Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

The Catechism of St Pius X says '3 Q. Who exercises this power of forgiving sins in the Church? A. Those who exercise the power of forgiving sins in the Church are, first of all, the Pope, who alone possesses this power in all its plenitude; then the bishops, and, dependent upon the bishops, the priests…10 Q. Who are the lawful pastors of the Church? A. The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.
11 Q. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church? A. Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.” And again: “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.”’ You will note that the catechism refers to the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor and defines his powers using the title ‘Roman Pontiff’, this is contrary to the idea of some who believe that Roman Pontiff and Universal Pontiff are in fact two different offices.

And then ‘‘50 Q. Who is the Pope? A. The Pope, who is also called the Sovereign Pontiff, or the Roman Pontiff, is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and the visible Head of the Church.
51 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Successor of St. Peter? A. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter because St. Peter united in his own person the dignity of Bishop of Rome and that of Head of the Church; by divine disposition he established his Seat at Rome, and there died; hence, whosoever is elected Bishop of Rome is also heir to all his authority.
52 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Vicar of Jesus Christ? A. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ because He represents Him on earth and acts in His stead in the government of the Church.
53 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church? A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.
54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope? A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.’’

Later it says ‘64 Q. Who are the Bishops? A. The Bishops are the pastors of the faithful; placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God in the Sees entrusted to them, in dependence on the Roman Pontiff’ and ‘67 Q. To whom do the Pope and the Bishops succeed? A. The Pope is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles; and the Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, in all that regards the ordinary government of the Church.’

As regards the church being Roman Catholic the catechism says ‘20 Q. And why is the true Church called Roman? A. The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.’

The Catechism of the Council Trent dealing with degrees of the Priesthood places the Pope at the top saying of him '**The Pope

Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of
Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He
sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his
days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of
jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the
Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power
206
and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal
Church**’

It is rather interesting that the Catechism considered being made archbishop, patriarch and pope different degrees of the priesthood.

 

[TrentCath]

The Baltimore Catechism says regarding the Pope ‘Q. 184. What does “supreme” mean?
A. “Supreme” means the highest in authority; also the most excellent or greatest possible in anything. Thus in all things God is supreme, and in the Church the Pope is supreme.’

Later it says ‘Q. 494. What do we mean by “lawful pastors”?
A. By “lawful pastors” we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have, therefore, a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: Every priest in his own parish; every bishop in his own diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church.’ …Q. 498. Could any one be Pope without being Bishop of Rome?
A. One could not be Pope without being Bishop of Rome, and whoever is elected Pope must give up his title to any other diocese and take the title of Bishop of Rome.
Q. 499. Why is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the visible Head of the Church?
A. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the visible Head of the Church because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ made the chief of the Apostles and the visible Head of the Church.
Q. 500. Why are Catholics called “Roman”?
A. Catholics are called Roman to show that they are in union with the true Church founded by Christ and governed by the Apostles under the direction of St. Peter, by divine appointment the Chief of the Apostles, who founded the Church of Rome and was its first bishop.’

Moving on to Theologians, it will suffice to name on. St Thomas Aquinas, without a doubt one of the greatest and most influential theologians and doctors of the Church in all its history.

He says in his tract ‘Against the errors of the greeks’ "**CHAPTER 32

That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.

The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already Footnote cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ. It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ.

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.” Footnote

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chyrsostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The discoples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’s pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.” Footnote

CHAPTER 33

That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.” Footnote

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.” Footnote

This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.
**

 

[TrentCath]

Thomas Aquinas goes on to say '**CHAPTER 34

That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.

It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.” Footnote

And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.” Footnote

This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.

CHAPTER 35

That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.

It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”

Footnote

Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ” “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you.” Footnote And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself.” Footnote And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.” Footnote

CHAPTER 36

That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.

It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” Footnote And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Footnote Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.”

CHAPTER 37

That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.

It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: “It is his”, namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, “exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it.” Footnote And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts of the Apostles says that “Peter is the most holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir, the good shepherd.” Footnote

And this also is manifest on the authority of the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: “You, once converted, confirm your brethren.”

CHAPTER 38

That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if ee imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” Footnote And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”’**

I trust this will suffice to rebut any accusations that I do not have any authority and that is why I did not quote from any?

 

[steve_b]

This is all I have time for right now. I will respond to the rest of your posts later.

When you come up with responses such as this, you’ll forgive my snarkiness. The FACT is, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were appended by the Roman Church to the Canons of the Council of Nicea (and thus later mistakenly believed to be Canons from Nicea itself). How do you suppose that the Canons of Sardica EVER made it into the OFFICIAL records of the Roman Church if Pope Julius never confirmed and promulgated it?

what follows is your statement that I responded to

:
Originally Posted by M

Btw, we’re all still waiting for your answer to the question of why the Council of Sardica did not have Ecumenical status even though it was confirmed and promulgated by the Pope, and was even intended by the Pope to be an Ecumenical Council. But your silence will do just as well as an admission of your error.

my response was made based on the following short article. I think it’s clear WHY the council of Sardica did not get ecumenical status.
newadvent.org/cathen/13473a.htm
M:

I had mentioned in my previous post to our new Eastern Orthodox member that I oftentimes feel that Absolutlist Petrine advocates are PURPOSELY opposing the work of unity. Your response here, in the face of obvious historical reality, simply serves to validate my suspicions, I’m very sad to say.

My responses on this subject are primarily quoting Church docs predominately canons. Very little personal commentary by me.
M:

So if I display impatience and “snarkiness” towards Absolutist Petrine advocates, I at least hope you understand why that is.

So iow, when you are challenged on the reality and accuracy of YOUR remarks, uncharitable remarks and snarkiness from you is to be expected because it’s okay?
M:

And speaking of “attitude,” how about your constant erroneous presumption that High Petrine advocates deny the necessity of the Pope as head bishop of the Church universal? Look to the log in your own eye, brother. You and our SSPX brother come here to the ECF and call the Catholicity of non-Latins into question, and you expect us to just sit back and not defend ourselves? Think about that before you hurl accusations about “attitude.”

Blessings,
Marduk

To all on this thread, since Marduk thinks he speaks for all non Latin Catholics, then, only If you’re interested, and think Marduk is correct in his charge, I have a simple request.

• go back over any post on this thread. Please quote for me any post where I call into question that Catholics, who are not Latin, are not Catholic. One quote will do. I have had 40 posts forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=8995715 I have NOT contradicted my following statement made many times on CAF, including this thread. I have repeatedly said "The Roman/Latin rite is 98%+ of the Catholic Church. All the other rites make up the remaining ~2%. All rites have equal dignity, they are all fully Catholic forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8135771&postcount=104 & forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8195642&postcount=444 If a church is NOT in union with the pope, they are not Catholic.
• For further clarification, so there is no confusion, EO aren’t Catholic nor can they call themselves the Catholic Church on this forum. That’s the ruling of the forum moderators. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
  http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

The tension Marduk creates is of his own making between the labels [absolutist, high, low, ]. It’s clear, because he admits it, he doesn’t agree with papal primacy as the canons clearly make distinctions between the pope’s position AND the “college”. He tries to equalize the pope making him no more than 1st among equals and never in his mind does the pope rise above that. That’s what this is REALLY all about. And when he get’s challenged on this, he has no problem resorting to epithets, and uncharitable ad hominum attacks.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m very sorry that terms such as “blind” could be bandied about in this discussion, or any discussion.

Our brother, Marduk, has a very wide theological education, a profound passion for Eastern Christianity and a distinguished understanding of Catholicism.

Roman Catholicism and her Popes have varied the way in which the Petrine Primacy has been exercised over the centuries. The way the Petrine Primacy is exercised today is not that of yesterday.

There is most certainly room for change and adaptation to the manner of exercising the Petrine Primacy and the current Pontiff as well as his (often much maligned by traditionalists) predecessor have taken the lead on this.

I trust the papacy to reinvent itself once again for a future reunited Church.

Alex

Well put!

No Marduk is rather insistent that he always exercises this authority collegially, as much can be seen from an even cursory glance over this vast discussion.

No, Marduk insists that the pope’s exercise of his authority must never violate the collegial structure of the Church.

But the pope does in some senses have the authority to exercise his headship personally, and Marduk doesn’t deny that:

for instance, check out the thread on the infallibility of the pope. Marduk explicitly stated on that thread that any bishop can exercise the Church’s infallibility collegially, whereas the pope of Rome can exercise the Church’s infallibility either collegially or personally.

The High Petrine ecclesiology doesn’t allow for the violation of the episcopacy’s collegial structure, but nowhere is this a denial that yes, the pope can exercise his primacy personally.

As for the pope being able to ‘impede’ other bishops, all I have to say on that subject is what the Catechism of St Pius X says 'Who are the bishops? The Bishops are the pastors of the faithful; placed there by the Holy Ghost to rule the church of God in the sees entrusted to them, in dependence on the Roman Pontiff’

I don’t disagree with that quote at all, nor do I see how it contradicts the fact that Vatican I does indeed teach that the pope’s supreme authority is not to be exercised in a way that impedes the proper authority of a local bishop (according to its official interpretation).

The Popes powers and the way in which he exercises them have developed since the first millenium, it is not possible to return to a first millenium ‘standard’ because the church has more faithfully expounded and developed the deposit of faith since then. Therefore even if the Orthodox were to go back to a supposed first millenium standard it would still not be enough, the church is not fossilised, its doctrines develop as they are more faithfully expounded. To go back to the way things were therefore is an impossibility.

I agree.

I believe in looking forward, not backward. In this context, I intended “going back to a first millennium standard” not to mean undoing the whole second millennium - and still less retracting in any sense the universally binding teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, but rather to mean what Alexander Roman suggested on page 32 - “establishing an understanding of the role of the Pope and Ecumenical Councils that reflects the praxis of the first millennium and also takes into account the developments since that time” - or as he later called it, “a new synthesis.”

As I read through these posts from the beginning, I am utterly disheartened by the ammount of attacks on each other. We are so caught up in who is right we forgot how we are alike. We can never reconcile if we cant love our brother for who they are, if I can only see you as wrong and an impediment then I will never listen to you. I wasnt raised Orthodox or Catholic but was led home by God. I am proud to be Eastern Orthodox and firmly believe what it teaches. It was in college as Catholic Theology student that I came to be Orthodox and it was Cathilic Theology that led me there. The Roman Church’s Theology testified to the truth of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in my humble view. I tell you now, there is enough alike if we discuss this in relation to a common goal,unification of the Church. But you cant do that if you are bashing and keeping score. I think its time we step back and start at the ressurection and begin to study, read the documents, pay attention to how each Bishop interacted. You know what keeps us apart, the same thing that caused us to fall in the beggining, PRIDE. So choke it down already so you can love your brother so actual healing can begin.

Thank you for this exhortation, Ignatius. Reminders like this can only help us achieve the humility needed to advance the cause of unity.

the third coincil forbidied the changing of the Symbol of Faith. Which the Roman Church in fact did change.

I don’t think the Latin Church’s textual addition changed the faith of the Creed, or its status as the symbol of faith… in any case, the Catholic Church does today recognize the original version as the only ecumenically binding one.

 

[TrentCath]

No, Marduk insists that the pope’s exercise of his authority must never violate the collegial structure of the Church.
But the pope does in some senses have the authority to exercise his headship personally, and Marduk doesn’t deny that:for instance, check out the thread on the infallibility of the pope. Marduk explicitly stated on that thread that any bishop can exercise the Church’s infallibility collegially, whereas the pope of Rome can exercise the Church’s infallibility either collegially or personally.

I’m afraid we are to going to have to agree to disagree here

The High Petrine ecclesiology doesn’t allow for the violation of the episcopacy’s collegial structure, but nowhere is this a denial that yes, the pope can exercise his primacy personally.

I refuse to pander to this division of petrine ecclesiology into low, high and absolute, there is no such as an ‘absolute’ petrine position because no one believes that the pope is right 100% of the time. The division is intended to set Marduks position as the ‘High’ one whilst placing other positions as either ‘absolute’ or ‘low’, Marduks position is not a HIGH petrinal view it is a low petrinal view, at least within the Catholic church. The ‘Low Petrinal’ View is simply not Catholic, it is really a ‘Non-petrinal’ view.

I don’t disagree with that quote at all, nor do I see how it contradicts the fact that Vatican I does indeed teach that the pope’s supreme authority is not to be exercised in a way that impedes the proper authority of a local bishop (according to its official interpretation).

**Simply put the bishop is dependent on the pope and only exercises his authority legitmately in dependence on the pope, the pope can therefore ‘interfere’ so to speak when he see’s fit and the Bishop has no right to impede the Popes right to do this. **

I agree.
I believe in looking forward, not backward. In this context, I intended “going back to a first millennium standard” not to mean undoing the whole second millennium - and still less retracting in any sense the universally binding teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, but rather to mean what Alexander Roman suggested on page 32 - “establishing an understanding of the role of the Pope and Ecumenical Councils that reflects the praxis of the first millennium and also takes into account the developments since that time” - or as he later called it, “a new synthesis.”

I can see no benefit to any such ‘new synthesis’ to be legitimate, such a synthesis would have to respect the popes right as the final court of appeal in all cases, the popes right to appoint bishops and to refuse to recognise patriarchs, the popes right to depose bishops and in short the popes supreme, pleanry and universal jurisdiction. Such a thing would never be accepted by the Orthodox and anything less would be a heresy that contradicts De Fide teachings.

I don’t think the Latin Church’s textual addition changed the faith of the Creed, or its status as the symbol of faith… in any case, the Catholic Church does today recognize the original version as the only ecumenically binding one.

I take it you’re not aware of the council of florence making the ‘proceeds from the father and the son’ the ‘ecumenically binding one’?

 

[dcointin]

Yes and No.

Yes because the word ‘churches’ undermines the Dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, True, Church of Christ and the doctrine of ‘outside the church there is no salvation’. Sister would also imply ‘equal to’ which again can hardly be true if one accepts that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ it has no equal.

Also sadly the word ‘ecumenicism’ has become detached from ‘conversion’ and without conversion as its purpose it can never yield good fruit, it is absurd to suggest that the church of Christ can learn anything from those that are at the very least outside its visible boundaries and so ecumenicism that does not have conversion at its heart serves no purpose at all.

No, because ecumencism properly interpreted simply means preaching a return to the church of christ for those who have unhappily left it.

All in all its a complicated subject that should probably be discussed on another thread rather than derailing this one.

It’s clear that you do not support reunion, but conversion with no concessions by the Catholic Church. I’m personally glad that your church’s hierarchy does not share your opinion, or these talks would be absolutely fruitless.

God bless,

Don

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I can see no benefit to any such ‘new synthesis’ to be legitimate, such a synthesis would have to respect the popes right as the final court of appeal in all cases, the popes right to appoint bishops and to refuse to recognise patriarchs, the popes right to depose bishops and in short the popes supreme, pleanry and universal jurisdiction. Such a thing would never be accepted by the Orthodox and anything less would be a heresy that contradicts De Fide teachings.

As for the final court of appeal - the Orthodox in the first millennium jealously guarded that papal right.

As for the pope’s right appoint bishops - today’s popes allow EC patriarchs to do that without any internal interference from Rome. A Pope can refuse to recognize a patriarch if the selection was non-canonical or broke another law. No problem there. A Pope can depose a bishop if he broke a canon (hopefully not simply because the pope didn’t like the look of his face).

All this was accepted by the Orthodox in the first millennium and if THIS is how you define the “supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction” of the pope, including the way today’s popes exercise their Petrine Ministry - then it is just as it was exercised in the first millennium.

You are therefore wrong about the possibility of a “new synthesis” sir, especially since you have correctly outlined the parameters of such a synthesis.

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

It’s clear that you do not support reunion, but conversion with no concessions by the Catholic Church. I’m personally glad that your church’s hierarchy does not share your opinion, or these talks would be absolutely fruitless.

God bless,

Don

Your statement would be more correct if you said ‘some of your churches hierarchy’, or do you actually think the pope will give up his rights? As for concessions there can be none, even one would be a denial that the Catholic church is the true church of christ.

As Pope Pius IX said in his encyclical Mortalium Animos '**But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise**?’

 

[dcointin]

Your statement would be more correct if you said ‘some of your churches hierarchy’, or do you actually think the pope will give up his rights? As for concessions there can be none, even one would be a denial that the Catholic church is the true church of christ.

As Pope Pius IX said in his encyclical Mortalium Animos '**But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise**?’

I don’t expect us to agree on this issue, but I do value your opinion and hope to learn more about this issue myself. I’m curious, do you attend an EF parish?

 

[TrentCath]

As for the final court of appeal - the Orthodox in the first millennium jealously guarded that papal right.

As for the pope’s right appoint bishops - today’s popes allow EC patriarchs to do that without any internal interference from Rome. A Pope can refuse to recognize a patriarch if the selection was non-canonical or broke another law. No problem there. A Pope can depose a bishop if he broke a canon (hopefully not simply because the pope didn’t like the look of his face).

All this was accepted by the Orthodox in the first millennium and if THIS is how you define the “supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction” of the pope, including the way today’s popes exercise their Petrine Ministry - then it is just as it was exercised in the first millennium.

You are therefore wrong about the possibility of a “new synthesis” sir, especially since you have correctly outlined the parameters of such a synthesis.

Alex

It’s not the entire definition merely a selection of some of the more problematic sections, Vatican I in its entirity presents the full definition and one Orthodox would never assent to. I am sure there are some who would attempt to gain their consent to a mutilated and erroneous interpretation of it, but that would be travesty and an untruth.

As Pope Pius IX said in Mortalium Animos ‘But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.’

 

[Alexander_Roman]

But the point is that popes can and do change their style of administration and what was done before does not constrain contemporary popes.

Will the popes give up their power? They don’t have to, in any event. So many Latin Catholics today ignore papal directives and teachings, especially with respect to morality already. Traditionalist Catholics also will only obey the Popes today if their teachings will pass through their filters.

The decree on the EC Churches already affirms that the Eastern Churches are to govern themselves. We take it at face value. Our Union of Brest, for example, was based on this principle. No pope at that time or ever since has ever annulled that principle. Again, we take it on papal face value.

As for our loyalty to Rome, we have sufficient martyrs and confessors, most of them uncanonized as yet. As for Rome canonizing them soon, let’s say we just won’t hold our breath.

And this for political reasons that go beyond the walls of the Catholic Church.

So much for your Rome sir!

Alex

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m afraid we are to going to have to agree to disagree here.

It’s demonstrable fact that Marduk’s position acknowledges that the pope can exercise his supreme authority personally. Here, I’ll quote his own words:

Well, to be more concise, my position (as I’ve very often expressed) is that the Pope can exercise his authority personally, but always in a collegial manner. This is distinct from exercising his authority collegially.

See?

I refuse to pander to this division of petrine ecclesiology into low, high and absolute, there is no such as an ‘absolute’ petrine position because no one believes that the pope is right 100% of the time. The division is intended to set Marduks position as the ‘High’ one whilst placing other positions as either ‘absolute’ or ‘low’, Marduks position is not a HIGH petrinal view it is a low petrinal view, at least within the Catholic church. The ‘Low Petrinal’ View is simply not Catholic, it is really a ‘Non-petrinal’ view.

I don’t think you believe the pope is right 100% of the time, nor is that what Marduk means by “Absolutist Petrine.”

These three terms really do identify verifiably distinct ecclesiological positions. If you could, would you please read the first post of this thread for an explanation in Marduk’s own words of what these terms mean?

You’ll see that they really do identify specific positions that truly are different, and all of which truly do exist among members of various churches that have preserved apostolic succession.

I think if you read that post, you won’t have to feel like you’re being pigeonholed into a system of nebulous terminology… you’ll see that Marduk’s shorthand is actually quite specific and helpful.

I can see no benefit to any such ‘new synthesis’ to be legitimate,

The benefit would be reunion between the Catholic Church, the eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, in keeping with our Lord’s prayer “that they may all be one.”

such a synthesis would have to respect the popes right as the final court of appeal in all cases,

Of course. I don’t think it will be impossible to get the Orthodox to go for that… eventually.

Especially since that manner of the exercise of the primacy is quite demonstrably patristic.

the popes right to appoint bishops and to refuse to recognise patriarchs, the popes right to depose bishops

Does anyone deny the pope’s right to appoint bishops in the Latin Church? And does Catholic teaching demand that he have the right to routinely appoint bishops for other sui iuris Catholic churches? I don’t think so…

And are you sure the pope must have the right to “refuse to recognize patriarchs”? I ask only because the current Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches stipulates that the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches - of which there are, I believe, six, including the Melkites, the Maronites, the Chaldeans, etc. - are required to notify Rome of whom they have elected patriarch… but the pope doesn’t technically “confirm” them… (he does, of course, get to confirm the election of head bishops for the major archepiscopal churches…)

and in short the popes supreme, pleanry and universal jurisdiction. Such a thing would never be accepted by the Orthodox and anything less would be a heresy that contradicts De Fide teachings.

I agree that a new synthesis on the primacy would have to acknowledge the pope’s supreme, plenary, and universal authority in the Church. And while that sounds like something the Orthodox would never accept, what I’ve learned about each of those requirements leads me to believe that properly understood, the papacy - including all the aspects you mention - really is part of the divinely established structure of Christ’s Church, and therefore all were to some degree a part of the patristic reality of the early Church.

So of course we couldn’t reunite with a communion that flat-out refused to acknowledge the pope’s supreme, plenary, and universal authority over the Catholic Church… but I really do believe that unity is possible…

I take it you’re not aware of the council of florence making the ‘proceeds from the father and the son’ the ‘ecumenically binding one’?

Oh, I know the teaching - the meaning - behind the filioque is indeed universally binding Catholic teaching. But textually, the version that includes the filioque is the Latin Church’s version of the Creed.

Remember that for linguistic reasons, in Greek the filioque sounds like a heresy that even the Catholic Church denies…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I can see no benefit to any such ‘new synthesis’ to be legitimate, such a synthesis would have to respect the popes right as the final court of appeal in all cases, the popes right to appoint bishops and to refuse to recognise patriarchs, the popes right to depose bishops and in short the popes supreme, pleanry and universal jurisdiction. Such a thing would never be accepted by the Orthodox and anything less would be a heresy that contradicts De Fide teachings.

As for the final court of appeal - the Orthodox in the first millennium jealously guarded that papal right.

As for the pope’s right appoint bishops - today’s popes allow EC patriarchs to do that without any internal interference from Rome. A Pope can refuse to recognize a patriarch if the selection was non-canonical or broke another law. No problem there. A Pope can depose a bishop if he broke a canon (hopefully not simply because the pope didn’t like the look of his face).

All this was accepted by the Orthodox in the first millennium and if THIS is how you define the “supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction” of the pope, including the way today’s popes exercise their Petrine Ministry - then it is just as it was exercised in the first millennium.

You are therefore wrong about the possibility of a “new synthesis” sir, especially since you have correctly outlined the parameters of such a synthesis.

Alex

Thank you! You said what I was trying to express, but much better.

 

[TrentCath]

But the point is that popes can and do change their style of administration and what was done before does not constrain contemporary popes.

De Fide teachings do however constrain them and in some cases the way that the power is exercised and the powers themselves is virtually indistinguishable, this is certainly the case with Papal Supremacy and so on.

Will the popes give up their power? They don’t have to, in any event. So many Latin Catholics today ignore papal directives and teachings, especially with respect to morality already. Traditionalist Catholics also will only obey the Popes today if their teachings will pass through their filters.

The former is a tragedy, the latter is unfair and a simplification of rather complicated matters.

The decree on the EC Churches already affirms that the Eastern Churches are to govern themselves. We take it at face value. Our Union of Brest, for example, was based on this principle. No pope at that time or ever since has ever annulled that principle. Again, we take it on papal face value.

I have gone through this so many times that I frankly cannot go through it again.

As for our loyalty to Rome, we have sufficient martyrs and confessors, most of them uncanonized as yet. As for Rome canonizing them soon, let’s say we just won’t hold our breath.

And this for political reasons that go beyond the walls of the Catholic Church.

I have no wish to go into church politics.

 

[TrentCath]

It’s demonstrable fact that Marduk’s position acknowledges that the pope can exercise his supreme authority personally. Here, I’ll quote his own words:
See?

It is the statement ‘in a collegial manner’ that concerns me, the two have always been proposed by the church as being mutually exclusive.

I don’t think you believe the pope is right 100% of the time, nor is that what Marduk means by “Absolutist Petrine.”

These three terms really do identify verifiably distinct ecclesiological positions. If you could, would you please read the first post of this thread for an explanation in Marduk’s own words of what these terms mean?

You’ll see that they really do identify specific positions that truly are different, and all of which truly do exist among members of various churches that have preserved apostolic succession.

The way it has been used in this thread has been an attempt to pigeonhole and frankly I feel it is far too simplistic a system.

The benefit would be reunion between the Catholic Church, the eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, in keeping with our Lord’s prayer “that they may all be one.”

You do of course realise that they are all one… in the Catholic Church. I don’t necessarily disagree with reuniting other ‘churches’ to The Catholic Church but I generally disagree with ecumenicism.

Does anyone deny the pope’s right to appoint bishops in the Latin Church? And does Catholic teaching demand that he have the right to routinely appoint bishops for other sui iuris Catholic churches? I don’t think so…

Well if nobody does then happily there is no problem

And are you sure the pope must have the right to “refuse to recognize patriarchs”? I ask only because the current Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches stipulates that the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches - of which there are, I believe, six, including the Melkites, the Maronites, the Chaldeans, etc. - are required to notify Rome of whom they have elected patriarch… but the pope doesn’t technically “confirm” them… (he does, of course, get to confirm the election of head bishops for the major archepiscopal churches…)

Aside from the teaching of The Council of Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II I refer you to Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quartus Supra which I have previously cited states '**However, some resent and bemoan both Our declaration that this Apostolic See has the right and power to elect a bishop either from the three names recommended or apart from them and Our prohibition against the enthronement of an elected Patriarch without Our prior confirmation. They call Our attention to the customs and canons of their churches as if We had abandoned the provisions of the sacred canons. We might respond to these men in the same way Our predecessor St. Gelasius did when the Acacian schismatics brought the same false accusation against him: “They cite the canons against Us without knowing what they are saying since they show that they are themselves in opposition to the canons by the very fact that they deny obedience to the first See although its advice is sound and correct.”[43] For these are the very canons which recognize the full, divine authority of blessed Peter over the whole Church. Indeed, they proclaim that he lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed.[44] Rightly then did Stephan, Bishop of Larissa, give this firm answer to those who considered that the privileges of the churches of Constantinople were somewhat diminished by the intervention of the Roman Pontiff: “the authority of the Apostolic See which was given by God and our Savior to the chief of the Apostles exceeds the privileges of all the holy churches. In acknowledging this, all the churches of the world should cease their opposition.”[45]

1. Certainly, if you recall the history of your districts, you will find examples of Roman Pontiffs who used this power when they judged it necessary for the safety of the Eastern Churches. This was why the Roman Pontiff Agapetus used his authority to eject Anthimus from the See of Constantinople and replace him with Mennas without calling a synod. Our predecessor Martin I entrusted his power for the East to John, Bishop of Philadelphia, in regard to the regions of the East. He instructed him “by the Apostolic authority given to Us by the Lord through the most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles,”[46] to appoint bishops, priests and deacons in every city subject to the sees of Jerusalem and Antioch. In more recent times, you will recall that the bishop of Mardin of the Armenians was elected and consecrated by the authority of this Apostolic See even though Our predecessors granted the care of this see to the patriarchs of Cilicia. This was granted when the administration of the district of Mesopotamia was assigned to them by the Holy See. All these actions agree with the supreme power of the Roman See; the church of the Armenians has always recognized, proclaimed, and respected this except during unhappy times of schism. This is not surprising since even among your people still separated from the Catholic faith, the ancient tradition remains strong that the great bishop and martyr whom you regard as the Enlightener of your race, received his power from the Apostolic See. He came to the See in person, undeterred by the length and great hardship of the journey. This was Gregory whom Chrysostom described as a sun rising in the eastern regions whose shining rays reached as far as the Greek people.[47] '**

 

[TrentCath]

So of course we couldn’t reunite with a communion that flat-out refused to acknowledge the pope’s supreme, plenary, and universal authority over the Catholic Church… but I really do believe that unity is possible…

I hope that reconciling them to the church is possible but for myself I agree with what Pope Pius IX said in Mortalium Animos 'But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor’

Oh, I know the teaching - the meaning - behind the filioque is indeed universally binding Catholic teaching. But textually, the version that includes the filioque is the Latin Church’s version of the Creed.

Remember that for linguistic reasons, in Greek the filioque sounds like a heresy that even the Catholic Church denies…

You won’t see that distinction made by the council and yes I am, but last time I checked the various churches used the vernacular, none of them bar the greek yet use greek so I can see no basis for objection now? Besides which the Council made it clear that that was the correct version of the creed and then gave its equivalent in greek which is NOT a mere omission of the mention of the son altogether.

 

[TrentCath]

I don’t expect us to agree on this issue, but I do value your opinion and hope to learn more about this issue myself. I’m curious, do you attend an EF parish?

Thank you, and yes I do, have done for the last couple of months or so.

 

[Cecilianus]

I don’t expect us to agree on this issue, but I do value your opinion and hope to learn more about this issue myself. I’m curious, do you attend an EF parish?

One should clarify, on behalf of the Catholics in communion with Rome here, that the EF parish he attends is run by the Society of St. Pius X, an irregular order that has been in schism from Rome since 1988.

 

[TrentCath]

One should clarify, on behalf of the Catholics in communion with Rome here, that the EF parish he attends is run by the Society of St. Pius X, an irregular order that has been in schism from Rome since 1988.

Oh, what a surprise another attack aimed at the SSPX, sadly of course you would know if you’d bothered to read Rome’s documents on the matter that (according to it) it is only the members of SSPX not those that go to its parishes or rather mass centres, that are in schism. I will not go into the arguments for it and otherwise.