Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

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…

The Pope is the final interpreter of the law and of scripture. If he functions this way, then there is only one conclusion.

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…

Like having to approve ordinations of bishops, summoning them to Ad Limina visits, and even having to confirm the election of a Major Archbishop?

 

[dvdjs]

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.

The point is that that is one interpretation of evidence that is subject to interpretation and to tests of significance. Historical use is one test of significance; analogies in other churches in another.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The point is that that is one interpretation of evidence that is subject to interpretation and to tests of significance. Historical use is one test of significance; analogies in other churches in another.

There is more than one interpretation by others. What matters is the view of the Pope and how he exactly wields his power. And it points to nothing else but the absolute Petrine view.

 

[dvdjs]

What matters is the view of the Pope and how he exactly wields his power.

I agree on this point, but disagree with the conclusion that you draw.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree on this point, but disagree with the conclusion that you draw.

But what evidence do we have? For one thing, there is no bishop ordained without his permission. Even Eastern Bishops go on the Ad Limina visit. The Eastern Churches are not autocephalous.

 

[dvdjs]

But what evidence do we have? For one thing, there is no bishop ordained without his permission. Even Eastern Bishops go on the Ad Limina visit. The Eastern Churches are not autocephalous.

Autocephaly? The absence of autocephaly does not imply an absolutist, centralization. Autonomous churches are not autocephalous, but are not by run by absolute dictates of HQ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Autocephaly? The absence of autocephaly does not imply an absolutist, centralization. Autonomous churches are not autocephalous, but are not by run by absolute dictates of HQ.

But we are neither. Obviously we are dictated upon to one extent or another.

I’m not trying to say this is a bad thing. Its not. I’m trying to say that we should be honest about it. We should call a spade, a spade. This is what being Catholic means. If we don’t like that, then we should examine ourselves and perhaps we should not be Catholic at all.

 

[Carefree_T]

Autocephaly? The absence of autocephaly does not imply an absolutist, centralization. Autonomous churches are not autocephalous, but are not by run by absolute dictates of HQ.

They may not be run by “absolute dictates” from Rome, but I have an honest question: are the synodal elections of patriarchs in the Eastern Catholic Churches approved by the Pope of Rome for final “vesting” (or approval, or “okaying,” or however the greater-educated might put it?) If they are, and must be, then that presents a challenge to pre-schism ecclesiology and eventual reunion. We (the Orthodox) would never accept the action of the Patriarch of Rome accepting or denying the appointing of the bishops when said bishops are not within the See of the Patriarch of Rome. Our bishops are our business! If our local synod approves a patriarch, we do not in any way need the Patriarch of Rome to approve it, because the Holy Spirit approved it beforehand!

 

[Vico]

They may not be run by “absolute dictates” from Rome, but I have an honest question: are the synodal elections of patriarchs in the Eastern Catholic Churches approved by the Pope of Rome for final “vesting” (or approval, or “okaying,” or however the greater-educated might put it?) If they are, and must be, then that presents a challenge to pre-schism ecclesiology and eventual reunion. We (the Orthodox) would never accept the action of the Patriarch of Rome accepting or denying the appointing of the bishops when said bishops are not within the See of the Patriarch of Rome. Our bishops are our business! If our local synod approves a patriarch, we do not in any way need the Patriarch of Rome to approve it, because the Holy Spirit approved it beforehand!

Eastern canon law (CCEO) Canons 182, 184, 185 pertain. But this body of law would not apply after full communion is restored, it would be modified or abolished through that process.

182.3. Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff.

182.4. The assent of the Roman Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list.

184.1. If the one elected is on the list of candidates which the Roman Pontiff has already approved, he is to be informed secretly of the results of the election by the patriarch.

184.2. If the one elected accepts the election, the patriarch is to notify the Apostolic See immediately of the acceptance of the election and the day of proclamation.

185.1. If the one elected is not on the list of candidates, the patriarch is immediately to notify the Apostolic See of the completed election in order to obtain the approval of the Roman Pontiff, secrecy being observed by all who in any way know the results of the election, even toward the one elected, until notification of the assent has reached the patriarch.

185.2. After obtaining the approval of the Roman Pontiff, the patriarch secretly is to inform the one elected of the election and acts according to the norms of can. 184, 2.

 

[Trebor135]

We did a poll here a long time ago of “converts” from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I believe there are at least 12 members of CAF who are “converts.” They don’t advertise it, though.

jaw drops Intriguing. Have any such CAF posters other than you written up an account of their journey or a defense of their “translation” (as you would put it) into Catholicism?

First of all, Isn’t that begging the question? The issue is what infallibility is.

I would define it as “the Holy Spirit’s protection of an individual or a group from theological error”.

Can you name even one early Church Father who denied that St. Peter was given the unique responsibility of confirming the brethren in their faith?

I’ve read just one or two patristic comments on the conversation between Jesus and St. Peter that you’re alluding to. Are there any particular quotes which you feel strongly support your position?

Can you name even one Orthodox Catholic Church Father who denied that one should appeal to Rome as the court of final appeal (keeping in mind that the Canons of Sardica were confirmed by several Ecumenical Councils).

We have to first determine on what issues the canons of Sardica granted prerogatives to the bishop of Rome. Then we have to inquire how those canons demonstrate that the Early Church subscribed to the universal jurisdiction and/or doctrinal infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

Secondly, are you saying that the early Church did not believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Ecumenical Councils (i.e., the bishops in union with the Pope)?

It’s definitely possible.

That is, after all, what “infallibility” is - the guidance of the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise in the Scriptures.

Right.

Perhaps you are not understanding exactly what infallibility is?

Earlier I suggested the definition of the term as “the Holy Spirit’s protection of an individual or a group from theological error”; we seem agreed on this point.

Do you think the Orthodox deny the indefectibility of the Church?

No.

Indefectibility is the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church on a permanent, long-term basis.

Indeed.

Infallibility is simply the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church in particular instances.

Right.

Are you saying the Orthodox claim that the early Church denied this infallibility?

I’m not aware of any catechisms universally accepted in Eastern Orthodoxy, so can only go by the comments of its informed and devout adherents online. Based on anecdotal evidence, the Eastern Orthodox reject conciliar infallibility: see here (specifically the last paragraph), here, and here. This Catholic notion appears to be a doctrinal innovation from around the time of the Great Schism. If it were widespread, let alone universal, in the Early Church, conciliar infallibility would surely be an official Eastern Orthodox teaching in the present.

I can give you solid proof that the Ecumenical Councils (particular instances of the bishops in union with the head bishop) were guided by the Holy Spirit because they claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Even outside the occasion of an Ecumenical Council, do not the Canons of the Council of Sardica - and its subsequent re-affirmations by several Ecum Councils - demonstrate the principle of the Holy Spirit acting with the bishops in union with their head bishop?

I’m very eager to examine this evidence.

Where is your proof for your (third) proposition?

Well, nowhere have I encountered clear and indisputable patristic citations in support of conciliar or papal infallibility. Here are a few blog posts by a member of CAF that I’d like to submit for your consideration: “Dave Armstrong on Infallibility”, “Papal Infallibility debate”, and “Catholic Answers on Papal Infallibility”.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Well, nowhere have I encountered clear and indisputable patristic citations in support of conciliar or papal infallibility.

Strange, considering the Early Church thought of its Ecumenical Councils and its products, like the Nicene Creed, as infallible.

 

[Trebor135]

Strange, considering the Early Church thought of its Ecumenical Councils and its products, like the Nicene Creed, as infallible.

If the Early Church held to conciliar infallibility on matters of doctrine, why do the Eastern Orthodox seem to deny this Catholic teaching?

Also, what do you make of the three blog posts I linked to in the last paragraph of post #190?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

If the Early Church held to conciliar infallibility on matters of doctrine, why do the Eastern Orthodox seem to deny this Catholic teaching?

Also, what do you make of the three blog posts I linked to in the last paragraph of post #190?

They quote James White and Hans Kung with approval, need I say more

Besides, many statements there are just erroneous. Like the one where he said that the Extra Ecclesia nulla salus dogma has been abolished.

Papal Infallibility is just that the Church speaks when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, which always goes with a lot cooperation of many bishops worldwide.

 

[Dollinger]

Secondly, are you saying that the early Church did not believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Ecumenical Councils (i.e., the bishops in union with the Pope)?

St Meletius who presided the 2nd oecumenical Council was not in union with the Pope. And he was guided by the Holy Spirit nonetheless.

Like the one where he said that the Extra Ecclesia nulla salus dogma has been abolished.

Baptism of desire or Invincible ignorance seem to suggest that the understanding of this dogma has been strongly revised:

Alphonsus Maria Liguori: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Saviour of the world, what would have become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? …] We would all have perished.” (Preparation for Death)
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens2.htm

Then:

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?
ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

 

[Trebor135]

They quote James White and Hans Kung with approval, need I say more

Haha, point taken.

Besides, many statements there are just erroneous. Like the one where he said that the Extra Ecclesia nulla salus dogma has been abolished.

Indeed. Later today I’ll go through his posts and cite here in the thread what caught my eye.

Papal Infallibility is just that the Church speaks when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, which always goes with a lot cooperation of many bishops worldwide.

Right.

 

[Trebor135]

St Meletius who presided the 2nd oecumenical Council was not in union with the Pope. And he was guided by the Holy Spirit nonetheless.

That issue was mentioned in another thread which is already in progress (see, e.g., post #11). Let’s avoid opening the Meletian can of worms here.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. I fell pretty far behind in terms of reading this thread, and just now read a very large number of posts to catch up. (The feeling this produces is interesting, a zombie-ish state you might say, or perhaps the stupor of a cult-follower – not that I would know. )

But seriously, I have to ask: Out of those of you who label everyone as “low petrine” “high petrine” and “absolutist petrine”, how many of you have made any effort to see whether these terms actually exist off-line?

 

[Holly3278]

I know that this question is not asking for the opinion of Roman Catholics who are also known as Latin Rite Catholics but I thought I’d give my opinion anyway. My opinion is that the Pope is the supreme head of the Catholic Church, that he is the vicar of Christ and that he can exercise papal infallibility when he rules ex cathedra. I realize that my opinion probably differs from that of many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox but I am okay with that. I respect my Eastern brothers and sisters right to disagree with me on it.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

That doesn’t sound familiar. Can you elaborate?

 

[Hesychios]

But seriously, I have to ask: Out of those of you who label everyone as “low petrine” “high petrine” and “absolutist petrine”, how many of you have made any effort to see whether these terms actually exist off-line?

They don’t.