Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[GaryTaylor]

Right the Western Church had an interesting interaction with the Empire ruled Byzantine Papacy also. Temporal Rulers involvement with the Church started immediately with Constantine why do you suppose the First Council occured.

The Church isn’t beyond Temporal Rule in the first 1000 years. In fact correctly viewed they saw this as opportunity to push Christianity foward when they could. Though this bought many obstacles in the journey which had fought off problems in many areas such as heresy, domination etc. Its no different today. Christianity has no military, they are more subjected today than then. Difference is they refuse outside involvement with internal matters. This is exactly why there is a greater need for unity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

another shot.

I see no issue, I’m just not understanding the indefectibility part.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

I need to remember Meyendorff and Whelton. Once I finish my master’s thesis and have some more time…

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.

Constantine, that’s crazy: the Catholic Church in no way teaches authoritatively that a pope is “beyond secular authority” in any kind of definitive, divinely established way.

The tradition that he is above even earthly authority is the secular variation of neo-Ultramontanism, and it died out well before the twentieth century.

The pope is self-evidently not “beyond secular authority.” And I’ll eat my hat if anyone can give me any reason to believe that I’m contradicting Catholic dogma by saying so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right the Western Church had an interesting interaction with the Empire ruled Byzantine Papacy also. Temporal Rulers involvement with the Church started immediately with Constantine why do you suppose the First Council occured.

The Church isn’t beyond Temporal Rule in the first 1000 years. In fact correctly viewed they saw this as opportunity to push Christianity foward when they could. Though this bought many obstacles in the journey which had fought off problems in many areas such as heresy, domination etc. Its no different today. Christianity has no military, they are more subjected today than then. Difference is they refuse outside involvement with internal matters. This is exactly why there is a greater need for unity.

That is the thing, Papal authority isn’t something that began with Peter. Rather it was a temporal ruler, the Emperor, who had the clout over the Church and then the Pope tried to assume that authority unto himself. I wouldn’t say it’s totally a bad thing, but it sure is not dogmatic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, that’s crazy: the Catholic Church in no way teaches authoritatively that a pope is “beyond secular authority” in any kind of definitive, divinely established way.

The tradition that he is above even earthly authority is the secular variation of neo-Ultramontanism, and it died out well before the twentieth century.

The pope is self-evidently not “beyond secular authority.” And I’ll eat my hat if anyone can give me any reason to believe that I’m contradicting Catholic dogma by saying so.

I learned that from Brother JR over at the Traditionalist thread that the Pope today cannot be tried, either by council within the Church or a secular court. Being a head of state, he does have diplomatic immunity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I learned that from Brother JR over at the Traditionalist thread that the Pope today cannot be tried, either by council within the Church or a secular court. Being a head of state, he does have diplomatic immunity.

That’s a secular, legal, international norm, not something that derives intrinsically from the Church’s (or the papacy’s) divine constitution.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s a secular, legal, international norm, not something that derives intrinsically from the Church’s (or the papacy’s) divine constitution.

Well, it facilitates the belief. I mean, even within the Church today the Pope cannot be deposed by other bishops even in a council. Obviously it was not the case in the First Millennium.

 

[adrift]

Well, it facilitates the belief. I mean, even within the Church today the Pope cannot be deposed by other bishops even in a council. Obviously it was not the case in the First Millennium.

Are you saying that Pope Matin was disposed of being Pope? That would mean that while he was alive another was appointed in his place. Who was that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is the thing, Papal authority isn’t something that began with Peter. Rather it was a temporal ruler, the Emperor, who had the clout over the Church and then the Pope tried to assume that authority unto himself. I wouldn’t say it’s totally a bad thing, but it sure is not dogmatic.

Constantine became a believer, he just wanted to know exactly what in depth. So he calls all the greatest minds. What the Apostles believed in the first 300-years is where the focus of Peters role, Paul, John, Andrew, Mark all of them come of concern. The Churchs were established in 10-years after Christs death and grew large by 100-AD.

As far as Dogmatic, its my opinion we ought to stick to the teaching of the church non-dogmatically. And admit we don’t have all the answers. As to what I believe from issue to issue varies. I feel very strongly about the marion doctrines, issues as the Creed I see the EO view and agree. The Primacy I believe is the issue considered by Pope Benedict with the East dialogue. Silence since 2010.

Course what my opinion is and what I do are different.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, it facilitates the belief.

Maybe, but that it may do so for some individuals on a psychological level in no way vindicates the belief or its authenticity. Honestly, in light of that, I don’t see why this is a problem.

I mean, even within the Church today the Pope cannot be deposed by other bishops even in a council.

But that’s not because the pope is considered by Catholic teaching to be above an ecumenical council; he’s not at all. He’s part of an ecumenical council. It’s only because the body cannot act without the head that this is the case, as the pope is the head of such a council.

Obviously it was not the case in the First Millennium.

Really? What first millennium pope of Rome, during his pontificate, was ever deposed by a council? Even Pope Honorius was only posthumously anathematized.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Really? What first millennium pope of Rome, during his pontificate, was ever deposed by a council? Even Pope Honorius was only posthumously anathematized.

Pope Silverius.

But that’s not because the pope is considered by Catholic teaching to be above an ecumenical council; he’s not at all. He’s part of an ecumenical council. It’s only because the body cannot act without the head that this is the case, as the pope is the head of such a council.

But the head can do things without the body, apparently. Compare that to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Pope Silverius.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think some general exiling Pope St. Silverius by force counts as an ecclesiastically valid “deposition” by anybody’s standards, Orthodox or Catholic.

Once St. Silverius died, Pope Vigilius was the legitimate pope of Rome.

But the head can do things without the body, apparently. Compare that to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons.

No, the head cannot do things against the will of the body. Not even in the Catholic Church today.

In fact, Apostolic Canon 34 is often cited by Catholic apologists in defense of the High Petrine interpretation - whether in dialogue with Latin neo-Ultramontanists or “Low Petrine” eastern Orthodox.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think some general exiling Pope St. Silverius by force counts as an ecclesiastically valid “deposition” by anybody’s standards, Orthodox or Catholic.

Once St. Silverius died, Pope Vigilius was the legitimate pope of Rome.

Nope, Silverius pontificate ended with his banishment, in March 537. He died in June of the same year.

And yes, banishment was seen as a valid deposition. Look to Severus of Antioch for example.

No, the head cannot do things against the will of the body. Not even in the Catholic Church today.

In fact, Apostolic Canon 34 is often cited by Catholic apologists in defense of the High Petrine interpretation - whether in dialogue with Latin neo-Ultramontanists or “Low Petrine” eastern Orthodox.

So the Pope cannot make infallible pronouncements without a council? Just wondering

 

[Nine_Two]

Benedict IX was also deposed, as was the man he once sold his office to, Gregory VI.

 

[Hesychios]

Benedict IX was also deposed, as was the man he once sold his office to, Gregory VI.

Wasn’t he actually Pope three times?

 

[Nine_Two]

Wasn’t he actually Pope three times?

Yep, sold the office the first time, and was deposed twice. The second time after he used an army to retake the Lateran Palace.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Yep, sold the office the first time, and was deposed twice. The second time after he used an army to retake the Lateran Palace.

Hired with the money he got from the sale of the papal office?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Nope, Silverius pontificate ended with his banishment, in March 537. He died in June of the same year.

And yes, banishment was seen as a valid deposition. Look to Severus of Antioch for example.

In every context? I’m surprised if that’s true. For instance, St. Athanasius spent much of his time as pope of Alexandria in periods of exile. Yet we don’t look at that as valid deposition, do we?

And what makes St. Silverius’ situation any different? My understanding is that he was banished by force at the hands of the imperial military.

Is might makes right our standard here? If not, what is?

So the Pope cannot make infallible pronouncements without a council? Just wondering

The hands of the body - the College of Bishops - are not tied to working in a conciliar context alone.

Look at the only two undisputed instances of papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility - the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950. The impetus for both was the request by many Catholic bishops of the world for these beliefs to be dogmatized. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII rigorously investigated the positions and wishes of their brother bishops before acting.

In fact, Ineffabilis Deus was promulgated in an assembly of bishops.

So no, the pope doesn’t have to exercise infallibility in the context of a council. It’s just that he must not act against the will of the body. As the Apostolic Canon you cited indicates, the head and body must work in concert.

Wasn’t he actually Pope three times?

Yes. It turns my stomach. I find the tenth century to be hands down the most disgraceful period for the papacy, even worse than the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine became a believer, he just wanted to know exactly what in depth. So he calls all the greatest minds. What the Apostles believed in the first 300-years is where the focus of Peters role, Paul, John, Andrew, Mark all of them come of concern. The Churchs were established in 10-years after Christs death and grew large by 100-AD.

As far as Dogmatic, its my opinion we ought to stick to the teaching of the church non-dogmatically. And admit we don’t have all the answers. As to what I believe from issue to issue varies. I feel very strongly about the marion doctrines, issues as the Creed I see the EO view and agree. The Primacy I believe is the issue considered by Pope Benedict with the East dialogue. Silence since 2010.

Course what my opinion is and what I do are different.

The Ecumenical Councils were always called forth by the Emperor. This is because one bishop or one Patriarch has no authority to summon the others. Not even the Pope of Rome, at least in the First Millennium

 

[ConstantineTG]

Maybe, but that it may do so for some individuals on a psychological level in no way vindicates the belief or its authenticity. Honestly, in light of that, I don’t see why this is a problem.

I wonder if such will be the teaching if the Pope wasn’t a head of state? Since he will have no diplomatic immunity.

But that’s not because the pope is considered by Catholic teaching to be above an ecumenical council; he’s not at all. He’s part of an ecumenical council. It’s only because the body cannot act without the head that this is the case, as the pope is the head of such a council.

First, the head of the Church is Christ, not the Pope. Says so in Scripture.

Second, we have periods of sedevacante, when the Pope dies. In the past it has taken months, even years in some cases, to elect a replacement Pope. So I don’t see what the problem is with deposing a Pope if it is warranted to do so. Just convene the cardinals after and elect a new one.