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

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

Please don’t try to pawn off your absolutist Petrine errors to someone who is sitting on the fence. I think that is really, really insensitive. At least keep it to yourself. The High Petrine view is just as valid (and actually more valid), than your Absolutist Petrine position.

Excuse me?

Please don’t mistake your opinions with what I quoted directly from 2 councils. The quotes I gave in full context, are NOT my opinions. They are direct quotes. I didn’t add any paraphrasing.

Your “High” vs “Absolutist” Petrine sneer, is unwelcomed and uncalled for. Keep your nastiness to yourself. I have quoted the Catholic position.
M:

I’m concerned that you will mislead brother Shiranui on this matter, so I hope you don’t mind my responding here. The most you can obtain from the V1 Decree is exactly what it states - that the Ecumenical Council is not above a Pope. What mental gymnastics does an Absolutist Petrine advocate have to go through to conclude from this statement that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council? I mean, plainly Vatican 1 asserted no such thing. You can only draw such a conclusion by a cut-and-paste series of syllogisms - exactly as you have done here.

I gave full context to what I quoted. I added NOTHING of my own. Anybody can go to the source of the quotes. I hid NOTHING. Any gymnastics are being done by you.
M:

How you can obtain the idea that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council” from the even more explicitly collegial teachings of V2 is beyond me.

Let’s see what others have to say after reading those quotes from the councils.

 

[mardukm]

Excuse me?

Please don’t mistake your opinions with what I quoted directly from 2 councils. The quotes I gave in full context, are NOT my opinions. They are direct quotes. I didn’t add any paraphrasing.

Your “High” vs “Absolutist” Petrine sneer, is unwelcomed and uncalled for. Keep your nastiness to yourself. I have quoted the Catholic position.

I gave full context to what I quoted. I added NOTHING of my own. Anybody can go to the source of the quotes. I hid NOTHING. Any gymnastics are being done by you.

Let’s see what others have to say after reading those quotes from the councils.

You claim that you gave “direct quotes.” So please tell us where it states in ANY of your “direct quotes” that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.” A “direct quote” would be best. No syllogistic mental gymnastics, please.

You claim you “added nothing” but your intent was quite clear - that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.” Now you go so far as to claim that there is a “direct quote” of this somewhere - but where is it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

You admitted that you have spoken to ACOE members and that they have presented their doctrine which “sounds” orthodox, but for some reason you cannot agree. I would like to know the reasons why you cannot agree.

I cannot agree for the simple reason that I do not find it orthodox no matter how they explain it. I have asked orthodox people that I know and they say, no, it is not orthodox. If the position is inherently unorthodox, then no amount of sophistry will help it. This is good enough for me.

This should be discussed in a new thread, if you are willing

No thank you. This is not up for debate.

As far as why I think it has anything to do with the Chaldeans and the Syro-malabars, I would think that is obvious - the ACOE is their mother Church.

So by this logic you should be bound by what the Coptic Orthodox Church does and proclaims to be true?

I am not Chaldean or Syro-malabar, and, truth to tell, I do not fully understand their theology. So I do not feel I can conscientiously commune in an ACOE Church even if that was available to me. On the other hand, a Chaldean or Syro-malabar would probably have the “inside” scoop on understanding what it is about the ACOE theology that is compatible with the teaching of the rest of the Church.

And surely if they understand what is NOT compatible with the teaching of the rest of the Church (you know, the Nestorian doctrine…), then they will even better understand why they should NOT commune with the ACoE.

Without understanding your own understanding of ACOE theology, I will say that your statement that the Catholic Church has “caved in” to Nestorianism is baloney.

As you see it.

It’s obvious you are not aware that the Syriac Orthodox Church has a very good relationship with the ACOE, and that they have formally ceased anathemizing each other.

I have read quite a bit from the Syriac Orthodox perspective on their relations with the ACoE. Yes, they are better than before, and some common declarations were read and signed. Forgive me, but I do not see this as relevant to the actual position of the Orthodox churches on Nestorianism any more so than it could be claimed that a common declaration signed after ecumenical talks with Rome would mean that the Orthodox now accept claims of Roman infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

The Coptic Orthodox Church has not done the same.

Indeed.

But it’s obvious you are not aware that the divide between the Coptic Orthodox Church and ACOE is not primarily theological

This is odd, as I have read in Pope Shenouda’s own addresses that HH and all of the church are against Nestorianism. But maybe there are somehow bigger issues…? And if there are, then surely the church would have a firm stance against those too…

(tremendous progress and theological understanding had been achieved in talks between the Coptic Orthodox and the ACOE during the last decades of the 20th century),

Okay

but exists on the grounds that, at the final stages of talks between the two Churches, the ACOE refused to anathemize the person of Nestorius.

That seems like it would be a pretty insurmountable problem, no? If this is something that the Coptic Orthodox require of the ACoE to commune with them and they don’t do it, then there isn’t any point in further talks. The Church is not just going to magically decide that a section of its communion can embrace what the rest condemn as heresy.

Many CO interepreted this to mean that the Assyrians were reneging on the theological fruits of understanding that had already been achieved. I believe that was an unfair knee-jerk reaction by my fellow Copts.

Ah, I see.

You apparently base your rejection of the ACOE on theological grounds,

Indeed, and it is based on the explanations of this particular aspect of their theology as they have explained it to me, checked against Orthodox sources that explain why Nestorianism was not accepted to begin with. There is, as unpopular as it might make me with you to say it, very good reason for the Nestorians to be the minority position. St. Cyril and others did not fight them for nothing. They were fought because Nestorianism is wrong. The end. If we had to take every heretics defense of their idea as the gospel truth then none of the councils would ever have been able to decide definitively on anything. But luckily they did not work that way, and one of the things that they decided is that the person of Nestorius was to be condemned for his unrepentant heresy, as his doctrine was heretical and false and not to be spread or tolerated.

and are unaware that such a dichotomy has largely been recognized at one time or another to no longer exist by just about everyone.

Coptic Orthodox excepted?

The only ones who maintain your “the ACOE are heretics and still deserve anathema” position are the ones who have the exact same mindset that still regards the OO as heretics. I will frankly confess that I have no sympathy for that type of mentality whatsoever.

I do not see the two situations as being even remotely comparable, and I think you are stretching your credibility in bringing this up again even after I explained the difference between the EO/OO split and the split between the Nestorians and the rest of the Church. If you are not going to read anything I write, then I see no point in continuing this conversation with you. I am not interested in embracing your understanding and you do not seem interested in even hearing mine, so we are done here. It is better to part than to degenerate into acrimony.

 

[steve_b]

You claim that you gave “direct quotes.” So please tell us where it states in ANY of your “direct quotes” that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.” A “direct quote” would be best. No syllogistic mental gymnastics, please.
You claim you “added nothing” but your intent was quite clear - that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.” Now you go so far as to claim that there is a “direct quote” of this somewhere - but where is it?

I quote:

1. • 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.
   When even an ecumenical council can’t overturn a judgement by the Roman Pontiff because it doesn’t have the authority, what conclusion would you take from that?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I cannot agree for the simple reason that I do not find it orthodox no matter how they explain it. I have asked orthodox people that I know and they say, no, it is not orthodox. If the position is inherently unorthodox, then no amount of sophistry will help it. This is good enough for me.

I don’t understand why you would take the word of non-ACOE about the ACOE over and above what the ACOE claim for themselves. Would you listen to a polemic Catholic explain to you what they beleive the Eastern Orthodox teaches, rather than listen to what the Eastern Orthodox teach about themselves? I gather you would not. Where’s the consistency?

So by this logic you should be bound by what the Coptic Orthodox Church does and proclaims to be true?

I feel bound by what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches to be true. I do not feel in the least bound by what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches ABOUT other Churches or what the Coptic Orthodox Church THINKS other Churches aside from itself teaches. Do you see the difference? That is, by the way, the reason I am Catholic - because I have conscientiously discovered that what the COC teaches ABOUT what the Catholic Church teaches is not actually true.

And surely if they understand what is NOT compatible with the teaching of the rest of the Church (you know, the Nestorian doctrine…), then they will even better understand why they should NOT commune with the ACoE.

The only ones in the best position to explain the position of the ACOE is the ACOE, not the Coptic Orthodox, not the Catholics, not the Eastern Orthodox.

I have read quite a bit from the Syriac Orthodox perspective on their relations with the ACoE. Yes, they are better than before, and some common declarations were read and signed. Forgive me, but I do not see this as relevant to the actual position of the Orthodox churches on Nestorianism any more so than it could be claimed that a common declaration signed after ecumenical talks with Rome would mean that the Orthodox now accept claims of Roman infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

That’s my main point, and it is practically identical to the issue between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. Chalcedonians accused the non-Chalcedonians of monophysitism. Non-Chalcedonians have affirmed that their position is NOT ACTUALLY monophysitism as rejected by the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The same case applies with the ACOE. The rest of the Church has charged the ACOE with heretical Nestorianism. The ACOE affirms that their position is NOT ACTUALLY “Nestorianism” as rejected by the Third Ecumenical Council.

This is odd, as I have read in Pope Shenouda’s own addresses that HH and all of the church are against Nestorianism. But maybe there are somehow bigger issues…? And if there are, then surely the church would have a firm stance against those too.

Yes, the COC rejects historic Nestorianism, as does the Catholic Church. The theological talks between the COC and the ACOE (and between the CC and ACOE) actually came to agreement that what the ACOE teaches is not REALLY the historic Nestorianism that was rejected as heretical by the Third Ecumenical Council — in exactly the same process that resulted in agreement between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, namely, that the non-Chalcedonians did not REALLY teach the historic monophysitism that was rejected as heretical by the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

That seems like it would be a pretty insurmountable problem, no? If this is something that the Coptic Orthodox require of the ACoE to commune with them and they don’t do it, then there isn’t any point in further talks. The Church is not just going to magically decide that a section of its communion can embrace what the rest condemn as heresy.

There seems to be a disconnect here. You seem to recognize that the only issue left was the anathematization of Nestorius - it was not theological. Yet in your last sentence, you go back to the rationale of “heresy.” Is the condemnation or lack of condemnation of a PERSON tantamount to “heresy?” What possible patristic rationale could you use to justify a positive answer to that question? Certainly, the Fourth Ecumenical Council explicitly exonerated several Nestorians. Would you charge the Ecumenical Council of affirming the Nestorian heresy? There are other examples in the history of the Church. Let’s take, as another example, the case of St. John Cassian. A large portion of the Latin Church regarded him as a semi-pelagian heretic. To this day, John Cassian does not have a plenary cultus within the Latin Church for that reason (i.e., he is only venerated locally), but obtained plenary cultus in the Eastern Church. According to your point of view, the portion of the Latin Church that condemned John Cassian would be justified in accusing the Eastern Church of the heresy of semi-pelagianism - JUST BECAUSE they venerate him as a Saint. If you claim this cannot be the case, then how can you consistently affirm that JUST BECAUSE the ACOE wants to venerate Nestorius as a Saint and refuse to anathemize him, then they must automatically be accused of the heresy of historic Nestorianism - ESPECIALLY AFTER THE COC HAD ALREADY REACHED THEOLOGICAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ACOE.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Ah, I see.

Yes, with the examples I gave above, I don’t believe it is just or proper to accuse the ACOE of historic Nestorianism AFTER you have reached theological agreement with them (though indeed not yet formally), JUST BECAUSE they want to venerate a particular person as a Saint.

Indeed, and it is based on the explanations of this particular aspect of their theology as they have explained it to me, checked against Orthodox sources that explain why Nestorianism was not accepted to begin with. There is, as unpopular as it might make me with you to say it, very good reason for the Nestorians to be the minority position. St. Cyril and others did not fight them for nothing. They were fought because Nestorianism is wrong. The end. If we had to take every heretics defense of their idea as the gospel truth then none of the councils would ever have been able to decide definitively on anything. But luckily they did not work that way, and one of the things that they decided is that the person of Nestorius was to be condemned for his unrepentant heresy, as his doctrine was heretical and false and not to be spread or tolerated.

I agree with you, brother. I believe Nestorianism is false and heretical. But, to repeat what I stated earlier, what is going on here is not that the ACOE is defending the historic Nestorianism that was rejected by the Third Ecumenical Council. Rather, the ACOE have simply affirmed that what they teach is NOT the historic Nestorianism that was rejected by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Coptic Orthodox excepted?

No, the Coptic Orthodox are not excepted from my statement, because they actually did reach theological agreement with the ACOE. The agreement would have been formalized if it were not for that one remaining issue of anathemizing the person of Nestorius. The theological agreement was not ratified simply because of a non-theological matter.

I do not see the two situations as being even remotely comparable, and I think you are stretching your credibility in bringing this up again even after I explained the difference between the EO/OO split and the split between the Nestorians and the rest of the Church.

From what I understood, your “difference” was based on what I perceive to be the rhetorically unjust notion of letting the cow tell about the horse. You criteria is that the WHOLE Church has taught against the heresy of Nestorianism. But I think what you are failing to consider is that the ACOE may not actually be teaching what has historically been understood as heretical Nestorianism. As noted earlier, what is going on here is not that the ACOE is defending the historic heresy of Nestorianism condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council; what they are affirming is that they do not actually teach the historic heresy of Nestorianism that was condemned by the 3rd Ecum.

If you are not going to read anything I write, then I see no point in continuing this conversation with you. I am not interested in embracing your understanding and you do not seem interested in even hearing mine, so we are done here. It is better to part than to degenerate into acrimony.

I read what you wrote, but, as already noted, I did not feel it was based on a just criteriaion - i.e., the idea of dictating to one Church what they teach about themselves, instead of letting themselves present their own teaching. I dismissed it on that rationale, not because I did not read it.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[dzheremi]

With due respect, Mardukm, I am beginning to see that this conversation is fruitless as you and I have very different perspectives and convictions that I am afraid are not ultimately reconcilable. You have written:

I don’t understand why you would take the word of non-ACOE about the ACOE over and above what the ACOE claim for themselves. Would you listen to a polemic Catholic explain to you what they beleive the Eastern Orthodox teaches, rather than listen to what the Eastern Orthodox teach about themselves? I gather you would not. Where’s the consistency?

I take your point, but if I was to proceed in a similar vein I would find myself unable to strongly adhere to any doctrine. Do you likewise believe what the followers of Arius would write about themselves? The Gnostics? The Latter Day Saint movement? The Muslims? The Jews? The followers of the various Protestant churches? The truth, my friend, is that you and I and everyone must eventually critically analyze the claims of others not by only sticking to their own sources, but by comparing them against our own convictions and within the context of the faith of those who have taught us. This is why you, I’m assuming, listen to your Coptic Catholic teachers when presented with some new idea, as well as listening to Rome for its opinion on a given matter. I have nothing less or different. The fact that I have come to different conclusions than you have does not mean I am not being consistent. In fact it means that I am trying to consistently follow what others, who know the faith far better than I do, tell me about the idea in question. Anywhere that I look for information on Nestorius and Nestorianism outside of the ACoE (and I guess recently, the RCC), the writings say to stay away from this heresy. So I do. Consistency? How’s 1580 years of consistency sound to you?

The followers of Nestorius have presented their case for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years been told that Nestorianism is not orthodox. Even those who have agreed to some limited joint declarations with them remain in opposition to Nestorianism. It is not as though what the ACoE has said is not available (how do you think I learned about it? They’re still around, and still defending it!). It’s available, it’s just not endorsed because it is not orthodox.

Unless they have stopped endorsing this doctrine which destroys the unity of Christ, and absolutely repudiated it in every way possible, I see no reason to reconsider them “reformed”.

 

[Shiranui117]

The Church answers your question in 2 councils. None of this is my opinion, or my paraphrasing. links to both documents for full context provided. I only provide emphasis] which is all mine.

from Canons Vatican I Council


emphasis mine]

Session 4, Ch3

1. • 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.
   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.
      
      Do you see the answer to your question?
      
      This subject is further explained in Vat II
      
      from Vatican II council (Lumen Gentium, Constitution on the Church)
      vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
      
      Re: college/collegiality explained.
      
      Preliminary Note of Explanation (found at the end of document Lumen Gentium)
      1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
      2. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
         It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

1. 1. 
      …And yet the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined by a Council, not the Pope.
      Nuff said, kthnxbai

 

[steve_b]

…And yet the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined by a Council, not the Pope.
Nuff said, kthnxbai

Wrong. Don’t forget your question

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

Councils don’t operate or get confirmed without the pope. Aren’t you reading the texts I’m providing?

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, that’s a pretty extreme case. I’ll respond in two ways:
(1) I don’t believe it can happen that the Vatican will disappear, or at least that the authority representing the Vatican will disappear.

I’m not talking we lose a Pope and some Cardinals, I’m taking we lose ALL of them. Like, the entire Roman lineage is just flat-out GONE. Would there simply be a new bishop placed over the Roman See as it’s built from the ground up, then? Would the concept that bishops are successors of all the Apostles come into play? I mean, if by some zany, freak apocalypse we lose all but three bishops in the entire church in Idaho, Timbuktu and Albuquerque, and these three joes are all that’s left, then Ignatius’s eucharistic model of the Church has to come into play. Where there is a bishop, there let the faithful be; even as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. That is what I was trying to get at.

It is not well known, but Pio Nono did NOT get everything he wanted out of that Council. One needs to study V1 in depth, and not just the cursory accounts you might read from Absolutist Petrine exaggerators or Low Petrine detractors.

I’ll have to look into that sometime. I won’t make you spoil the whole surprise.

The Pope could mitigate matters for the Easterns, but the fact of the matter is that he really had no authority to simply override the authority of the local Latin bishops (which is by divine right) who did not want married clergy in their territory.

Even in the event that Eastern bishops were present? (Truth be told, I’m not entirely sure how may Eastern Catholic bishops were in the States, if any, when that ban on married clergy was enacted)

Yes. But one needs to distinguish that the definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium (which is just as infallible as the definitive teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium) is hardly ever referred to as “dogma.” Dogma more often and normatively refers to the definitive teaching of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., the Pope ex cathedra or the Ecumenical Council). The definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium (i.e., which incorporates the idea of “any bishop”) can take centuries to establish, and would more often be referred to with expressions such as “de fide” or “in the Deposit of Faith” or “in Sacred Tradition.”

If I understand you right, then “definitive teaching” isn’t just something like Unam Sanctum, which was proclaimed at once, but something more akin to, say, Papal primacy, which was developed over centuries?

Well, we should hope it is, but that is not the point of the matter. The criteria listed is for the purpose of identifying an infallible teaching of the Church. Without all these criteria, saying “any bishop who teaches the Orthodox Catholic Faith is infallible” is tantamount to the expression “every bishop is his own Pope.”

Those considerations are a lead-in to the last criteria on this matter - the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church.

IIRC, the Arians outnumbered the Orthodox at Nicaea, or at least came pretty darn close to it. The emperor called the council, the Holy Spirit prevailed. When in doubt, call a council! That seems to be how things have worked since the beginning; in any dispute that divides the church, a true council solves it. Just think of how many heresies the Fathers needed to condemn during the first several Councils! Those who were Orthodox in every manner must have been vastly outnumbered by so many heretics!

But therein lies the admitted difference between our points of view.

Oh, please, you’re fine! I appreciate your insights and research into the topic. Ultimately, I believe we’re closer in opinion than you might think. If I was to generalize, water down and simplify each of our positions into one sentence:

You: “The Pope is a brother bishop and not absolutely supreme over them, but he is also the head bishop.”
Me: “The Pope is the head bishop, but he is also not absolutely supreme over them.”

The difference between us, I think is where we place our emphasis; you place your emphasis on there needing to be a head bishop together with the rest of the bishops (to simplify, and perhaps consequentially make a caricaturization; if I have done so, my apologies! ). I place emphasis on the head bishop and the rest of the bishops needing to be of one mind, and that neither can rule over the other or call the other needless.

Given all that, I must add that I am more understanding today of the Catholic expression “the Ecumenical Council and the Pope” or “the College of bishops and the Pope” than I was in the past.

You and I can both agree than the Absolutist Petrine View is simply not Patristic, or supported by Church history. A head bishop is good, definitely, and attested to, even if he’s just the “appeals court,” so to speak.

I hope the explanations I gave have clarified the matter.

And I hope I’ve clarified my own beliefs of it.

 

[Shiranui117]

Wrong. Don’t forget your question

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

Councils don’t operate or get confirmed without the pope. Aren’t you reading the texts I’m providing?

What about the so-called Meletian Schism, where Rome backed Paulinus, who was eventually recognized as an usurper? All the lines of Antioch trace their lineage to Meletius, not Paulinus. Rome was certainly guilty of backing the wrong horse there.

 

[joe370]

Just a general question for any and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, on this thread, regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter as per the Eastern Sees in the following quotes:

Were they wrong?

“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’” " Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches.” Emperor Justinian (520-533), writting to the Pope (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” Emperor Justinian (520-533) (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."
-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Continued…

 

[joe370]

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."
Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writting to Pope Leo III (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter…” -Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Paschal (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

“Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Emperor Michael (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie.** Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”**
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

“In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Letter of St. Theodore and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See."
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Continued…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

I quote:

1. • 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.
   When even an ecumenical council can’t overturn a judgement by the Roman Pontiff because it doesn’t have the authority, what conclusion would you take from that?

1. 
   I understand where you are coming from. You are stating that because V1 states “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” you conclude from this that the Pope is above an Ecumencal Council.
   
   What you don’t seem to realize is that your conclusion is not actually based on a full reading of the text, but rather only a snippet of it (as I have consistently maintained and proven in the other thread where we had this debate). You have completely neglected a very important conditional clause of that statement in your Absolutist Petrine claim - namely, the clause, “as if the Ecumenical Council were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.” A DIRECT reading of the Decree does not lead to a conclusion that the Roman Pontiff is above an Ecumenical Council - a DIRECT reading would only lead to exactly what the Decree DIRECTLY says - namely, that you can’t appeal to an Ecumenical Council AS IF It was an authority above the Pope. The reason is obvious to High Petrine advocates - it is because the Pope is an indispensable MEMBER OF an Ecumenical Council, NOT because the Pope is separate from or above it - or below it, for that matter. Though you can’t appeal a decision of the Pope to an Ecumenical Council AS IF it was an authority above the Pope, the logical conclusion, given the FULL context of the statement, is that you CAN INDEED appeal a decision of the Pope to an Ecumenical Council, considering that the Ecumenical Council IS EQUAL to the Pope, wherein the Pope is a MEMBER OF the Ecumenical Council as its head bishop, not some entity who is separate from it, neither above or below it.
   
   And indeed, this is exactly what our Canons state - that the Ecumenical Council is ALSO the subject of Supreme Authority in the Church - NOT JUST THE POPE ALONE.
   
   If brother Shiranui is reading this, I would like to know if he agrees with your understanding (which is based on a cut-and-paste consideration of selective portions of the Decree), or my understanding (which is based on a DIRECT and COMPLETE reading of the Decree).
   
   Blessings,
   Marduk

 

[mardukm]

…And yet the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined by a Council, not the Pope.
Nuff said, kthnxbai

VERY WELL SAID!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Wrong. Don’t forget your question

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

Councils don’t operate or get confirmed without the pope. Aren’t you reading the texts I’m providing?

I hope you or brother Shiranui do not mind if I respond here.

Brother Shiranui has already admitted that the role of the head bishop is necessary in an Ecumenical Council according to Apostolic Canon 34. What he does not agree with (a position which I also hold as a faithful Catholic) is your claim that the Pope is above a Council.

Absolutely NOTHING in the texts you have given can lead to a conclusion that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council. The Pope confirms the decisions of his brother bishops WITHIN an Ecumenical Council as its head bishop, NOT as an entity separate from or above it. This is what you get from a DIRECT and COMPLETE reading of the Catholic Decrees and Canons, not the cut-and-paste gymnastics that Absolutist Petrine advocates propose.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Does anyone actually think that the Catholic Church is ok with Nestorianism or is ok with having churches in communion with her that are ok with Nestorianism?

 

[mardukm]

Does anyone actually think that the Catholic Church is ok with Nestorianism or is ok with having churches in communion with her that are ok with Nestorianism?

Great question. Here is the text of the Agreed Christological statement with the ACOE on the matter:

**"As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting “one and another”, the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an “ordinary man” whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.**

I would like to ask anyone who claims the Catholic Church has fallen into the heresy of Nestorianism to show us exactly what part of that agreed statement has anything to do with the historic Nestorianism that was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I just don’t see it???

Great question. Here is the text of the Agreed Christological statement with the ACOE on the matter:

**"As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting “one and another”, the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an “ordinary man” whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.**

I would like to ask anyone who claims the Catholic Church has fallen into the heresy of Nestorianism to show us exactly what part of that agreed statement has anything to do with the historic Nestorianism that was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

You have completely neglected a very important conditional clause of that statement in your Absolutist Petrine claim - namely, the clause, “as if the Ecumenical Council were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”

“As if” is not a condition it’s an interjection. It connotes a derisive assertion that whatever is being talked about is impossible or very unlikely.