Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

the pope not only is the necessary cause of an ecumenical council, but when he makes decrees, it is sufficient to end the matter. Nothing else is needed.

He is not the necessary cause, but a necessary cause.

*Can. 338 *

§1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

As the Explanation of Vatican 2 you quoted clearly asserts, the Pope does this AS A MEMBER OF THE COLLEGE. His actions are THE ACTIONS OF THE COLLEGE, NOT MERELY HIS OWN ACTIONS APART FROM THE COLLEGE.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

This is a purely canonical provision, and IT CAN CHANGE. The first time this prerogative was granted to the Pope was at Vatican 1, mainly through the efforts of one of the leading members of the Minority Party, Bishop Hefele. It was done for the good order of the Council, and was a merely procedural accomodation. This purely canonical prerogative is not of the esse of papal primacy, so it does not even belong in this discussion.

Can. 333

§1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

This canon makes it even more obvious that Vatican 1’s purpose of adding the term “primacy” in the phrase “primacy of ordinary power” is to place a limitation on the exercise of the primacy (as I had previously pointed out and debated with our SSPX brother TrentCath).

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

This Canon makes it obvious that the terms “personal or collegial” merely refers to the FORMAL manner of the exercise of the primacy. Even while formally exercising his primacy “personally,” he can never perform an action that could cause a break in his communion with his brother bishops. So even a formally personal action of the Pope must be informed by a COLLEGIAL context.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff
You have wrenched this canon out of its proper context (as Absolutist Petrine advocates normally do - see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8156528&postcount=297) and attempted to impose it into the context of an Ecumenical Council.

My comments
*]One could say an ecumenical council is the popes council **
Since neither the Pope himself nor his actions alone constitute the esse of an Ecumenical Council, this cannot be true.

Can. 338

§1.& §2
*]the bishops (college) at least have to confirm what they propose in council, for the pope to approve/not approve, confirm/not confirm, promulgate/not promulgate, what the bishops approve.

True.

*]The pope can approve all, partial, or none of what the bishops approve. iow, he has veto power.

And neither can the Pope make merely his own opinion the Decree of an Ecumenical Council without the approval of the other bishops.

*]He can approve or disprove their approvals, (collegially or personally) he determines the manner(see can 333 §2 )
*]What he (the pope) decrees, there is no appeal or recourse (can 333 §3)

You deliberately wrench Canon 333 out of its proper context.:tsktsk: Thus, your statement here is invalid.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

I have, as noted [post=8156835]much earlier[/post], avoided more than tangential involvement in this thread, and have no intention of engaging in debate herein, but all this reversion to the CIC (which, of course, is not immutable, and can be changed, amended, abrogated, etc at the discretion of the lawgiver himself), prompts me to repeat myself and ask:

If the Pope is “superior” to an Oecumenical Council, can someone explain why any “Oecumenical Council” has been called since the First Millennium?

Then, again, as Philip has said and mardukm has echoed, the last 13 (or is that 14?) Councils weren’t truly “Oecumenical” in the first place, so perhaps the question is moot.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

If the Pope is “superior” to an Oecumenical Council, can someone explain why any “Oecumenical Council” has been called since the First Millennium?

As a High Petrine advocate, it makes perfect sense to me - it has to do with the collegial nature of the Church’s divine constitution (as affirmed by Pope St. Celestine who I quoted earlier). I have to go, but I’ll give a fuller explanation of my own theory later today or before this weekend.

I, too, would love to hear the reason from the perspective of the Absolutist Petrine view. It should prove most interesting.

Then, again, as Philip has said and mardukm has echoed, the last 13 (or is that 14?) Councils weren’t truly “Oecumenical” in the first place, so perhaps the question is moot.

To be perfectly concise, I do personally accept Florence, Trent, V1 and V2 as “Ecumenical.” I think beyond the first Seven, there should be freedom on personal opinion. The only thing that should be necessitated is agreement on dogmatic points - and even then, on the Truth behind the dogmas, not necessarily the theological language in which it is expressed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

As a High Petrine advocate, it makes perfect sense to me - it has to do with the collegial nature of the Church’s divine constitution (as affirmed by Pope St. Celestine who I quoted earlier). I have to go, but I’ll give a fuller explanation of my own theory later today or before this weekend.

No need, at least not on my account. In case you’ve forgotten, I am an advocate of the “High Petrine” view as well, so my question was rhetorical in that regard. At the same time, it was non-rhetorical in respect to the Absolutist position.

I, too, would love to hear the reason from the perspective of the Absolutist Petrine view. It should prove most interesting.

Indeed it will.

To be perfectly concise, I do personally accept Florence, Trent, V1 and V2 as “Ecumenical.” I think beyond the first Seven, there should be freedom on personal opinion. The only thing that should be necessitated is agreement on dogmatic points - and even then, on the Truth behind the dogmas, not necessarily the theological language in which it is expressed.

I can’t argue with that, particularly since the theory behind it reflects my own position. OTOH, I’m sure that the above-mentioned Absolutist advocates will have a field day with it.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

Your highlights reflect the typical Absolutist Petrine rhetoric that completely misses the collegial intent of the Explanation. I have highlighted the portions that you have neglected.

I neglected nothing. The context is there. Highlights are not comments. They merely draw attention to the text, which I quoted. I made ZERO comments. You are the one with all the rhetoric.
M:

As the Explanation affirms, contrary to the pretensions of Absolutist Petrine advocates, the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council, since the Ecumenical Council (the formal convention of the College of Bishops) is ALSO the subject of full and supreme power over the universal Church.

Did you miss the point that

• “never bishops acting without the pope”. if the bishops do act without the pope they are no longer a college (collegial)?
• the pope has the right to act collegially or personally, he makes that decision

M:

The only power that the Pope possesses, the only power that the Supreme Pontiff can exercise at will, is the power to do that which is good for the Church. It is not his prerogative to determine what the good of the Church is - that isalways determined collegially.

Look at Can 333.2 The pope can determine by himself which manner he exercises his office for the good of the Church. It might be personal or collegial. It does NOT always have to be collegial.

Can. 333

§1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff
M:

It is only within his prerogative to ensure the good of the Church (along with his brother bishops). His power is not absolute power, as Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend, but only supreme power, which has limits.

Can 333.2 says the pope has perogatives on how he exercises his office. It might be collegial or it might be personal. He makes that decision. As far as papal decrees and sentences, there is no appeal or recourse. (Can 333.3)

btw, Name the supreme powers of the pope?.
M:

As this portion of the Explanation affirms, when the Pope performs his unique functions, he does so as A MEMBER OF the College, not as an “outsider.” Thus, Vatican 2 confirms the constant belief of the Church that the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council.

The pope and the college are the insiders. No power outside THAT, is what is refered to by “outsider”.

“the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head.”

“head” i.e. the pope

Catch the explanations and distinctions?

• “college” can “act” as a college from time to time “only” with the consent of the pope.
• Consent = suggests communion between pope and college, and THAT communion, implies the need for an act which belongs to the pope.

M:

No apostolic Christian denies this (except for the unpatristic Low Petrine view of some Eastern Orthodox), for it rests upon the sure standard of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 that the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 affirmed is the RULE OF FAITH EVEN FOR DEFINITIONS BY THE POPE.

Blessings,
Marduk

Let’s look at the statement again from the document.

"It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.”

In context, this is NOT talking about those outside the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

Neither can the Pope alone make a Council Ecumenical. If an only if the entire College approves (or at least has the approval of a moral majority) can a Council be considered truly Ecumenical.

Blessings,
Marduk

ecumenically speaking, If the pope doesn’t approve what his fellow bishops approve, it doesn’t get approved.

 

[James_Least]

Is it possible both viewpoints are incorrect? When two disagree, they cannot both be right; they could both be wrong. What is the standard?

Peace,

James Least

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

He is not the necessary cause, but a necessary cause.

He is the necessary cause to start a council and the sufficient cause to end the council
M:

As the Explanation of Vatican 2 you quoted clearly asserts, the Pope does this AS A MEMBER OF THE COLLEGE. His actions are THE ACTIONS OF THE COLLEGE, NOT MERELY HIS OWN ACTIONS APART FROM THE COLLEGE.

As canon law states

*Can. 338 *

§1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

i.e. end all debate and end the council
M:

This is a purely canonical provision, and IT CAN CHANGE. The first time this prerogative was granted to the Pope was at Vatican 1, mainly through the efforts of one of the leading members of the Minority Party, Bishop Hefele. It was done for the good order of the Council, and was a merely procedural accomodation. This purely canonical prerogative is not of the esse of papal primacy, so it does not even belong in this discussion.

This canon is law, and in force. It hasn’t been changed.
Here’s the way the votes were cast. Scroll to the section
newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

btw, how do minority opinions over the opinions of the majority get to be law?

As an aside, this law most certainly belongs in this discussion because we are talking about Catholics.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.
M:

This canon makes it even more obvious that Vatican 1’s purpose of adding the term “primacy” in the phrase “primacy of ordinary power” is to place a limitation on the exercise of the primacy (as I had previously pointed out and debated with our SSPX brother TrentCath).

The minority positions as you can see from the above link from Vat I, were primarily antagonistic to infallibility FAR less than primacy.
M:

This Canon makes it obvious that the terms “personal or collegial” merely refers to the FORMAL manner of the exercise of the primacy. Even while formally exercising his primacy “personally,” he can never perform an action that could cause a break in his communion with his brother bishops. So even a formally personal action of the Pope must be informed by a COLLEGIAL context.

Let’s see

“§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”

I’m seeing a distinction, based on the needs of the Church, between collegial and personal action on the part of the pope. And the pope determines how he is going to exercise his office. At times he may choose to act personally. He has that right
M:

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

You have wrenched this canon out of its proper context (as Absolutist Petrine advocates normally do - see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8156528&postcount=297) and attempted to impose it into the context of an Ecumenical Council.

It appears I didn’t respond to you flurry of posts. My average posts per day over the last 7 years is ~1.8. I’m not going to get to everything.

decrees by a pope apply to ecumenical councils also, and both (decrees and ecumenical councils) apply to governance of the Church.
M:

According to Vatican 1, (1) is constrained by the sensus fidei of the Church (see the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus), and the present consensus of the whole Magisterium, a consensus which need not necessarily be determined by direct consultation with all the bishops of the world, but must be determined nonetheless (see the Official Relatio of Vatican 1). As such a decree is thus ensured to be part of the faith of the Church, no one can gainsay it by appeal to a higher authority.

Whatever else may be said of (2), Pastor Aeternus guarantees that these decrees cannot violate the authority of local bishops in their own territorial jurisdiction. Further, though such decrees may become the standard, our canons affirm that local bishops can dispense with them for the good of their flock, which does not violate the principle that such decrees would nevertheless be the standard under normal circumstances.

Neither can Pastor Aetemus violate the authority of the pope. Bishops in their own territories is NOT the subject. Ecumenical councils is the issue
M:

Since neither the Pope himself nor his actions alone constitute the esse of an Ecumenical Council, this cannot be true.

Canon law states right after it talks of communion with the other bishops

"He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial,* of* exercising this office."

 

[mardukm]

ecumenically speaking, If the pope doesn’t approve what his fellow bishops approve, it doesn’t get approved.

This highlights the difference between the Absolutist Petrine error that you propose and the High Petrine teaching of the the early Church and the Vatican Councils.

To High Petrine advocates, as reflected in the constant teaching and praxis of the Catholic Church (and our canons), the proper statement is, “Ecumenically speaking, if the pope AND his fellow bishops don’t approve, then it cannot have Ecumenical authority.” Your very language consistently demonstrates that your idea of “Church” is a monstrosity that is a mere head separated from the body.

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.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Is it possible both viewpoints are incorrect? When two disagree, they cannot both be right; they could both be wrong.

Nah! The Absolutist Petrine view is wrong. It is a novelty that has no support from the teachings of the Catholic Church (from its earliest days to the present). The only way Absolutist Petrine advocates support their errors is by taking little snippets from the Vatican Councils, devoid of context, and creating caricatures of the Church from those myopic snippets.

What is the standard?

Sacred Tradition. Though the Absolutist Petrine view cannot claim that because it has no support from Sacred Tradition. A perfect example is the fact that Absolutist Petrine advocates cannot answer the question, “why did the Council of Sardica never gain Ecumenical status?” Neither can their novel error explain why Pope Vigilius was corrected by and accepted correction from the Fathers of what eventually came to be the Fifth Ecumenical Council. There are numerous examples. Only the High Petrine view properly reflects the reality and teaching of Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

He is the necessary cause to start a council

Well, at least you admit he is not the sufficient cause to start a council.

and the sufficient cause to end the council

Sure. He does so as a member of the Council, not apart from it. So his action in ending the Council is an action of the Council itself. Your statement is equivalent to “The Council is sufficient cause to end the Council.” That is why the Canon you quote is under the specific heading “THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS.” ALL canons in that heading regard the actions of THE COLLEGE TAKEN AS A COLLEGE.

As canon law states

*Can. 338 *

§1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

i.e. end all debate and end the council

Nice comment. A pity you missed the part where this Canon is under the heading “Article 2: THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS.”

This canon is law, and in force. It hasn’t been changed.

You seem ignorant of what went on behind the scenes at V1. Don’t bother to appeal to that short summary from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It does not tell the whole story, and if that is your main source, then more’s the pity. Many Fathers - of BOTH the Minority and Majority parties - complained that giving the Pope the prerogative to give the final decision on what was to be included as matters for decision violated the Traditional procedure and freedom of the bishops to propose and discuss what they deemed relevant as befits their office. But the decision was in the hands of the Committees (which had members from BOTH the Minority and Majority parties). It was the Committees, for the sake of procedural order, who granted this new prerogative to the Pope, because of the sheer number of bishops.

Here’s the way the votes were cast. Scroll to the section
newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

I’m not certain of the relevance.

btw, how do minority opinions over the opinions of the majority get to be law?

Please explain the purpose of this question.

As an aside, this law most certainly belongs in this discussion because we are talking about Catholics.

It is changeable, so I don’t see how it is relevant.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.
As stated, a procedural prerogative that was only first used at Vatican 1, and not of the esse of the primacy. Good luck trying to find it in the V1 definition on the Primacy.

The minority positions as you can see from the above link from Vat I, were primarily antagonistic to infallibility FAR less than primacy.

Your Absolutist Petrine vision of “primacy” is not what the Vatican Fathers had in mind. The Pope is limited by considerations for the good of the Church, and by the local authority of his brother bishops.

Let’s see

“§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”

I’m seeing a distinction, based on the needs of the Church, between collegial and personal action on the part of the pope. And the pope determines how he is going to exercise his office. At times he may choose to act personally. He has that right.

As noted in a prior post, this refers to the FORMAL method of exercising his authority. I.e., whether in synod or personally. In BOTH cases, the collegial nature of ecclesial decisions ALWAYS remains intact - that is what it means to ALWAYS be in communion with his brother bishops.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

It appears I didn’t respond to you flurry of posts. My average posts per day over the last 7 years is ~1.8. I’m not going to get to everything.

decrees by a pope apply to ecumenical councils also, and both (decrees and ecumenical councils) apply to governance of the Church.

Not in that Canon. The specifics involving an Ecumenical Council are not discussed until Article 2: THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS. You are just “cutting and pasting” little snippets out of their proper context in the hopes of validating an erroneous opinion about the papacy.

Neither can Pastor Aetemus violate the authority of the pope.

So now you know better than an Ecumenical Council? Dear readers, here we have a clear admission from an Absolutist Petrine advocate that the Absolutist Petrine view goes beyond the teaching of Vatican 1. Recall that our SSPX brother said the exact same thing.

Bishops in their own territories is NOT the subject.

Again, you display an ignorance of the debates that went on behind the scenes at V1. The local authority of bishops was specifically included in the Decree on the Primacy because it was the purpose of the Decree to discuss matters of DIVINE DOCTRINE. The office and jurisdiction of bishops is JUST AS EQUALLY of divine establishment as the Primacy - it is this fact that afforded the inclusion of a discussion on the office of bishop in the Decree on the Primacy. The office and rights of bishosp is very much part of the topic of the Primacy (or are you going to claim once again you know better than the Fathers of V1?). It is one of the limiting factors in the Pope’s exercise of the Primacy.

Ecumenical councils is the issue.

Then don’t wrench canons out of their context, cutting and pasting them to create a monstrous caricature of an Ecumenical Council.

Canon law states right after it talks of communion with the other bishops

So what? That still does not mitigate the fact that the proper discussion on the Ecumenical Council does not occur until Article 2 on the College of Bishops.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office

The error of your opinion rests in the fact that in an Ecumenical Council, ALL the bishops act as judges. I explained Canon 333-3 fully in this thread (I also gave a link to that post recently). It is utterly ridiculous to think that Canon 333-3 applies to the context of an Ecumenical Council because (1) ALL the bishops are judges in an Ecumenical Council while Canon 333-3 only refers to the Pope’s judgment (singular), (2) ALL the bishops are involved in making the Decree of an Ecumenical Council, and Canon 333-3 only refers to the decree of the Roman Pontiff (singular).

Again, please stop cutting and pasting the Canons in an attempt to defend your errors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

Is it possible both viewpoints are incorrect? When two disagree, they cannot both be right; they could both be wrong. What is the standard?

Peace,

James Least

Not really, there is no third way. The ‘Absolutist Petrine’ view as Mardukm likes to call it has been the standard of the church implictly as expressed in its tradition and law for thousands of years and explicitly for hundreds of years.

The ‘High Petrine’ and ‘Low Petrine’ as Mardukm likes to call them have always been a minority view pre 1960 or at the very least not the official view of the church, post 1960 its a view normally held by Eastern Catholics and rebellious ‘Western’ Catholics including some bishops and cardinals. These bishops and cardinals being the same ones who embraced numerous other novelties.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The two questions I have about these issues are:

1. What was the pope’s role in the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium of the Church?
2. Could a Council of Reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy establish (or re-establish) 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?

Alex

 

[malphono]

Could a Council of Reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy establish (or re-establish) 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?

I suppose that could happen, and it would seem to be within the realm of possibility that Rome could concede the “High Petrine” view. (I realize that mardukm will maintain that would not exactly be a “concession” but I do: I hate to repeat myself, but although I agree with mardukm in principle that the various Church pronouncements on primacy/infallibility can be so interpreted, the facts “on the ground” speak rather differently. Hence I would consider it a concession by Rome.) That would likely appeal to the OO who would have few, if any, problems with it, but I tend to think the EO would be far less agreeable. The problem there, as I see it, is the general EO insistence on the “Low Petrine” view. Whether many in the EO are willing to admit it or not, that position is a post-First Millennium development, in the same way as is Rome’s position (the latter being the sort of hybrid that it is in practice if not in principle).

Just my (as usual) unsolicited :twocents:

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As I said before none of these state that the pope can only exercise his supreme authority collegially, indeed even Vatican II states that it is up to the pope how to exercise his authority.

Marduk doesn’t deny that the pope sometimes exercises his supreme authority personally. What he objects to is the implication that the pope may impede the proper authority of other bishops if he wants. I don’t think you really disagree with him as much as you think you do - your membership in the SSPX certainly seems to support the position that the pope must use his authority for the good of the Church…

You are blind, you do not hold the Catholic view of Primacy or Papal supremacy and of course to such a person Catholic and Orthodox views do not conflict. Why? Because your view of the catholic faith is essentially the Orthodox faith dressed up as Catholicism.

As a Catholic, I honestly don’t think that is the case. Marduk’s position - which he has laid out exhaustively with great clarity time and time again - is the only one that really fits with all the authoritative Magisterial documents - especially those of Vatican I and Vatican II - that deal with the structure of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, even from my limited knowledge of Church history, I’ve already seen plenty from the first millennium that contradicts both the Low Petrine innovation and the neo-Ultramontanist innovation.

I am sorry, this is simply not true. As much can be seen by a glance at the Council of Florence where the departure of the Orthodox from Catholic doctrine can be clearly seen.

Well, some Orthodox - the ones with a Low Petrine view - have departed from the first millennium standard. So I don’t necessarily disagree with you here. There are Orthodox - and this is not all of them, by any means - for whom head bishops have no real authority outside their own dioceses.

But Marduk is definitely not one of these. Remember, he’s an Oriental, and his tradition’s ecclesiology - from what he’s said and from what I know of the history of the Church in Alexandria in ancient times - seems to be very High Petrine. I guarantee you that he is no more uncomfortable with the Roman Pontiff’s supreme authority - understood correctly - than he is with the conspicuously visible way the patriarch of Alexandria exercised his authority in his patriarchate in ancient times.

Neither can their novel error explain why Pope Vigilius was corrected by and accepted correction from the Fathers of what eventually came to be the Fifth Ecumenical Council. There are numerous examples.

Indeed - and you can even find examples of that in recent Catholic history.

You yourself pointed out that Blessed Pius IX held at least some neo-Ultramontanist views, and that he learned much from the clarifications and corrections of his brother bishops at the First Vatican Council.

Also, at the Second Vatican Council, a group of bishops were re-drafting (or revising, I forget which) the document that would eventually be promulgated as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Pope Paul VI sent some personal requests to these Council Fathers, one of which was that they put it there that the pope is responsible only to the Lord.

The rest of the Council Fathers weighed his request and rejected it, discerning (correctly) that the pope is answerable to quite a few things: divine revelation (both Scripture and Tradition), the divinely established structure of the Church, ecumenically binding teachings of previous papal decrees and ecumenical councils, etc.

So it still happens, even in today’s Catholic Church.

Could a Council of Reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy establish (or re-establish) 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?

I believe they can. The practical implications will obviously have to be flexible, but that makes sense to me anyway.

I suppose that could happen, and it would seem to be within the realm of possibility that Rome could concede the “High Petrine” view. (I realize that mardukm will maintain that would not exactly be a “concession” but I do: I hate to repeat myself, but although I agree with mardukm in principle that the various Church pronouncements on primacy/infallibility can be so interpreted, the facts “on the ground” speak rather differently. Hence I would consider it a concession by Rome.) That would likely appeal to the OO who would have few, if any, problems with it, but I tend to think the EO would be far less agreeable. The problem there, as I see it, is the general EO insistence on the “Low Petrine” view. Whether many in the EO are willing to admit it or not, that position is a post-First Millennium development, in the same way as is Rome’s position (the latter being the sort of hybrid that it is in practice if not in principle).

Just my (as usual) unsolicited :twocents:

Whether it would be a concession or not, I do hope to see this happen.

And take heart, my brother: I’m quite positive from their various writings that at the very least, the popes of my lifetime - Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI - hold the High Petrine view personally. Thus I think our popes today would be quite happy to correct the situation on the ground if they found a way.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

 

[steve_b]

This highlights the difference between the Absolutist Petrine error that you propose and the High Petrine teaching of the the early Church and the Vatican Councils.

To High Petrine advocates, as reflected in the constant teaching and praxis of the Catholic Church (and our canons), the proper statement is, “Ecumenically speaking, if the pope AND his fellow bishops don’t approve, then it cannot have Ecumenical authority.” Your very language consistently demonstrates that your idea of “Church” is a monstrosity that is a mere head separated from the body.

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.

Blessings,
Marduk

From the Vat II Lumen Gentium document which I previously quoted

(all emphasis mine)

"it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity."

unpacking that statement

• A clear distinction is being made between collectively/collegiality (pope + bishops) AND the pope alone. It’s the latter that you can’t seem to get your head around.
• *“he (the pope, head of the college)alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way” *You insist this is collegial decision ONLY and NOT personal. That view denies the very plain and direct text.
• *The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity."*When I bring this up to you, This gets you soooooo upset, you turn to epithets, and ad hominum attacks towards me, and invent terms like high petrine vs absolutist petrine vs low petrine views, to appear like you have some kind of permission to disagree with the plain text. iow you take the plain text which shows the pope’s right, and say it really means it’s collegial, NOT personal, and THAT’s the “high view” which you say is the correct one. And you say the Non collegial, (personal right of the pope) is the absolutist view.

The* text* states the Catholic view. No equivocation of views
in addition as was already provided

Can. 343 The function of the synod of Bishops is to discuss the matters proposed to it and set forth recommendations. It is not its function to settle matters or to draw up decrees, unless the Roman Pontiff has given it deliberative power in certain cases; in this event, it rests with the Roman Pontiff to ratify the decisions of the synod.

Can. 344 *The synod of Bishops is directly under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, whose prerogative it is: *

*1ƒ to convene the synod, as often as this seems opportune to him, and to designate the place where the meetings are to be held *

*2ƒ to ratify the election of those who, in accordance with the special law of the synod, are to be elected, and to designate and appoint other members; *

*3ƒ at a suitable time before the celebration of the synod, to prescribe the outlines of the questions to be discussed, in accordance with the special law; *

*4ƒ to determine the agenda; *

*5ƒ to preside over the synod personally or through others; *

6ƒ to conclude, transfer, suspend or dissolve the synod.
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.

apart from your snarkey attitude, Sardica was NOT confirmed and promulgated by Julius. That’s why it is not ecumenical. The council failed entirely to accomplish its purpose.

Here’s a suggestion, lose the attitude and your uncharitable responses.

 

[steve_b]

CONTINUED

Not in that Canon. The specifics involving an Ecumenical Council are not discussed until Article 2: THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS. You are just “cutting and pasting” little snippets out of their proper context in the hopes of validating an erroneous opinion about the papacy.

There’s the college, which is bishops + pope, & in the same section, regarding ecumenical councils, the pope as an individual.
M:

So now you know better than an Ecumenical Council? Dear readers, here we have a clear admission from an Absolutist Petrine advocate that the Absolutist Petrine view goes beyond the teaching of Vatican 1. Recall that our SSPX brother said the exact same thing.

As usual, when you’re unable to respond, you regress to ad hominum attacks.
M:

Again, you display an ignorance of the debates that went on behind the scenes at V1. The local authority of bishops was specifically included in the Decree on the Primacy because it was the purpose of the Decree to discuss matters of DIVINE DOCTRINE. The office and jurisdiction of bishops is JUST AS EQUALLY of divine establishment as the Primacy - it is this fact that afforded the inclusion of a discussion on the office of bishop in the Decree on the Primacy. The office and rights of bishosp is very much part of the topic of the Primacy (or are you going to claim once again you know better than the Fathers of V1?). It is one of the limiting factors in the Pope’s exercise of the Primacy.

I provided the link to the behind the scenes of Vat I. Infallibility discussion outnumbered primacy discussion.
M:

Then don’t wrench canons out of their context, cutting and pasting them to create a monstrous caricature of an Ecumenical Council.

The canons I quoted are current canon law. You just have a problem with them.
M:

So what? That still does not mitigate the fact that the proper discussion on the Ecumenical Council does not occur until Article 2 on the College of Bishops.

The error of your opinion rests in the fact that in an Ecumenical Council, ALL the bishops act as judges. I explained Canon 333-3 fully in this thread (I also gave a link to that post recently). It is utterly ridiculous to think that Canon 333-3 applies to the context of an Ecumenical Council because (1) ALL the bishops are judges in an Ecumenical Council while Canon 333-3 only refers to the Pope’s judgment (singular), (2) ALL the bishops are involved in making the Decree of an Ecumenical Council, and Canon 333-3 only refers to the decree of the Roman Pontiff (singular).

Again, please stop cutting and pasting the Canons in an attempt to defend your errors.

All I have to do is paste the canons. They do the talking for themselves.

 

[TrentCath]

Marduk doesn’t deny that the pope sometimes exercises his supreme authority personally. What he objects to is the implication that the pope may impede the proper authority of other bishops if he wants. I don’t think you really disagree with him as much as you think you do - your membership in the SSPX certainly seems to support the position that the pope must use his authority for the good of the Church…

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. As for the pope ‘sometimes’ exercising his supreme authority personally, this is the wrong way, the ordinary course of things is for the pope to exercise his supreme authority personally, through the various diacestries of the Holy See and the Apostolic Courts, the extraordinary course of things is for the Pope to exercise his supreme authority collegially through an ecumenical council.

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 have already clarified the argument regarding my adherence to the SSPX and this argument and for brevitys sake I will not do so again’

As a Catholic, I honestly don’t think that is the case. Marduk’s position - which he has laid out exhaustively with great clarity time and time again - is the only one that really fits with all the authoritative Magisterial documents - especially those of Vatican I and Vatican II - that deal with the structure of the Catholic Church.

Marduks position is a novelty, it can only be subscribed to if one is completely ignorant of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Baltimore Catechism and/or The Catechism of St Pius X. Furthermore it can only be justifed by absurd interpretations of councils and even clarification notes that go against the most obvious meaning of the text. It in short has no true historical grounding at least not in the Catholic Church though it may well in the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, even from my limited knowledge of Church history, I’ve already seen plenty from the first millennium that contradicts both the Low Petrine innovation and the neo-Ultramontanist innovation.

I have seen nothing, not even the Council of Constance or the existence of three popes at one time that has shaken my view in this matter, nor did it shake the view of the Popes during these times or the councils convoked by them

Well, some Orthodox - the ones with a Low Petrine view - have departed from the first millennium standard. So I don’t necessarily disagree with you here. There are Orthodox - and this is not all of them, by any means - for whom head bishops have no real authority outside their own dioceses.

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.

But Marduk is definitely not one of these. Remember, he’s an Oriental, and his tradition’s ecclesiology - from what he’s said and from what I know of the history of the Church in Alexandria in ancient times - seems to be very High Petrine. I guarantee you that he is no more uncomfortable with the Roman Pontiff’s supreme authority - understood correctly - than he is with the conspicuously visible way the patriarch of Alexandria exercised his authority in his patriarchate in ancient times.

I’m sorry but as the point of view I espouse is the churches and he is uncomfortable with it, he is self evidently uncomfortable with the Popes supreme authority