Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[malphono]

I’ve had an opportunity to review Dave Armstrong’s overview of Eastern Orthodoxy and, while it is fair, he makes several errors when describing what Orthodoxy teaches about the church et alia. …

That there were more than one Patriarchate in the East should come as no surprise - Rome was the ONLY apostolic centre in the West i.e. founded by an Apostle(s). That there were and are Particular Churches in the East founded directly by Apostoles and based on the Eucharistic model of Church unity i.e. the whole in the part. …

As for the idea that Rome could change the liturgical Rites of any one of the Eastern Catholic Churches - that has NEVER been attempted, ever, in Church history. In fact, the Popes’ repeated affirmation in this regard has always been, “Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter” with respect to the liturgical heritage of the EC Churches. …

Does the Pope have the right to try and change the liturgical rites of the East as an exercise of his jurisdictional power? For him to do that when the terms and conditions of all the “unias” with the EC Churches have always been to maintain the same traditions as their mother Orthodox Churches would go counter to what Rome agreed to. If Rome had no intention to agree to such, then Rome should have told the EC Churches at the time the unions were entered into. For Rome to do this after the fact would be rather dishonest, don’t you think? In any event, Latinization (which was always a local issue and never emanated from Rome) is eagerly resisted by many EC Churches - so would any attempt for the Pope of Rome to touch our liturgical heritage. Call us what you will, it ain’t gonna happen.

It DID happen in the West and I have read your defence of why some Roman Catholics don’t like the liturgical changes (and who therefore resist them to this day). I like the reasoning you gave and I will make it a point to pass them on to my bishop and other clergy so they will have the same excellent arguments you make for resisting Rome’s liturgical changes in the event that Rome would ever, one day, wish to alter our liturgical heritage!

Excellent summary, Alex.

The West also had Particular Churches but none could claim direct apostolic authority save for Rome.

The one possible exception is Malta, which was founded by S Paul.

 

[TrentCath]

Dear TrentCath,

I’ve had an opportunity to review Dave Armstrong’s overview of Eastern Orthodoxy and, while it is fair, he makes several errors when describing what Orthodoxy teaches about the church et alia. His own views on ecclesial authority in Orthodoxy is simplistic and he tries hard (but fails) to impose Roman Catholic ecclesiology on Orthodoxy and when it doesn’t fit, he finds fault with the Christian East.

One example is when Armstrong says that both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in the first millennium etc. Since the Churches were united and Eastern Catholics didn’t arise until much later as the result of Jesuit missions among the Eastern Orthodox to create various “unias” (which the RC Church of today repudiates as an erroneous model of church unity which won’t happen again etc.), who were these “Eastern Catholics” of the first millennium? Any ideas?

As for the Pentarchy, Armstrong makes the mistake of assuming a universal Church government of Five Patriarchs rather than one or the Pope of Rome. That is simply not what the pentarchy (earlier, there were three patriarchates) was about. No patriarch had jurisdiction outside his patriarchate. The pope of Rome did not appoint bishops for the East. He was the court of final appeal in the first millennium, but that was it. The pentarchy was only applicable to Ecumenical Councils. They were Apostolic Christian centres which were hierarchically arranged. The idea that Rome had universal jurisdiction over the East where it could appoint its bishops and the like would have been quite foreign not only to the Eastern patriarchates, but also to the Bishop of Rome too. He would only get involved when invited to by a Church or when someone was attacked, like St John Chrysostom, and appeal was made to it. This is a far cry from immediate jurisdiction over other Churches.

Armstrong’s idea that Rome was never in the grips of heresy whereas the other Patriarchates were does NOT mean that the Eastern patriarchates ever approved of heresy. Antioch and Alexandria were great centres of Christian thought - it was inevitable that heresies would develop. Rome, at that time, was hardly a centre of theological thought…

As for the idea that Rome could change the liturgical Rites of any one of the Eastern Catholic Churches - that has NEVER been attempted, ever, in Church history. In fact, the Popes’ repeated affirmation in this regard has always been, “Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter” with respect to the liturgical heritage of the EC Churches. When our sainted Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky told Pope St Piux X about our rights to govern ourselves as Particular Churches, the holy Pope replied, “Make use of your rights!”

Does the Pope have the right to try and change the liturgical rites of the East as an exercise of his jurisdictional power? For him to do that when the terms and conditions of all the “unias” with the EC Churches have always been to maintain the same traditions as their mother Orthodox Churches would go counter to what Rome agreed to. If Rome had no intention to agree to such, then Rome should have told the EC Churches at the time the unions were entered into. For Rome to do this after the fact would be rather dishonest, don’t you think? In any event, Latinization (which was always a local issue and never emanated from Rome) is eagerly resisted by many EC Churches - so would any attempt for the Pope of Rome to touch our liturgical heritage. Call us what you will, it ain’t gonna happen.

It DID happen in the West and I have read your defence of why some Roman Catholics don’t like the liturgical changes (and who therefore resist them to this day). I like the reasoning you gave and I will make it a point to pass them on to my bishop and other clergy so they will have the same excellent arguments you make for resisting Rome’s liturgical changes in the event that Rome would ever, one day, wish to alter our liturgical heritage!

Alex

Firstly let me congratulate you for such an eloquent reply

Second, though its true that he is imposing Catholic ecclesiology on Eastern Orthodox Christianity, I cannot necessarily see a problem with this, he is after all a Catholic apologist.

Third, I suspect that when referring to Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, he was either a) Simply mistaken b) meant to refer to Oriental Orthodox or c) was attempting to differentitate ‘Orthodox’ christians in the east from heritical christians in the east. I cannot of course in any way claim to speak for him.

Fourth, as far as I understand he was saying that the idea of the Pentarchy was that church was divided into 5 patriarchates each ruled by their particular patriarch, as for no patriarch having authority outside his patriarchate arent their cases of the Patriarch of Antioch doing this?

Fifth, as for immediate jurisdiction over the churches I believe he makes several references to occassions where the Pope did indeed exercises immediate jurisdiction as for example can be seen from reading the epistle of Clement of Rome or the actions of Pope Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great.

Sixth, I believe he makes the point that several of the See’s did in fact approve heresy, as for example in the case of Arianism.

Seventh, while it may be ‘unwise’ for the pope to change the rites of the Eastern Churches, it can hardly be said that he does not have the right to or that any changes made by the Eastern Churches would not or should not be approved by him as is the norm throughout the whole church.

Lastly I should point out that the arguments I espoused, which have been far better argued and were developed and formulated by others to whom I give all credit, are not arguments against the changing of Rites per se but against harmful changes and this only when the changes are so radical as to in effect create a new rite

 

[Cavaradossi]

The most hypocritical statement to come out of you yet.

You can sit there and actually say this given the history of the group to which you belong?

So non-Latin Catholics are just second-class Catholics with no right of self-determination, yet you have the gall to claim to adhere to a group (while hypocritically claiming not to belong to the group) who has caused a schism in good part because you actually don’t believe the Pope has the right to reform the Liturgy in YOUR OWN Latin Church, while hypocritically claiming that you are more catholic than the Orthodox, or more Catholic than non-Latin Catholics due to your utter ignorance of the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Does anyone else find TrentCath’s comments insulting (to say the very least)?

I found his not-so-subtle disdain for the Eastern Catholics (and Eastern Christians in general) to be rather off-putting from the beginning. Instead of being offended, however, I have now decided to watch as he single-handedly attempts to poison the well and undo the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church towards the goal of reunion with the Orthodox.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Firstly let me congratulate you for such an eloquent reply

Second, though its true that he is imposing Catholic ecclesiology on Eastern Orthodox Christianity, I cannot necessarily see a problem with this, he is after all a Catholic apologist.

Third, I suspect that when referring to Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, he was either a) Simply mistaken b) meant to refer to Oriental Orthodox or c) was attempting to differentitate ‘Orthodox’ christians in the east from heritical christians in the east. I cannot of course in any way claim to speak for him.

Fourth, as far as I understand he was saying that the idea of the Pentarchy was that church was divided into 5 patriarchates each ruled by their particular patriarch, as for no patriarch having authority outside his patriarchate arent their cases of the Patriarch of Antioch doing this?

Fifth, as for immediate jurisdiction over the churches I believe he makes several references to occassions where the Pope did indeed exercises immediate jurisdiction as for example can be seen from reading the epistle of Clement of Rome or the actions of Pope Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great.

Sixth, I believe he makes the point that several of the See’s did in fact approve heresy, as for example in the case of Arianism.

Seventh, while it may be ‘unwise’ for the pope to change the rites of the Eastern Churches, it can hardly be said that he does not have the right to or that any changes made by the Eastern Churches would not or should not be approved by him as is the norm throughout the whole church.

Lastly I should point out that the arguments I espoused, which have been far better argued and were developed and formulated by others to whom I give all credit, are not arguments against the changing of Rites per se but against harmful changes and this only when the changes are so radical as to in effect create a new rite

Dear TrentCath,

With respect to your (I must say sophisticated and very reasonable) argument regarding the changing of rites - I, of course, agree with you. (I also agree with you on the score of the ancient Roman Rite in this same respect.)

In fact, Rome HAS been ensuring that the Eastern Catholic Churches develop their rites organically (again, Latinization is a local phenomenon, often involving EC hierarchs themselves). For example, when Rome discovered that EC Chuches in E. Europe were not closing the Royal Doors of their iconostases, it moved to try and ensure that this practice not spread elsewhere and to otherwise try to contain it. Byzantine liturgical publications at Rome have tended to be even more “Eastern” than many EC’s would even like. And Roman Catholic professors of Eastern Christian thought and praxis have, in fact, led the way for the Eastern Churches’ return to their original traditions.

While the Pope does not get involved directly with such, the Roman Congregations involved do and I’ve not ever heard any contemporar EC experts complain that their publications/scholars are, in any way, “below Eastern standard.” The Russian Greek-Catholic “Russicum” in Rome publishes Eastern liturgical materials that have been praised by the Russian Orthodox themselves (who have even awarded Russian Catholic scholars - and Fr. Taft is among them - with various honours for their work). The Syriac Orthodox in India have done the same with the work of Syriac Catholic monastics and there are other examples.

So, I think I am only now beginning to understand your argument and it is entirely consistent with the “way things are.”

And if the Pope of Rome wishes to emphasize the reality of the Particular Churches of the Christian East along several lines, including a respect for their internal administrative integrity - who are we to accuse the pope of bad ecclesiology?

Nestorius himself was patriarch of Constantinople - however, he was deposed for heresy. Patriarchs and Emperors were condemned for heresy or for being implicated, in some way, with heresy, or for being “soft” on it (as was Pope Honorius and his condemnation was repeated by his successors until about the 12th century). Pope Liberius was not included in the Roman Canon of Saints for being similarly “soft” on heresy - but the judgement of the Christian East has always been in his favour and he is a full Saint in the Byzantine East.

I will commend you for having a much more in depth understanding of the Christian East than our friend, Mr. Armstrong (at least in the piece you quoted - one cannot make an assessment based on a few lines and I do respect his apologetical work).

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

Dear TrentCath,

With respect to your (I must say sophisticated and very reasonable) argument regarding the changing of rites - I, of course, agree with you. (I also agree with you on the score of the ancient Roman Rite in this same respect.)

In fact, Rome HAS been ensuring that the Eastern Catholic Churches develop their rites organically (again, Latinization is a local phenomenon, often involving EC hierarchs themselves). For example, when Rome discovered that EC Chuches in E. Europe were not closing the Royal Doors of their iconostases, it moved to try and ensure that this practice not spread elsewhere and to otherwise try to contain it. Byzantine liturgical publications at Rome have tended to be even more “Eastern” than many EC’s would even like. And Roman Catholic professors of Eastern Christian thought and praxis have, in fact, led the way for the Eastern Churches’ return to their original traditions.

While the Pope does not get involved directly with such, the Roman Congregations involved do and I’ve not ever heard any contemporar EC experts complain that their publications/scholars are, in any way, “below Eastern standard.” The Russian Greek-Catholic “Russicum” in Rome publishes Eastern liturgical materials that have been praised by the Russian Orthodox themselves (who have even awarded Russian Catholic scholars - and Fr. Taft is among them - with various honours for their work). The Syriac Orthodox in India have done the same with the work of Syriac Catholic monastics and there are other examples.

So, I think I am only now beginning to understand your argument and it is entirely consistent with the “way things are.”

And if the Pope of Rome wishes to emphasize the reality of the Particular Churches of the Christian East along several lines, including a respect for their internal administrative integrity - who are we to accuse the pope of bad ecclesiology?

Nestorius himself was patriarch of Constantinople - however, he was deposed for heresy. Patriarchs and Emperors were condemned for heresy or for being implicated, in some way, with heresy, or for being “soft” on it (as was Pope Honorius and his condemnation was repeated by his successors until about the 12th century). Pope Liberius was not included in the Roman Canon of Saints for being similarly “soft” on heresy - but the judgement of the Christian East has always been in his favour and he is a full Saint in the Byzantine East.

I will commend you for having a much more in depth understanding of the Christian East than our friend, Mr. Armstrong (at least in the piece you quoted - one cannot make an assessment based on a few lines and I do respect his apologetical work).

Alex

Thanks for that response, I learnt a lot from it. I’m glad Rome acts in order to protect the Easts genuine and valid tradtions.

Far be it for me to criticise the popes ecclesiology, however I should point out that the ecclesiology of the pope can best be seen from canon law which directly contradicts the opinions of some on here regarding the Eastern Churches. It can also be seen from the teachings and encyclicals of earlier popes. It is not my intent to go out of my way to criticise eastern churches as I am more than well aware of the far larger problem of ‘Liberal Catholics’, but it would be unfair to focuse solely on them and ignore any other parts of the church.

As for my understanding of the East, its imperfect, but I do try and learn what I can, its fascinating.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Patriarchs and Emperors were condemned for heresy or for being implicated, in some way, with heresy, or for being “soft” on it (as was Pope Honorius and his condemnation was repeated by his successors until about the 12th century). Pope Liberius was not included in the Roman Canon of Saints for being similarly “soft” on heresy - but the judgement of the Christian East has always been in his favour and he is a full Saint in the Byzantine East.

Wow, that’s good to know. I never knew that Pope Liberius is a saint in the Byzantine East.

I was surprised by that, since someone started a new thread somewhere on this forum (I forget where) looking for answers from some Orthodox apologetics they quoted, and the article asserted that Liberius was an Arian.

I guess it just goes to show that polemics always finds room for innovation…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Fone Bone,

Here is an English service to Pope St Liberius:

www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/servs/liberius.pdf

Perhaps we could start a CAF Prayer Association in his honour? I see the goal now: An Eastern Christian association, to which membership for RC’s is open, to have Pope Liberius’s Eastern cultus extended to the Catholic West . . .

There is a whole group of Orthodox Saints from the “Kyivan Baroque” era in the 17th an d18th centuries, including: Sts. Demetrius of Rostov, Yuri Konissky of Belarus, Peter Mohyla, Sofronius Krystalsky, Joasaph Horlenko, Ivan Maximovych et al. who were, as Orthodox Bishops and teachers, devoted to the Immaculate Conception. In St Demetrius’ case, he wore the medal of the Immaculate Conception, took the bloody vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception, and prayed the prayer of the (Eastern Orthodox) brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception: All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!

He was hauled up on the carpet by the Russian Synod for this and I’ve read polemical articles today asking why he was ever canonized an Orthodox saint (by certain Orthodox).

Dom Aelred Graham mentions him and the others in his book, “The Christ of Catholicism” I believe and quotes RC theologians who praised him and others such as St Nicholas Cabasilas for their “solid theology.”

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

Feel free to tell me when you finally get round to addressing those sources Marduk, if you haven’t given up of course…

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Feel free to tell me when you finally get round to addressing those sources Marduk, if you haven’t given up of course…

I’m sure he’ll be back; Marduk frequently is away on business, so that would explain his silence. And if there is one thing our brother Marduk is passionate about it is the Papacy. Just search “Marduk” and “Popes”- you’ll probably find an obscene amount of his posts XD

 

[TrentCath]

I’m sure he’ll be back; Marduk frequently is away on business, so that would explain his silence. And if there is one thing our brother Marduk is passionate about it is the Papacy. Just search “Marduk” and “Popes”- you’ll probably find an obscene amount of his posts XD

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,
I found some documentation but I’m not sure of the source.

Roman church regards all 21 councils as ecumenical.

Eastern Orthodox - 1st seven
many regard 4th council of Constantinople, 5th council of
Constantinople, and the snyond of Jerusalem

Assyrian - 1 & 2
Oriental Orthodoxy - 1,2,3
Eastern Orthodoxy - 1 thru 7, and some 8,9,10
Anglican - 1 thu 7 conditionally
Lutherans - 1 thru 7 with reservations
Other Protestants - none

 

[mardukm]

Most probably because the title heralds back to the Pentarchy which Pope Benedict when he was still a Cardinal and as head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in ‘A note on the expression “Sister Churches”’ spoke of, saying ‘3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.’

That only means that the idea of multiple autocephalies did not exist in the Westerns. It does not mean that Pope Benedict (even before he was Pope) at any time denied the patriarchal structures that formed in the Church universal - i.e., the Pentarchy. Even this Pentarchy had a protos, who always worked within the collegial boundaries set by Jesus Christ Himself, which no Absolutist Petrine misinterpretation or unpatristic novelty can deny.

Indeed but their powers are not equivalent to that they supposedly held under the system of the Pentarchy, no one denies that there are patriarches in the church today but the system they operate within is very different.

True. But your unpatristic Absolutist Petrine novelties operate just as differently from the way the early Church worked or how Christ established the Church in the opposite sense as the unpatristic Low Petrine novelty to which many EO adhere. Your position is no better than theirs. So don’t pretend to be more catholic than them.

Again I in no way intended to deny this but the Pope also takes his own rights very seriously, as for him doing nothing for them regularly he supevises them through the congregation for the oriental churches and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith as well as the Apostolic Courts.

The Apostolic Courts are fine as they have appellate authority only. The CDF hasn’t made any statements against Eastern or Oriental theology, so I fail to see how you can appeal to the CDF to support your unknowledgeable claims about our theology. The CDF, as is the Pope himself, is limited by Divine doctrine.

You contradict this statement in the very next paragraph. Where you essentially say that as a Patriarch he has certain powers exclusive to the Western Church such as for example promulugating liturgical rites and so on and as the Universal Pontiff he has certain other rights over the whole church.

His authority only extends as far as the good of the Church demands. And you’ve not given any evidence otherwise. Since the office of bishop is of divine establishment, it must be for the good of the Church. Not even the Pope can cancel it, neither universally as a group, nor locally as individuals. At best, the Pope, if and only if the good of the Church compels it, not by his mere will, can regulate the exercise of it.

In what sense is the authority different? Ultimately if Rome so desired it could reform the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches and if the Eastern Churches wanted to do so they would have to seek Romes approval of the reforms.

Hypocrisy. Why did your group cause a schism if you truly believe that if “Rome so desired” it could reform the Liturgies? Rome’s desire doesn’t have a whit to do with anything. It is the needs of the Church that governs the actions of EVERY bishop, including the Pope (who is, after all, a bishop). You have given absolutely no evidence to the contrary. The very existence of your schismatic group is testament that you are just blowing hot air, I’m afraid.

This isn’t a particularly good argument. Many Petrine views will try and claim that their view simply means that the pope holds among all bishops of The Church the same authority that St Peter held among the Apostles and certainly not many Church Fathers or theologians would say otherwise. The debate is often about exactly what St Peter’s authority was. I disagree that the view classified as ‘High Petrine’ correctly interprets exactly what St Peter’s authority was.

St. Peter did not have absolute authority because he was corrected. Most people can see the inconsistency of claiming the Pope has absolute authority while admitting that his brother bishops can correct him.

This makes no sense whatsoever, if the Pope’s authority throughout the whole church is comparable to a Patriarch’s authority then there is no difference between his powers as universal pontiff and patriarch. As I believe that the view of the church which I believe to be the view I have espoused here can be defended by reference to the church fathers and early church as well as the idea of doctrinal development yes I do disagree with the notion that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view is a ‘solidly patristic defence of all the prerogatives of the popes supremacy’.

You’ve give no evidence from the Church Fathers for the Absolutist Petrine view. All you’ve given are selective quotes from late and post-medieval sources. EVERYTHING from Sacred Tradition demonstrates that the Pope worked as the head bishop of a college, never acting apart from nor separated from it. Please give us just ONE instance in Church history where the Pope had the authority to act contrary to the good of the Church or had the authority to act without regard for his orthodox brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

Yes. Like the SSPX.

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’

The Council of Florence couldn’t have done a thing without the agreement of the Eastern and Oriental bishops. In fact, the concordat with the Copts specifically affirmed that its contents had yet to be approved by the Coptic Patriarch and his Synod. Fancy that. Even the Council of Florence affirmed that the bishop of Rome’s approval/confirmation/promulgation ALONE are INSUFFICIENT.

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.

Yes. Which is why your group is in schism, and when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches reunite, your group will still be separated from the one, true Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As you know if you read the entire quote, Ratzinger quite clearly stated that the idea of the Pentarchy was rejected and never accepted by the West.

Nah. That’s just in your own fantasy world. All he said was that the notion of “autocephalous” patriarchates did not develop in the West. I don’t see him denying that reality for the Church universal (though, indeed, with a protos). Or are you claiming that the Western Church is the Church unviersal?

I fail to see how it is less fitting that he do so in the East because in the East there are other apostolic see’s, this is to do with his universal, supreme and ordinary jurisdiction not with the powers of the Patriarchs.

There are two points here:

Both your points are in error.

First, the ‘college of bishops’ holds this authority ONLY in union with its head, whereas the Pope holds this supreme authority seperate from the college.

And what magisterial documentary evidence can you provide for this novelty? I am aware that the Church teaches that the Pope can exercise supreme authority PERSONALLY, but I don’t recall where it says that he does this SEPARATED FROM the College.

Second, the authority of the entire college of bishops is still below that of The Pope just as the authority of St Peter was greater than that of the other 11 apostles combined.

Which demonstrates just another of your consistent inconsistencies. You yourself quoted V2 stating that a College BY DEFINITION has a head. The head is BY DEFINITION part and parcel of what a “College” is in Catholic ecclesiastical jargon. But lest anyone forget, our SSPX brother is not big-C Catholic, but belongs to a schismatic group. So it might be expected that he does not share the language nor understanding of the Catholic Church. So the entire College of Bishops - which INCLUDES the Pope BY DEFINITION - is, in some fantastic alternate reality where 1 does not equal 1, actually below the Pope. Our SSPX brother might respond by giving some quotes, but none of them will actually say that the Pope is separated or acts apart from the Church or his brother bishops when he exercises the supreme authority personally.

That is indeed true but St Peter could interfere if he so wanted and supevise the other churches, this much is shown by the circumcision controversy. He is the first one to oppose the circumcision party (Acts 11:1-18) and his word ‘silences’ them (Verse 18),

Ridiculous. The circumstance of Acts 11 was the revelation of a dogmatic teaching. As V1 asserted, the Pope does not have this charism, but he himself is bound by the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Bad example.

subsequently at the Council of Jerusalem there is much debate but after he has spoken the council falls silent, accepting his words

Yes, on the dogmatic matter, an instance of revelation that the Pope today does not possess.

and St James formulates a pastoral solution.

Funny how St. Peter did not formulate it.

Indeed the entire Book of The Acts of the Apostles is littered with examples of Peter’s supremacy over the other apostles.

Sure. Supremacy within collegiality, not supremacy separated from the Apostles. Supremacy is never separated from the college and does not act apart from it. Christ Himself established the principle by which the Apostles lived - “where two or three are gathered, there I am in your midst.” Supreme authority is not the same thing as absolute authority.

Second one must remember that we are no longer in the Apostolic age and much has happened in church history since then.

Yes, something V1 stressed. We are not in the apostolic age. The charism of revelation no longer exists, and is not the same as the charism of infallibility. The Pope cannot go around on his own, separated from the Church, proclaiming infallible ex cathedra decrees.

From this historical perspective then, one can see why it is most certainly wise and practical for the Pope to regularly exercise his authority over the WHOLE church.

Sorry. I must have missed where you cited an instance when the Pope ALONE was the ONLY orthodox bishop left, so as to require a unilateral, absolute exercise of authority. Did you do that? Can you repeat where you cited such an occurence, or are you weaving in and out of this reality, and that other reality where 1 does not equal 1? It’s all about collegiality, my SSPX brother. Always was, always will be.

I should point out that this is not a point of view I made up but one espoused by a rather prominent Catholic Apologist.

Who? Never heard of him until you brought up his name.

Blessings,
Marduk

That may well be the case but I view the Popes power as exceeding that of ANY patriarch over his patriarchate, why? None, could be the called ‘The Vicar of Christ’ or ‘The head of the church on earth’. None could as Clement of Rome did in 96 AD say ‘"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger’

 

[mardukm]

Oops. Forgot to respond to this.

That may well be the case but I view the Popes power as exceeding that of ANY patriarch over his patriarchate, why?

I am certain that brother FoneBone was only stating that the Pope’s authority in the universal Church is exercised in the same way as a Patriarch exercises authority in his Patriarchate. He was not equating the two. You haven’t engaged in this debate from past threads, so you don’t realize that is all he actually meant (though I think anyone would have seen that).

None, could be the called ‘The Vicar of Christ’

All bishops are vicars of Christ. Actually, according to St. Ignatios of Antioch, every bishop is as God on earth.

‘The head of the church on earth’.

A head with supreme authority (not absolute authority), a supreme authority that the College of Bishops also possesses.

None could as Clement of Rome did in 96 AD say ‘"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger’

I guess you missed the highlighted portion above. Pope St. Clement was speaking with COLLEGIAL authority. There are other instances when a Pope spoke with a personal authority, but this ain’t one of them.

Btw, I shouldn’t be surprised you quoted this, since you are generally quite inconsistent in your rhetoric. This very passage from St. Clement refutes your tirade against the term “sister churches.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Supremacy within collegiality, not supremacy separated from the Apostles. Supremacy is never separated from the college and does not act apart from it.

Well said! Thank you.

I don’t understand why this truth is so threatening to some. The pope is the “head” of the “body” of bishops - not a puppet-master to whom that body is artificially shackled from below.

I am certain that brother FoneBone was only stating that the Pope’s authority in the universal Church is exercised in the same way as a Patriarch exercises authority in his Patriarchate. He was not equating the two. You haven’t engaged in this debate from past threads, so you don’t realize that is all he actually meant (though I think anyone would have seen that).

Yes, that is indeed what I was attempting to convey. Thank you. As usual, Marduk, your responses are a model of precision.

All bishops are vicars of Christ … [The pope is] A head with supreme authority (not absolute authority), a supreme authority that the College of Bishops also possesses.

Great points.

Perhaps I’m naive, but I still find myself skeptical that TrentCath actually disagrees with you on such things as much as he thinks he does… a truly Absolutist concept of papal authority just flies in the face of all sense… and Sacred Tradition…

 

[TrentCath]

Both your points are in error.

And what magisterial documentary evidence can you provide for this novelty? I am aware that the Church teaches that the Pope can exercise supreme authority PERSONALLY, but I don’t recall where it says that he does this SEPARATED FROM the College.

Which demonstrates just another of your consistent inconsistencies. You yourself quoted V2 stating that a College BY DEFINITION has a head. The head is BY DEFINITION part and parcel of what a “College” is in Catholic ecclesiastical jargon. But lest anyone forget, our SSPX brother is not big-C Catholic, but belongs to a schismatic group.

Ridiculous. The circumstance of Acts 11 was the revelation of a dogmatic teaching. As V1 asserted, the Pope does not have this charism, but he himself is bound by the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Bad example.

Yes, on the dogmatic matter, an instance of revelation that the Pope today does not possess.

Funny how St. Peter did not formulate it.

Sure. Supremacy within collegiality, not supremacy separated from the Apostles. Supremacy is never separated from the college and does not act apart from it.

Yes, something V1 stressed. We are not in the apostolic age. The charism of revelation no longer exists, and is not the same as the charism of infallibility. The Pope cannot go around on his own, separated from the Church, proclaiming infallible ex cathedra decrees.

Sorry. I must have missed where you cited an instance when the Pope ALONE was the ONLY orthodox bishop left, so as to require a unilateral, absolute exercise of authority. Did you do that? Can you repeat where you cited such an occurence, or are you weaving in and out of this reality, and that other reality where 1 does not equal 1? It’s all about collegiality, my SSPX brother. Always was, always will be.

Who? Never heard of him until you brought up his name.

Blessings,
Marduk

None of this addresses ANY of the quotes or citations I have provided, rather it yet again attacks the point of view, ignores evidence that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived scheme of ideas and distorts the meaning of words followed by a liberal amount of ad hominem attacks. Until you can address the lengthy amount of authority I have produced to support my point of view there is simply no point in continuing this discussion.

The absurdity of your view is made all the worse that you cannot even understand the clear meaning of theological notes on ‘ambigous’ or ‘unclear matters’!

Cardinal Ratzinger states clearly that the system of the Pentarchy NEVER developed in the West and that it was NEVER accepted in the west ‘**In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. **’ The matter is clarified yet further when he says ‘In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches…One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.’

As regards the Pope acting SEPERATELY from the ‘college of bishops’, the theological note on the subject states ‘The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, 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…As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.’

 

[TrentCath]

Oops. Forgot to respond to this.

I am certain that brother FoneBone was only stating that the Pope’s authority in the universal Church is exercised in the same way as a Patriarch exercises authority in his Patriarchate. He was not equating the two. You haven’t engaged in this debate from past threads, so you don’t realize that is all he actually meant (though I think anyone would have seen that).

All bishops are vicars of Christ. Actually, according to St. Ignatios of Antioch, every bishop is as God on earth.

A head with supreme authority (not absolute authority), a supreme authority that the College of Bishops also possesses.

I guess you missed the highlighted portion above. Pope St. Clement was speaking with COLLEGIAL authority. There are other instances when a Pope spoke with a personal authority, but this ain’t one of them.

Btw, I shouldn’t be surprised you quoted this, since you are generally quite inconsistent in your rhetoric. This very passage from St. Clement refutes your tirade against the term “sister churches.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Again there is nothing of substance in this response, merely yet more childish ad hominem attacks and a notable lack of any attempt to address the authorities I have cited. Until you do it is clear to me that your view is contrary to that of all the authorities I have cited and therefore contrary to the teachings of The Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

None of this addresses ANY of the quotes or citations I have provided,

More perceptive than usual today, are we? What my prior post addresses is your post to which I responded. I see you don’t have much by way of a response.

I’ll get to those quotes when I have time to do research. Just from a cursory look however, your quotes don’t support any of the following claims you have made in this thread:

1. The Pope has absolute power;
2. The Pope’s authority extends beyond the purpose for which Christ established the primacy;
3. The Pope authority is not constrained by considerations for the good of the Church;
4. The Pope can impede the local proper authority of orthodox bishops;
5. The Pope alone determines what is good for the Church;
6. The Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

rather it yet again attacks the point of view

Because your POV is in error.

ignores evidence that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived scheme of ideas

You mean the evidence that does not support your claims? Or are you referring to some other evidence that you have not yet cited?

and distorts the meaning of words

Context, context, context. It’s your downfall. You have consistently failed to address the contexts that I have provided.

followed by a liberal amount of ad hominem attacks.

Stop whining. I’ve said nothing that wasn’t true.

Until you can address the lengthy amount of authority I have produced to support my point of view there is simply no point in continuing this discussion.

You’ve yet to show that your citations actually support your novel errors that I detailed above.

Cardinal Ratzinger states clearly that the system of the Pentarchy NEVER developed in the West and that it was NEVER accepted in the west ‘**In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. **’

Interesing interpretation, my SSPX brother, but fraught with your usual Absolutist Petrine errors. Cardinal Ratizinger is not denying the collegial reality of the Pentarchy, nor is he claiming anywhere that the first millenium Popes denied it. Cardinal Ratzinger is only and merely affirming that the Pentarchy, of which the Roman See was a part, did not function according to the novelty of the Low Petrine interpretation that exists in EO’xy today (though one cannot adamantly assign that position to EO’xy in general), but according to a High Petrine constitution. Don’t forget it was Pope St. Gregory the Great himself who asserted that the primacy belongs to the triad of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (though, of course, even among these three, there was a primate/protos, which was, is, and always will be Rome). As stated in an earlier post, it’s all about collegiality. You have no support for your Absolutist Petrine novelty from the early Church, nor have you been able to support your peculiar views with any of the quotes you’ve given.

The matter is clarified yet further when he says ‘In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches…One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.’

Fascinating. This is exactly how the Orthodox (both those in communion and not in communion with Rome) understand the term “sister Churches.” So the fault here lies in your own ignorance, whereby you impose straw men caricatures of Orthodoxy.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

As regards the Pope acting SEPERATELY from the ‘college of bishops’, the theological note on the subject states ‘The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, 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…As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.’

Ahhh. Another of your cut-and-paste hack jobs of statements wrenched out of context. You utterly twist the meaning of the Explanatory Note in order to support your error that the Pope can act separated from the College.

Let’s present our readers the greater context of your quote. The purpose of the Explanatory Note was to define more clearly the nature of the COLLEGE of bishops. It’s very purpose was diametrically opposed to your Absolutist Petrine other-worldly misinterpretation that the Pope can be separated from the College. Note #1 begins, accordingly, with the words, “The word College is not taken in the strictly juridical sense…” This first sentence sets the proper context, tone, and understanding of the Explanatory Note as devoted to the proper understanding of the concept of Collegiality. Note #2 explains (1) how a man becomes a member of this College of bishops and (2) the princple of hierarchical communion. Note #3 contains the text that you wrenched out of context (to be explained shortly). Finally, Note #4 gives a greater clarification of the College - it affirms the even though the College does not always function as such, it is ALWAYS in existence. The concluding paragraph reaffirms the very purpose of the Explanatory Note: “Clearly it is the connection of bishops with their head that is in question THROUGHOUT and not the activity of bishops independently of the Pope.”

Now, back to the quote you wrenched out of context. As the whole Explanatory Note was meant to explain and clarify the proper concept of the College, as a body with a head, can we really believe the monstrous Absolutist Petrine mutation of its intent as if it was trying to claim that the head exists apart from the body? In this proper context, the statement you have underlined does not mean that the Pope is separated from the body. Rather it is saying that the Pope, when he acts, is in fact NOT separated from the body, but ALWAYS acts as the head of the body. To be perfectly conscise, Note #3 is indeed trying to distinguish the Pope from the rest of the bishops. But this distinguishing element exists not because the Pope is at any time separated from the body, nor actually has the prerogative to separate himself from the body. Rather, this distinguishing element is his role as a member of the body, its head. That is the true and proper meaning of the phrase, “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 you have displayed some staggering thick-headedness in understanding what collegiality means, maybe the explanation above will not register. So permit me to present the following dialectic for the sake of understanding. Please answer the following questions LOGICALLY – if you can (it will require a perhaps rather difficult effort on your part to actually try to consider not only the whole context of what you are quoting, but also the whole context of the teaching of the Church):
(1) If the Explanatory Note affirms that the College is ALWAYS in existence, and the College requires BY DEFINITION a head, how do you pretend that the Explanatory Note supports your error that the Pope, even when he exercises the supreme authority in a personal manner, is separated from the College?
(2) If the Canons affirm that the bishops are ALWAYS in communion with the Pope, how do you pretend that the Pope, even when he exercises the supreme authority in a personal manner, is separated from the body?
(3) How do you pretend that the phrase you underlined separates the Pope from the College, when the clause directly before it asserts that “it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively?”
(4) If you are correct that the clause “a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops” means that the Roman Pontiff can be separated from the College, how does the Pope separate himself from himself (i.e., since he is a member of the College)? (I will be the first to grant that this “logic” would make perfect sense in a fantasy world where 1 does not equal 1, where up is actually down, where pigs fly, and where the entity of the Pope] can somehow be above the entity of **the Pope plus his brother bishops]**).

CONTINUED