Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

I apologise for any offense I may have given, I retract it and remove myself.

Alex

You’ve given no offence

 

[steve_b]

Oh, so now you are claiming that the Canons that state that ANY bishop has the right of appeal to the Pope did not have universal scope? Gotcha! Inconsistency upon inconsistency.

The CC has 21 ecumenical councils. Sardica isn’t one of them. This gives the 21 councils and much discriptions of what we’re talking about
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Councils
M:

Where is your proof for this new claim of yours? Certainly not the CE article. As previously stated, and often proved, your quotes and links are facile for they never demonstrate what you claim. You STILL haven’t answered my question. Nor the original question. You are just avoiding. Your Absolutist Petrine understanding of an Ecumenical Council is not supported by Sacred Tradition or the teaching of the Vatican Councils.

I think you need a time out.
M:

Quotes that purposefully highlight only certain portions, and purposefully neglect the portions which demand a collegial context.

You say this because you simply ignore all the evidence that I give, just like you ignore the clearly collegial context of all the quotes you give. That’s not my fault.

I’ve shown consistenly how your quotes with your misleading highlights don’t demonstrate what you are claiming by pointing out OTHER poritions of the same document. And you rarely respond, but avoid (just like you are avoiding answering my 2 questions regarding the Council of Sardica).

Avoidance again. Typical.

Yes, but not your Absolutist Petrine pretenses.

And there’s your error, which all your facile document quoting does not support. You consistently separate the head from the body. There’s no “collegial part” and a “Petrine part.” There is a College of bishops with a head bishop who is a member of that College. Whether he acts formally with collegial (i.e., through a Synod) or personal authority, he is ALWAYS part of a college of bishops. This college does not always FORMALLY exercise collegial authority, but it ALWAYS exists, and the Pope is ALWAYS a member of it and CANNOT be separated from it, and none of your erroneous opinions can change that.

“Balance” is a word foreign to the Absolutist Petrine paradigm.

Yes, but not your Absolutist Petrine novelties. All the documents demonstrate the collegial nature of the Church, beyond your myopic highlights and underlining of only specific portions in total neglect of the context.

I have every right to contest your Absolutist Petrine novelty that undermines both the teaching of the Catholic Church, and all propects of fulfilling Christ’s command for unity.

Yes, they make distinctions, but not separation, which is your error.

I deny your misinterpretations based on your myopic highlights, since it contradicts the FULL context of the very same documents you give.

Blessings,
Marduk

The docs I quoted copiously, come from the magesterium. I stand by THEM not YOU.
I’m tired of this. You’re on my ignore list. Don’t bother answering my posts because I will be ignoring yours.

 

[mardukm]

Its a pleasure, contrary to popular belief people who hold higher views of you than the so called ‘High Petrine view’ do not do so out of ignorance of the eastern churches or out of obstinacy; they have reasons for doing so and can provide those reasons or sources if you ask them to, as you did me.

But Absolutist Petrine advocates I’ve found base their views on certain sources ALONE devoid of the proper context of Sacred Tradition as a whole. And oftentimes, I’ve found that Absolutist Petrine advocates focus on only particular aspects of those sources, without taking the entire context of those sources into account. So I hope you can see why appeals to sources such as you claim is not impressive. Though it is incomplete, I nevertheless do commend you for your research.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

But Absolutist Petrine advocates I’ve found base their views on certain sources ALONE devoid of the proper context of Sacred Tradition as a whole. And oftentimes, I’ve found that Absolutist Petrine advocates focus on only particular aspects of those sources, without taking the entire context of those sources into account. So I hope you can see why appeals to sources such as you claim is not impressive. Though it is incomplete, I nevertheless do commend you for your research.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ah the good old context trick where words that say one thing are magically changed so that they say something altogether different. I don’t claim appeal to sources, I cite those sources and of course it is incomplete, I would have extend this thread by several pages to give a complete list of sources espousing my position…

 

[mardukm]

The CC has 21 ecumenical councils. Sardica isn’t one of them. This gives the 21 councils and much discriptions of what we’re talking about
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Councils

And you still haven’t given a reason, given your Absolutist Petrine premises, why Sardica is not one of them. Sardica was intended by the then-current Pope to be Ecumenical, and actually confirmed and promulgated its decrees. Your Absolutist Petrine opinion claims this is sufficient for a Council to be Ecumenical. The fact is, you cannot defend your position from Sacred Tradition, and when it is proven to be so, you prefer to avoid the matter rather than admit your error.

I think you need a time out.

I do have to leave due to business obligation for three or four days.

The docs I quoted copiously, come from the magesterium. I stand by THEM not YOU.
I’m tired of this. You’re on my ignore list. Don’t bother answering my posts because I will be ignoring yours.

You mean you stand by only selected portions which you claim support your misinterpretations. As long as you peddle your Absolutist Petrine errors, I will be there to correct them (if I happen to come upon them, that is, or if someone points them out to me), whether you respond or not. Your lack of response will, in effect, be no different from your record of avoiding matters that demonstrate the falsehood of your position. So it’s all par for the course if you put me on your ignore list.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Ah the good old context trick where words that say one thing are magically changed so that they say something altogether different.

Oh, you mean like the word “supreme” being magically transformed into the work “absolute?” Whatever the case may be, understanding a term according to CONTEXT is much much more intellectually honest and logically consistent than misunderstanding a term without support from context at all.

I don’t claim appeal to sources, I cite those sources and of course it is incomplete, I would have extend this thread by several pages to give a complete list of sources espousing my position…

None from the early Church which lived according to its collegial nature. You may be able to find some support during the time the Latin Catholic Church was separated from her sister Churches, but they would only support a form of governance for the LATIN Catholic Church, not the universal Catholic Church.

Anyway, I will be away for 3 or 4 days. I might find some time to respond to the quotes from your research during the next several days. Otherwise, it will have to come after that time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m not entirely sure I see your point?

So - were they in the Church, or not?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

They are not limbs, they are no part of the church at all the moment they left her. Yes it is different as the heresy of at least most of them (these days and all before) is not as severe but they are still ultimately all in schism and most in heresy or at least hold to dubious doctrines.

So do you find the “lung metaphor” Blessed John Paul II used to be inappropriate?

I’m going to take that as saying ‘we catholics’ meaning the ‘catholics that agree with me’, not we catholics and you not catholic.

Yes, I meant it in the former sense.

I think what the council of Florence thinks 'For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. ’

With that clarification I can hardly see how it causes any controversy now.

Well I completely agree with you on that. At least from my understanding of the issue, what the Council of Florence said is an excellent summary. We Latins don’t posit two spirations or two principles when we recite the Creed with the filioque; rather “one and the same meaning resulted from all this.”

Of course, none of that means the eastern churches should use the filioque… to attempt to impose it on them would not be right.

Where I disagree with you is where you appear to be saying that nothing further can be added or subtracted or modified about the papal developments to date without doing irreparable damage to those developments.

That is the point at which we part company. But we do part company because it is your conviction that we must. I don’t see what you have been saying as being exclusive to a “new synthesis” nor does such a synthesis need to do damage to anything.

Well said. I very much agree.

As I have said before there is no need for a new synthesis nor could it achieve anything.

But there is need for such a new synthesis… it might do much to enable and/or promote reunion with the Orthodox Churches…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Just wanted to add a comment on this:

Well I’m glad you accept that, of course it is up to the pope to determine whether there is or isnt a need.

Pretty sure it would be self-evident if there were such a need. The pope probably wouldn’t even know if there were such a problem unless other bishops appealed to him.

The point is that the pope ought to respect the rights of other sui iuris churches, especially those they have under canon law. I mean, the pope accepted and promulgated the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, and if they say that the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches simply notify Rome of whom they’ve elected patriarch, the pope ought to respect and follow the rule that he helped to establish… especially since it seems many eastern Catholics aren’t fans of the idea of a Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches as it is…

That would be another benefit of a new synthesis of the Catholic praxis on papal supremacy, by the way: many eastern Catholics still feel like Rome wants to constantly babysit them… and they shouldn’t have to feel like that.

 

[TrentCath]

So do you find the “lung metaphor” Blessed John Paul II used to be inappropriate?

Most certainly, if he was in fact referring to the Orthodox churches and not the Eastern Catholic churches. The church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, these are things it can never lose, to suggest that the church in any way loses something because some to choose to leave it directly contradicts this De Fide teaching.

Well I completely agree with you on that. At least from my understanding of the issue, what the Council of Florence said is an excellent summary. We Latins don’t posit two spirations or two principles when we recite the Creed with the filioque; rather “one and the same meaning resulted from all this.”

Of course, none of that means the eastern churches should use the filioque… to attempt to impose it on them would not be right.

I’m not entirely sure I agree to be honest, seeing as few of them use Greek and the matter has been clarified I see no reason why they should not, just as the Council of Florence reformed the traditions of those that were reunited with rome so that ‘their practices are in accord with those of the whole christian world’

But there is need for such a new synthesis… it might do much to enable and/or promote reunion with the Orthodox Churches…

The church does not need to change its doctrines nor should it have to in order to accomodate the wishes and false traditions of others who left it hundreds of years ago. As Pope Pius IX said ‘Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?’ I cannot how see any ‘synthesis’ that promoted reconciliation with the orthodox would not violate this sensible judgement.

 

[TrentCath]

Just wanted to add a comment on this:

Pretty sure it would be self-evident if there were such a need. The pope probably wouldn’t even know if there were such a problem unless other bishops appealed to him.

The point is that the pope ought to respect the rights of other sui iuris churches, especially those they have under canon law. I mean, the pope accepted and promulgated the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, and if they say that the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches simply notify Rome of whom they’ve elected patriarch, the pope ought to respect and follow the rule that he helped to establish… especially since it seems many eastern Catholics aren’t fans of the idea of a Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches as it is…

That would be another benefit of a new synthesis of the Catholic praxis on papal supremacy, by the way: many eastern Catholics still feel like Rome wants to constantly babysit them… and they shouldn’t have to feel like that.

The church is not ruled by the feelings, hurt or otherwise, of others it is ruled by the necessity to proclaim the truth always and everywhere. Eastern Catholics can feel what they may it has no relevance in the matter, they feel babysat because they (or at least many of them) do not accept papal supremacy or primacy in the proper sense; they want union with rome and yet appear to desire the same independence they had as Orthodox, as the saying goes you canot have your cake and eat it.

And as for self-evidency, It is not always, especially not in a church that has divided itself into factions many opposed to our Holy Father. There is no standard of ‘self-evidency’ or ‘the good of the church’ (which in reality means my opinion of the good of the church) that the popes powers are limited by, rather he is limited only be sacred tradition, doctrine and divine law.

 

[malphono]

The church does not need to change its doctrines nor should it have to in order to accomodate the wishes and false traditions of others who left it hundreds of years ago. As Pope Pius IX said ‘Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?’ I cannot how see any ‘synthesis’ that promoted reconciliation with the orthodox would not violate this sensible judgement.

The only thing that such a new “synthesis” would violate are the tenets of ultramontanism. And it is that very ultramontanism which is at the root of the problem. A simple clarification of primacy/infallibility (as I’ve said before, the two matters have become inextricably linked) on Rome’s part would go a long way in leveling the field.

I have to add something here. This constant (the word “repetitious” might be more to the point) argument against mardukm and his presentation of the “High Petrine” view is to argue against the reality of the First Millennium. Any way one slices or dices it, the “High Petrine” view was fact. That the documents and pronouncements of Rome can still be interpreted to reflect it, despite the so-called “developments” of the Second Millennium is, I think, testament to that fact.

 

[TrentCath]

The only thing that such a new “synthesis” would violate are the tenets of ultramontanism. And it is that very ultramontanism which is at the root of the problem. A simple clarification of primacy/infallibility (as I’ve said before, the two matters have become inextricably linked) on Rome’s part would go a long way in leveling the field.

You can’t have said synthesis and Vatican I, despite the absurd attempts of people to reconcile the two it simply doesn’t work. Thats something well recognised by those at the time of the Council and the council fathers themselves, who referred to the council as ‘The triumph of Ultramontanism’

I have to add something here. This constant (the word “repetitious” might be more to the point) argument against mardukm and his presentation of the “High Petrine” view is to argue against the reality of the First Millennium. Any way one slices or dices it, the “High Petrine” view was fact. That the documents and pronouncements of Rome can still be interpreted to reflect it, despite the so-called “developments” of the Second Millennium is, I think, testament to that fact.

There are two problems here:

First, the idea that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view existed in the first millenium is an Orthodox NOT a Catholic view. The Common view of the church as expressed through its councils and encyclicals is that the view I espouse which has erroneously been labeled as ‘absolutist’ was the view of The Church from the earliest times.

Second, even if it could be shown that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view was the one commonly practiced, that is De Facto even if not De Jure, the doctrine has developed and as such the reality of the First Millenium is irrelvant.

 

[malphono]

You can’t have said synthesis and Vatican I, despite the absurd attempts of people to reconcile the two it simply doesn’t work. Thats something well recognised by those at the time of the Council and the council fathers themselves, who referred to the council as ‘The triumph of Ultramontanism’

Unfettered ultramontanism is as much of a problem in ecclesiology (and not only insofar as any possible reunion is concerned) as is laissez-faire capitalism in economics.

In any case, and at the risk of redundancy, it is still clear that it’s possible to read even the precious Vatican I in such a way as to be consistent with the First Millennium.

There are two problems here:

First, the idea that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view existed in the first millenium is an Orthodox NOT a Catholic view. The Common view of the church as expressed through its councils and encyclicals is that the view I espouse which has erroneously been labeled as ‘absolutist’ was the view of The Church from the earliest times.

No, it is most certainly NOT an EO position. That has already been shown multiple times in this thread, but apparently it hasn’t “him home” yet. I have neither the interest nor the patience to try to pound it in.

Second, even if it could be shown that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view was the one commonly practiced, that is De Facto even if not De Jure, the doctrine has developed and as such the reality of the First Millenium is irrelvant.

The First Millennium is irrelevant? That’s a novel take on history.

And with that, I retire back to my armchair to observe.

 

[TrentCath]

Unfettered ultramontanism is as much of a problem in ecclesiology (and not only insofar as any possible reunion is concerned) as is laissez-faire capitalism in economics.

In any case, and at the risk of redundancy, it is still clear that it’s possible to read even the precious Vatican I in such a way as to be consistent with the First Millennium.

If you’re desperate enough its possible to read things anywhich way you want, whether you should read them that way is another matter altogether.

No, it is most certainly NOT an EO position. That has already been shown multiple times in this thread, but apparently it hasn’t “him home” yet. I have neither the interest nor the patience to try to pound it in.

You make a rather amusing presumption here, that the reason I don’t accept it is because ‘it hasn’t hit home yet’, rather it is because I disagree with the arguments levelled to prove that it isn’t and that it is in fact a catholic position.

The First Millennium is irrelevant? That’s a novel take on history.

And with that, I retire back to my armchair to observe.

Maybe you should read the sentence in context? It would certainly help matters
What I have said and will continue to say, is that it even if it could be shown that the De Facto situation at least in the east was the High petrine view, the church has developed the teachings since then, these developments are legitmate and a better expression of the truth. As such one cannot reject them and so it is not possible to return to the supposed De Facto state of things in the first millenium, ergo appealling to it does not help your position.

Whether it actually was or wasn’t the state of things is a controversial matter and one which the church has consistently affirmed to be false and many catholic apologists have done likewise.

 

[malphono]

If you’re desperate enough its possible to read things anywhich way you want, whether you should read them that way is another matter altogether.

So is reading them with blinders on.

You make a rather amusing presumption here, that the reason I don’t accept it is because ‘it hasn’t hit home yet’, rather it is because I disagree with the arguments levelled to prove that it isn’t and that it is in fact a catholic position.

FWIW, I made no such presumption, amusing or otherwise.

Maybe you should read the sentence in context?

I did.

It would certainly help matters

It didn’t.

What I have said and will continue to say, is that it even if it could be shown that the De Facto situation at least in the east was the High petrine view, the church has developed the teachings since then, these developments are legitmate and a better expression of the truth. As such one cannot reject them and so it is not possible to return to the supposed De Facto state of things in the first millenium, ergo appealling to it does not help your position.

We know. :banghead:

Whether it actually was or wasn’t the state of things is a controversial matter and one which the church has consistently affirmed to be false and many catholic apologists have done likewise.

Must be a different Church.

:tiphat:

 

[TrentCath]

So is reading them with blinders on.

Indeed, something that I’m not guilty of I’m afraid as much as you would like to believe otherwise…

FWIW, I made no such presumption, amusing or otherwise.

Really? Quite a bizzare way to write a sentence then…

I did.
It didn’t.

Then perhaps you should just refrain from commenting at all?

We know. :banghead:

You clearly don’t, seeing as you insist on this idea of a ‘new synthesis’

Must be a different Church.

:tiphat:

Sadly it isn’t there is only ONE church as you well know.

I’m going to be frank, you can complain, throw all the accusations you want around and quote all the sources you want, the fact is my position is supported both by Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Canon Law. It has been the consistent position of the church from its beginning as well as the dominant view, your view and the view of others that agree with the so called ‘High Petrine’ view is an aberration that grew in popularity post Vatican II and is mostly found amongst eastern Catholics.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The church does not need to change its doctrines nor should it have to in order to accomodate the wishes and false traditions of others who left it hundreds of years ago. As Pope Pius IX said ‘Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?’ I cannot how see any ‘synthesis’ that promoted reconciliation with the orthodox would not violate this sensible judgement.

I’m not talking about changing doctrine but rather a change in the praxis of how papal supremacy is exercised on a practical level.

I feel like we’re going around in circles a little bit here, but remember what Alexander Roman tried to point out to you? The aspects of the pope’s supreme authority that you summarized approximately two pages ago were a part of first millennium ecclesiology.

I maintain - and I’ll bet you do too - that the Catholic Church has not “added” anything to revelation. Development of doctrine and the dogmatizing of different aspects of our faith do not add new truths - as such, *I believe that there is real continuity between the ecclesiology of the Vatican Councils and that of the patristic era.
*
I assume you agree, or you wouldn’t believe the Catholic Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, right? So if the dichotomy many Orthodox draw between them - between contemporary Catholic Church structure and early patristic Church structure - is false, why should we fear such a new synthesis, all of whose ingredients are true and Catholic?

The church is not ruled by the feelings, hurt or otherwise, of others it is ruled by the necessity to proclaim the truth always and everywhere. Eastern Catholics can feel what they may it has no relevance in the matter, they feel babysat because they (or at least many of them) do not accept papal supremacy or primacy in the proper sense; they want union with rome and yet appear to desire the same independence they had as Orthodox, as the saying goes you canot have your cake and eat it.

TrentCath, they do accept papal supremacy. What they object to is being treated as if they are also part of the pope’s patriarchate, which they’re not.

I know you acknowledge the distinction between the different tiers of the pope’s authority - he is bishop of the diocese of Rome, and also the patriarch of the Latin Church, and also the head bishop of the entire Catholic Church. All these eastern Catholics want is to be subject to the pope only as Supreme Pontiff, and not to him as patriarch…

There is no standard of ‘self-evidency’ or ‘the good of the church’ that the popes powers are limited by, rather he is limited only be sacred tradition, doctrine and divine law.

I agree. And part of Sacred Tradition is the God-ordained structure of the Holy Catholic Church, which means there are certain episcopal rights that the pope is bound not to violate…

I have to add something here. This constant (the word “repetitious” might be more to the point) argument against mardukm and his presentation of the “High Petrine” view is to argue against the reality of the First Millennium. Any way one slices or dices it, the “High Petrine” view was fact. That the documents and pronouncements of Rome can still be interpreted to reflect it, despite the so-called “developments” of the Second Millennium is, I think, testament to that fact.

And that is why on this matter I remain convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith. I understand the difficulty many people experience with regard to this issue - especially the frustrations of eastern Catholics like you, malphono. But in the end, I see that the only apostolic communion that still authoritatively and unambiguously professes teachings that are compatible with the first millennium model - despite whatever failures to live up to it exist inside her - is the Catholic Communion… that remains encouraging to me.

Although I admit that my situation is far easier than yours, since I am a Latin.

It is still clear that it’s possible to read even the precious Vatican I in such a way as to be consistent with the First Millennium.

And I’m all but certain that the Council Fathers were very careful to ensure that that was the case.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

First, the idea that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view existed in the first millenium is an Orthodox NOT a Catholic view.

Malphono is right, TrentCath: it’s not the eastern Orthodox position. While some eastern Orthodox do hold a High Petrine view - and I’m pretty sure all eastern Catholics do - many eastern Orthodox hold the Low Petrine view instead.

It has been the consistent position of the church from its beginning as well as the dominant view, your view and the view of others that agree with the so called ‘High Petrine’ view is an aberration that grew in popularity post Vatican II and is mostly found amongst eastern Catholics.

TrentCath, maybe I’m just naive, but because the Absolutist Petrine view is as clearly an innovation as the Low Petrine view, I’m always flabbergasted when someone admits to holding it… so despite these arguments, I’m not sure you really do.

Do you honestly believe that episcopal authority in the Church is simply an extension of papal authority? Do you really think bishops should be regarded as essentially the pope’s deputies? Do you truly object to the understanding that the whole college of bishops (in communion with the pope, of course) together, as a unit, is successor to the college of the Apostles and as such holds the authority in the Catholic Church here on earth?

I can’t imagine that you would… I wish you could understand that the High Petrine view is not an attack on or a threat to papal supremacy. On the contrary, it is the High Petrine view which asserts simply that the pope possesses the same authority among the bishops as Saint Peter held among the Apostles… how can you truly object to that or any of its implications?

 

[TrentCath]

I’m not talking about changing doctrine but rather a change in the praxis of how papal supremacy is exercised on a practical level.

I feel like we’re going around in circles a little bit here, but remember what Alexander Roman tried to point out to you? The aspects of the pope’s supreme authority that you summarized approximately two pages ago were a part of first millennium ecclesiology.

I maintain - and I’ll bet you do too - that the Catholic Church has not “added” anything to revelation. Development of doctrine and the dogmatizing of different aspects of our faith do not add new truths - as such, *I believe that there is real continuity between the ecclesiology of the Vatican Councils and that of the patristic era.
*
I assume you agree, or you wouldn’t believe the Catholic Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, right? So if the dichotomy many Orthodox draw between them - between contemporary Catholic Church structure and early patristic Church structure - is false, why should we fear such a new synthesis, all of whose ingredients are true and Catholic?

TrentCath, they do accept papal supremacy. What they object to is being treated as if they are also part of the pope’s patriarchate, which they’re not.

I know you acknowledge the distinction between the different tiers of the pope’s authority - he is bishop of the diocese of Rome, and also the patriarch of the Latin Church, and also the head bishop of the entire Catholic Church. All these eastern Catholics want is to be subject to the pope only as Supreme Pontiff, and not to him as patriarch…

I agree. And part of Sacred Tradition is the God-ordained structure of the Holy Catholic Church, which means there are certain episcopal rights that the pope is bound not to violate…

And that is why on this matter I remain convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith. I understand the difficulty many people experience with regard to this issue - especially the frustrations of eastern Catholics like you, malphono. But in the end, I see that the only apostolic communion that still authoritatively and unambiguously professes teachings that are compatible with the first millennium model - despite whatever failures to live up to it exist inside her - is the Catholic Communion… that remains encouraging to me.

Although I admit that my situation is far easier than yours, since I am a Latin.

And I’m all but certain that the Council Fathers were very careful to ensure that that was the case.

The most influential and famous proponent of doctrinal development was blessed cardinal Henry Newman, his analogy on the subject is that doctrines can be present in acorn form in scripture and the patristic era and are subsequently developed into oak trees by the church. Papal supremacy and infallibility is somewhat like this, it was present in an acorn form and was subsequently developed by the church. To some therefore it is possible to see the development as a contradiction simply because what was previously not explicit now is. Even if one was to show that not everyone agreed with the church’s view or that de facto the situation in some places was otherwise this does little to disprove the doctrine. Similarly the opposition to the view by some church fathers (remember it is their collective view which the church adheres to not individual church fathers) it is simply because the truth not being dully developed was not clear to them. It is like St Thomas Aquinas denying the immaculate conception when we now know it to be De Fide, the truth was simply not fully developed in his time.

You may or may not know that pope Benedict dropped the title of ‘patriarch of the west’ that should tell you something about his view of such things. The patriarchal system belongs to ether era of the pentarchy and was deeply flawed. The church has in no way accepted the claim that the pope has certain powers over the western church and others over the whole church. Indeed this view is shown to be false by several of the encyclicals I have quoted.