Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think as I have stated, the orthodoxy of the Filioque isn’t the question in most of the minds who oppose it. I’ve come across many writings that have reconciled the Eastern and Western view. The problem generally is that Rome changed the Creed that was agreed upon by Ecumenical Council. Only an Ecumenical Council may change the Creed which is intended for all Christian Churches that carry the orthodox faith.

If the orthodoxy of the clause itself is no longer the issue, then shouldn’t the whole thing no longer be an issue, in light of the fact that Catholic Christianity today does indeed consider the filioque-including version to be the creed of the Latin Church specifically, whereas the ecumenically binding version is the one from A.D. 381?

Thus, Rome doesn’t want the eastern Catholic churches to use the filioque…

True. And the biggest thing going against the SSPX is that they are not questioning Vatican I. Which means they have no excuse for going against the Pope’s authority.

The concern if valid. But as noted above, he went against a Catholic dogma. By defying the Pope he has went against the Pope’s authority. Thus justifying his excommunication.

Indeed. I honestly don’t think the SSPX’s dissent from a council - one fully accepted and promulgated by a pope - has any leg to stand on in light of their views on the papacy (which, if I’m not mistaken, are Absolutist/neo-Ultramontanist).

Well, a traditionalist would say how come Lefebvre was excommunicated, and the multitude of “spirit of Vatican II” bishops were not?

Excommunication is a pretty serious thing. Imprudence or negligence alone is probably not enough to incur such a penalty. What actions taken by “spirit of Vatican II” bishops justify excommunication?

Episcopal consecration against the express wishes of the Supreme Pontiff, on the other hand, is very clearly an excommunicable offense. No grey area or wiggle room there.

Why not? The Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians have been out of communion for a long time at this point. It’s not like this one is unprecedented.

Well, that was my point exactly: no one had any idea that this ecclesiastical diplomatic spat in 1054 would be the symbolic beginning of a deep and enduring schism.

Weren’t the Orthodox eventually considered heretics for denying Papal Supremacy even before it was a dogma?

I don’t know, but if they were, it’s self-evidently wrong to say that someone is a heretic for denying something left open by the Magisterium of the Church.

And by the time it was defined by Vatican I, at the end of the nineteenth century and leading into the twentieth, they were definitely not considered heretics but rather “schismatics,” as this old Catholic Encylopedia article from the early twentieth century, which obviously has a very pre-Vatican II perspective, itself attests.

Well, unless that idea has been there from the beginning, which has always been the Orthodox contention. Some point to the 8th century as the time when Rome started thinking of Supremacy this way.

See, to me, that doesn’t do justice to substantive exercise of papal authority outside the metropolia of central Italy before the 8th century. St. Leo the Great, for instance, acted as though he had some kind of universal authority. As did St. Victor I, St. Clement I, etc.

If there is a difference - and I acknowledge there is - I’d say the first millennium popes (with the possible exception of St. Leo the Great) were really good at exercising their supremacy in a way that fully honored the divinely collegial nature of the episcopate.

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
by John Meyendorff

Ooh, I should read that. I’m hopeful that Meyendorff would be able to explain, in the most persuasive possible terms, this matter from the Orthodox perspective.

An Ecumenical Council is not the final authority. The See of Rome is. This can be seen in the Church’s history.

According to definitive Catholic teaching, the supreme authority of the Catholic Church can be exercised by the Supreme Pontiff personally or by the bishops as a whole, most likely in an Ecumenical Council.

So I do think an Ecumenical Council can be a final authority on a given matter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F09672c.htm&ei=Wx_0T6q8HaS36wG7ycnGBg&usg=AFQjCNHk4ZuA8m8VtSfV4QPQYHX7gHLXbQ&sig2=RRZ6d2bzShw2pUTEoKkDNQ

Assuming St Peter did attend to pass his authority? Do you believe in Apostolic Succession? Its not the one who sits in Rome, its the one who sits in St Peters Chair becomes the next successor to St Peter.

Precisely! So why does it have to be Rome? Peter called Mark his son. The son always succeeds the father, especially in Jewish culture.

There is no assumption of the Apostolic Succession. Its a fact. There is no clearer record than Romes. The point that this was established in Rome is documented through the Early Church Fathers, Irenaeus, Cyprian etc. It doesn’t have to remain in Rome, the point Rome turned out to be historically the most beautiful Christian area in the world is just an indication of why it remains in Rome, its history and already being established.

You’re confusing apostolic succession. Every bishop is the successor of the Apostles. Apostolic succession is not limited to Peter and the Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

An Ecumenical Council is not the final authority. The See of Rome is. This can be seen in the Church’s history.

As an example,

The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm

Doesn’t ALL Patriarchs have to approve the decrees of a council?

 

[Peter_J]

True. And the biggest thing going against the SSPX is that they are not questioning Vatican I. Which means they have no excuse for going against the Pope’s authority.

Hi. I’ve been following the SSPX-discussion without saying much, but now I’d like to chime in: I would say they accept Vatican I but don’t apply it in the same way that neo-conservative Catholics (typically) do.

 

[Peter_J]

If the orthodoxy of the clause itself is no longer the issue, then shouldn’t the whole thing no longer be an issue, in light of the fact that Catholic Christianity today does indeed consider the filioque-including version to be the creed of the Latin Church specifically, whereas the ecumenically binding version is the one from A.D. 381?

I would say, rather, that I hope for the orthodoxy of the filioque to no longer be an issue.

 

[Shiranui117]

Ooh, I should read that. I’m hopeful that Meyendorff would be able to explain, in the most persuasive possible terms, this matter from the Orthodox perspective.

Personally, I’m a big fan of Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs.” I’ve only had the pleasure of reading some small parts, but he does a thorough and scholarly job of explaining how the Orthodox view historic interactions between the Pope and everyone else, IMHO.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F09672c.htm&ei=Wx_0T6q8HaS36wG7ycnGBg&usg=AFQjCNHk4ZuA8m8VtSfV4QPQYHX7gHLXbQ&sig2=RRZ6d2bzShw2pUTEoKkDNQ

Assuming St Peter did attend to pass his authority? Do you believe in Apostolic Succession? Its not the one who sits in Rome, its the one who sits in St Peters Chair becomes the next successor to St Peter.
.

Which, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, includes the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria AND Antioch.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would say, rather, that I hope for the orthodoxy of the filioque to no longer be an issue.

My thoughts also.

Happy 4th Pete, and everyone for that matter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You’re confusing apostolic succession. Every bishop is the successor of the Apostles. Apostolic succession is not limited to Peter and the Pope.

Right, but the Succession occured in Rome thus St Peters Chair, also this wasn’t an election process, as St Peter himself chose the first few successors. The exact reason St Peter and Paul wanted Mark in Alexandria, is vague which Paul didn’t elaborate on nor did Peter. However St Paul was strong in this conviction. So there are voids here which are not clearly documented.

For example though, lets say all Christianity become even more persecuted in this area of the World. The geographical location can be re-located with the Apostolic Sees, yet for example as with Alexandria today, these Souls are not easy to give up a area they feel was paid for by the Blood of Martyrs, as we see elsewhere.

However, I think a point in Communion is all the Bishops should be able to succeed in other Apostolic Sees. For example lets say in Russia a very great theologian resides who’s acknowledged through all the churchs, and his upward movement is stagnant because the Chair their is filled. The Pope passed away. Now being these Sees [assuming] in communion, why wouldn’t this be possible in this situation is a great question. I’ve always throught about this. I don’t know, in the early centuries for example the Eastern Church really carried Rome till Constantine. Though they didn’t view it as an Us and Them senerio, but a united Church.

Why didn’t what happen in the past IMHO bro is a kinda void which we don’t have much info on. I believe many factors came into play such as culture, mass comminication being non-existing. Yet today when this occurs, which may be centuries away, its much more likely now.

Good question, I don’t know, perhaps someone else has more insight here.

Happy 4th CTG

 

[JM3]

Doesn’t ALL Patriarchs have to approve the decrees of a council?

Apparently not.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm

In the 8th session, on 7 March 681, the council adopted the teaching of Pope Agatho in condemnation of Monothelitism. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was one of the few who refused his assent; he was deposed in the 12th session.

 

[polse]

Bienvenidos a ABA. - Oropesa del Mar. Marina d’Or .

Somos una empresa especializada en el alquiler, compra y venta de apartamentos en Marina d’Or, Oropesa del Mar ,Castellón. Alquilamos exclusivamente apartamentos dentro del complejo Marina d’Or. En los diferentes apartados que le presentamos podrán encontrar lo mejor de nuestra ciudad de vacaciones. www.apartamentos-marinador.com

 

[Peter_J]

My thoughts also.

Happy 4th Pete, and everyone for that matter.

Thanks!

 

[Trebor135]

What are we talking about?

I’ve been asking myself this question a lot.

I’m genuinely finding it difficult to follow what you’re saying–and it looks as though I’m causing you the same problem.

This isn’t actually an excuse to end our conversation. Our writing styles appear to be so different that we’re not able to communicate effectively. So, to avoid further friction, I suggest that we say a Divine Mercy Chaplet together instead.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve been asking myself this question a lot.

I’m genuinely finding it difficult to follow what you’re saying–and it looks as though I’m causing you the same problem.

This isn’t actually an excuse to end our conversation. Our writing styles appear to be so different that we’re not able to communicate effectively. So, to avoid further friction, I suggest that we say a Divine Mercy Chaplet together instead.

Just to take a stab at this, it seemed to me that Gary’s original post (namely,

Trebor135;9480969:

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.

Right thats not the case, when you read both versions as defined in the CCC/Church they are a similar take on the same reality, terninology varies, language etc. Theres been some good threads on this. It still comes down to IMHO that the Ecumenical Council agree’d and spoke. Then centuries later the EO was informed of a Doctrine upheld by Rome many years before, It was just in bad taste. These councils are Brothers upholding each others views, leaves something to be desired. Theres no fault in the original Nicene Creed. In fact its clearer for those entering the church for understanding. The fact that we can struggle through 40-pages to say the same thing is a bit much.

Not saying I think the Catholic version ought to be discarded for its another great explaination. But I do believe the Churchs will reconcile with the original formula. I believe its in the best interest of the Church.

) was actually less confusing than the subsequent conversation that was meant to clarify it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Trebor135]

Just to take a stab at this, it seemed to me that Gary’s original post (namely,

) was actually less confusing than the subsequent conversation that was meant to clarify it. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, you’re right. I found the post you quoted from GaryTaylor and reread it in the context of the post from yours truly that he was replying to. I’m a lot clearer now on what GaryTaylor meant.

So, I’ll give responding to his most recent post another shot.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Apparently not.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm

Good thing you brought this up, because I did a quick research on the 6th Ecumenical Council and it seems that this council have very strong proof against the current authority claimed by the Pope. For one thing, Pope Martin was condemned by court, contrary to today’s claim that the Pope is above any earthly authority, even secular. Second, after Pope Agatho defended the orthodox faith, the bishops at the council declared that “Peter spoke through the Pope.” If it was inherent that the Pope speaks as Peter from the beginning, why did the bishops have to declare this and only after his defense of the faith was found to be orthodox?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Good thing you brought this up, because I did a quick research on the 6th Ecumenical Council and it seems that this council have very strong proof against the current authority claimed by the Pope. For one thing, Pope Martin was condemned by court, contrary to today’s claim that the Pope is above any earthly authority, even secular. Second, after Pope Agatho defended the orthodox faith, the bishops at the council declared that “Peter spoke through the Pope.” If it was inherent that the Pope speaks as Peter from the beginning, why did the bishops have to declare this and only after his defense of the faith was found to be orthodox?

Martin or Honorius? Honorius was the one anathematized, Martin was along with Maximus the Confessor a defender of the dyothelite Orthodox faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, you’re right. I found the post you quoted from GaryTaylor and reread it in the context of the post from yours truly that he was replying to. I’m a lot clearer now on what GaryTaylor meant.

So, I’ll give responding to his most recent post another shot.

I think you just made my day.

 

[Trebor135]

I think you just made my day.

Glad to be of service. You must have had a pretty dull day then

 

[ConstantineTG]

Martin or Honorius? Honorius was the one anathematized, Martin was along with Maximus the Confessor a defender of the dyothelite Orthodox faith.

No, not anathemized. I mean Pope Matin was deposed by court for treason. We can all agree it was done unfairly, but just points to the fact that the Pope was not beyond secular authority in the First Millennium as opposed to today’s dogma.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, not anathemized. I mean Pope Matin was deposed by court for treason. We can all agree it was done unfairly, but just points to the fact that the Pope was not beyond secular authority in the First Millennium as opposed to today’s dogma.

Ah, I understand now. Yes, the Eastern Roman Court had quite a few interesting dealings with the papacy over the first millennium.