Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[mardukm]

Dear brother MIchael,

I don’t believe I cited any quotations in this thread. If I have please point them out to me.

Sorry for the miscommunication-- when I said “your quotations,” I was referring to what you said, not what you quoted.

Here’s one for you …

**“Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage…For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops” **
John Meyendorff, *Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions *(Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152

This pretty well describes the most common Orthodox Catholic understanding of both Saint Cyprian’s views and the Petrine ministry itself.

The “successor of Peter” statement is the part I strongly question. I have asked this of EO before - i.e., where does St. Cyprian say that all bishops are successors of St. Peter? - and I have never gotten a response. I think it is simply a “clever” restatement of his actual assertion that all bishops are what St. Peter was.

An understanding that is more faithful to St. Cyprian’s intention, which I’ve read from Catholic commentators - and with which I think Orthodox can agree - is that St. Cyprian uses the term “the Chair of Peter” as a symbol of the orthodox Faith of the Church, not literally referring to a particular physical See. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Greetings, Marduk.

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.

That was not my intention. We are all agreed that the conflict was over St. Stephen trying to force his particular custom upon the Church of Carthage and other North African sees.

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

And the see of Caesarea sided with St. Cyprian.

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.

I don’t think that is so. Firmilian in his epistle, while making polemics against Stephen, nevertheless does reference the difference in Easter customs (the quartodecimans) as being legitimate differences which were handed down by the Apostles, with the implication that the same could be the case for rebaptism.

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.

Where in the Second ecumenical council was St. Stephen’s position approved? I see no mentions of it in the canons of the council. This epistle of Basil, on the other hand, was approved as canonical by 215 bishops at Trullo (canon II). His only recognition in this epistle of any deviance from the strict Cyprianic view on rebaptism is that the Asian bishops were receiving the Cathari by oikonomia for practical purposes, which he advises his fellow bishop Amphilochius to follow. Otherwise, for the Encratites, he advises that they be readmitted through baptism, unless such a severe course of action woulda be detrimental to those being received (again, the principle of oikonomia at work).

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.

No, that is an untrue caricature, and frankly, I am surprised that you would make such an inaccurate statement. The Greek and Antiochian Orthodox will accept heterodox baptisms through oikonomia (ROCOR is less disposed to accept them, however). The decision is still very much up to the local synod to make. The Orthodox are, in fact, still quite faithful to Cyprian, Firmilian and Basil.

 

[mardukm]

When you say the pope can and cannot do certain things, do you mean that he is limited in his physical abilities–so that, in the best-case scenario, he would be struck mute (cf. the case of Zachariah in Luke chapter one) and go paralyzed if he attempted to teach the morality of abortion in his official capacity? Or, do you mean that he is limited in his divinely-bestowed and ecclesiastically-regulated authority–so that, also in the best-case scenario, he would ponder the weight of his duties as the vicar of Christ, to follow Sacred Scripture, uphold Sacred Tradition, and look out for the welfare of the faithful, before he abandoned his idea to teach the morality of abortion in his official capacity?

Who knows. God works in mysterious ways. But one thing we know for certain - no Pope has ever taught (in the doctrinal sense of the word) a heresy as the public Faith of the Church. There was one bad Pope during the Western Schism that was driven out of office by the people, I think.

You make a distinction between the personal and official aspects of the pope’s teaching authority which was not widely, let alone universally, taught in the time of Sts. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Athenasius, and Vincent of Lerins. If contrary evidence exists, we can certainly examine it together.

St. Irenaeus held up the teaching of the succession at Rome as the standard to be followed, if you recall from his famous text in Against Heresies.

Pope St. Athanasius was a signatory to the Canons of the Council of Sardica which recognized Rome’s status as court of final appeal for the ENTIRE Church.

But - correct me if I’m wrong - I suspect that when you use the phrases “Pope’s teaching authority” I suspect you mean an authority that is meant to impose his personal teaching on others. As others have commented, that’s not what it is - the Pope’s teaching authority, like any other bishops’, is for the purpose of PRESERVING and PROTECTING Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Carefree_T]

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

Whaa? I was accepted into the Church by chrismation alone through oikonomia; the decision was made by my bishop, as are all decisions on “what to do” with converts; my baptism was in the Roman Catholic Church, so it was known to have been done correctly by a priest with apostolic succession. A man who converted nearly simultaneously with me was rebaptized, as he was coming from some protestant denomination where apostolic succession was either broken or nonexistent, and it’s less certain that the baptism was done correctly anyway, so the bishop decided he was to be baptized and I was to be chrismated only. It’s not at all a general rule to rebaptize heretics except in the Old Calendarist circles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope Paul VI, Pope JP2 the Great of thrice-blessed memory and Pope Benedict XVI expressed/espresses a very collegial view of Catholic ecclesiology. There are also some juicy quotes from Pope Pius IX himself who expressed HIgh Petrine, not Absolutist Petrine, viewpoints after Vatican 1 (Pius IX had some personal Absolutist Petrine views DURING the Council, but even he adhered to the HIgh Petrine teaching of Vatican 1 AFTER the Council).

Blessings,
Marduk

And going back again to what is taught about Papal Infallibility, Popes can express personal opinions that are not infallible. What these Popes have expressed is nothing but their own personal opinions. The infallible teaching is still what was taught in Vatican I, and that is the Absolutist view. Nothing they express means anything unless it is expressed ex cathedra or in some document that has power of law in the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s not true at all.

Well, except for this part: “No ifs. No buts.” No ifs, no buts, indeed: the Absolutist Petrine view is just plain wrong. I’m with Marduk 100%.

Well, if you do not agree to it, then why are you in communion with a Church that teaches as such?

 

[Trebor135]

Who knows. God works in mysterious ways. But one thing we know for certain - no Pope has ever taught (in the doctrinal sense of the word) a heresy as the public Faith of the Church. There was one bad Pope during the Western Schism that was driven out of office by the people, I think.

So, we have no clue how to tell–even on a theoretical level–that the pope is teaching error in an official proclamation, but are expected to believe that God is pulling the strings without clear patristic testimony indicating that he does protect the bishop of Rome from teaching error in his official capacity. (The Catholic Church has not managed to draw up a list of all ex cathedra statements made in the past two thousand years, though it has been able to come up with a list of all ecumenical councils held during the same period.) How then can we find it reassuring that the pope, in the words of Fone Bone, “[cannot] change Catholic teaching, force the Church to accept heterodox teachings, …or conjure up new publicly binding truths”?

St. Irenaeus held up the teaching of the succession at Rome as the standard to be followed, if you recall from his famous text in Against Heresies.

The meaning of that clichéd text is so ambiguous (and thus so widely contested) that it can’t count as a piece of evidence in the top tier of patristic proofs for the doctrinal infallibility of Rome. Moreover, St. Irenaeus nowhere speaks of the bishop of this see in terms even approaching equivalence to “the primary successor to the apostle Peter (above those at Alexandria and Antioch), the centre of unity for the whole Church (whereby, as a doctrinal matter, being in or out of communion with the bishop of Rome is synonymous and coextensive with being in or out of communion with the Church), and the principal teacher and universal pastor of the universal body of Christ (by which, also as a doctrinal matter, throughout the whole Church, East and West, the bishop of Rome is able to depose heretical clerics from their position, annull the flawed decisions of synods, set regulations for Lenten fasting and clerical celibacy, and define doctrine with no risk of error–all of these tasks performed by the authority of the keys to the kingdom of heaven)”.

Pope St. Athanasius was a signatory to the Canons of the Council of Sardica which recognized Rome’s status as court of final appeal for the ENTIRE Church.

I recently struggled through the canons of Sardica–after which I began this thread–and none of them mention that the bishop of Rome has the divine authority to intervene, on his own initiative, in Eastern and Western bishoprics alike, in order to depose heretical clerics from their position, annull the flawed decisions of synods, and the like. None of the Early Church Fathers teach these things, either; no wonder both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches stare in bewilderment at the dogmas on the papacy which Vatican I defined.

But - correct me if I’m wrong - I suspect that when you use the phrases “Pope’s teaching authority” I suspect you mean an authority that is meant to impose his personal teaching on others. As others have commented, that’s not what it is - the Pope’s teaching authority, like any other bishops’, is for the purpose of PRESERVING and PROTECTING Sacred Tradition.

You’re correct–I was using the phrase in that way. But if the pope has the authority to teach doctrine by the power of the universal ordinary magisterium and to make dogmatic definitions by the power of the universal extraordinary magisterium, according to Catholic principles God is employing the bishop of Rome as his instrument to deliver true teachings to the faithful.

 

[dvdjs]

I have to ask again to all of those claiming the ultramontane view is the teaching of the church.

Who in authority says so? Anyone?

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t know why you all are discussing Vatican I.

I think it’s quite obvious that the Church has err… clarified its teaching since Vatican II, including on collegiality.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know why you all are discussing Vatican I.

I think it’s quite obvious that the Church has err… clarified its teaching since Vatican II, including on collegiality.

Because Vatican I introduced the dogma on Papal Supremacy. If one disagrees on the Absolute Petrine view which Vatican I says is de fide, then one shouldn’t be in communion with the Pope, he/she shouldn’t be Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have to ask again to all of those claiming the ultramontane view is the teaching of the church.

Who in authority says so? Anyone?

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

 

[Carefree_T]

To answer the OP’s premise, what I believe about the Roman papacy is what, of course, the Orthodox do; that the Patriarch of Rome is the first among equals and as such carries a certain authority with it. But all this talk of the final court of appeals as established by the councils and such and such…how does that support the Roman Catholic position or refute the Orthodox? Being the Latin side of the Empire, Rome inherited a knack for legalism which was part of the basis for that “court of appeals” language, but there’s no problem with Rome being the final court of appeals anyway. That gives the Patriarch of Rome no authority to authorize anything in the rest of the Church outside of his own see as “supreme” or “universal” pontiff; being given the power of the final court of appeals only grants power when appealed to.

That limit of authority outside of the See of Rome is why there’s a disjuncture between our churches; Rome views its added doctrines as necessarily applying to the Church universal, whereas the Orthodox view those doctrines as what they are - doctrines of the Patriarch of Rome applying to the See of the Patriarchate of Rome. Whether those doctrines changed the faith (self-excommunicating the Church of Rome) or developed the faith (excommunicating the other churches which didn’t accept it) is beyond my spiritual pay grade. I’ve simply chosen the view that makes more sense to me as I understand the Truth, which is all any of us can do, really.

 

[TrueLight]

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

The second document is sufficiently vague that one can come to one’s own conclusions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To answer the OP’s premise, what I believe about the Roman papacy is what, of course, the Orthodox do; that the Patriarch of Rome is the first among equals and as such carries a certain authority with it. But all this talk of the final court of appeals as established by the councils and such and such…how does that support the Roman Catholic position or refute the Orthodox? Being the Latin side of the Empire, Rome inherited a knack for legalism which was part of the basis for that “court of appeals” language, but there’s no problem with Rome being the final court of appeals anyway. That gives the Patriarch of Rome no authority to authorize anything in the rest of the Church outside of his own see as “supreme” or “universal” pontiff; being given the power of the final court of appeals only grants power when appealed to.

That limit of authority outside of the See of Rome is why there’s a disjuncture between our churches; Rome views its added doctrines as necessarily applying to the Church universal, whereas the Orthodox view those doctrines as what they are - doctrines of the Patriarch of Rome applying to the See of the Patriarchate of Rome. Whether those doctrines changed the faith (self-excommunicating the Church of Rome) or developed the faith (excommunicating the other churches which didn’t accept it) is beyond my spiritual pay grade. I’ve simply chosen the view that makes more sense to me as I understand the Truth, which is all any of us can do, really.

sign me up!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The second document is sufficiently vague that one can come to one’s own conclusions.

Well, it does answer some questions. Like those who say that the Pope will never suppress Eastern traditions or change the Eastern Liturgy, it says this…

…the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

So for everyone who says, “he’s never done it before, he will never do it.” Well, that is what the Church teaches.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I have to ask again to all of those claiming the ultramontane view is the teaching of the church.

Who in authority says so? Anyone?

I do not claim to know the minds of others. However, if I may be so bold, I believe they are approaching this from the viewpoint of looking at what Canon Law and Councils teach, and then at the historical applications and exercises of these things.

Even assuming for the sake of conversation that the High Petrine interpretation is the correct one, it is difficult to see that by simply looking at what various popes have done throughout history.

 

[dvdjs]

The second document is sufficiently vague that one can come to one’s own conclusions.

Indeed, and that is exactly what people do.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, it does answer some questions. Like those who say that the Pope will never suppress Eastern traditions or change the Eastern Liturgy, it says this…

…the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

So for everyone who says, “he’s never done it before, he will never do it.” Well, that is what the Church teaches.

The language is carefully measured. It talks about proper ability. Not probability. This is not a subtle difference.

And I think that there is a difference in mentality that is reflected here. The EOs know that has been a stunning history of abuse of power by the EP, but seems to be OK with that, under the rubric of good housekeeping. The West authorizes, in principle, such adventurous uses of power, but expects fitting restraint in its exercise. Over, it works out pretty much the same.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

When you say the pope can and cannot do certain things, do you mean that he is limited in his physical abilities–so that, in the best-case scenario, he would be struck mute (cf. the case of Zachariah in Luke chapter one) and go paralyzed if he attempted to teach the morality of abortion in his official capacity? Or, do you mean that he is limited in his divinely-bestowed and ecclesiastically-regulated authority–so that, also in the best-case scenario, he would ponder the weight of his duties as the vicar of Christ, to follow Sacred Scripture, uphold Sacred Tradition, and look out for the welfare of the faithful, before he abandoned his idea to teach the morality of abortion in his official capacity?

I mean that if a pope suddenly said he thought abortion was okay, that teaching just plain wouldn’t count.

Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that the pope’s status as a final arbiter of both doctrinal and disciplinary matters in the Church is important. But I think that both Catholics and Orthodox who speak of the papacy as if the concept implies that some individual man could ever be the last thing standing between the Church’s Orthodoxy and “the gates of hell” are attributing too much importance - or perhaps the wrong kind of importance - to the papacy.

My local bishop is the head of my church. My local church (i.e. diocese) is, however, in communion with the Church of Rome, which I believe to be what St. Cyprian described it as in the quote I reproduced earlier: “the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (I’ll refrain at the moment from any other examples of similar teachings, or actions that indicate assent to this belief)

I, like Marduk on this thread and plenty of other Catholics, view the pope of Rome as the whole Church’s head bishop, who is to all the bishops of the world what a Metropolitan or Patriarch is to his Metropolitan See or Patriarchate.

And I believe that is the ecclesiology most consistent not only with the often contradictory example of first-millennium Christianity, but also with the teachings of the First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council.

You make a distinction between the personal and official aspects of the pope’s teaching authority which was not widely, let alone universally, taught in the time of Sts. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Athenasius, and Vincent of Lerins. If contrary evidence exists, we can certainly examine it together.

I confess that I’m not sure what you mean; I’m sorry. I intended to speak solely of the official aspects of his teaching authority.

Thus, I wasn’t intending to contrast “personal” with “official” but rather with “collective.” When the pope personally exercises the supreme authority of the Church in some way, it’s still plenty official. I’m not concerned with any particular pope’s actions on a private level.

And going back again to what is taught about Papal Infallibility, Popes can express personal opinions that are not infallible. What these Popes have expressed is nothing but their own personal opinions. The infallible teaching is still what was taught in Vatican I, and that is the Absolutist view. Nothing they express means anything unless it is expressed ex cathedra or in some document that has power of law in the Church.

I don’t think Vatican I - not even Pastor Aeternus - addresses the points that distinguish the Absolutist view from the High Petrine view. But Vatican II certainly does.

Well, if you do not agree to it, then why are you in communion with a Church that teaches as such?

It seems pretty clear to me that the Catholic Church officially teaches what Marduk calls the High Petrine view…

Honestly, even those who are disillusioned with the state of the Catholic Church admit this, Constantine. Malphono on this forum, a Maronite, says he thinks the Catholic Church functions in an Absolutist manner, but he admits that the teachings themselves are not so; at worst, they’re open to both interpretations…

Because Vatican I introduced the dogma on Papal Supremacy. If one disagrees on the Absolute Petrine view which Vatican I says is de fide, then one shouldn’t be in communion with the Pope, he/she shouldn’t be Catholic.

And yet it nowhere says that the pope has proper jurisdiction in matters that pertain specifically to another bishop’s church/diocese. He has appellate jurisdiction in those cases…

The nuances of this ecclesiology make it, of all the views I’ve been exposed to, the only one capable of consistently synthesizing the way papal authority was exercised in the first millennium…

 

[ConstantineTG]

The language is carefully measured. It talks about proper ability. Not probability. This is not a subtle difference.

And I think that there is a difference in mentality that is reflected here. The EOs know that has been a stunning history of abuse of power by the EP, but seems to be OK with that, under the rubric of good housekeeping. The West authorizes, in principle, such adventurous uses of power, but expects fitting restraint in its exercise. Over, it works out pretty much the same.

What does the Ecumenical Patriarch has got to do with this? I’m not trying to shoot down the Papacy here. I am just trying to state the simple fact that the Roman Church teaches the absolutist Petrine view and that all in communion with him should hold that view otherwise they are not in communion with him. This is not about justifying the Orthodox point of view.