Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[josie_L]

This refers to Metropolitans, of which there was usually one per nation.

It adequately describes, even today, how Orthodox synods normally will function, the patriarch does not make decisions on his own authority, and what he does decide is subject to peer review by his brother bishops in the synod.

It is precisely this that accounts for the interesting case in 2005 when the Jerusalem church deposed it’s own Patriarch. The Orthodox church still applies Apostolic Canon 34 as written.

Which is to say in practical terms according to the canons of your church (written and edited by Popes) he has a line item veto over the acts of the fathers in council, and can negate entire sessions or even entire councils on his own authority.

As head of the Church the pope’s approval was necessary to give ecumenical authority and value to conciliar decrees, this is nothing new, in fact, even heretics recognized and sought out Rome to reverse conciliar decisions (regarding their teachings) decreed at synods. Such doctrinal authority entails infallibility, i.e., having the last say on conciliar decisions and/or requiring the pope’s approbation.

But in fact, according to your church since 1870AD he does not need to call a council to define dogma, he can define things all by himself, and futures councils are stuck with that fait acompli.

Much earlier councils can have their work negated by a Pope simply because he codifies the canons, and can edit what he wants to right out of the code.

He never defines things all by himself, i.e., even when popes declared the doctrine of the Immaculate conception and the Assumption they consulted the episcopate and/or were backed up by the episcopate (he is not working in a vacuum).

 

[Hesychios]

As head of the Church the pope’s approval was necessary to give ecumenical authority and value to conciliar decrees, this is nothing new,

Yes, it is new.

You are repeating a Latin Catholic myth.

He never defines things all by himself, i.e., even when popes declared the doctrine of the Immaculate conception and the Assumption they consulted the episcopate and/or were backed up by the episcopate (he is not working in a vacuum).

The point is he can define things by himself even if not one of the RC bishops agrees. So you are putting up a smoke screen, I don’t know why. Why don’t you just clearly state for everyone here what his powers are?

He has that power (if he is foolish enough to use it) according to your church. He can (and should) consult with others, especially his brother bishops, but he does not have to talk to anyone. He can select whom he wishes to hear from and he does not have to take their advice anyway! Every Catholic should know this.

Your disclaimer is meaningless until the Papacy rejects that power, which it has always acted to preserve for itself.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, it is new. You are repeating a Latin Catholic myth.

Hard to say, what would have become of the ostensibly ecumenical councils, if they had not been accepted by Rome; it is a matter of conjecture, but it is not a matter of myth.

The point is he can define things by himself even if not one of the RC bishops agrees. So you are putting up a smoke screen, I don’t know why. Why don’t you just clearly state for everyone here what his powers are?

He has that power (if he is foolish enough to use it) according to your church. He can (and should) consult with others, especially his brother bishops, but he does not have to talk to anyone. He can select whom he wishes to hear from and he does not have to take their advice anyway! Every Catholic should know this.

You turn reality on its head here, and thus it is you who sends up a meaningless smoke screen. Our understanding of the exercise of power must, to be anything more that fantasy, be informed by the reality of its exercise. And the reality is that Papal power has been exercised conservatively and collegially. By contrast, Patriarchal power has been wielded with far more authoritarianism over history - flouting canons, economically, of course.

You seem to harbor some horrible fear of unrestrained abuse, but that fear is quenched in the minds of Catholics by confidence in the Holy Spirit - a confidence that is supported by history. I suppose that Orthodox can be comforted by the current lack of symphony between Patriarchs and their secular authorities - at least for the moment.

 

[josie_L]

Hard to say, what would have become of the ostensibly ecumenical councils, if they had not been accepted by Rome; it is a matter of conjecture, but it is not a matter of myth.

You turn reality on its head here, and thus it is you who sends up a meaningless smoke screen. Our understanding of the exercise of power must, to be anything more that fantasy, be informed by the reality of its exercise. And the reality is that Papal power has been exercised conservatively and collegially. By contrast, Patriarchal power has been wielded with far more authoritarianism over history - flouting canons, economically, of course.

You seem to harbor some horrible fear of unrestrained abuse, **but that fear is quenched in the minds of Catholics by confidence in the Holy Spirit **- a confidence that is supported by history. I suppose that Orthodox can be comforted by the current lack of symphony between Patriarchs and their secular authorities - at least for the moment.

Exactly so, dvdjs, in fact, such scare tactics will not work on Catholics who are aware of the plethora of scriptural, historical and traditional evidence supporting the papacy as defined by the CC.

 

[Hesychios]

… such scare tactics will not work on Catholics who are aware of the plethora of scriptural, historical and traditional evidence supporting the papacy as defined by the CC.

I post the Pope’s rights and powers according to the definition your own church provides and you call it “scare tactics” ?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think, and I hope I’m characterizing this correct, that Hesychios is saying that the pope has the ABILITY AND POWER to dictate unilaterally at will and proclaim dogma without a council. Josie is saying that the pope does not operate that way and cannot.

I think the reality is that he “can” but “hasn’t.” What troubles Hesychios is that he “can” do so if he wants as it is written plainly in Catholic canon law. But Josie is correct when she says he really hasn’t. All the big decrees in Catholicism I read about had a papal commission of some kind of a council. Of course those councils were done without the Eastern patriarchs so Hesychios and Orthodox wouldn’t find much comfort in that, understandably. The pope does have the ability to throw out dogma without council, without advice, without anyone, if he wishes. I just haven’t seen him do it. But there can always be a first time…

 

[josie_L]

I think, and I hope I’m characterizing this correct, that Hesychios is saying that the pope has the ABILITY AND POWER to dictate unilaterally at will and proclaim dogma without a council. Josie is saying that the pope does not operate that way and cannot.

I think the reality is that he “can” but “hasn’t.” What troubles Hesychios is that he “can” do so if he wants as it is written plainly in Catholic canon law. But Josie is correct when she says he really hasn’t. All the big decrees in Catholicism I read about had a papal commission of some kind of a council. Of course those councils were done without the Eastern patriarchs so Hesychios and Orthodox wouldn’t find much comfort in that, understandably. The pope does have the ability to throw out dogma without council, without advice, without anyone, if he wishes. I just haven’t seen him do it. But there can always be a first time…

There will never be a first time (you would think that after 2000 years a pope would have done so already) because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (hence dvdjs’s post).

p.s. This is what I meant by “scare tactics”, i.e., no amount of “what ifs” can deter us from the knowledge that the CC is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed (the gates of Hell shall not prevail) to teach infallibly (always).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why do you say that? Hesychios is not saying that the Holy Spirit isn’t playing a part but rather that the Church teaches that a pope does not need to summon a council nor receive its approval to teach from the Chair and proclaim dogma for the Church. I don’t see why you think it’s impossible that it’ll ever happen? It’s in writing, Hesychios cited it, that it’s possible? And from a Catholic viewpoint, why would it be so bad to admit it? If the pope is infallible, universally supreme, and the Church is as top-heavy as it proclaims itself and the Pope is Peter, what’s the big deal? I really don’t see the problem?

There will never be a first time (you would think that after 2000 years a pope would have done so already) because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (hence dvdjs’s post).

p.s. This is what I meant by “scare tactics”, i.e., no amount of “what ifs” can deter us from the knowledge that the CC is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed (the gates of Hell shall not prevail) to teach infallibly (always).

 

[josie_L]

Why do you say that? Hesychios is not saying that the Holy Spirit isn’t playing a part but rather that the Church teaches that a pope does not need to summon a council nor receive its approval to teach from the Chair and proclaim dogma for the Church. I don’t see why you think it’s impossible that it’ll ever happen? It’s in writing, Hesychios cited it, that it’s possible? And from a Catholic viewpoint, why would it be so bad to admit it? If the pope is infallible, universally supreme, and the Church is as top-heavy as it proclaims itself and the Pope is Peter, what’s the big deal? I really don’t see the problem?

Michael is insinuating that because these canons, which formally authorize/d popes much doctrinal authority, papal abuse of said authority is a real possibility (as you yourself implied), and I say that such things are impossible because the Holy Spirit guides the Church as well as the Pope from committing doctrinal/dogmatic. So it is not the canons which I object to nor the use of papal power implied by it but the interpretation of them by someone who is not taking into consideration the scriptural, traditional and historical support underlying said canons (the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to write such canons).

p.s. Moreover, Vatican I cannot be separated from Vatican II which provides a healthy view of the episcopacy and the papacy working in tandem.

 

[Nine_Two]

By contrast, Patriarchal power has been wielded with far more authoritarianism over history - flouting canons, economically, of course.

So does Rome. Canon 20 of Nicaea is flouted every Sunday in Catholic Churches around the world, I don’t think criticizing the bishops powers of economy is a good road to go down here, Rome is as guilty as we are of utilizing it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But is Michael saying the pope can and will teach something evil? I think he’s saying the popes can teach something unilaterally without a council or commission or (name removed by moderator)ut, just a solo job. I never implied a pope will teach something evil. I simply said the pope could teach something without consulting commissions, synods, councils, or cardinals, etc.? I never said or even implied that some rogue pope is going to throw down evil doctrines on Catholics. If that’s what you took away from what I said, that’s just not the case?

Nobody is saying he could go out and teach something evil like “Jesus is not the Son of God” or something nutty like that. People are just saying he can teach without consulting others in a vacuum if he wished. Would that be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit still? Well the canons seem to say so…no fearmongering in my post and I think you’ve misunderstood my statements…God bless, Josie.

Michael is insinuating that because these canons, which formally authorize/d popes much doctrinal authority, papal abuse of said authority is a real possibility (as you yourself implied), and I say that such things are impossible because the Holy Spirit guides the Church as well as the Pope from committing doctrinal/dogmatic. So it is not the canons which I object to nor the use of papal power implied by it but the interpretation of them by someone who is not taking into consideration the scriptural, traditional and historical support underlying said canons (the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to write such canons).

p.s. Moreover, Vatican I cannot be separated from Vatican II which provides a healthy view of the episcopacy and the papacy working in tandem.

 

[prodromos]

Hard to say, what would have become of the ostensibly ecumenical councils, if they had not been accepted by Rome; it is a matter of conjecture, but it is not a matter of myth.

As far as I can remember, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were accepted in the Eastern Patrarchates well before Rome gave them her rubber stamp of approval, including at least one Canon which Rome refused to rubber stamp (until it seemed to their advantage, centuries later).

Then there is the issue of the ‘so called’ Eighth Ecumenical Council. For 200 years Rome accepted one council as the Eighth which repudiated an earlier false council. Then they quietly shelved that council and reinstated the earlier false council just so they could make use of one of the canons passed by that false council.

How is that explained?

 

[dvdjs]

As far as I can remember, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were accepted in the Eastern Patrarchates well before Rome gave them her rubber stamp of approval, including at least one Canon which Rome refused to rubber stamp (until it seemed to their advantage, centuries later).

Then there is the issue of the ‘so called’ Eighth Ecumenical Council. For 200 years Rome accepted one council as the Eighth which repudiated an earlier false council. Then they quietly shelved that council and reinstated the earlier false council just so they could make use of one of the canons passed by that false council.

How is that explained?

1. The Orthodox church asserts seven ecumenical councils, so your point about the eighth council is moot.
2. Rubber stamp or not, we just cannot say that the Popoe’s approval was not crucial for acceptance as ecumenical.

 

[dvdjs]

So does Rome. Canon 20 of Nicaea is flouted every Sunday in Catholic Churches around the world, I don’t think criticizing the bishops powers of economy is a good road to go down here, Rome is as guilty as we are of utilizing it.

I think that, integrating over history, one would have to agree that there is a contrast between the high authoritarianism of Eastern Patriarch, versus the Pope. And I am not really talking about trivialities kneeling on Sunday (which, btw I did today in an EO church) or even going to Jewish dentists.

But you miss the key point. The assertion is that there is something amiss and unsettling about the authority ascribed to the Pope. The reality is that the exercise of authority is not unlike that of E Patriarchs, and arguably has been more restrained.

 

[dvdjs]

I post the Pope’s rights and powers according to the definition your own church provides and you call it “scare tactics” ?

Hardly.
You post about abilities - what the Pope “can” do. I am not sure that the Pope can do what you suggest. (Just as I am not sure that the EP has the ability to, for example, quash the Serbian Patriarchate.) We need to be guided by historical realities in these assertions, not flights of fantasy.

You would be correct to say that if an attempt were made by the Pope to make unilateral definitions, this act would not represent, ipso facto, a violation of his authority. Of course, this sober presentation doesn’t pack the same punch are your more pointed remarks that have even at times suggested whim rather than guidance from the Holy Spirit as a driver of Papal decisions. This lack of restraint is why your remarks are seen, on a Catholic board, as fear-mongering. You present hypotheticals, unrestrained by reality, to paint a picture that is, implicitly, troubling. Well, we’ve heard it all from you before, many times over. What is the point?

 

[josie_L]

But is Michael saying the pope can and will teach something evil? I think he’s saying the popes can teach something unilaterally without a council or commission or (name removed by moderator)ut, just a solo job. I never implied a pope will teach something evil. I simply said the pope could teach something without consulting commissions, synods, councils, or cardinals, etc.? I never said or even implied that some rogue pope is going to throw down evil doctrines on Catholics. If that’s what you took away from what I said, that’s just not the case?

Even though, the pope could teach without consulting commissions, synods, councils . . .etc., the Catholic Church also teaches that the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching error, is Michael not aware of this (and why isn’t this mentioned in his posts)? In other words, what point is he trying to make by stating what he has? The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (i.e., she cannot err) not the whims of men (I understand this is hard for Michael to understand because he believes otherwise but that is not a perspective Catholics share). Moreover, the pope cannot reverse dogmas, i.e., something which has already been infallibly declared as truth by the Church and/or by the pope cannot be infallibly undeclared without violating Truth and papal infallibility.

Nobody is saying he could go out and teach something evil like “Jesus is not the Son of God” or something nutty like that. People are just saying he can teach without consulting others in a vacuum if he wished. Would that be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit still? Well the canons seem to say so…no fearmongering in my post and I think you’ve misunderstood my statements…God bless, Josie.

If I did misunderstand (sorry!) it was because you wrote this:

The pope does have the ability to throw out dogma without council, without advice, without anyone, if he wishes. I just haven’t seen him do it. But there can always be a first time…

God bless, Scott.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think that, integrating over history, one would have to agree that there is a contrast between the high authoritarianism of Eastern Patriarch, versus the Pope. And I am not really talking about trivialities kneeling on Sunday (which, btw I did today in an EO church) or even going to Jewish dentists.

You’ll notice I didn’t deny the Orthodox do what you said, I said Catholics do it as well, in other words you can’t claim a sort of high ground over us in regards to that. Whether the teaching of a Canon is trivial or not it is still a Canon set by the Church Fathers, either you can take the legalistic position that they are set in stone and that all must be fully obeyed (which you seem to expect of the Orthodox), or you can take the position that it is the spirit in which the law was written which is important and that there may be times when every law is either bent or outright ignored. Orthodox blatantly violate Canon 20 of Nicaea on the day of Pentecost to drive home its importance, if you wish to hold us to a legalistic standard you must have a very good reason why those same laws which you hold inviolate are outright ignored all the time by the Catholic Church.

But you miss the key point. The assertion is that there is something amiss and unsettling about the authority ascribed to the Pope. The reality is that the exercise of authority is not unlike that of E Patriarchs, and arguably has been more restrained.

Actually the power in any Orthodox Church is the Holy Synod, not the Patriarch. The Patriarch himself has very little actual power other than the power of veto over the selection of new Bishops in his territory. It is the very fact that the Pope is held to be the sole holder of the power we ascribe to all the Bishops that we find frightening. Of course the Pope, even if he does use it conservatively, has far more power than any single Bishop, and in fact welds power which we ascribe not even to the Holy Synods.

 

[dvdjs]

You’ll notice I didn’t deny the Orthodox do what you said, I said Catholics do it as well, in other words you can’t claim a sort of high ground over us in regards to that… you can take the legalistic position that they are set in stone and that all must be fully obeyed (which you seem to expect of the Orthodox)…

You continue to miss the point. I don’t claim high ground, or even care to do so. I have no expectations whatsoever about which canons the EO’s adhere to or not. The issue is the claim made by EO’s that there is some sort of unique possibility in the Catholic Church of these sorts of action being taken by the Pope. My point is that one could only take this position by turning a blind eye to Orthodox history.

Actually the power in any Orthodox Church is the Holy Synod, not the Patriarch. The Patriarch himself has very little actual power other than the power of veto over the selection of new Bishops in his territory. It is the very fact that the Pope is held to be the sole holder of the power we ascribe to all the Bishops that we find frightening. Of course the Pope, even if he does use it conservatively, has far more power than any single Bishop, and in fact welds power which we ascribe not even to the Holy Synods.

Wonderful/ Do you really know so little of Orthodox history, or are you just turning a blind eye toward it?

 

[Nine_Two]

You continue to miss the point. I don’t claim high ground, or even care to do so. I have no expectations whatsoever about which canons the EO’s adhere to or not. The issue is the claim made by EO’s that there is some sort of unique possibility in the Catholic Church of these sorts of action being taken by the Pope. My point is that one could only take this position by turning a blind eye to Orthodox history.

Perhaps you should mention what specific incident you’re hinting at, and tell us how it relates to the Pope announcing himself to be infallible under certain circumstances, leaving alone that those circumstances are dictated by the pope himself.
I have a feeling I know what bit of “Orthodox history” you’re hinting at, but I don’t see what it has to do with the Pope, especially since there were other factors.

Wonderful/ Do you really know so little of Orthodox history, or are you just turning a blind eye toward it?

Please enlighten me, or do you just like feeling smug about hinting to, I assume the EP’s time as Ethnarch, a secular office exercised, outside of, but influenced by, his spiritual office.

 

[dvdjs]

Perhaps you should mention what specific incident you’re hinting at, and tell us how it relates to the Pope announcing himself to be infallible under certain circumstances, leaving alone that those circumstances are dictated by the pope himself. I have a feeling I know what bit of “Orthodox history” you’re hinting at, but I don’t see what it has to do with the Pope, especially since there were other factors.

Please enlighten me, or do you just like feeling smug about hinting to, I assume the EP’s time as Ethnarch, a secular office exercised, outside of, but influenced by, his spiritual office.

Has this thread been about Papal infallibility or about the threat of unilateral action by hierarchs. I thought the latter, actually. I am glad to find that you know something of the historical use of power by the EP.