Catholic vs. Orthodox who's right, who was first and why?

[Hesychios]

Even under the expanded power of the papacy today, it does not claim nor practice “complete administrative control.”

**9. 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 **

 

[Eucharisted]

DOCUMENTS FROM

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA

[THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL]

A.D. 325

CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

Source: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

 

[Arandur]

It does not follow.

Maybe I need to outline the logic for you in more depth. Actually, Eucharisted’s Nicene Council quote does it quite well. Archbishops are set over bishops to lead and guide them. Patriarchs (your “autocephalus” Sees) are set over all other bishops to lead and guide them. They have jurisdiction over those bishops, so as to keep the Church in order, in Unity of faith and practice, because a diversity of bishops acting of their own accord, even to the best of their ability under the Lord, does not make for a united Church. Thus is seen the good of Archbishops and Patriarchs. But if Archbishops and Patriarchs are seen as good for these purposes, so too must this logic be followed to its consequent end: the Patriarchs must ultimately subordinate to a singular Patriarch. Nicea, well within the time of Orthodoxy–well before the Schism–saw that. Now you can dispute the exact powers or proper exercise of those powers, but not that they must exist.

But Rome did fall.

For 1000 years solid running now, with no hint of a forthcoming correction.
Whatever you mean by intact cannot mean what I think you mean.

So you say. On what basis that is not circular do you claim it was not the Orthodoxy that fell?

By “intact” and “fall” I mean hold continuity of power and lineage in place, not overcome by another religion. Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople all fell–to Muslims no less.

Rome has been split before and presided over the greatest disaster in Christian history: the reformation of the sixteenth century. This horrible event was in large part precipitated by the “bad management” practices of the central office. It’s scandalous decision-making ultimately cost millions of innocent souls who were led astray. “better a millstone…”

In addition much of the fragmentation of the eastern churches was actually a result of western meddling. This is part of the historical record.

I’d like to see those histories. Seems to me there’s plenty of squabbling among the Eastern churches that needs no excuse to the West. Seems to me, also, that the conquest of Islam over the East was a greater disaster even than the Reformation. And indeed, blaming Rome for the damage heretics do seems something the Orthodoxy is not guiltless of. For one, most of the great early heresies happened more in Eastern territory than in Western, and among or near the other Sees. Monophysitism, Montanism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. Were not these at least as great in the East as in the West? I would note that Rome had an exceedingly great part in defeating those heresies, as well, even if (as in the case of Arianism) it took many centuries. Therefore I would not use the Reformation as any sort of argument or evidence if I were you.

1. 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

Where is that from?
Of course the arbiter, the chair of the Patriarchs, holds such powers, else he could not be the final appellate here on earth. I will agree that sometimes these powers are abused or used when they need not be, but often they are limited. You seem to ingore the point I made about the independence of the bishops even under the Latin Rite, independence which is far greater still among those who choose to remain within non-Latin Rites, as includes those of Orthodox heritage who remain or who have returned to communion with the Petrine line.

 

[NoWings]

Exactly! I agree. Primus inter pares, the way it was. But it’s going to take a while for everyone to know their place on the team. There’s going to be another meeting of Orthodox and Catholic delegates in a few weeks in Cyprus, I believe. We’ll see what comes from that.

In Christ,
Andrew

Probably the same thing that occurs every other time. Practically nothing.

If I remember correctly, the Romanians aren’t even attending.

 

[VARC]

DOCUMENTS FROM

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA

[THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL]

A.D. 325

CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

Source: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

You are the perfect example of what we were talking about before. You are a Roman Catholic that doesn’t even bother to intelligently research the quotes he cites before he cuts and pastes as proof for the RC position. If you would have bothered to even read the site that you linked you would have read…

The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only
these twenty canons of Nicaea. We have proof of this in the celebrated
Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St.
Isidore(it was composed at the commencement of the seventh
century), and in that of Adrian(so called because it was offered to
Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar,
Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his
turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicaea, and even
the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.

.

In other words, what you have posted as proof for your position is a forgery! I hate it when RCs cite the Fathers and the Councils because they are often times not searching for truth but validation of their beliefs by omitting quotes that don’t sync with their beliefs. But I have never seen a RC post a forged canon without even bothering to verify its authenticity.

Eucharisted, you have absolutely NO credibility.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hey y’all.

I’ve heard a lot of different views and statements from both sides seem to hold to certain truths so I thought I’d ask the question.

Catholic vs. Orthodox.

Who is right, who was first and why do you say so?

Thanks!

Wrong question entirely. That it’s even asked, means they both need to be disciplined - St. Paul has condemned their ungodly rivalry in advance, for they say “I am of Rome”, “I am of Constantinople”. They are equal in badness. When children squabble in the playground, they are left to to their silliness: how are these two Churches any different (apart from having legions of hangers-on, and much snazzier clothes) ?​

 

[Arandur]

You are the perfect example of what we were talking about before. You are a Roman Catholic that doesn’t even bother to intelligently research the quotes he cites before he cuts and pastes as proof for the RC position. If you would have bothered to even read the site that you linked you would have read…

The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only
these twenty canons of Nicaea. We have proof of this in the celebrated
Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St.
Isidore(it was composed at the commencement of the seventh
century), and in that of Adrian(so called because it was offered to
Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar,
Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his
turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicaea, and even
the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.

.

In other words, what you have posted as proof for your position is a forgery! I hate it when RCs cite the Fathers and the Councils because they are often times not searching for truth but validation of their beliefs by omitting quotes that don’t sync with their beliefs. But I have never seen a RC post a forged canon without even bothering to verify its authenticity.

Eucharisted, you have absolutely NO credibility.

Wait a minute, where’s the smoking gun? I skimmed it and didn’t see one. Are you referring to the 80 posted canons (which seem to be summaries, not the full descriptions), and then saying that other sources cite only 20?

The questions that must be asked, then, are: Which 20? Where did the 80 come from? Were 60 of those 80 denied, explictly (and if so, why–reasons may not be outright and absolute rejection)? Were some of those 80 combined in the 20 some of the references cite (but which we don’t seem to have text for in this article)?

Also, the article earlier on seems to discuss to varying degrees the origin of the patriarchates, in particular that of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. It seems to include Ephesus as a patriarchate. It seems also to recognize both a dispute among some scholars about the extent of authority of the Bishop of Rome outside his See, and also to cite various other mentions of Petrine primacy in one form or another.

I currently don’t have time to read that whole link in detail. If you think there’s a smoking gun that claims something contrary to Petrine primacy, please zero in on it and explain it for me.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

arandur:

Even under the expanded power of the papacy today, it does not claim nor practice “complete administrative control.”

9. 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

Brother Arandur is correct. Despite your quote from V1, it still does not necessitate “complete administrative control.” The fact is, this “fullness of supreme power” is a potential power, not a continuously active power. The papal prerogatives are always exercised extraordinarily, that is, only when the need arises. That is not a merely practical limit, but is actually inherent in the theological definition, as the several prior paragraphs explaining the matter being defined indicate. In other words, the decree itself (taken in context) asserts that the exercise of this supreme authority is bounded and limited by Sacred Tradition and the inherent authority each bishop has in his own diocese. You can’t take little snippets of the decree and create a monstrous and false caricature of the teaching.

That the Pope has never actually micromanaged the Church should be proof enough of how the papacy actually operates within the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wrong question entirely. That it’s even asked, means they both need to be disciplined - St. Paul has condemned their ungodly rivalry in advance, for they say “I am of Rome”, “I am of Constantinople”. They are equal in badness. When children squabble in the playground, they are left to to their silliness: how are these two Churches any different (apart from having legions of hangers-on, and much snazzier clothes) ?​

Very well put.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Arandur,

Wait a minute, where’s the smoking gun? I skimmed it and didn’t see one. Are you referring to the 80 posted canons (which seem to be summaries, not the full descriptions), and then saying that other sources cite only 20?

The questions that must be asked, then, are: Which 20? Where did the 80 come from? Were 60 of those 80 denied, explictly (and if so, why–reasons may not be outright and absolute rejection)? Were some of those 80 combined in the 20 some of the references cite (but which we don’t seem to have text for in this article)?

On the one hand, it is true that Nice only had 20 canons, and the one quoted by brother Eucharisted is not one of them. IIRC, the most ancient Latin collections also only have 20 in number.

On the other hand, scholars agree that the 80 are still relatively ancient, perhaps originating in the 6th century at the earliest.

I think it’s telling that the 80 are known as the “Arabic Canons” (due to the fact that the originals come from arabic sources). Interestingly, Christianity in the Middle East has always had a high Petrine view of ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk, my friend,

Dear brother Hesychios,

-]Brother Arandur is correct./-] Despite your quote from V1, it still does not necessitate “complete administrative control.” The fact is, this “fullness of supreme power” is a potential power, not a continuously active power.

Only because a human institution cannot possibly do what the Papacy claims for itself.

Yet, the Pope has full ordinary jurisdiction, which means he not only hires and supervises the other bishops, but co-rules every diocese.

You can’t take little snippets of the decree and create a monstrous and false caricature of the teaching.

You call this:

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

… a little snippet?

It s the summary the Fathers of the Council gave us, for their dogma of Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Roma over the entire church. :sad_yes:

That the Pope has never actually micromanaged the Church should be proof enough of how the papacy actually operates within the Catholic Church.

Rather, it is proof enough that the claims the Papacy makes for itself are overblown and unrealistic.

Clearly this could not be the intention of Christ Our Lord.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Hi Marduk, my friend, Only because a human institution cannot possibly do what the Papacy claims for itself.

Or maybe what the Papacy claims for itself is really not what you think it is.

Yet, the Pope has full ordinary jurisdiction, which means he not only hires and supervises the other bishops, but co-rules every diocese.

If you want to look at it that way, then there are actually four co-rulers in any one diocese - the proper ordinary, his Metropolitan, his Patriarch, and the Pope. The idea of “ruling” a diocese is an invention of the fourth century Church. A bishop of any grade is a servant, not a ruler. It’s a matter of care and solicitude, not ruling over others. Try to look at it from that perspective, not a juridical one - otherwise, your viewpoint would be just as guilty of the legalism it claims to reject.

In any case, the proper “ruler” of any diocese in all matters is the local ordinary. Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes only have an extraordinary role in the administration of local dioceses under their care. Their sphere of influence is regarded as “ordinary” only in the sense that such influence (or “power”) naturally exists in their office, not that they ordinarily intervene in those local sees.

You call this:
… a little snippet?

It s the summary the Fathers of the Council gave us, for their dogma of Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Roma over the entire church.

If you think to use it bereft of the context of the entire decree, it is indeed a little snippet. Wrenched out of the context of the rest of the decree, exaggerations of its intent, such as you have proposed, inevitably ensues. For this very reason, you think that the canon permits the Pope to regularly and ordinarily override the authority of a local bishop in his own diocese. But, if you read the whole decree, you will find that to be a false interpretation.

Rather, it is proof enough that the claims the Papacy makes for itself are overblown and unrealistic.

As stated, or perhaps your understanding is what is overblown and unrealistic.

Clearly this could not be the intention of Christ Our Lord.

Christ himself stated he would set ONE servant over his household to feed it (Matthew 24). We know who this was (John 21). By the principle of apostolic succession, we know this office still exists (aside from the fact that in Matthew 24, he also predicts this office will still exist when He returns). Far be it from me (or you) to gainsay the “intention of Christ our Lord.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Arandur]

Only because a human institution cannot possibly do what the Papacy claims for itself.

If you accept any bishop having any kind of authority over another bishop (Metropolitans and Patriarchs), then this statement does not follow. If Metropolitans and Patriarchs can “do what they claim” over other bishops, then by what reasoning do you deny such ability to a bishop similarly set as last appeal over the Patriarchs?

Also, we are not talking about a mere “human institution.” The Church is very clearly a Divine Institution. No bishop “rules” without ordination; not even a priest takes or uses any spiritual authority whatsoever that comes from them. It all derives from the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Without Him, there is no power and authority. All of the ordained in all of their positions have special gifts, delegations from Jesus Himself to exercise such powers as are necessary for those positions. What else does it mean that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose, and in particular the Keys of His Kingdom to Peter?

 

[Arandur]

Wrong question entirely. That it’s even asked, means they both need to be disciplined - St. Paul has condemned their ungodly rivalry in advance, for they say “I am of Rome”, “I am of Constantinople”. They are equal in badness. When children squabble in the playground, they are left to to their silliness: how are these two Churches any different (apart from having legions of hangers-on, and much snazzier clothes) ?​

That’s not what Paul meant. Paul referred to people following particular people, citing those people and their teachings as who they were disciples of. The more accurate example to whom Paul’s words apply are: Arians, Nestorians, Montanists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Smithians (Mormons et al) etc.

The difference between what Paul was referring to and the Catholic and Orthodox is that we are not tied to any initiator other than Christ; all of our doctrines and teachings are derived from Him through the Apostles and apostolic succession.

What we’re arguing about here, instead, are details of administration, organization, and discipline. Paul would not have said that people in a given community are not under their bishop; in fact he said the contrary. Similarly, the Catholic/Orthodox controversy is about organization under bishops.

 

[josie_L]

St. Ignatius of Antioch explains the Orthodox view of ecclesiology quite well.

In Christ,
Andrew

I took this very apt article to define what I wished to say:

“Some Orthodox ecclesiologists invoke one sentence from the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This, they say, means that the fullness of the Church is found in each local church. No local church can exercise authority over any other local church.”

“This Orthodox axiom consistently was contradicted by events in early Church history. About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay “in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community.” Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.”

“Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action “that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God.” He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is “no small sin.” He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.”

"In what one author has called “the epiphany of the Roman primacy,” Clement commands the schismatics to be “obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit.” He warns them, “But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

“Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.”

**“Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized”. **

“No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.”

“Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0905fea6.asp

 

[Hesychios]

If you want to look at it that way, then there are actually four co-rulers in any one diocese - the proper ordinary, his Metropolitan, his Patriarch, and the Pope.

Actually no.

Metropolitans and Patriarchs are not co-rulers of any dioceses. They either rule a diocese, or they do not.

The ordinary rules the diocese. That is the way I look at it.

 

[Hesychios]

If you think to use it bereft of the context of the entire decree, it is indeed a little snippet. Wrenched out of the context of the rest of the decree, exaggerations of its intent, such as you have proposed, inevitably ensues. For this very reason, you think that the canon permits the Pope to regularly and ordinarily override the authority of a local bishop in his own diocese. But, if you read the whole decree, you will find that to be a false interpretation.

**Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

1. 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.
2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
3. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
4. 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.” [51]
5. 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.
6. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
7. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
8. 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.**

 

[Arandur]

What else does “binding and loosing” mean other than full authority? The bishops have one power of it; the Metropolitan another level; the Patriarchs another; and the successor of Peter another.

Where’s your smoking gun?

Did you miss this part of your quote? :

"5. 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.” [51]"

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Actually no.

Metropolitans and Patriarchs are not co-rulers of any dioceses. They either rule a diocese, or they do not.

The ordinary rules the diocese. That is the way I look at it.

I understand that is the way you look at it, but that is not the way the Ecumenical Councils look at it. The Ecumenical Councils asserted that Metropolitans and Patriarchs have jurisdiction over their entire, respective spheres of influence. But obviously, this jurisdiction was not meant to interfere in the regular jurisdictional administration of a local diocese by the local bishop. In the same way, the Pope’s jurisdiction extends over the entire Church, but this certainly does not mean that it is meant to interfere in the regular jurisdictional administration of local dioceses throughout the world. Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes do not normatively intervene in the administration of dioceses outside their own. Their intervention is always extraordinary, while the day-to-day administration of a local diocese always properly and regularly remains in the hands of a local bishop.

Hesychios:

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Thank you for quoting the entire Chapter. Now I ask you, after reading the entire context of the chapter which includes the following:

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.”

How in the world can you claim that the concluding canon in Chapter 3 intends to assert that the papal prerogative can violate the prerogatives of a local bishop in his local see when the decree itself asserts that the papal prerogative can’t do that?

I sense the problem is a failure to understand the ecclesiological language of the Latin Church - namely, the words “ordinary” and “immediate.” You see these words in the concluding canon, and automatically you assume that this means that the Pope can normatively and at any time intervene in the affairs of a local diocese, in the same way the local bishop does so because the local bishop’s prerogatives are also described as “ordinary” and “immediate.” But that would be an erroneous interpretation of those terms. In secular usage, these words “ordinary” and “immediate” indeed denote a regular and unimpeded exercise of some function. But in ecclesiastical usage, these words have completely different meanings. In Latinese, “ordinary” means “inherent” while “immediate” means “directly from God.” So the words have nothing to do with the use or frequency of use of a certain prerogative, but rather refers to the nature of those prerogatives in relation to the office that posseses them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

I took this very apt article to define what I wished to say:

**“The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized”. **

Like many others, the author of the article seems unaware of the completely Roman character of the city of Corinth, the original Greek inhabitants having either been put to the sword or sold into slavery after a failed uprising long before. Corinth at the time of Clement was a Roman colony. It had regular trade with Rome and subsequently regular communication with Rome. The Church in Corinth had been established by the Apostle Paul, of whom Clement had been a close companion. When the Church in Corinth was beset by internal strife they sought the advice, not of Peter’s successor, but of Paul’s because he was someone they all knew of as a close colleague of their Church’s founder, whose ruling all factions could accept. As a Church they had not been in contact with the Apostle John, his sphere of influence being Asia Minor, so it does not follow that they held Clement in higher esteem that the Apostle, simply that they went with who they knew.

John