Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[Shiranui117]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Actually, it’s not just about the honorifics, but rather about the specific honors given to those Churches. St. Ignatius states of the Church in Rome that she "presides in

Rome was certainly the first See in rank of honor, and it is indeed true that Rome was a, no, the bastion of orthodox faith for the longest time. You’ve no argument from me here.

Spain had its own primate, just as St. Cyprian was the primate of Carthage.

I see. Thank you for the information.

The Pope has never acted by himself in a canonical trial of a bishop. There’s nothing in the canons of the Catholic Church today which indicates such a thing either. I don’t know what justifies your comment. Can you point out your source? Is it possible you have taken a straw man caricature of the papacy from some non-Catholic source?

On re-reading Gabriel of 12’s response to my own, I seem to have misunderstood what he was saying, and I would like to retract my statement. My apologies, Gabriel.

I believe you are missing the point. Pope St. Cyril was a patriarch, not merely a local ordinary, and he was accepting instruction from the bishop of Rome. It is indeed common for a local bishop to exhort or accept exhortation from other local bishops - but for a patriarch to accept direction from another patriarch is a more rare and unique occurrence.

Thank you for the reminder of who St. Cyril was, and indeed, the case is unusual. However, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to state that the Pope of Rome had supremacy over Pope St. Cyril.

Were you aware that St. Photius in fact asked Pope St. Nicholas for the latter’s approval of his election? Does that not imply a right to reject it? Were you aware that the Canons of Sardica - affirmed by the Trullan Synod - recognized that the bishop of Rome could hear appeals from ANY bishop in Christendom East or West, and to thereafter hold synodal trials on the matter? If Patriarch Ignatius appealed to the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Rome deemed it right to hold a Synodal trial over the matter, and the canons recognized that the bishop of Rome had that right, how could the trial Synod held by the bishop of Rome possibly be a “robber Synod?” Please explain.

I must confess that I’ve yet more research, and thus on this matter I should probably clam up right about now. And no, I was not aware of that. I know your knowledge of church history is far more extensive of mine, so I will have to plead ignorance here.

Are you saying that the East had no fault whatsoever in the Schism?

Of course not; both sides were guilty of misunderstandings of each other. Many things were hyped up between the two, and it was tragic that the split happened the way it did. Cooler heads on both sides did not prevail, and look where we are now.

 

[Shiranui117]

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church

Full text of that:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
Leo is teaching the same as Cyril, and Cyril is teaching the faith of the Apostles. Note the comparison of Pope St. Leo to Pope St. Cyril; Leo’s Tome was being looked at to see if it was “up to snuff.” In the end, it was deemed orthodox and in line with the Faith of the Fathers, only after it was examined by the fathers of the council.

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition

(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
I see nothing about the Pope here; merely that Rome was a bastion of orthodoxy.

As for the rest, I have no comment on them, as it is largely the same as what I said in response to St. Augustine’s quote.

 

[Shiranui117]

• It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,…as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,… to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch."
  Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
  • “The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope…(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”
    Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

List of anti-popes

philvaz.com/apologetics/a13.htm

So, the Church can function without the Pope, and the Pope is not above a council.

 

[joe370]

Shiranui, thanks for the feedback. Actually though I was wondering what you thought regarding the unity of Jesus’ church and it seemingly being anchored in the office of the bishop who holds the chair of Peter?

Leo is teaching the same as Cyril, and Cyril is teaching the faith of the Apostles. Note the comparison of Pope St. Leo to Pope St. Cyril; Leo’s Tome was being looked at to see if it was “up to snuff.” In the end, it was deemed orthodox and in line with the Faith of the Fathers, only after it was examined by the fathers of the council.

Monophysitism, as you already know, was a heretical doctrine, that spread throughout the Eastern Church, and forced Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local synod to condemn it. Eutyches, the antagonist, refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I:

I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." – Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.

Flavian also appealed to Rome for a ruling, moving Pope Leo to produced his Tome, which totally condemned Monophysitism. The response to Eutyches was:

"We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

Another council called the “Robber Council” was called in which the teaching of Rome was rejected, and Monophysitism declared to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church. At this council, Flavian again wrote to Pope Leo in appeal:

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449

At this same “Robber Council” of Ephesus, several other Eastern bishops were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism. Among them, were Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum, both of whom appealed to Pope Leo:

“We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles.” – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

Pope Leo eventually succeeded in getting the emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which was attended by roughly 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church) - and Pope Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Why did he say: Peter has spoken thus through Leo? What’s the significance of referencing Peter?

 

[Shiranui117]

I must confess that I’ve yet more research, and thus on this matter I should probably clam up right about now. And no, I was not aware of that. I know your knowledge of church history is far more extensive of mine, so I will have to plead ignorance here.

After refreshing myself on several things, I would like to clarify one thing: The “robber synod” I was referring to was the 863 council held in Rome, not the 869 council held in Constantinople.

 

[Madaglan]

If it is true then it is an infallible teaching which begs the question: what harm could possibly come from an official proclamation of said truth? Of course if it was false, making it a fallible teaching, considerable harm could come from it, but like you said, you have no serious objection to Mary as Co-Redemptrix.

It’s the perception it tends to create: that it’s a matter of discussion and debate resolved and confirmed to be true by the Pope, who has special insight into the truth of the matter. Such proclamations may be seen as magnifying papal authority beyond what is healthy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Thank you for the reminder of who St. Cyril was, and indeed, the case is unusual. However, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to state that the Pope of Rome had supremacy over Pope St. Cyril.

Actually, I, as an Oriental (not an Eastern) don’t have any problem with saying that the Pope of Rome had “supremacy” over Pope St. Cyril. Please permit me to explain. The Oriental Tradition uses the word “supreme” of its head bishops rather freely. But to us, the word “surpeme” does not have the absolutist connotations that Westerns (Latins) or Easterns (Byzantines) attach to that word. To Orientals, “supreme” is always taken in a collegial context. It refers to the bishop of highest rank, honor and prerogatives, but it does not refer to a religious monarch who can exercise those prerogatives unilaterally. I guess the equivalent term for the Oriental use of the word “supremacy” among Latins and Byzantines would be “primacy.”

This primacy (or supremacy) is established by potestas (i.e., by the laws of God and the Church), but it is maintained ever and always by auctoritas (i.e., by the love and respect his fellow bishops have for their elder brother in Rome). In other words, though the bishop of Rome has a primacy by divine and ecclesiastical right, it is exercised and preserved through mutual love and respect between him and his brother bishops. Without this mutual love and respect, this primacy (or supremacy) cannot properly function (if it can even function at all).

I’ll give you an example from one of Pope St. Cyril’s letters to Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius: “We have not confidently abstained from communion with Nestorius before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who chersishes such erroneous doctrine.” You can see here that Pope St. Cyril did not feel competent by himself to act against Nestorius without the confirmation of his elder brother in Rome, Pope St. Celestine.

I would submit that brother Gabrielof12’s terse relation of the events surrounding Pope St. Cyril, Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius seems a bit one-sided (though that may only be a symptom of the nature of debate, and not intended by brother Gabriel). He does make it seem as though Pope St. Celestine is just ordering Pope St. Cyril around. The actual case is that this was a joint effort by Popes St. Cyril and Celestine. Pope St. Cyril was conceding to the primacy (or supremacy) of Pope St. Celestine, though not out of legal obligation, but out of love and respect for his elder brother. The thing on their minds was not “who is greater than whom?” but rather “how can we work together (St. Cyril with the exercise of his local primacy (or supremacy), and St. Celestine with the exercise of his universal primacy (or supremacy), for the benefit of the Church?” I believe Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Latin Catholic Church and Low Petrine advocates in the Eastern Orthodox Church are both equally stuck on the legalisms of jurisdiction, and cannot get beyond that issue to imagine how the head and body can work together as one, and always together as one, for the upbuilding of the Church.

There really is a way for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to come together on the issue of the papacy, but it will entail a rejection not only of the Absolutist Petrine excesses of many Latin Catholics, but also a rejection of the Low Petrine excesses of many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine model is the only way to go, if only for the reason that it is the most faithful to the patristic model of the Church in the first millenium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

It’s the perception it tends to create: that it’s a matter of discussion and debate resolved and confirmed to be true by the Pope, who has special insight into the truth of the matter. Such proclamations may be seen as magnifying papal authority beyond what is healthy.

Special insight? Are you not an ex-Catholic? I think you may know better then this.

 

[mardukm]

So, the Church can function without the Pope,

Disagree.

and the Pope is not above a council.

Agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

It’s the perception it tends to create: that it’s a matter of discussion and debate resolved and confirmed to be true by the Pope, who has special insight into the truth of the matter. Such proclamations may be seen as magnifying papal authority beyond what is healthy.

I understand. Of course, if the Petrine office is legit, as scripture and history suggests, to me anyway, then I do not see how this Petrine office can be guilty of magnifying papal authority beyond what is healthy, for Christ will not allow the gates of hell (powers of Satan) - to do so. But I do respect your position.

 

[Shiranui117]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Actually, I, as an Oriental (not an Eastern) don’t have any problem with saying that the Pope of Rome had “supremacy” over Pope St. Cyril. Please permit me to explain. The Oriental Tradition uses the word “supreme” of its head bishops rather freely. But to us, the word “surpeme” does not have the absolutist connotations that Westerns (Latins) or Easterns (Byzantines) attach to that word. To Orientals, “supreme” is always taken in a collegial context. It refers to the bishop of highest rank, honor and prerogatives, but it does not refer to a religious monarch who can exercise those prerogatives unilaterally. I guess the equivalent term for the Oriental use of the word “supremacy” among Latins and Byzantines would be “primacy.”

This primacy (or supremacy) is established by potestas (i.e., by the laws of God and the Church), but it is maintained ever and always by auctoritas (i.e., by the love and respect his fellow bishops have for their elder brother in Rome). In other words, though the bishop of Rome has a primacy by divine and ecclesiastical right, it is exercised and preserved through mutual love and respect between him and his brother bishops. Without this mutual love and respect, this primacy (or supremacy) cannot properly function (if it can even function at all).

I’ll give you an example from one of Pope St. Cyril’s letters to Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius: “We have not confidently abstained from communion with Nestorius before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who chersishes such erroneous doctrine.” You can see here that Pope St. Cyril did not feel competent by himself to act against Nestorius without the confirmation of his elder brother in Rome, Pope St. Celestine.

I would submit that brother Gabrielof12’s terse relation of the events surrounding Pope St. Cyril, Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius seems a bit one-sided (though that may only be a symptom of the nature of debate, and not intended by brother Gabriel). He does make it seem as though Pope St. Celestine is just ordering Pope St. Cyril around. The actual case is that this was a joint effort by Popes St. Cyril and Celestine. Pope St. Cyril was conceding to the primacy (or supremacy) of Pope St. Celestine, though not out of legal obligation, but out of love and respect for his elder brother. The thing on their minds was not “who is greater than whom?” but rather “how can we work together (St. Cyril with the exercise of his local primacy (or supremacy), and St. Celestine with the exercise of his universal primacy (or supremacy), for the benefit of the Church?” I believe Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Latin Catholic Church and Low Petrine advocates in the Eastern Orthodox Church are both equally stuck on the legalisms of jurisdiction, and cannot get beyond that issue to imagine how the head and body can work together as one, and always together as one, for the upbuilding of the Church.

There really is a way for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to come together on the issue of the papacy, but it will entail a rejection not only of the Absolutist Petrine excesses of many Latin Catholics, but also a rejection of the Low Petrine excesses of many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine model is the only way to go, if only for the reason that it is the most faithful to the patristic model of the Church in the first millenium.

Blessings,
Marduk

I find it very interesting the different connotation of the word “supremacy” among the Orientals; I was completely unaware of that. Thank you again for your insights.

And actually, given Apostolic Canon 34, I don’t have one problem with anything you said there. I suppose you could say I’m between what you call the High Petrine View and the Low Petrine View; I believe being primus inter pares carries with it additional privileges and duties (such as what is entailed in Canon 5 of Sardica) but not that Rome has any jurisdictional authority over any other See, unless said See should fall into heresy, in which case Rome or any other bishop/Patriarch can step in to set things straight. I also believe that, sans the appeal to Peter’s Chair, the doctrine Papal Infallibility can be applied to any bishop; I believe josephdaniel put it quite well when he said that any bishop who preaches the Orthodox faith does so infallibly.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I believe St. Ignatius’ ecclesiology should settle the matter here. To him, a local Church can never be separated from its bishop. The honor of a bishop redounds to his Church, and vice-versa.

Two important things stand out to me in my study of this important episode in Church history:

1. It was Pope St. Victor who called all the Churches to a united action on the matter of Easter. Before the union of Church and State in the fourth century, before the power of the emperor to call together Ecumenical Councils was recognized by the Church, the Church as a whole already recognized that the bishop of Rome could call the entire Church to action on a universal matter. I have come across some EO who argue that there is no singular authority today who can convene an Ecumenical Council - these EO don’t seem to have looked beyond the fourth century in their study of the Church.
2. Though the power to excommunicate even bishops was a personal prerogative of the bishop of Rome, it was a prerogative that was exercised collegially. I don’t think many Latin Catholics of the Absolutist Petrine perspective realize that the decision to excommunicate the bishops of Asia was not made by the Pope alone. Rather, he seems to have been responding to the expressions of a good number of bishops. For example, Eusebius records that the Synod in Palestine sent a letter to Victor in these words: “Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the Church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray.” Strong words such as these from his brother bishops must have caused Pope St. Victor to feel some justification for attempting to excommunicate the bishops of Asia. The resulting backlash is an equal demonstration of the collegial nature of the exercise of the papal prerogatives.

I am not sure what relevance geography has on the matter. Gaul and Spain each had their own primates who were equal to St. Cyprian. That St. Cyprian thought that Pope St. Stephen could discipline bishops in those provinces is very telling.

But there is something else to consider here which may mitigate the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on the matter. St. Cyprian was asking Pope St. Stephen to discpline bishops in Gaul and Spain on a doctrinal matter. St. Cyprian had plainly admitted in one of his anti-Donatist letters that the bishop of Rome was infallible in matters of doctrine. Apparently, St. Cyprian did not feel that the issue of rebaptism of heretics was an issue of doctrine, since he insisted that each bishop could do as he deemed fit on the matter (i.e., if it was a matter of doctrine to Cyprian, Cyprian would have required uniformity). So St. Cyprian would seem to be consistent - on a matter of doctrine, the bishop of Rome had a primatial and adjudicating role, but on matters less than that, bishops should have freedom. What do you think of that model, brother Madaglan? Does that align with your personal understanding of the patristic model of how the early Church worked?

Blessings,
Marduk

St. Ignatius’ model is what became the norm for the Church, and I have no disagreement with St. Ignatius. The historical accounts of the early Roman Church nonetheless suggest a monarchial episcopacy was not established until the 2nd century. This is the view of eminent Catholic scholars as well.

1. According to Eusebius, multiple assemblies and synods were held on the matter, which all arrived at the same answer. Amongst these is mentioned a Roman synod, yet it is given no prominence above those held in Gaul, Pontus, Palestine and elsewhere. Eusebius’ point is that all the synods agreed with one another that Pascha should be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day. The question was already settled throughout the Churches when the bishops of Asia Minor appealed to the Bishop of Rome, who reacted harshly to their letter by threatening to cut off communion with these Churches. For his proposed action, he received a strong rebuke from the other bishops.
2. I do not receive the impression from Eusebius that a great number of bishops desired the bishops of Asia minor be cut off. Quite the opposite seems to be the case when Eusebius writes that Pope Victor’s decision did not please all the bishops.

To which anti-Donatist letter do you refer? I would like to take a look at it before answering. The Cyprian epistles I have read did not communicate that idea to me.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

St. Ignatius’ model is what became the norm for the Church, and I have no disagreement with St. Ignatius. The historical accounts of the early Roman Church nonetheless suggest a monarchial episcopacy was not established until the 2nd century. This is the view of eminent Catholic scholars as well.

I don’t understand what you mean by “monarchial.” It’s obvious (to me anyway) that the bishop of Rome has always acted collegially. Even the much vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops. I think the monarchial scheme is a bit of a stretch. Semi-monarchial maybe, presidential more likely, but monarchial seems to be an extreme interpretation to me. I guess what I’m saying is that the primatial model in Rome, even if established only in the second century (highly unlikely, given St. Ignatius’ standard hierarchical model, which is understood to be apostolic in origin) should not cause anyone to bat an eye, as if it was something novel.

1. According to Eusebius, multiple assemblies and synods were held on the matter, which all arrived at the same answer. Amongst these is mentioned a Roman synod, yet it is given no prominence above those held in Gaul, Pontus, Palestine and elsewhere. Eusebius’ point is that all the synods agreed with one another that Pascha should be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day. The question was already settled throughout the Churches when the bishops of Asia Minor appealed to the Bishop of Rome, who reacted harshly to their letter by threatening to cut off communion with these Churches. For his proposed action, he received a strong rebuke from the other bishops.

That’s a possible interpretation, but I think unlikely. What I see from Eusebius’ account is that all the provinces (including the Asian provinces - i.e., modern-day Turkey) held local synods on the matter at the same time, at the direction of Pope St. Victor. And all the provinces submitted their synodal findings to the Pope. Eusebius records only two of these many synodal responses submitted to Pope St. Victor - one from the Synod headed by Polycrates in Asia (chapter 24), and another from the Synod in Palestine (chapter 25).

The one from the Asian Synod is the most complete Synodal letter we possess. In that letter, it plainly states that the Asian Synod was convened under the direction of Pope St. Victor (“I could also mention,” says Polycrates, “the bishops that were present, whom you requested to be summoned by me, and whom I did call.”). There is no reason to doubt that the rest of the Synods throughout the then-Catholic world were likewise convened at the direction of Pope St. Victor. And I don’t see any justification for your assumption that St. Polycrates was writing to Pope St. Victor to appeal the decision of the rest of the Church. Eusebius’ account states, “He [Polycrates], indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them.” That indicates that the Synod in Asia was doing something simultaneous to the action of the other Synods in the rest of the Catholic world.

The other Synodal excerpt Eusebius gives is from the Palestinian Synod, and it supports the idea that the Synods were responding to a request by Pope St. Victor and submitting their Synodal decisions to him. I’ve had a chance to discuss this matter with EO in the past, and there is a consistent assumption that the Palestinian Synod had sent its Synodal decision to all the other Churches, and that the other Churches likewise sent their respective Synodal decisions to all the other Churches. This would indeed support your idea that it was not the Pope that initiated this universal action by local Synods - I mean, if it is true that the Pope did not initiate this universal action, then the local Synods would not be under any obligation to send their Synodal decisions to the Pope first. Conversely, if the Pope was indeed the one who initiated the universal action, then we should have record of them sending their Synodal decisions to the Pope first.

The EO who assume that the Palestinian Synod sent its Synodal decision letter to all the Churches in general, instead of to Rome in particular, make this assumption based on the last sentence of Eusebius’ Chapter 25: “But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.” EO assume that this sentence indicates that the Synod in Alexandria and the Synod in Palestine had already exchanged their Synodal decision epistles. But such an assumption is premature, if not incorrect, for two important reasons:

1. The “letters” spoken of in this last sentence is not a reference to the Synodal decision epistle, but to paschal letters that were normatively exchanged between Alexandria and Palestine during Easter time over the years. These paschal letters were a sure indication that the Church in Alexandria was celebrating Easter at the same time as the Church in Palestine.
2. More importantly, the excerpt Eusebius gives actually and explicitly indicates that the Palestinian Synod had not yet made a general distribution of their Synodal decision epistle to the other Churches. Rather, the excerpt given by Eusebius plainly asks the recipient of the Synodal letter to “Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the Church…” This sentence is consistent with the idea that the Synod was convened at the direction of a party outside of the Synod.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

1. I do not receive the impression from Eusebius that a great number of bishops desired the bishops of Asia minor be cut off. Quite the opposite seems to be the case when Eusebius writes that Pope Victor’s decision did not please all the bishops.

Sorry I was unclear. I did not say (and did not mean to say) that the other bishops wanted the Asian bishops to be excommunicated, but merely that they used language that could be interpreted by Pope Victor to support a move for excommunication. My point was that Pope St. Victor could not have had it in his mind to excommunicate the Asian bishops arbitrarily, but must have felt he had some support for his action first.

To which anti-Donatist letter do you refer? I would like to take a look at it before answering. The Cyprian epistles I have read did not communicate that idea to me.

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare- a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief church from whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”
Epistle 54 to Pope St. Cornelius

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

I find it very interesting the different connotation of the word “supremacy” among the Orientals; I was completely unaware of that. Thank you again for your insights.

Btw, I want to add that when I said “Orientals,” I meant Oriental Orthodox, not Oriental Catholics. I made my statements just to let you know that, having translated to Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy, where our head bishops are normatively and explicitly designated as “supreme,” I really did not understand what the big deal was between the Westerns and Easterns when the term “supreme” was applied to the bishop of Rome.

And actually, given Apostolic Canon 34, I don’t have one problem with anything you said there.

If you understand and accept the necessity of the head bishop according to AC 34, I guess (I hope) you were just joking around in your earlier post when you stated “the Church can function without the Pope”?

but not that Rome has any jurisdictional authority over any other See, unless said See should fall into heresy, in which case Rome or any other bishop/Patriarch can step in to set things straight.

Actually, if you have read Vatican 1’s Decree on the Primacy and the Catholic Canons carefully, you will see that the “jurisdiction” of the bishop of Rome over the whole Church is exercised exactly in the fashion you propose. Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates both myopically focus on the definition of the Decree on the Primacy, and end up with monstrous mischaracterizations of the actual teaching on the Primacy from Vatican 1. They utterly neglect the rest of the Decree wherein it plainly states that the Pope’s primatial authority cannot impede the authority of local bishops. If a local diocese has a resident orthodox bishop, the Pope has no authority to act as if that local bishop was not even there. This is not only a canonical imperative, but a divine imperative as well, since the prerogatives of bishops are by divine right (which is official Catholic doctrine). I have explained this matter in much detail in past threads - the nuance (of which many are unaware) is that while the Catholic canons state that the Pope is said to have ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every diocese, it does NOT say that the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction over every diocese. In fact, though every diocese can have two bishops who have IMMEDIATE jurisdiction in that diocese, and as many as four bishops who have ORDINARY jurisdiction in that diocese, each diocese can have only ONE bishop who has PROPER jurisdiction in that diocese - and it is NOT the Pope (apart from his own local diocese, of course). If you are interested, let me know, and I will try to dig up those posts/threads wherein I explained this rather fully (lacking that, I’ll explain it to you from scratch).

I also believe that, sans the appeal to Peter’s Chair, the doctrine Papal Infallibility can be applied to any bishop; I believe josephdaniel put it quite well when he said that any bishop who preaches the Orthodox faith does so infallibly.

You are closer to the Catholic understanding than you think. Catholic teaching actually does assert that any bishop who objectively teaches the Orthodox Catholic faith does so infallibly. But the Catholic teaching is a bit more focused and detailed than the opinion of our brother josephdaniel. There are three other conditions that must be met for “any” bishop to teach infallibly. Not only must he objectively teach the Orthodox Catholic Faith, but also:
(1) It must be a teaching that he intends to be definitive;
(2) It must be a definitive teaching echoed by the rest of his brother bishops; and
(3) It must be a definitive teaching confirmed by the head bishop (i.e., the bishop of Rome).

This third condition, I’m sure you recognize, naturally flows from Apostolic Canon 34.

I hope you agree that the Catholic teaching on the matter is just a bit more secure (an admitted understatement) than what was proposed by brother Josephdaniel.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

After refreshing myself on several things, I would like to clarify one thing: The “robber synod” I was referring to was the 863 council held in Rome, not the 869 council held in Constantinople.

Thanks for the clarification. However, can you please explain what it was about the 863 Council that made it a “robber synod?”

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear thunderbolt94,

I finally read the OP and the link.

It is a bunch of baloney. Anyone who knows anything about the true teachings of the Latin Catholic Church will immediately see the utter misrepresentations and exaggerations of that piece.

I have not read through this whole thread, so many of the article’s misrepresentations may already have been addressed, but if I have time - hopefully next week - I would love to expose its errors on its version of “Roman Catholicism.”

Yes, I am an Oriental Catholic, not a Latin Catholic, but I got my “degree” in Catholicism by studying the Latin Catholic Church, because it is her teachings that I had to fully understand before I could feel conscionably secure that I could call myself a Catholic. So I am 100% certain that the article is mostly an exercise in exaggerated caricatures and lies, with a good dose of hypocrisy and false dichotomy.

Here are just a few obvious lies and half-truths:

1. Roman Catholicism “spurned the Apostolic Tradition which always taught that God the Father is the single Source.”
2. Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is; and, even infer that He is eternal, infinite, good, bodiless, almighty, all-knowing, etc. He is “most real being,” “true being.” Humans are like Him (analogous), but we are imperfect being. The God of Roman Catholicism, born in the Latin Middle Ages, is not " the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of the savants and the philosohers…"
3. Lately, some Latin theologians are rethinking the Christian teaching of salvation (soteriology). They are beginning to take the idea of deification (baptism as the first step) very seriously. They rightly insist that it belongs to Christian tradition, including “St. Augustine” and other Latin Fathers. In point of fact, a revolution in its theology is necessary if it is to become Scriptural and patristic; if it ever hopes to achieve the right understanding of Christ and His salvation.
4. According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop.
5. Unlike the Latins, the Orthodox Church does not think of canons as laws, that is, as regulating human relationships or securing human rights; rather, Orthodoxy views canons as the means of forging the “new man” or “new creature” through obedience. They are training in virtue. They are meant to produce holiness. The Latins continue to change their canons, ignoring the old for the new.
6. The Orthodox faithful receive both the “body” and “blood of Christ” in Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive only the “bread,” a wafer.
7. Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man.
8. Roman Catholicism has ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox conception of man as slave to death through his passions as manipulated by the devil. In fact, the devil has been pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood by the Latins as Christ suffering punishment for the human race (“vicarious atonement”), when, in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and destroy his power, death.
9. The guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them. All humanity is liable for their “original sin.”

I’ll stop here, or else I might end up copying 3/4 of the whole article, and there isn’t enough room!

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello,

I’ve been reading this article as a way to help learn the different perspectives in trying to figure out whether if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. While I think the Eastern Orthodox church makes some good points, I felt that I wanted to get a catholic perspective on this article:

Link:
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

If you’re a catholic who is familiar with this issue, I would love to your help in seeing the catholic perspective on this article, and whether it represents Catholicism fairly.

God Bless

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

Dear brother Madaglan,

I don’t understand what you mean by “monarchial.” It’s obvious (to me anyway) that the bishop of Rome has always acted collegially. Even the much vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops. I think the monarchial scheme is a bit of a stretch. Semi-monarchial maybe, presidential more likely, but monarchial seems to be an extreme interpretation to me. I guess what I’m saying is that the primatial model in Rome, even if established only in the second century (highly unlikely, given St. Ignatius’ standard hierarchical model, which is understood to be apostolic in origin) should not cause anyone to bat an eye, as if it was something novel.

Monarchial not in the sense of a secular monarch, but in the sense of one bishop/one Church.

That’s a possible interpretation, but I think unlikely. What I see from Eusebius’ account is thatI all the provinces (including the Asian provinces - i.e., modern-day Turkey) held local synods on the matter at the same time, at the direction of Pope St. Victor. And all the provinces submitted their synodal findings to the Pope. Eusebius records only two of these many synodal responses submitted to Pope St. Victor - one from the Synod headed by Polycrates in Asia (chapter 24), and another from the Synod in Palestine (chapter 25)…

Immediately after writing about the numerous synods that met, Eusebius concludes with the statement that the above was their unanimous decision. The next sentence begins, “But…”, and then goes on to say how the bishops of Asia Minor [nonetheless] decided to hold on to the custom handed down to them. Polycrates’ letter with expressions such as “terrifying words” and “We ought to obey God rather than man” suggests significant pressure already was on them to change their old custom, which would be expected after multiple synods came to a unanimous decision that Passover should only be held on the Lord’s Day.

 

[Madaglan]

CONTINUED

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare- a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief church from whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”
Epistle 54 to Pope St. Cornelius

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for the letter. Last night, I read a few more of St. Cyprian’s letters, and what struck me was the degree to which St. Cyprian and the bishop of Rome worked together, along with other bishops, to eliminate Donatism. They were colleagues in the fight against error.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s statement on the chief church from whence priestly unity takes its source: the interpretation ought to come in relation to his other works on unity in the Church. On the parts you underlined, I do not see this as a claiming infallibility for the Pope of Rome. The Roman Church (the Romans) was renowned, from the time of St. Paul, to be faithful to Christ, and St. Cyprian is drawing a link of faithfulness between the Romans of St. Paul’s time to his present time.

 

[jam070406]

Thanks for the letter. Last night, I read a few more of St. Cyprian’s letters, and what struck me was the degree to which St. Cyprian and the bishop of Rome worked together, along with other bishops, to eliminate Donatism. They were colleagues in the fight against error.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s statement on the chief church from whence priestly unity takes its source: the interpretation ought to come in relation to his other works on unity in the Church. On the parts you underlined, I do not see this as a claiming infallibility for the Pope of Rome. The Roman Church (the Romans) was renowned, from the time of St. Paul, to be faithful to Christ, and St. Cyprian is drawing a link of faithfulness between the Romans of St. Paul’s time to his present time.

You believe the Church of Rome is not faithful to Christ today?