Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

I agree. Too often Catholics think quote-flinging will “win” the “argument,” not realizing that both the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives have pretty much fully synthesized the data available to us in Scripture and Tradition.

Well, it is either out of a complete desire to catechize the masses, or to proselytize everyone to one’s side. I hope this process I am undertaking doesn’t disenfranchise myself from Christianity.

For instance, I’ve watched Catholics bring up Peter’s supremacy, only to have it explained to them that Orthodox ecclesiology, which considers every bishop to have inherited Peter’s headship, is fully consistent with Saint Peter’s status among the Apostles.

That’s why I think the only good way to finally decide is to (a) pray a lot, and (b) think about the matter in context of the big picture.

Yes, prayer is the answer to all. Something I should do more often.

I think Edwin (Contarini) on this forum is very good at that. He summed up in another thread what he claims - correctly, I maintain - is the strongest possible summation of the pro-Catholic argument:

I agree with him, and I find that argument compelling.

Pardon me here, but I find the conclusion to be a bit lacking. Not just because Rome wasn’t seeking to expel Constantinople back then doesn’t mean Rome was right. If you look at a modern example between the Catholic Church and the SSPX, it is the CC that pushed the SSPX out of communion by excommunication. I don’t think Abp. Lefebvre intended to go into schism even though his actions were eventually judged schismatic. I personally think he and his group is disobedient, but given they have been clinging onto the Church to this day, I don’t think they ever intended schism. So is the CC wrong today just because of the fact that they are the ones who intended schism?

(a) I don’t see why it would have been the correct course of action by the standards of the time. Did the pope attempt to fully depose and replace the bishops of Aquileia and Milan during the schism of the three chapters?

Maybe the fact that the Pope didn’t in so many cases points to the fact that the Pope in the beginning did not have the universal jurisdiction to depose any bishop, even those within his own patriarchate.

(b) And furthermore, there was a Catholic “patriarch of Constantinople” for many centuries, dating from the unfortunate Latin Crusader Empire. It was vacant for many years in modern times, and was finally abolished after Vatican II.

I’m not talking about later establishments of pseudo patriarchates just to justify a current position. I’m talking about the right-there-and-then. If the Pope had the authority, why didn’t he just replace the Patriarch of Constantinople. I mean, right after the next Pope was elected back then.

So?

So we never can ever make the claim that the Pope will never go against the charity and love that is expected of one. We have had Popes who never acted accordingly.

Truer words cannot be spoken.

Of course. I forgot the saint who said that.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve always understand it that the Pope has authority over the Church as a whole,* but not ordinary jurisdiction* within the non-Roman Churches. At least that is what I think most Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, would accept.

Here’s the Eastern canons for Churches united with Peter. (Eastern Catholic)
The Orthodox are not in union with Peter.

(all ephasis mine)

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

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

Canon 46

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

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, it is either out of a complete desire to catechize the masses, or to proselytize everyone to one’s side. I hope this process I am undertaking doesn’t disenfranchise myself from Christianity.

Oh, I hope so too. I’ll pray for you, and you pray for me, deal?

Yes, prayer is the answer to all. Something I should do more often.

Same here. Most definitely.

Pardon me here, but I find the conclusion to be a bit lacking. Not just because Rome wasn’t seeking to expel Constantinople back then doesn’t mean Rome was right. If you look at a modern example between the Catholic Church and the SSPX, it is the CC that pushed the SSPX out of communion by excommunication. I don’t think Abp. Lefebvre intended to go into schism even though his actions were eventually judged schismatic. I personally think he and his group is disobedient, but given they have been clinging onto the Church to this day, I don’t think they ever intended schism. So is the CC wrong today just because of the fact that they are the ones who intended schism?

I honestly can’t respond effectively, because I don’t accept the premise of your analogy: the Church didn’t push the SSPX out of communion. Archbishop Lefebvre was given every opportunity not to commit the excommunicable offense that brought down that penalty from Pope John Paul II. I don’t believe for one second that John Paul II wanted to excommunicate him, but Abp. Lefebvre forced his hand.

Maybe the fact that the Pope didn’t in so many cases points to the fact that the Pope in the beginning did not have the universal jurisdiction to depose any bishop, even those within his own patriarchate.

Yes, any number of interpretations is possible. I just find it nonsensical to question why the pope didn’t depose and replace the patriarch of Constantinople when that was clearly never the practice, whatever the truth is about papal supremacy.

I’m not talking about later establishments of pseudo patriarchates just to justify a current position. I’m talking about the right-there-and-then. If the Pope had the authority, why didn’t he just replace the Patriarch of Constantinople. I mean, right after the next Pope was elected back then.

I accept that your question is a fair one in theory, but honestly, this is a bad example. Remember that the East-West Schism wasn’t a clear reality until centuries later anyway. How long did it even take for the next pope to learn of the legates’ excommunication of Cerularius? - excommunications which were invalid, by the way, due to the prior death of St. Leo IX.

And even if a complete, accurate summary of the situation was somehow conveyed to the very next Pope of Rome in an impeccably clear, comprehensive, and timely manner, I still say that deposing and replacing the patriarch would have been far from the obviously right solution. When no one knew yet how long this schism would go, and how deep, why bring out the big guns? Patriarch Cerularius wasn’t going to live forever, after all, and no indication yet existed that his whole patriarchate was entering a state of schism. Besides, at least in the High Petrine view I’m defending, the pope should never act unilaterally anyway, and without some collegial impetus toward such an act, the attempt almost certainly seems unilateral in nature.

So we never can ever make the claim that the Pope will never go against the charity and love that is expected of one. We have had Popes who never acted accordingly.

Sure. of course.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Plus, Constantine, such an attempt could have provoked a schism, if Cerularius had been powerful enough to retain his position in Constantinople. And schism, after all, is worse than heresy…

What, for instance, would happen if the pope attempted to depose, say, the Catholic patriarch of Alexandria today? Probably a schism in which the Coptic patriarch remains on his patriarchal throne in competition with a papal replacement, and that’s the case even if the pope is supposed to have such authority in theory.

So even by current Catholic standards, such an attempt would have been dangerous and possibly schism-provoking. I’m sure St. Leo IX’s replacement would have wanted to avoid such a scenario.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve watched Catholics bring up Peter’s supremacy, only to have it explained to them that Orthodox ecclesiology, which considers every bishop to have inherited Peter’s headship, is fully consistent with Saint Peter’s status among the Apostles.

1st among equals is nonsense. If everyone is equal no one is 1st. If one really is 1st, all aren’t equal. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

No pope ever bought into such equalizations, (1st among equals, pentarchy)

*3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. *

4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Here’s the Eastern canons for Churches united with Peter. (Eastern Catholic). The Orthodox are not in union with Peter.

The Orthodox would say that they are in communion with Peter.

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox would say that they are in communion with Peter.

Saying doesn’t count, being counts.

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

 

[Ubenedictus]

If the pope composed and published an encyclical condemning the filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, and his doctrinal infallibility, we could expect to see a huge falling away from Catholicism. The faithful would succumb, understandably so, to sentiments of profound disillusionment–such a proclamation would turn their world upside down.

Also, if seventy percent of the Latin Fathers–as you say–believed in the filioque, why are any irenic Eastern Orthodox still making a fuss over it?

it is a pity i cant read minds, maybe they simply reject the latin fathers and hold photius, or claim the filioque is against the monachia of the father. However they put it a simple thing is done-accuse the western fathers of heresy.
Ubenedictus

 

[Trebor135]

taken on face value, you know for sure, heretics won’t go to hell?

I don’t know what will happen to each heretic, and I’d rather not find out firsthand

The encyclical does not advocate what you suggest

But I never suggested that all heretics will go to hell. Martin Luther never stated that all heretics will go to hell. Pope Leo X was not condemning the notion that all heretics will go to hell.

Rather, the proposition I quoted earlier in the thread from the encyclical Exsurge Domine has nothing to do with the eternal fate of heretics, but rather their legal punishment through death by fire:

“33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

Martin Luther was saying that it is immoral for heretics to be executed in this gruesome manner, and Pope Leo X was condemning this notion.

 

[Trebor135]

it is a pity i cant read minds, maybe they simply reject the latin fathers and hold photius, or claim the filioque is against the monachia of the father. However they put it a simple thing is done-accuse the western fathers of heresy.

Cavaradossi, following a couple medieval Eastern Orthodox theologians, has argued against the filioque but also acknowledged that some of the Early Church Fathers taught something akin to it, stating that both points of view have to be reconciled so those saints and doctors won’t all automatically become heretics.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Cavaradossi, following a couple medieval Eastern Orthodox theologians, has argued against the filioque but also acknowledged that some of the Early Church Fathers taught something akin to it, stating that both points of view have to be reconciled so those saints and doctors won’t all automatically become heretics.

they didnt just teach something akin, the taught that the spirit ‘procendit’ from the father and son. Augustine clearly said that the father and son are the principle of the spirit. The word ‘akin’ doesnt do justice to it. And i usually take the early father above mediaval theologians especially when those theologian are trying to contradict the fathers.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

they didnt just teach something akin, the taught that the spirit ‘procendit’ from the father and son. Augustine clearly said that the father and son are the principle of the spirit. The word ‘akin’ doesnt do justice to it. And i usually take the early father above mediaval theologians especially when those theologian are trying to contradict the fathers.

But the Son is not principle of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ubenedictus]

But the Son is not principle of the Holy Spirit.

uh…what? I said the father and son are a single principle of the holy spirit. What do you mean by ‘the son is not principle of the holy spirit’?
Ubenedictus

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

uh…what? I said the father and son are a single principle of the holy spirit. What do you mean by ‘the son is not principle of the holy spirit’?
Ubenedictus

But wouldn’t that be modalism? To say that two hypostaseis are somehow one in in the procession of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Trebor135]

they didnt just teach something akin, the taught that the spirit ‘procendit’ from the father and son. Augustine clearly said that the father and son are the principle of the spirit. The word ‘akin’ doesnt do justice to it. And i usually take the early father above mediaval theologians especially when those theologian are trying to contradict the fathers.

If a number of saints other than Augustine taught the filioque, surely the ferocious debate on this issue would never have arisen.

The filioque is a matter of theology which is and will remain completely above my head. I’ll leave sorting it out up to the experts, who have enough advil to keep the migraines at bay (if not, they’d have gone into retirement decades ago).

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

If a number of saints other than Augustine taught the filioque, surely the ferocious debate on this issue would never have arisen.

Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great etc.

 

[Trebor135]

Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great etc.

An Eastern Orthodox priest I talked to some months ago said that the meaning ascribed to “filioque” has changed over time. I’ve also seen the same claim made in this thread–see especially pages #4-6.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I read 4 and 6 don’t see the change. I see the claim it changed. Personally I don’t see this as an issue but I do see it as un-called for. What changed is this was clearly defined at the Ecumenical Council, all agree’d, parted and went their seperate ways. Then the EO received a Memo from Rome a new change occured. Pretty much how that played out. Course thats my short version of the event.

 

[Trebor135]

I read 4 and 6 don’t see the change. I see the claim it changed. Personally I don’t see this as an issue but I do see it as un-called for. What changed is this was clearly defined at the Ecumenical Council, all agree’d, parted and went their seperate ways. Then the EO received a Memo from Rome a new change occured. Pretty much how that played out. Course thats my short version of the event.

If a change took place (a question I acknowledge should be further explored), it would damage the Catholic claim to the indefectibility of its communion.

 

[steve_b]

“33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

Martin Luther was saying that it is immoral for heretics to be executed in this gruesome manner, and Pope Leo X was condemning this notion.

Are you sure that’s what’s going on behind the motives?

What If I say to you, have you stopped beating your wife, and you condemn that statement, what is it you’re condemning?

• that beating one’s wife is okay?
• or Maybe you never laid a hand on your wife, and don’t condone that stuff, so you condemn the accusation

Can you show Church documents that the Church supports/taught burning heretics at the stake?

I’m not talking about individuals taking matters into their own hands. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox have certainly done that over the course of history. I’m talking about the Church teaching it.

Re: the encyclical. Was Luther in danger of being burned at the stake? Read the entire encyclical. The answer is no. Luther was given full protection to come to Rome and make his case. Not that he needed such a gurantee for his safety, but the man was dilusional and paranoid. So the Church even though it didn’t have to, wanted to put his mind, at ease.