Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Hesychios]

What about the Maronites? They have no mother church outside of the Catholic communion.

Antioch.

 

[Dollinger]

To be fair, you’re right. The papacy is as much disproven by the Great Western Schism as is the episcopacy by the Meletian Schism.

Actually, no, you are wrong. Because episopacy is not reduced to one bishp of Antioch, st Meletius. But, all espisopacy deriving its authority from Rome, according to rc ecclesiology, if you dont know who the Pope is, and do not have true succession, then the whole church crumbles.

By the way, the fact that they didnt know who the Pope was, and needed many councils to settle the issue, proves that the Council is above the Pope, and not the other way around.

One local bishop does not resume all episopacy. But in rc ecclesiology, the Pope resumes all the Church.

And the western schism simply disprove Vatican I and the claim that the Pope(as Vatican I understands his position) is needed to end the disputes and for peace within the Church.

 

[Dollinger]

Antioch.

The maronites were monothelites heretics who joined Rome.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The maronites were monothelites heretics who joined Rome.

John Maron was patriarch of Antioch once.

 

[Dollinger]

John Maron was patriarch of Antioch once.

He was a heretic:

St. John of Damascus, On the Trisagion Hymn 5: “We shall be following Maro, if we join the Crucifixion to our Trisagion.”

“John Marun” in Exposition of the Faith in Vatican MS 146, p. 31 (Moosa 165 n. 90): “When we say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost we proclaim three persons and confess them to be one essence. Likewise when we say divinity and humanity we in fact confess one person, one Son, one will, and one authority.”

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

He was a heretic:

St. John of Damascus, On the Trisagion Hymn 5: “We shall be following Maro, if we join the Crucifixion to our Trisagion.”

“John Marun” in Exposition of the Faith in Vatican MS 146, p. 31 (Moosa 165 n. 90): “When we say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost we proclaim three persons and confess them to be one essence. Likewise when we say divinity and humanity we in fact confess one person, one Son, one will, and one authority.”

I thought you denied that Antioch was the maronites’ mother church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

He was a heretic:

St. John of Damascus, On the Trisagion Hymn 5: “We shall be following Maro, if we join the Crucifixion to our Trisagion.”

“John Marun” in Exposition of the Faith in Vatican MS 146, p. 31 (Moosa 165 n. 90): “When we say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost we proclaim three persons and confess them to be one essence. Likewise when we say divinity and humanity we in fact confess one person, one Son, one will, and one authority.”

I’m not sure what the orthodoxy of John Maron has to do with whether or not the Maronites ultimately come from the see of Antioch, given that their leader once was a bishop of that city.

 

[TrueLight]

If you’re an Eastern Catholic, what you believe about the Papacy should be no different from what any other Catholic believes.

This is true. And if you don’t, then why are you Catholic?

Agreed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Agreed.

I guess that settles it for me. Thank TrueLight

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

If papal infallibility has to be maintained, probably not… and the Latin Church does have to keep the teaching, so as to avoid the loss of credibility for reversing a dogma.

Pastor Aeternus has to be the worst document to be promulgated in the last two centuries, for its unintended consequence of reducing potentially to zero the real chances of reunion between the apostolic Churches.

Many Orthodox have become Catholic since Pastor Aeternus was promulgated, so I don’t think that is true.

The teaching of “papal infallibility,” in layman’s terms, is this:

1. Christ established in the person of Peter (not the person of Simon) a special charism (through a special prayer by Christ himself, according to the Gospel of Luke) to be able to confirm his brethren in times of need.
2. According to the principles of Apostolic Succession, this special charism was inherited by those who inherited the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles.

It seems to me the only way to deny this Truth is by doing one or both of the following:
(a) Deny that Peter was head of the Apostles and given this special role among the Apostles.
(b) Deny Apostolic Succession.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well said, as always, brother.

That has been said, by some likely wiser than any of us, but one must consider that ECs for a long time have been considered neither fully Catholic nor fully Orthodox. I posit this must first be addressed, and in so doing, the willingness of Rome to embrace and support a real semblance of a true Communion of Churches will be most clearly proven.

I personally believe there is merit in both positions, Catholic and Orthodox, regarding the Papacy and ecclesiology more generally, yet dwelling on specifics of the history of separation will not bring us any closer to unity. A consensus on commonality of principle with a view to a model of unity of the future, featuring the strengths of both the current Catholic and Orthodox Communions would serve us well.

The most challenging obstacles seemed to have clearly come from the relatively recent post-separation assertions on Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, and thus should be addressed as such with reference to first millenial precedent. The running formal Catholic-Orthodox dialogue appears to be at this stage.

The current Pontiff and his predecessor have been most ameniable to the Eastern Churches in general, and also seemed genuinely inclined to consider a revised role of the Papacy. It is unclear if this view might be shared more broadly in the Curia, by the College of Cardinals or the Magesterium in general, and thus whether or not a likely immediate successor to Pope Benedict XVI would share this vision and viewpoint is equally unclear.

The nature of the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches in modern times, in fairness, also gives rise to occasional concern of Eastern Catholics and Orthodox alike.

Aside from all of that, and on a more personal level, my fathers before me believed that we were indeed Catholic, yet bound to preserve and embrace Orthodox praxis and theology, with that right granted by Rome as condition precedent to our own reunion. I am thus inclined to take this point of view, despite the challenging history. That being said, I feel we as Eastern Catholics should always strive to reflect the best of both sides, yet know this is not yet fully possible for many reasons.

I still think the best hope for unity, agreeing in principle that Eastern Catholics are indeed called to a special, intimate reunion with our Orthodox counterparts, will come only from living that reality first within the Catholic Communion as proof of the possible. Eastern Catholics thus are called, within the bounds of faithful obedience, to be insistent witnesses of the Orthodox faith within the Catholic Communion. The Catholic Church is further obligated to truly stand behind that which it teaches - that we Eastern Catholics are obliged to be faithful to our Orthodox roots and traditions, and that we are truly self-governing - without pause, exception or contradiction.

Until then, the debates (and skepticism) will continue …

 

[mardukm]

He assumes what he has yet to prove, that is that the Pope had universal authority over all other bishops.

That’s not what he said. He clearly said that the bishop of Rome to APPEAL to.

It is not the “unilateral, the Pope can do as he pleases” caricature that non-Catholics think the papacy is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[shekib82]

What is your own take? What is your belief on it?

What do you mean by eastern catholic? I am a Maronite catholic from Lebanon, and as far as I know the head of our church is the pope. Under him comes the Maronite patriarch who is the head of the Maronite church.

 

[Hesychios]

What do you mean by eastern catholic? I am a Maronite catholic from Lebanon, and as far as I know the head of our church is the pope. Under him comes the Maronite patriarch who is the head of the Maronite church.

I just want to make sure I understand something.

According to you, the Maronite patriarch is under the Pope, not merely in communion with him. Is that correct?

Thanks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Are you not aware that Saint Cyprian was speaking of his own See as the See of Peter?

Saint Cyprian believed all bishops were Peter, and it was in this context that he stated what he did because of a local schism in his synod of north Africa. He wanted them to return to communion with himself. When Roman Catholic apologists make the claim that this quote supports the Petrine ministry of Rome to the exclusion of any other orthodox bishop, they are at the very least misinformed.

Usually, people who do not know much of anything about Saint Cyprian take this ‘out-of-context’ snippet directly from a quote mine and pretend that they are clever.

I agree with you that many Catholics WRONGLY interpret the incident between Sts Stephen and Cyprian to support an Absolutist Petrine view. See the following for my personal view on the matter: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8375645&postcount=3

But many Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) are also guilty of taking “out of context” snippets from Cyprian and pretending they are clever. I’m afraid your quotations above reflect some of that “out of context” misinterpretation.

What is correct from your statement above is that St. Cyprian believed all bishops were as St. Peter was. But many Orthodox extrapolate this to mean that St. Cyprian taught that all bishops are SUCCESSORS of St. Peter, which is an exaggerated misinterpretation. Your statement that St. Cyprian was referring to his own See as the See of Peter is a reflection of that misinterpretration.

St. Cyprian recognized the value of headship, and he did recognize the headship of the bishop of Rome as the unique SUCCESSOR of St. Peter. St. Cyprian never stated that all bishops were successors of St. Peter. What we can say of St. Cyprian’s teaching on the matter (with which all Catholics and Orthodox can agree) is that even the head bishop must be faithful to the Faith that the See of Peter represents. He indeed believed that Rome was the unique See of Peter and it’s head bishop had the authority of a head bishop - it’s just that he believed that its occupant was wrong in the matter at issue between them.

Keep in mind that St. Cyprian himself appealed to the Pope to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain - these were Churches in the same standing as Carthage was in relation to Rome. So any claims by the Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) that St. Cyprian supported independence from Rome falls flat on its face. The situation of St. Cyprian was simply of one in which he thought he was correct. It does not mean he did not recognize the ecclesiastical value and authority that the head bishop (the bishop of Rome) represents.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with you that many Catholics WRONGLY interpret the incident between Sts Stephen and Cyprian to support an Absolutist Petrine view.

But if you’re Catholic you have to take the Absolutist Petrine view according to Vatican I. No ifs. No buts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Cyprian and his synod in North Africa ruled that those baptized by heretics ought to be rebaptized. Stephen, bishop of Rome, decided that they should not be rebaptized, and he attempted to force this custom upon the churches in Africa.

You make it seem as if Pope St. Stephen made this rule out of the blue on his own authority - kind of reflects the caricature that non-Catholics have of the papacy. St. Cyprian clearly recognizes that Pope St. Stephen was only applying the Tradition handed down to him.

Btw, FYI, the See of Alexandria sided with Pope St. Stephen.

Cyprian and the African bishops refused to give into Stephen’s demands. Joining Cyprian in his resistance to Stephen’s notion that heretics ought not be rebaptized was Firmilian of Cappadocia, who wrote an epistle to Cyprian in support of the rebaptism of heretics, decrying Stephen’s belief as not being passed down from the Apostles.

To be fair, we have to place St. Firmilian in a different class than St. Cyprian. St. Cyprian thought the decision should be left up to local bishops. St. Firmilian, on the other hand, was just as insistent on forcing his tradition on Rome, as Rome was on others.

St. Basil the great would later call Cyprian and Firmilian the ‘ancient authorities’ in his epistle 188, where he himself endorsed the rebaptism of heretics.

I wouldn’t say he “endorsed” it. I think he agreed with St. Cyprian that it should be left up to the local bishop. But IIRC (not having my resources here in the Philippines), he recognized that an Ecumenical Council already sided with Pope St. Stephen on the issue. I think he also wrote his epistle before the 2nd Ecum, which re-confirmed Pope St. Stephen’s position.

Here, you may find the canons of the Council of Trullo, where 215 Eastern Bishops approved of Basil’s canonical epistles in Canon II: newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

I think we need to take your citation of this with a grain of salt. It seems to me St. Basil and St. Cyprian were in favor of leaving the decision up to the local bishop. But modern EO’xy seems to have made the “rebaptism” of heretics a general rule. That’s not a negligible difference.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

But if you’re Catholic you have to take the Absolutist Petrine view according to Vatican I. No ifs. No buts.

The Absolutist Petrine view is a misinterpretation of the intentions and doctrine promulgated by the Vatican 1 Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

What do I as an Eastern Catholic think about the papacy? Frankly, I don’t really think about it at all. In my day-to-day, week-to-week, and year-to-year life as an Eastern Catholic, the Pope - along with his weekly catechesis and other statements - has very little effect on me.

That being said, I do enjoy reading the writings of both Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, but that’s about as far as it goes.

Well, said, brother! The only time I think about the papacy, is when I hear others ridicule it, and I stand up to defend it.

I’ve been gone for a while, and I can seriously say that today is the first time I’ve thought about the papacy since the last time I was here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

The Absolutist Petrine view is a misinterpretation of the intentions and doctrine promulgated by the Vatican 1 Fathers.

Can a pope who falls into heresy ever be deposed by his fellow bishops?

(If you’re able to give a detailed response, I ask that you start a new thread in the Apologetics forum, so this discussion doesn’t wander off-topic.)