Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Cavaradossi]

By saying it like you did, in the context we were talking in, I felt it was very confusing

The page you’re refering to from Threadgold, is books.google.com/books?id=nYbnr5XVbzUC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=Leo+revoked+papal+jurisdiction,+the+patriarchate+of+Constantinople.&source=bl&ots=EAJm94A6d1&sig=EPJF5njxQNbv1lovqQOXzDqPDTM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cgP7T4aRCuPq2QWNtJj9Bg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Leo%20revoked%20papal%20jurisdiction%2C%20the%20patriarchate%20of%20Constantinople.&f=false

Before reading this from Threadgold, I wasn’t sure which era in history, and which Leo you were refering to, pope Leo or emperor Leo. We were talking about Clement of Rome 1st century and then you jumped to the 8th century and Byzantine emperor Leo, who revoked papal jurisdiction, over Western territories and gave them to the patriarchate of Constantinople.

Without background to your response, I was thinking you were saying pope Leo voluntarily gave up ecclesiastical jurisdiction over to the patriarch of Constantinople, which obviously isn’t the case. Can you see where my confusion came from?

I’m still not sure how you are connecting the 8th century in this matter, with 1st century Clement.

Emperor leo could only take jurisdiction away from Rome if Rome had prior jurisdiction in those regions. This argument against Credo Ergo Sum is getting to be somewhat obtuse, as his argument that the Corinthians wrote to the bishop of Rome because Rome had Archepiscopal jurisdiction over Corinth is quite lucid. If you have doubts that the bishop of Rome had Archepiscopal jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century, then just say so, and if you don’t (in which case, you would be in agreement with Credo Ergo Sum), then give credit where it is due and at least admit that Credo Ergo Sum has presented a rather cogent argument.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Without background to your response, I was thinking you were saying pope Leo voluntarily gave up ecclesiastical jurisdiction over to the patriarch of Constantinople, which obviously isn’t the case. Can you see where my confusion came from?

I mentioned Iconoclasm all along. There was no iconoclasm in Pope Leo’s day.

I’m still not sure how you are connecting the 8th century in this matter, with 1st century Clement.

Like Cavaradossi said, the emperor couldn’t revoke the pope’s power if he didn’t had it in the first place.

 

[steve_b]

Emperor leo could only take jurisdiction away from Rome if Rome had prior jurisdiction in those regions. This line of thinking is incredibly obtuse.

As I said earlier, until the 4th century, Church and state were water and oil. State was trying to eliminate the Church. We were also talking about Clement from the 1st century. Jumping to the 8th century from the 1st, made things confusing.

 

[steve_b]

I mentioned Iconoclasm all along. There was no iconoclasm in Pope Leo’s day.

Like Cavaradossi said, the emperor couldn’t revoke the pope’s power if he didn’t had it in the first place.

We were talking about Clement. You jumped to the 8th century. I was trying to draw you back to the 1st century
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9490727&postcount=495
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9490733&postcount=496
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9490815&postcount=500

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Perhaps, but I was trying to argue that Rome *traditionally *held authority over Corinth and pointed to the taking away of Corinth from Rome’s authority in the 8th century as proof that Rome had archepiscopal authority over Corith and the possibility that this is the reason the Corinthians of the first century referred to Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps, but I was trying to argue that Rome *traditionally *held authority over Corinth and pointed to the taking away of Corinth from Rome’s authority in the 8th century as proof that Rome had archepiscopal authority over Corith and the possibility that this is the reason the Corinthians of the first century referred to Rome.

I think the problem is, and we all do it, when using “Rome” and not distinguishing between Rome meaning the Church and Rome meaning the state/empire. There was no association between Church and state before the 4th century.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I have seen Eastern Orthodox Christians say that Corinth was under the jurisdiction of Rome from the 1st century until the 8th (I think that’s the cut off), but I have never seen any evidence to back it up. This appears to be their rebuttal to Catholics using Pope St. Clement’s letter as proof of universal jurisdiction (which I believe is proof of universal jurisdiction.)

Pope Hadrian thought along the EO lines. He places those who say Corinth and Greece can be taken from Rome heretics, because it is the patrimony of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul. So it isn’t just to be given and taken by emperors, but patrimony of the apostles who left it to the Pope of Rome.

"…] Et de dioecesi et archiepiscoporum , quam et episcoporum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae commonentes quaesivimus restituere eidem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, quae tunc cum patrimoniis nostris abstulerunt …] ex aliis duobus in eodem permaneant errore. Si enim ubique Christianorum ecclesiae canonicae intactas suas possident dioeceses; quanto amplius Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Romana Ecclesia, quae est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, sua diocesia videlicet archiepiscoporum et episcoporum.

…]

Sed de dioecesi sanctae nostrae Romanae ecclesiae tam archiepiscoporum quam episcoporum *seu de patrimoniis * iterum increpantes commonemus, ut si noluerit ea Sanctae nostrae Romanae Ecclesiae restituere, haereticum eum pro huiusmodi erroris perseverantia esse decernemus. …] Et ideo confidimus [the dioceses, archiepiscopates etc] de Dei nostri potentia, quia quantum erga baetorum principium apostolorum Petri ac Pauli ecclesiam fidem etc"

(Sacrosancta Concilia, Labbe and Cossart, volume VII, p. 962-963, Hadrian to Charlemagne)

I sincerely hope you read Latin

I think the problem is, and we all do it, when using “Rome” and not distinguishing between Rome meaning the Church and Rome meaning the state/empire. There was no association between Church and state before the 4th century.

I don’t deny that. The authority of the Pope doesn’t come from Caesar.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think the problem is, and we all do it, when using “Rome” and not distinguishing between Rome meaning the Church and Rome meaning the state/empire. There was no association between Church and state before the 4th century.

That is not entirely true. Fr. Francis Dvornik points out that the Church was happy to arrange the episcopacy along civil lines (the very word diocese comes from a Roman political subdivision), such that when Diocletian split the diocese of Italy into Italia Suburbicaria (under Rome) and Italia Annonaria (under Milan), the provinces formerly under Rome were transfered from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rome to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan without incident. While the Church at the time had little to do with the Empire, it still did arrange itself after the administrative divisions of the Empire.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Credo ergo sum,

Perhaps, but I was trying to argue that Rome *traditionally *held authority over Corinth and pointed to the taking away of Corinth from Rome’s authority in the 8th century as proof that Rome had archepiscopal authority over Corith and the possibility that this is the reason the Corinthians of the first century referred to Rome.

I believe the common Catholic rejoinder has already been given – the bishop of Rome could make an authoritative decree to Corinth because he had UNIVERSAL jurisdiction, not merely because he had jurisdiction in SOME areas of the Church which was eventually transferred to Constantinople by the secular power.

Actually I have a disagreement with both the common Catholic rejoinder and the common EO stance - both for the same reason. That reason being that jurisdiction as a legal ecclesiastical concept did not yet exist during the time of Clement, but only came about with the marriage of Church and State in the fourth century.

So I disagree with the common Catholic rejoinder when it utilizes the term “universal jurisdiction.” I would use the term “universal solicitude.” In other words, while I agree that the Church of Rome and its bishop had a universal auctoritas, I don’t believe he had a universal potestas at this early time in Church history. The idea of ecclesiastical potestas (authority by Church law) came only later with the marriage of Church of State.

The EO claim that the Church of Rome at this early stage had actual jurisdiction (potestas) only in certain parts of the Church is wholly unrealistic. Can they name the bishops who had jurisdiction in other parts of the Church at this early stage (turn of the 1st century) comparably equal to that of the bishop of Rome? You have to admit that between the turn of the 1st century and the time when these jurisdictions were transferred to Constantinople, there is a great silence in your argument. That should give you some pause.

The fact of the matter is, Credo, the districts your EO sources have provided that were under the jurisdiction of Rome (transferred to Constantinople) were not primordial ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but rather were civil boundaries imposed on the Empire for the first time by Constantine in the 4th century. Constantine split up the empire, and the Western half included the civil jurisdictions mentioned by your EO sources. But, to repeat, these were not primordial ecclesiastical jurisdictions that existed at the time of Pope St. Clement, but rather were civil jurisdictions imposed on the Empire for the first time in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine. With the subsequent marriage between Church and State, and only then, the ecclesiastical jurisdictional lines were patterned along those civil subdivisions. But these ecclesiastical jurisdictional boundaries did not exist before then.

I hope that helps.

As a High Petrine advocate, my position is that Corinth appealed to Rome, not because the bishop of Rome had some sort of partial “jurisdiction” (potestas) over Corinth, nor because he had a universal “jurisdiction” (potestas) as defined by Vatican 1, but simply because at this early stage in Church history, Rome had a recognized universal auctoritas and solicitiude for the whole Church which all Churches acknowledged and respected.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That is not entirely true. Fr. Francis Dvornik points out that the Church was happy to arrange the episcopacy along civil lines (the very word diocese comes from a Roman political subdivision), such that when Diocletian split the diocese of Italy into Italia Suburbicaria (under Rome) and Italia Annonaria (under Milan), the provinces formerly under Rome were transfered from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rome to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan without incident. While the Church at the time had little to do with the Empire, it still did arrange itself after the administrative divisions of the Empire.

Perhaps there was no incident because despite the imperial splitting of boundaries, the See of Rome was always recognized to have primatial status within the Church universal. No shuffling of ecclesiastical boundaries would change that fact.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually I have a disagreement with both the common Catholic rejoinder and the common EO stance - both for the same reason. That reason being that jurisdiction as a legal ecclesiastical concept did not yet exist during the time of Clement, but only came about with the marriage of Church and State in the fourth century.

Do you have anything to back this up? The Canons of Nicaea seem to imply that such a system already existed.

The EO claim that the Church of Rome at this early stage had actual jurisdiction (potestas) only in certain parts of the Church is wholly unrealistic. Can they name the bishops who had jurisdiction in other parts of the Church at this early stage (turn of the 1st century) comparably equal to that of the bishop of Rome? You have to admit that between the turn of the 1st century and the time when these jurisdictions were transferred to Constantinople, there is a great silence in your argument. That should give you some pause.

I can’t name the Bishops of those Churches any more than I can list off the early Bishops of Rome, but the early prominent bishoprics, in addition to Rome, were Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Do you have anything to back this up? The Canons of Nicaea seem to imply that such a system already existed.

I can’t name the Bishops of those Churches any more than I can list off the early Bishops of Rome, but the early prominent bishoprics, in addition to Rome, were Alexandria and Antioch.

As already noted, I believe that there were certain bishops in each region that had greater auctoritas than others, with one having a recognized universal auctoritas. But I don’t see the concept of potestas prior to the 4th century. It is only afterwards that we see jealousies or potential jealousies arise between bishops over “jurisdiction” (i.e. canonical boundaries).

Even granting the EO theory, the earliest time such ecclesiastical boundaries would have been realized is in 285, nearly two centuries after Pope St. Clement’s time. Before that time, the Roman Empire was one, and if the EO theory must remain consistent, it has to admit that at the time of Pope St. Clement, he must have had universal solicitude throughout the Roman Empire, at least.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps there was no incident because despite the imperial splitting of boundaries, the See of Rome was always recognized to have primatial status within the Church universal. No shuffling of ecclesiastical boundaries would change that fact.

Even if that were the case, such a primacy must have been exceptionally weak, since so very few recognized it as being indispensable. After a while the pride argument just gets too weak and worn to be taken seriously.

 

[mardukm]

Even if that were the case, such a primacy must have been exceptionally weak, since so very few recognized it as being indispensable.

The primacy is there when it is needed. It is not, contrary to Low Petrine angst and Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, a micromanaging institution. Just because it was not needed as much in the earliest centuries does not mean it was not recognized. Funny how you style that as weakness, when in fact Pope St. Clement’s letter was accepted by certain segments of the Church even beyond Corinth as part of authoritative Scripture - the Roman auctoritas must have been pretty strong for that to happen.

After a while the pride argument just gets too weak and worn to be taken seriously.

What is the “pride argument” to which you are referring? I don’t recall anyone mentioning pride.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

The primacy is there when it is needed. It is not, contrary to Low Petrine angst and Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, a micromanaging institution. Just because it was not needed as much in the earliest centuries does not mean it was not recognized. Funny how you style that as weakness, when in fact Pope St. Clement’s letter was accepted by certain segments of the Church even beyond Corinth as part of authoritative Scripture - the Roman auctoritas must have been pretty strong for that to happen.

But then other works like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were also once regarded as scripture as well. It had less to do with the particular authority of Rome and more with the fact that the Corinthians saw the epistle to be a potentially inspired writing, like the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John. I don’t see why one needs to posit a special Roman authority in order to explain the letter’s reception any more than one needs to posit special any special petrine-based authority to explain the reception of the Gospels and the Epistles which now comprise the New Testament. Peter was the source and symbol of the unity of the apostles, but he was not the source of their authority.

What is the “pride argument” to which you are referring? I don’t recall anyone mentioning pride.

I always see the fact that so many bishops defied Rome as being explained as some sort of systemic pride which infiltrated the Church. At some point that argument just breaks down and loses its teeth.

 

[LionHeart777]

Pope Hadrian thought along the EO lines. He places those who say Corinth and Greece can be taken from Rome heretics, because it is the patrimony of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul. So it isn’t just to be given and taken by emperors, but patrimony of the apostles who left it to the Pope of Rome.

"…] Et de dioecesi et archiepiscoporum , quam et episcoporum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae commonentes quaesivimus restituere eidem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, quae tunc cum patrimoniis nostris abstulerunt …] ex aliis duobus in eodem permaneant errore. Si enim ubique Christianorum ecclesiae canonicae intactas suas possident dioeceses; quanto amplius Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Romana Ecclesia, quae est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, sua diocesia videlicet archiepiscoporum et episcoporum.

…]

Sed de dioecesi sanctae nostrae Romanae ecclesiae tam archiepiscoporum quam episcoporum *seu de patrimoniis * iterum increpantes commonemus, ut si noluerit ea Sanctae nostrae Romanae Ecclesiae restituere, haereticum eum pro huiusmodi erroris perseverantia esse decernemus. …] Et ideo confidimus [the dioceses, archiepiscopates etc] de Dei nostri potentia, quia quantum erga baetorum principium apostolorum Petri ac Pauli ecclesiam fidem etc"

(Sacrosancta Concilia, Labbe and Cossart, volume VII, p. 962-963, Hadrian to Charlemagne)

I sincerely hope you read Latin

…

No unfortunately I do not read Latin nor can I find the letter in English online

So I can’t see the context, and what is meant.

But it seems to me that you are putting together citations of people who do not agree with what appears to be your conclusion --that the Pope had jurisdiction over Corinth from the 1st-8th centuries (and not universal jurisdiction)-- in an attempt to prove that conclusion (if indeed it is your conclusion.)

For example, you cited Warren Treadgold whom you say cites Milton Anastos, but as I showed you in my post #534, Anastos says that, “…the Roman see had been permitted from 395 on to exercise supervision over Greek-speaking churches in Greece…” --Source: myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_12.html (emphasis mine)–

And Pope Hadrian obviously would not deny the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

And this would not explain why the Popes saw fit to exert their authority in other matters, such as Pope St. Victor with the Quartodeciman controversy, and Pope St. Stephen in the Baptism controversy–these matters being not confined to Corinth and Greece.

 

[mardukm]

But then other works like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were also once regarded as scripture as well. It had less to do with the particular authority of Rome and more with the fact that the Corinthians saw the epistle to be a potentially inspired writing, like the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John. I don’t see why one needs to posit a special Roman authority in order to explain the letter’s reception any more than one needs to posit special any special petrine-based authority to explain the reception of the Gospels and the Epistles which now comprise the New Testament. Peter was the source and symbol of the unity of the apostles, but he was not the source of their authority.

I agree as far as later generations are concerned. I was thinking more of the attitude of the Corinthian Church towards Rome in the immediate period. “Weak” is a very wrong word to describe the Church of Rome’s auctoritas. St. Polycarp travelled all the way to Rome to discuss the matter of Easter with Pope St. Anicetus. Pope St. Victor called all the churches to universal action, requesting them to hold local Synods on the matter of Easter. St. Ireneus wrote that all should agree with this preeminent Church, which was the surest sign of orthodoxy, St. Cyprian appealed to Pope St. Cornelius to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain, etc, etc, etc.

I always see the fact that so many bishops defied Rome

As a High Petrine advocate, such instances don’t make a dent on Vatican’s teaching on papal primacy - if the bishop of Rome is doing something wrong, it’s the job of his brother bishops to correct him. Absolutist Petrine advocates, on the other hand, will have a very hard time explaining these inconsistencies with their exaggerated interpretations of papal prerogatives.

Of course, it should be noted that most examples of these bishops who “defied Rome” were either heretics or in error.

as being explained as some sort of systemic pride which infiltrated the Church. At some point that argument just breaks down and loses its teeth.

Has that argument been used in this thread? I admit I haven’t read the whole thread, so I don’t know why you bring that up now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I can’t name the Bishops of those Churches any more than I can list off the early Bishops of Rome, but the early prominent bishoprics, in addition to Rome, were Alexandria and Antioch.

It’s been mentioned & this link given many times on these threads, that Irenaeus “Against Heresies” Bk 3 ch 3 vs 2-3] newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm thought it important to List 12 bishops of Rome by name, in succession from Peter, down to His day. That succession was important to the case he was making. His work was written ~180 a.d. In that section, Irenaeus ( taught by Bp Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of John the apostle) makes the case that all Churches everywhere, must agree with this Church (Church of Rome) on account of it’s pre eminent authority (i.e. see of Peter). And that this teaching comes from the 2 apostles Peter & Paul in Rome + John, as well as all the faithful bishops he mentions down to his day who faithfully pass this teaching on as apostolic tradition maintained by the faithful everywhere.

What’s interesting,

• no ECF wrote against this teaching of Irenaeus.
• Irenaeus was originally from Smyrna, which today, is in Turkey not too far from Ephesis. Irenaeus ultimartely became bishop of Lyon, ( France)

 

[steve_b]

That is not entirely true. Fr. Francis Dvornik points out that the Church was happy to arrange the episcopacy along civil lines (the very word diocese comes from a Roman political subdivision), such that when Diocletian split the diocese of Italy into Italia Suburbicaria (under Rome) and Italia Annonaria (under Milan), the provinces formerly under Rome were transfered from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rome to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan without incident. While the Church at the time had little to do with the Empire, it still did arrange itself after the administrative divisions of the Empire.

As I said in that post, “There was no association between Church and state before the 4th century.” I’m sure Fr Dvornik won’t disagree.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As I said in that post, “There was no association between Church and state before the 4th century.” I’m sure Fr Dvornik won’t disagree.

Of course, but that didn’t stop the Church from setting its structure up after the provincial divisions already present in the Empire.