was a touchstone, a well known measure against which the gnostics of his day could compare their own beliefs!

Sadly, Rome no longer shares this faith, Rome is no longer Orthodox.

… that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere

The faith does not come through the church at Rome to the faithful everywhere, they have (as Saint Irenaeus points out) had it from the beginning in their own Apostolic origins.

The proper role of an Orthodox Catholic bishop is to preserve and conserve the faith, passing it along to the next generation unadulterated. Nothing less and nothing more than what is received from the Apostles. This is the true role of the Magisterium of bishops, and in the second century Rome was not a church of novelties but a forthright vehicle of the Apostolic Truth.

Bishop Irenaeus was a saint, but he was no prophet and he was not infallible. He was writing against the heresies of his day to the people of his day, and in his day Rome believed what Orthodox teach. He could not have known that the church at Rome would have changed it’s own teachings over the next 18 centuries.

And if it had not changed it’s teaching? Rome would be Orthodox still, but there is no warrant here for Rome to control the other churches of Christianity, nor to change their faith for them. You are making a common mistake by using Saint Irenaeus to try and support Papal Universal Jurisdiction, when the quote does not address jurisdiction but theology.

 

[Peter_J]

Another consideration is:

That’s from a 1997 letter, signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (along with Card. Silvestrini, Card. Cassidy) in response to the Melkite Iniative.

Around the same time, the Antiochian Orthodox Church issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

byzcath.org/faith/documents/melkite_initiative_2.htm

Clearly, both sides believe that unity of faith needs to be achieved first.

To add something on a positive note …

Joint Melkite-Orthodox parish?

 

[Peter_J]

It is predictable that Roman Catholic apologists do not quote Saint Ireneaus in full.

In book 3 chapter II he does say this …

[in referring to heretics he lists, mostly gnostics] we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches

Churches, not church.
Then in chapter three he says this …

… if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest [a gnostic claim], they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves …

And then …

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches …
He could have recounted the succession of many churches, perhaps dozens in his day, if he had the means, the time, or if it was practical. But he didn’t, he had to cut back.

Then he goes on to describe two churches! Rome and the church of Asia.

But Roman Catholic apologists only report what he said about Rome, just like you did.

Which the Orthodox do to this day.

Orthodox are in full agreement with what the church of Rome believed in 180AD because it was what all Orthodox Christians believed and that was as correct then as it is now. Rome was a great church, it was a touchstone, a well known measure against which the gnostics of his day could compare their own beliefs!

Sadly, Rome no longer shares this faith, Rome is no longer Orthodox.

The faith does not come through the church at Rome to the faithful everywhere, they have (as Saint Irenaeus points out) had it from the beginning in their own Apostolic origins.

The proper role of an Orthodox Catholic bishop is to preserve and conserve the faith, passing it along to the next generation unadulterated. Nothing less and nothing more than what is received from the Apostles. This is the true role of the Magisterium of bishops, and in the second century Rome was not a church of novelties but a forthright vehicle of the Apostolic Truth.

Bishop Irenaeus was a saint, but he was no prophet and he was not infallible. He was writing against the heresies of his day to the people of his day, and in his day Rome believed what Orthodox teach. He could not have known that the church at Rome would have changed it’s own teachings over the next 18 centuries.

And if it had not changed it’s teaching? Rome would be Orthodox still, but there is no warrant here for Rome to control the other churches of Christianity, nor to change their faith for them. You are making a common mistake by using Saint Irenaeus to try and support Papal Universal Jurisdiction, when the quote does not address jurisdiction but theology.

I’m not too familiar with the writings in question, but I found this online:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
(Please correct me if that isn’t the writings in question.)

 

[Peter_J]

To add something on a positive note …

Joint Melkite-Orthodox parish?

Here’s a good summary of that situation:
Fr Aaron Warwick:

I received the following e-mail from the Patriarchate of Antioch. Thought it might be of interest to all of you, so I have copied it in below:

The Patriarchal Vicar, H.G. Bishop Ghattas Hazim, addressed to the beloved
faithful the following clarification, concerning the Church of St. Peter and
St. Paul, newly inaugurated at Dummar suburb, Damascus.

? To our beloved children,
In order to make appropriate clarification and to avoid any ambiguity concerning
the Church of Dummar, we would like to respond to some questions raised:
The Church of Dummar has been built and its Hall coated from generous donation
by Mr. Habib Beitinjaneh.
The expenses and costs of remaining building works and soil preparation, were
equally paid by both Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches. Consequently
each Church is proprietor in half of the new church.
As for liturgical services, they are held at different separate timings
according to the convenience of each parish, and a Divine Liturgy is celebrated
for the Orthodox, another Divine Liturgy is celebrated for the Catholics. The
priest of each parish is responsible for the pastoral affairs of his own flock
without combination or confusion.
Finally, there is for either the church or the hall administration its own
committee including members from both churches, within which each church is
nominating its own members. Those committees are supervising the management of
the church, its hall and its annexes according to a protocol agreement signed
between the two churches.

Deacon Tawfeek Al_Haddad
information office

• copied from here

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

It is predictable that Roman Catholic apologists do not quote Saint Ireneaus in full.

In book 3 chapter II he does say this …

[in referring to heretics he lists, mostly gnostics] we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches
…

But Roman Catholic apologists only report what he said about Rome, just like you did.

Very well said!

Which the Orthodox do to this day.

I think there are many Orthodox today (even bishops) who do look to the Roman Pope as a gauge of moral and doctrinal matters even though they are not in communion with him. But I think most don’t.

Orthodox are in full agreement with what the church of Rome believed in 180AD because it was what all Orthodox Christians believed and that was as correct then as it is now. Rome was a great church, it was a touchstone, a well known measure against which the gnostics of his day could compare their own beliefs!

And until the 9th century, right? Why did it change? Because someone who did not even understand Latin thought filioque was heretical?

Sadly, Rome no longer shares this faith, Rome is no longer Orthodox.

Disagreed. Has any Ecumenical Council made this decision? Are your own local Councils so universally authoritative? Is it not hypocritical to claim that the Catholic Church can’t presume its Councils to have universal authority, yet for Eastern Orthodox to go around making this claim as if any Ecum Cncl actually made it? Is there room for more understanding between the Churches in your pov? If so, how can you make this statement w/o qualification?

The faith does not come through the church at Rome to the faithful everywhere, they have (as Saint Irenaeus points out) had it from the beginning in their own Apostolic origins. The proper role of an Orthodox Catholic bishop is to preserve and conserve the faith, passing it along to the next generation unadulterated. Nothing less and nothing more than what is received from the Apostles.

Definitely agreed.

This is the true role of the Magisterium of bishops, and in the second century Rome was not a church of novelties but a forthright vehicle of the Apostolic Truth.

A role she has preserved to this day.

Bishop Irenaeus was a saint, but he was no prophet and he was not infallible. He was writing against the heresies of his day to the people of his day, and in his day Rome believed what Orthodox teach. He could not have known that the church at Rome would have changed it’s own teachings over the next 18 centuries.

Given all the misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith that you read from non-Catholics, I’m sure you believe that.

And if it had not changed it’s teaching? Rome would be Orthodox still, but there is no warrant here for Rome to control the other churches of Christianity, nor to change their faith for them.

That’s a very poor and polemical understanding of the papacy. As a great Archbishop once wrote, very few hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but what they THINK she is.

You are making a common mistake by using Saint Irenaeus to try and support Papal Universal Jurisdiction, when the quote does not address jurisdiction but theology.

Actually, the V1 Fathers debated this matter, and concluded that the quote from St. Irenaeus did NOT belong to the section on Infallibility, but on the Primacy. It is the fact that St. Irenaeus taught that EVERYONE should give heed to the Roman See which has its relevance for the matter of the Primacy. You can opine all you want that Rome is not orthodox, but at the end of the day, the fact that many Orthodox at the highest levels cannot admit such a universal role in the Church today indicates that in this regard, it is the view of such Orthodox that is not patristic and had changed “over the next 18 centuries.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

This is what the Roman Catholic church says of itself:

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.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Since this is not is not apostolic and not historical, the Orthodox consider it a heresy to teach as a dogma. It is not a divine ordinance, it is historical revisionism that the Orthodox reject.

But it is a fundamental element of the Roman Catholic church ecclesiology. It is a claim that the Papacy has an intrinsic authority which should extend over the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic churches which was never true.

It is well known that these notions of Papal universal jurisdiction are a development, not present and not functioning in the early church and it is also well known that some of the early support for Papal authority was forged (these forgeries did influence others who had no idea of it). Part of the reason for these things was an attempt by western clergy to counter-balance the negative influence of western monarchs and nobility on the governing of church affairs.
It is not apostolic, it was not that way from the beginning, so no. If someone was to claim that all churches should be under the patriarch of Jerusalem (for example) it would be just as unsupportable and wrong.

Also from Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870):

1. 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.”
2. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

 

[Nine_Two]

. You can opine all you want that Rome is not orthodox, but at the end of the day, the fact that many Orthodox at the highest levels cannot admit such a universal role in the Church today indicates that in this regard, it is the view of such Orthodox that is not patristic and had changed “over the next 18 centuries.”

Hold on, it sounds like your argument here is that because the Orthodox do not hold the Roman view on Universal Juristiction, they must be wrong?

That’s not an argument.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Hold on, it sounds like your argument here is that because the Orthodox do not hold the Roman view on Universal Juristiction, they must be wrong?

That’s not an argument.

(1) Depends on what you mean by “jurisdiction.” Do you think jurisdiction is about control or about service to the Church?

(2) Depends on what you mean by “Universal jurisdiction.” Do you mean the Absolutist Petrine or High Petrine understanding of universal jurisdiction?

(3) Yes, I believe that Orthodox who claim that there can be no such thing as a head bishop with universal jurisdiction is unpatristic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Forgive me if I say that I’ve heard all this before.

Is it not hypocritical to claim that the Catholic Church can’t presume its Councils to have universal authority, yet for Eastern Orthodox to go around making this claim as if any Ecum Cncl actually made it?

 

[Peter_J]

Also from Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870):

1. 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.”
2. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

Good quotes. I think that is very much where Catholicism is today, too – although now it tends to be worded in a more “ecumenical” fashion.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Vico,
I have two comments on this …

Also from Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870):

1. 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.”

One can say that the bishops have power in their own right as bishops of the church, and I agree that is as it should be.

However, the Pope appoints or otherwise approves the appointment of bishops, and he co-rules every diocese with the exception of Rome itself under the Latin code.

So the bishop of Rome not only co-rules every other diocese, he is also his co-workers boss, with the power to hire, transfer and (if he deems it necessary) to fire the brother bishop on his own singular authority. 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. The brother bishop may not like it, but he will always yield to his boss, the man who hired him.

According to the ancient ecclesiology. It simply was not done, every bishop kept to his own parish and they dealt as a synod together in such matters as the selection of new bishops and the removal of others. The turn of phrase “asserted, supported and defended” has a ring to it something like ‘selling protection’ in other contexts. Metropolitans are not seen as co-rulers in the church anywhere, there are no examples of this in the historical record.

I realize that many people will think “it just is not like that for Eastern Catholics”, and of course they are right. The Eastern Code however is promulgated entirely on the authority of the bishop of Rome (I did read where some Eastern Catholic hierarchs wanted to be recognized as co-promulgators of the code, and Pope John Paul II rejected this suggestion, apparently not wishing to set any precedents).

Theoretically, the prerogatives of Eastern Catholic hierarchs are delegated to them by the bishop of Rome, and it is for this reason that the See at Rome has even felt comfortable in circumscribing their range of authority, even to the point of naming bishops for Eastern Catholics in areas Rome alone has determined are beyond the bounds of an Eastern Catholic synod’s ‘territory’.

Rome not only creates the code of Canon law for the Eastern Churches, but (please correct me if I err here) approves the final drafts of the particular law. Rome also appoves the text and rubrics of the official versions of each recognized liturgical recension.

1. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

This is interesting for two reasons.

The wording is curious. All bishops should have the right to communicate freely with all other bishops, and in general I would think that they have this.

But this particular declaration is in place because the Pope’s were sometimes told that they could not interfere in matters within local synods (in this case at that point in time I believe it was France as the big problem).

But the problem was not that bishops could not communicate with the bishop of Rome (or even that the bishop of Rome could not communicate with the French bishops), the problem was that the bishop of Rome was not happy that it could not intervene uninvited.

Orthodox would say that the bishop of Rome could only be involved on invitation, so there is a direct contradiction on this point.

 

[Vico]

Hesychios,

By co-rule, I understand that you mean that the Roman Pontiff can intervene in the operation of a bishops jurisdiction, including making church laws. I think Canon 46 is encapsulates what you wrote regarding the making of law.

As you have stated, bishops can all speak up, as they are in communion, so all bishops co-rule, but, for example, an eastern patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.

Also in CCEO we see that the bishops have proper, ordinary and immediate power, and that of the Roman Pontiff strengthens and safeguards it with his particular universal ordinary power. In his teaching authority he safeguards the faith, expressed through canons 598 and 1436.

He has a power to determine the manner of exercising his munus, to sentence, and to decree.

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46

1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 54

1. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated at his order.
2. When the college of bishops takes collegial action in another manner, initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, in order for its decrees to have binding force, they need this same confirmation and promulgation.

Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.
2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

We also see in the canon law, regarding acceptance of authoritative teachings:

      **Canon 598**

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

      § 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the       Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be       firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy       keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone       who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself       against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436

§ 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

      § 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a       teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the       authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who       affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after       having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate       penalty.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

(1) Depends on what you mean by “jurisdiction.” Do you think jurisdiction is about control or about service to the Church?

(2) Depends on what you mean by “Universal jurisdiction.” Do you mean the Absolutist Petrine or High Petrine understanding of universal jurisdiction?

(3) Yes, I believe that Orthodox who claim that there can be no such thing as a head bishop with universal jurisdiction is unpatristic.

Blessings,
Marduk

Believe it all you want, it still isn’t an argument to say that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

(1) Depends on what you mean by “jurisdiction.” Do you think jurisdiction is about control or about service to the Church?

(2) Depends on what you mean by “Universal jurisdiction.” Do you mean the Absolutist Petrine or High Petrine understanding of universal jurisdiction?

(3) Yes, I believe that Orthodox who claim that there can be no such thing as a head bishop with universal jurisdiction is unpatristic.

Blessings,
Marduk

thetablet.co.uk/article/6636

here is a scholarly source to support the claim to the contrary. Your turn.

 

[Peter_J]

So the bishop of Rome not only co-rules every other diocese, he is also his co-workers boss, with the power to hire, transfer and (if he deems it necessary) to fire the brother bishop on his own singular authority. 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.

True, but I don’t think any of that is surprising in view of the ecclesiology expressed by, e.g., the Vatican I passages that have been quoted here.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

True, but I don’t think any of that is surprising in view of the ecclesiology expressed by, e.g., the Vatican I passages that have been quoted here.

I agree.

My point would be that it was not always that way, but it is now.

 

[Hesychios]

I feel that it’s good that potential converts are getting this information before they become Catholic. How terrible would it be for them to convert due to a flawed understanding of the papacy? Is it not ultimately better that they discover where Catholic teaching lies before they make their final decision?

I think there are two problems here, maybe three.

One is that many Roman Catholics do not understand Catholic teaching. That’s almost a given and hardly needs mentioning …

Another problem is that other Catholics (a small group) also do not understand Catholic teaching, but blame a third group for misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

It is the third group that really does understand Catholic teaching and makes converts on these teachings, and most Orthodox understand it too but Orthodox do not agree that it should be like that. Orthodox think that some of what the Roman Catholic church actually teaches is false.

So the third group and the Orthodox agree about what the Roman Catholic church teaches, but do not agree that it should be taught that way. The second (small) group mentioned ‘muddies the water’ so to say by pretending that the church does not actually teach what it actually teaches.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think it’s true to say that most Orthodox understand Catholicism. At best, I would say that most Orthodox know enough about Catholicism to know that they don’t want any part of it. (From their point of view, they already have the fullness of faith, and therefore have no reason to convert to anything else.)

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,
*

True, but I don’t think any of that is surprising in view of the ecclesiology expressed by, e.g., the Vatican I passages that have been quoted here.

Well, as the Antiochian Orthodox Church aptly put it, the discussion of unity between Rome and Orthodoxy is still in its primitive stage.