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

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

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?

Yes. And this new bishop would be the legitimate successor of the Petrine See of Rome, and would be the head bishop of the Church universal.

Would the concept that bishops are successors of all the Apostles come into play?

Obviously. That is the very basis for apostolic succession. It was Apostles who first installed a replacement of Judas, and we have instruction from St. Paul that the successors of the Apostles (the bishops) should also elect successors. The bishops (i.e., the remaining bishops according to your scenario) as successors of the Apostles would be responsible for electing a new head bishop, who would be the legitimate successor of the Petrine See of Rome. The election of a new head bishop would be necessary according to the prescription of Apostolic Canon 34.

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.

OK. I don’t see anything with which I disagree.

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

I would like to suggest a few books for you. My personal favorite - the one that actually caused me to understand the ins and outs of the Vatican Council, whereby I was able to accept the legitimacy of the Catholic claims of the papacy (ummm- not the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, but the ACTUAL Catholic claims )- is The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler (Newman Press, 1930). There were several editions that were published in the 1960’s. I’ve seen it on Amazon for $50 a few years ago. By the Grace of God, while I was not yet Catholic, I chanced upon it at a library book sale for 50 cents!!!

There is also a more recent book by a Latin Catholic scholar which presents the true High Petrine intentions of the First Vatican Council, but I am at a loss recalling its name right now. The only thing I remember is that the author had an Irish last name (O’ - something). A few have referred to it in other threads, but I can’t remember the title for the life of me.

Two other books which I have admittedly not read, but which have a good presentation of the High Petrine position (from what I’ve seen over the I-net), as opposed to the Absolutist and Low Petrine positions, are:

Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity by Adam DeVille

You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy by Olivier Clement

The first is from an Eastern Catholic author, and the second is from an Eastern Orthodox theologian.

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).

Zip. Zero. Zilch. There were no Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S. in the latter 19th century when this matter first came to a head. The Eastern Catholics were non-Latin Rite Catholics who were under the omophor of local Latin bishops. The Pope provided an episcopal ordinary for the Eastern Catholics I think in the second decade of the 20th century, but - because of the protests of the local Latin bishops - he did not have full faculties as a bishop until several years afterwards (late 20’s/early 30’s, IIRC). As stated, many Eastern Catholics normally interpret Ea Semper as the Pope imposing the rule of celibacy upon Eastern Catholics in the traditionally Latin lands. That is far from the truth. Ea Semper was actually the Pope’s attempt to MITIGATE the EXISTING rule established by the LOCAL Latin bishops forbidding married clergy, by making the prohibition depend on the circumstances of the times, intead of affirming an absolute bar on married clergy in the traditionally Latin lands. As earlier noted, few know that Ea semper was actually NOT well-received by the local Latin bishops, but was seen by them as papal interference into the affairs of their local churches.

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?

Sorry for being unclear. Let me explain it this way:
Definitive teaching can come from the ordinary Magisterium or the extraordinary Magisterium. In both instances, infallibility comes into play. If the definitive teaching comes from the extraordinary Magisterium (the Pope ex cathedra, or an Ecumenical Council), it is called dogma, because it is a precise authoritative statement of a particular matter at a particular point in time. The definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is a bit “looser” in that it is just a little harder to identify. It is the day-to-day teaching that comes from all the bishops dispersed throughout the world, and throughout the history of the Church - for the benefit of readers who may not possess the same outlook on the matter as myself and brother Shiranui, I want to point out that when I say “all the bishops,” that naturally includes the Pope who is the head bishop.

I hope that helps

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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!

Yes, calling the Council was normative, but this was really (what I would call) “the imperial solution.” However, just as evident from the history of the Church is that bishops in every place recognized a more (what I would call) “episcopal solution” (because it did not involve the emperor) - when in doubt, appeal to the bishop of Rome. In fact, appealing to the bishop of Rome was more common than calling an Ecumenical Council to settle an issue. The immediate purpose of the Ecumenical Council in the first millenium was for the Emperor to keep the peace of the Empire through a settlement of issues of Faith. But on a strictly episcopal level, bishops normatively appealed to the bishop of Rome if their own local resources could not settle the issue. If even the auctoritas (recall the definition of auctoritas I gave earlier in the thread - authority based on love and respect, not the law) of the bishop of Rome was insufficient to keep the peace, the Emperor saw it fit to use his imperial authority to convene an Ecumenical Council and - basically - force a settlement between parties. During the Arian controversy (as an example, among many), Pope St. Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome for redress of his grievances against the Arians. But it was apparent that the auctoritas of the bishop of Rome was insufficient to keep the peace of the empire. This resulted in the emperor calling the Council of Sardica, intended to be an Ecumenical Council, wherein the existing prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as court of final appeal was affirmed. Unfortunately, all the heretical Arian bishops refused to attend the Council and thus it never gained Ecumenical status. Nevertheless, its canons were affirmed first by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and later by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

As further examples, this same circumstance occurred for the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. Bishops appealed to the bishop of Rome first, and it was only later that the Emperor convened the Ecumenical Councils when the “episcopal solution” was not settling the issue.

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.”

That sounds right. But remember, I, as an Oriental, really have no problem with the term “supreme.”

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.

I can agree with this statement, though, tbh, I don’t see the difference as you present it - which is probably for the best.

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 can agree with your statement 99%. The one percent difference rests in this (or perhaps more than 1%, depending on your perspective, or perhaps no difference at all, depending on your response to this portion of my post )- I believe that as head bishop of the universal Church, though he does not have proper jurisdiction in each local diocese, he indeed has proper jurisdiction in matters that pertain to the Church as a whole. Given that, he has the inherent right to enforce a UNIVERSAL canon of the Church that the Church has previously and collegially legislated. I believe he does not need collegial sanction to enforce such a previously promulgated universal Canon. If he sees a local Church or diocese contradicting a universal Canon, and the local Patriarch has failed in his own responsibility of upholding and enforcing the universal canon, and there is not found to be a sufficient and good reason for that local Church or diocese to contradict the universal Canon, then (and only when all these three criteria are met) it is not only the bishop of Rome’s right as coryphaeus, but also his divine and canonical responsibility, to call that local Church back to the norm of the Church, and even to discipline its local bishop.

In this one particular circumstance, I don’t believe the Pope is merely a “court of appeal.”

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

Yes. Thank you. I look forward to reading your comments to my responses to brother SteveB’s claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

“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.

That’s an interesting intepretation, and it would probably hold some merit to someone who was not aware of the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser from the First Vatican Council. The Official Relatio represented the OFFICIAL understanding of the Vatican Decrees according to the Committee that formulated the Decrees. Whatever it was that the Fathers of V1 voted for when they voted for the Decrees, it was voted upon with the interpretation that was expressed by the Official Relatio.

The Official Relatio affirms that in an Ecumenical Council, the bishops of the Council are JUDGES ALONG WITH the Pope. Do you understand what that means? It means that the Pope, in an Ecumenical Council, is not judging his brother bishops or their teaching - rather, the Pope ALONG WITH his brother bishops are judging a teaching that has been brought to their COLLECTIVE attention.

The Fathers of the Vatican Council do not agree with your claim that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council. So your interpretation of “as if” is obviously wrong, if it causes you to conclude that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

As I had asked you and other Absolutist Petrine advocates in the other thread wherein we debated this matter, please submit yourselves to the teaching of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, instead of your own personal interpretations (which exaggerate and are thus not faithful to their Decrees).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

“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.

Btw, even assuming your interpretation is correct, the text would obviously simply be saying that “it is impossible or very unlikely that an Ecumenical Council is above the Pope.” From such a statement, please explain to us how you have culled a belief that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Did you see my post #370 (I reposted it below). I am interested to know your comments on it, and whether or not, given that information, one could still claim that the Synod of 863 was a “robber synod.”

Blessings,
Marduk

================================================================

AFAIK, the only purpose of the synod in Rome in 863 was to try the Roman legates who were (apparently) bribed by powers in Constantinople. It also affirmed a decision against St. Photius that the bishop of Rome - BY RIGHT - had given PRIOR to the Synod of 863.

Here’s the course of the events:

1. The Pope sent legates to Contantinople on the matter of Patriarch Ignatius - at the request of the emperor and St. Photius - in May, 861. The legates came back to Rome with a decision in favor of Photius. This is in accord with the Sardican canons.
2. A legate from Patriarch Ignatius came to Rome, but not until early 862 presenting fresh matter for the case in favor of Ignatius. According to Canon 4 of Sardica, Photius, given the new evidence, was still not the rightful occupant of the patriarchal throne. Pope St. Nicholas insisted on this, and required Photius to abdicate. THIS WAS WELL WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF POPE ST. NICHOLAS BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER ACCORDING TO THE CANONS TO DETERMINE IF THE NEW EVIDENCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL.
3. Given the new evidence, Pope Nicholas convened a Synod in 863, not to try Photius, but to try the legates for (apparently) falsely supporting Photius who did not have a canonical claim to the patriarchal throne yet. At this Synod, Pope St. Nicholas’ PRIOR decision that Photius abdicate the throne was repeated.

Here are the two relevant issues:
(a) Historians often state that Pope Nicholas “deposed” Photius. The actual fact is that Photius was not the rightful holder of the See yet according to Canon 4 of Sardica, and it was well within the rights of Pope Nicholas to insist that Canon 4 of Sardica be upheld.

(b) The only uncanonical action that took place during the whole event was St. Photius’ attempted excommunication of Pope St. Nicholas in 867!!!

================================================================

 

[mardukm]

Agreed. I just don’t see it???

Indeed.

I hope brother Dzheremi responds, as he seems adamant about his claim that Rome has become Nestorian. If he can p(name removed by moderator)oint any heretical statements in the common declaration, I’ll concede his point. If he cannot, I hope he will be willing to publicly retract his claim that Rome has become Nestorian.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed.

I hope brother Dzheremi responds, as he seems adamant about his claim that Rome has become Nestorian. If he can p(name removed by moderator)oint any heretical statements in the common declaration, I’ll concede his point. If he cannot, I hope he will be willing to publicly retract his claim that Rome has become Nestorian.

Blessings,
Marduk

I honestly was not going to, but since you have misrepresented what I actually wrote, I do feel the need to respond so as to not potentially face discipline for something I didn’t write.

The relevant portion of my original post (#365) reads as follows:

For instance, my old FOC once informed me that Rome exonerated the despised heretic Nestorius in 1994, and in this new understanding of the man and his doctrine an agreement on intercommunion was reached between the RC and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the name of all that is holy, WHY?! The Nestorians did not renounce their erroneous doctrine, and certainly Rome did not adopt Nestorianism (or did they? I don’t think they did), so on what basis can you have communion between the two?

I have bolded the specific clauses within this passage that show that you are putting words in my “mouth”, and frankly I really do not appreciate it. I am not inclined to have further contact with you in this environment, and will consider this matter and any other open conversations I may have with you to be closed. A dishonest discussion is not one I need to have.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I honestly was not going to, but since you have misrepresented what I actually wrote, I do feel the need to respond so as to not potentially face discipline for something I didn’t write.

The relevant portion of my original post (#365) reads as follows:

I have bolded the specific clauses within this passage that show that you are putting words in my “mouth”, and frankly I really do not appreciate it. I am not inclined to have further contact with you in this environment, and will consider this matter and any other open conversations I may have with you to be closed. A dishonest discussion is not one I need to have.

In a SUBSEQUENT POST, this is what you wrote:
“Reformation of Nestorius”? Is this an actual historical event, or a word applied to Rome’s caving in on the Nestorian heresy? I’m sorry, Sir, but there is absolutely no way I will say it is anything else.

If this current post is your way of retracting your subsequent statement, then I accept and I thank you for admitting your mistake.

But if you think I have put words in your mouth given what you explicitly stated above, please don’t expect an apology from me. I’m not going to expect an apology from you for claiming I put words in your mouth. I have pretty think skin, and just consider this an honest mistake on your part.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[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?

Then what about when we have not one, not two, but THREE Popes? That’s a wee bit of an issue. What do we do when we have three competing Popes?

We call in the councils, baby.

The Council of Constance pretty much said to the Avignon, Roman and Pisan lines, “Okay, you know what, screw all of you, we’re electing a new guy.” And they did. They condemned two of the Popes as Antipopes, and the third one, John XXIII, resigned. Tell me, which one of those three Popes confirmed that Council? Even John XXIII, the guy who called it, resigned. The Council also placed harsh restrictions on the Roman Pope, forbidding him from moving his See or the Curia to another place. They had THAT dude under LOCK and KEY, man. For the Pope being above a Council, Constance sure did a pretty good job of slamming the three of them on the hood better than a cop from the Vegas Strip. If you want a reference, I got a long one that is pretty much two entire posts by itself.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes. And this new bishop would be the legitimate successor of the Petrine See of Rome, and would be the head bishop of the Church universal.

Because the Papacy is an office, yes? (think I just had a mental breakthrough here )

Obviously. That is the very basis for apostolic succession. It was Apostles who first installed a replacement of Judas, and we have instruction from St. Paul that the successors of the Apostles (the bishops) should also elect successors. The bishops (i.e., the remaining bishops according to your scenario) as successors of the Apostles would be responsible for electing a new head bishop, who would be the legitimate successor of the Petrine See of Rome. The election of a new head bishop would be necessary according to the prescription of Apostolic Canon 34.

I agree.

OK. I don’t see anything with which I disagree.

Schweet.

I would like to suggest a few books for you. My personal favorite - the one that actually caused me to understand the ins and outs of the Vatican Council, whereby I was able to accept the legitimacy of the Catholic claims of the papacy (ummm- not the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, but the ACTUAL Catholic claims )- is The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler (Newman Press, 1930). There were several editions that were published in the 1960’s. I’ve seen it on Amazon for $50 a few years ago. By the Grace of God, while I was not yet Catholic, I chanced upon it at a library book sale for 50 cents!!!

Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity by Adam DeVille

You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy by Olivier Clement

The first is from an Eastern Catholic author, and the second is from an Eastern Orthodox theologian.

Got the names down. I’ll do a price check on Amazon. Or, if I get into OSU, with the huge libraries they have, maybe they’ll be there…

Zip. Zero. Zilch. There were no Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S. in the latter 19th century when this matter first came to a head. The Eastern Catholics were non-Latin Rite Catholics who were under the omophor of local Latin bishops. The Pope provided an episcopal ordinary for the Eastern Catholics I think in the second decade of the 20th century, but - because of the protests of the local Latin bishops - he did not have full faculties as a bishop until several years afterwards (late 20’s/early 30’s, IIRC). As stated, many Eastern Catholics normally interpret Ea Semper as the Pope imposing the rule of celibacy upon Eastern Catholics in the traditionally Latin lands. That is far from the truth. Ea Semper was actually the Pope’s attempt to MITIGATE the EXISTING rule established by the LOCAL Latin bishops forbidding married clergy, by making the prohibition depend on the circumstances of the times, intead of affirming an absolute bar on married clergy in the traditionally Latin lands. As earlier noted, few know that Ea semper was actually NOT well-received by the local Latin bishops, but was seen by them as papal interference into the affairs of their local churches.

Hmm. I thought such might be the case. Looks like I got another document to look up on the Vatican’s site.

Sorry for being unclear. Let me explain it this way:
Definitive teaching can come from the ordinary Magisterium or the extraordinary Magisterium. In both instances, infallibility comes into play. If the definitive teaching comes from the extraordinary Magisterium (the Pope ex cathedra, or an Ecumenical Council), it is called dogma, because it is a precise authoritative statement of a particular matter at a particular point in time. The definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is a bit “looser” in that it is just a little harder to identify. It is the day-to-day teaching that comes from all the bishops dispersed throughout the world, and throughout the history of the Church - for the benefit of readers who may not possess the same outlook on the matter as myself and brother Shiranui, I want to point out that when I say “all the bishops,” that naturally includes the Pope who is the head bishop.

I think I’m getting it a little better now. Thank you yet again.

(cont)

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, calling the Council was normative, but this was really (what I would call) “the imperial solution.” However, just as evident from the history of the Church is that bishops in every place recognized a more (what I would call) “episcopal solution” (because it did not involve the emperor) - when in doubt, appeal to the bishop of Rome. In fact, appealing to the bishop of Rome was more common than calling an Ecumenical Council to settle an issue. The immediate purpose of the Ecumenical Council in the first millenium was for the Emperor to keep the peace of the Empire through a settlement of issues of Faith. But on a strictly episcopal level, bishops normatively appealed to the bishop of Rome if their own local resources could not settle the issue. If even the auctoritas (recall the definition of auctoritas I gave earlier in the thread - authority based on love and respect, not the law) of the bishop of Rome was insufficient to keep the peace, the Emperor saw it fit to use his imperial authority to convene an Ecumenical Council and - basically - force a settlement between parties. During the Arian controversy (as an example, among many), Pope St. Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome for redress of his grievances against the Arians. But it was apparent that the auctoritas of the bishop of Rome was insufficient to keep the peace of the empire. This resulted in the emperor calling the Council of Sardica, intended to be an Ecumenical Council, wherein the existing prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as court of final appeal was affirmed. Unfortunately, all the heretical Arian bishops refused to attend the Council and thus it never gained Ecumenical status. Nevertheless, its canons were affirmed first by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and later by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

As further examples, this same circumstance occurred for the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. Bishops appealed to the bishop of Rome first, and it was only later that the Emperor convened the Ecumenical Councils when the “episcopal solution” was not settling the issue.

So when the judgement of the Pope didn’t solve the issue, a council was convened for a common agreement between the Pope and every other bishop in the Church.

And Sardica got its place in the end, after the acceptance as ecumenical by the Council of Trullo.

That sounds right. But remember, I, as an Oriental, really have no problem with the term “supreme.”

Of course.

I can agree with this statement, though, tbh, I don’t see the difference as you present it - which is probably for the best.

Same ideas, different emphases.

I can agree with your statement 99%. The one percent difference rests in this (or perhaps more than 1%, depending on your perspective, or perhaps no difference at all, depending on your response to this portion of my post )- I believe that as head bishop of the universal Church, though he does not have proper jurisdiction in each local diocese, he indeed has proper jurisdiction in matters that pertain to the Church as a whole. Given that, he has the inherent right to enforce a UNIVERSAL canon of the Church that the Church has previously and collegially legislated. I believe he does not need collegial sanction to enforce such a previously promulgated universal Canon. If he sees a local Church or diocese contradicting a universal Canon, and the local Patriarch has failed in his own responsibility of upholding and enforcing the universal canon, and there is not found to be a sufficient and good reason for that local Church or diocese to contradict the universal Canon, then (and only when all these three criteria are met) it is not only the bishop of Rome’s right as coryphaeus, but also his divine and canonical responsibility, to call that local Church back to the norm of the Church, and even to discipline its local bishop.

In this one particular circumstance, I don’t believe the Pope is merely a “court of appeal.”

If the neighboring bishops can’t solve it, if the Patriarch can’t solve it, then an appeal to Rome in line with the Council of Sardica is the way to go. If it is in matters of correcting error and heresy, and no one else can do it, then the Pope would, as you said, have a right and obligation to step in. With that in mind, I would agree with what you wrote.

 

[Shiranui117]

Dear brother SteveB,

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

My one comment on this is that there are abundant examples where Popes have been shown to be wrong or in error by Councils (such as the oft-repeated Council of Trullo and Council of Constance) so it would not make sense for an Ecumenical Council to be below the Pope if they can discipline a Pope when he goes into error. There has to be some check and balance on every bishop, Pope of Rome or not. An Ecumenical Council is that check and balance, as history has shown.

 

[Shiranui117]

Did you see my post #370 (I reposted it below). I am interested to know your comments on it, and whether or not, given that information, one could still claim that the Synod of 863 was a “robber synod.”

Actually, yes I did.

Here’s the course of the events:

1. The Pope sent legates to Contantinople on the matter of Patriarch Ignatius - at the request of the emperor and St. Photius - in May, 861. The legates came back to Rome with a decision in favor of Photius. This is in accord with the Sardican canons.

1. A legate from Patriarch Ignatius came to Rome, but not until early 862 presenting fresh matter for the case in favor of Ignatius. According to Canon 4 of Sardica, Photius, given the new evidence, was still not the rightful occupant of the patriarchal throne. Pope St. Nicholas insisted on this, and required Photius to abdicate. THIS WAS WELL WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF POPE ST. NICHOLAS BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER ACCORDING TO THE CANONS TO DETERMINE IF THE NEW EVIDENCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL.

Based on what you said, it would be fair for Pope St. Nicholas to say that evidence can warrant a retrial if he smells something fishy. So far, no problem. However, is it in his right to say that Photius must abdicate before the judgement of the council is made? I don’t recall the Pope being able to make his own decision of the matter, merely if a retrial is to be made. If he would like to vote according to that decision, then that’s just dandy.

1. Given the new evidence, Pope Nicholas convened a Synod in 863, not to try Photius, but to try the legates for (apparently) falsely supporting Photius who did not have a canonical claim to the patriarchal throne yet. At this Synod, Pope St. Nicholas’ PRIOR decision that Photius abdicate the throne was repeated.

(a) Historians often state that Pope Nicholas “deposed” Photius. The actual fact is that Photius was not the rightful holder of the See yet according to Canon 4 of Sardica, and it was well within the rights of Pope Nicholas to insist that Canon 4 of Sardica be upheld.

So, since the matter was not yet settled, Pope St. Nicholas didn’t want anyone to occupy the See.

(b) The only uncanonical action that took place during the whole event was St. Photius’ attempted excommunication of Pope St. Nicholas in 867!!!

IIRC, this was because Photius saw the Filioque as a heresy, and the Pope supported the Germans who were using it during their contest with the Greeks over Bulgaria.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

I see we are in much more agreement on the papacy than I previously thought - even 100% agreement.:hug1: I hope you realize that the position I hold (and the position you hold) is perfectly orthodox from the Catholic point of view. I guess what I’m saying is that I hope that just because you have a different understanding of the papacy than many Latin Catholics, it does not cause you to think that your view is somehow not as Catholic as theirs, and thus cause you to leave the Church. In fact, from what I’ve seen in our discussion, your understanding is certainly more faithful to the intent of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council than the exaggerations of the Absolutist Petrine advocates.

So when the judgement of the Pope didn’t solve the issue, a council was convened for a common agreement between the Pope and every other bishop in the Church.

I would like to offer a revision of your statement here if you don’t mind. Let me know if you agree: “So when the judgment of the Pope didn’t solve the issue, a Council was convened for a common agreement between the party in union with the Pope, and the party not in union with the Pope.”

When I first read your statement, I saw the potential for interpreting it to mean “the Pope VERSUS the bishops.” I have never come across such a circumstance in the history of the Church. I have always affirmed the collegial nature of the papal primacy (or supremacy), especially on a matter of doctrine. Further, the rank of bishop is divinely established just as much as the office of the papacy is divinely established, so there can never be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on the earth (I had a long debate about this with an Absolutist Petrine advocate in the Apologetics Forum a few months back). So I believe a “Pope versus the bishops” scenario is simply impossible, according to the divine consitution of the Church. I know that was not your intention - I was only concerned about the possible misinterpretation others may place upon your words.

And Sardica got its place in the end, after the acceptance as ecumenical by the Council of Trullo.

Actually, as noted, Sardica had already been confirmed several hundred years before the Council of Trullo by the Fourth Ecumenical Council. I have other comments about the Council of Trullo in the next section below.

My one comment on this is that there are abundant examples where Popes have been shown to be wrong or in error by Councils (such as the oft-repeated Council of Trullo and Council of Constance) so it would not make sense for an Ecumenical Council to be below the Pope if they can discipline a Pope when he goes into error. There has to be some check and balance on every bishop, Pope of Rome or not. An Ecumenical Council is that check and balance, as history has shown.

I agree with the principle you present here, but I don’t agree with your examples. That’s because the Council of Trullo and the Council of Contance were not Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Trullo was a local Eastern Synod that never gained acceptance by the Western See - so it is not “Ecumenical” even by the objective standards of the Easterns who claim it has ecumenical status. There are certain (even many) canons from Trullo that the Latin Church does accept, but on the whole, it can’t be considered “ecumenical.” Many Easterns (particularly the EO - I’ve never come across an EC who claims it is ecumenical, though they affirm that the Synod of Trullo is authoritative for the Eastern Church) claim it was part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council - in fact, it was convened about 10 YEARS AFTER the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Constance never had papal approval as a whole, and thus is not legitimately an Ecumenical Council even by the standards of the Latins. It is normally appended to the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the Latin lists, because SOME of its contents obtained papal approval, but it was never considered Ecumenical in and of itself.

The example I prefer to use (and have done so several times in the past in my debates with Absolutist Petrine advocates) to demonstrate that the Pope can be corrected WITHIN an Ecumenical Council is the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Please note my specific use of the preposition “WITHIN.” I believe the phrase “the Pope can be corrected BY an Ecumenical Council” is an error, for the plain fact that an Ecumenical Council (ANY Council for that matter - even a local one) is not a legitimate Council without a head bishop. An Ecumencal Council does not judge the Pope; an Ecumenical Council CANnot judge the Pope. What occurs is that within an Ecumenical Council, the Pope is persuaded by his brother bishops to abjure his error. This is what happened during the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council demonstrates for us two important patristic principles:
(1) The Pope can indeed err and be corrected by his brother bishops in the context of an Ecumenical Council. Contrary to the opinions of many Catholics, the infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council for the papal Magisterium is not identical to the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council. My statement requires some explanation, for it can easily be misinterpreted. When I say “not identical,” I am not saying that the infallibility that the Pope exercises for an ex cathedra decree is different from the infallibility that an Ecumenical Council exercises (or the infallibility of the Church as a whole, for that matter). There is only ONE infallibility - it is the infallibility of God that He grants to His Church for the purpose of preserving/teaching HIS Truth.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

When I say “not identical,” I am referring instead to the SUBJECT of infallibility, which is different in the context an Ecumenical Council than it is in the context of the Pope defining ex cathedra. When the Pope defines ex cathedra, he has a unique charism to exercise the infallibility that God grants to His Church. This unique charism does not necessarily exist in the context of an Ecumenical Council. In the context of an Ecumenical Council, it is the Council AS A WHOLE which has the charism of infallibility. It is not the case that the Pope ALONE will ALWAYS be correct in the context of an Ecumenical Council (the Absolutist Petrine view). Neither is it the case that the majority, apart from its head bishop, will ALWAYS by correct (the Low Petrine view). What matters in an Ecumenical Council protected by the Holy Spirit is the COLLECTIVE decision of the body in union with its head. In such a circumstance, the Pope can indeed err and be corrected by his brother bishops, and the majority of bishops can indeed err and be corrected by the Pope along with other bishops. HOW the final decision comes about is irrelevant. What matters is the resulting action of the body in union with its head which is guaranteed to be infallible by the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Here is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia (a standard if not authoritative source for conservative Catholics of your particular Church, brother Shiranui) states on the matter:
Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops.

(2) The absolute necessity of the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church for the validity of an Ecumenical Council. It is obvious that the Pope erred during the Fifth Ecumenical Council - even if innocently for the purpose of defending the integrity of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This naturally refutes the pretenses of the Absolutist Petrine position. What may not be obvious to many is that the example of the Fifth Ecumenical Council also refutes the pretenses of the Low Petrine position. The Low Petrine position claims that the head bishop is not necessary. If the Low Petrine position was truly the patristic standard, then the Fifth Ecumenical Council would have been fine without the confirmation of Pope Vigilius. In fact, if the Low Petrine view was the standard, we should have seen the Fifth Ecumenical Council depose Pope Vigilius. But that is not what we see. Instead of deposing the Pope, the Emperor imprisoned the Pope UNTIL he gave his confirmation, and the Eastern bishops were literally pleading and exhorting the Pope to confirm their decrees. Everyone knew that the Pope’s confirmation was absolutely necessary for this Council to have ecumenical authority. Low Petrine advocates in the EOC (by this, I mean that I am aware that not all EO adhere to a Low Petrine position, but rather adhere to the High Petrine position - and I have met many of them on the I-net, here in CAF and in other sites) are plainly in error.

It should be noted that the error of Pope Vigilius was not doctrinal. The Easterns fully recognized and accepted that Pope Vigilius was wholly orthodox, and simply disagreed with them on the issue of the condemnation of certain persons (I hope brother Dzheremi is reading this and seriously rethinking his position on the idea that just because the ACOE wants to continue to venerate the person of Nestorius, that does not necessarily nor automatically dictate that they are defending or adhering to the heresy for which he was accused). Thus, they knew they had no authority to depose him, even though there was disagreement. Their only recourse was to wait for his necessary confirmation - which he, under the movement of the Holy Sprit, eventually did.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m one of the most guilty people on this board for getting off topic, so I guess my credibility here is not much but I’ll say it anyway…we’re waaaaaayy off topic!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Based on what you said, it would be fair for Pope St. Nicholas to say that evidence can warrant a retrial if he smells something fishy. So far, no problem. However, is it in his right to say that Photius must abdicate before the judgement of the council is made? I don’t recall the Pope being able to make his own decision of the matter, merely if a retrial is to be made. If he would like to vote according to that decision, then that’s just dandy.

Forgive me for not being more clear. When I said that the Pope insisted on St. Photius abdicating, I meant that the Pope did so ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CANON, NOT HIS OWN AUTHORITY. Would you agree with that statement?

So, since the matter was not yet settled, Pope St. Nicholas didn’t want anyone to occupy the See.

Yes. But it was not really a matter of what Pope St. Nichalas wanted. It was a matter of adhering to the Canons. Canon 4 of Sardica specifically dictates that NO BISHOP CAN OCCUPY THE SEE OF A BISHOP EJECTED FROM HIS SEE IF THAT BISHOP HAS PRESENTED FRESH EVIDENCE FOR A NEW TRIAL AND THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS DEEMED THE NEW EVIDENCE WARRANTS A NEW TRIAL.

IIRC, this was because Photius saw the Filioque as a heresy, and the Pope supported the Germans who were using it during their contest with the Greeks over Bulgaria.

I thought the filioque rationale was used by Photius during his Synod of 879, not in during his attempted excommunication of Pope Nicholas in 867. I could be wrong, but that is not really relevant. The question is, was there a trial at which Pope Nicholas was present before Photius tried to excommunicate him? Did Pope Nicholas have a chance to defend himself at this trial? If not, regardless of any of the reasons you gave, such a move by Photius was uncanonical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’m one of the most guilty people on this board for getting off topic, so I guess my credibility here is not much but I’ll say it anyway…we’re waaaaaayy off topic!

You are SOOOOO right. IIRC, the only mention of the papacy in the article of the OP was with regards to the “two heads of one diocese” comment.

I think the rationale is that since the article mentions the papacy at all, we all feel compelled and justified to discuss the matter of the papacy in all its wondrous aspects.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

I’m one of the most guilty people on this board for getting off topic, so I guess my credibility here is not much but I’ll say it anyway…we’re waaaaaayy off topic!

I agree; we are way off topic, just as my last 2 posts were ridiculously off topic…

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

Here comes the part where Mardukm attempts to explain to legions of Latin Catholics that what they believe about the papacy isn’t actually correct and that the texts of Vatican I and II don’t actually mean what they say.