High Petrine view in the early Church

[jmj1984]

Dear brother JMJ

Sorry, all it says, like I said, is that the Pope has a unique authority that no other bishop possesses. We’re still waiting for you to give the exact place where it says that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that the Pope can himself impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in his local jurisdiction. If you can’t produce it, just give it up.

Yes, you have demonstrated you are a master of the obvious. Now, please produce the text that states that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that the Pope can himself impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in his local jurisdiction. If you can’t produce it, just give it up.

Sorry, where does it say “to the exclusion of the bishops”? I forgot to buy a pair of Absolutist Petrine lenses when I joined the Catholic communion.

The only thing rendering it nonsensical is the misinterpretation you are imposing on it.

It speaks of a twofold power only to disinguish the fact that the Pope has an authority that is unique. There is the FORMAL authority of the Pope with his brother bishops. There is also a FORMAL authority of the Pope that is his personally, that is not shared by his brother bishops. But the Pope uses and CAN ONLY use this personal authority in response to the needs of the Church through his brother bishops. To repeat, you have quoted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that says that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops.

Give the man a cigar!!! The College of bishops ALWAYS exists, as Vatican 2 teaches. It is not always acting with the FORMAL authority of a College, but it always exists. The Pope can never separate himself from this College. He is either exercising formal authority WITH his brother bishops, or he is exercising formal authority personally IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS of the Church through his brother bishops. AT NO TIME IS OR CAN THE POPE BE OR CAN EXERCISE AUTHORITY SEPARATED FROM THE COLLEGE.

Sorry, once again, that I forgot to buy my Absolutist Petrine glasses when I joined the Catholic communion. I didn’t read those words anywhere in the text. Can you please give the exact quote again? Your personal interpretations ain’t cutting it.

Nope. He can exercise it PERSONALLY, but not separately.

CONTINUED

Really Marduk aside from uncharitable comments 101 what was the point of that reply?

All you said was ‘shout’ ‘The Pope can’t act apart from his brother bishops, the Pope can’t act apart from his brother bishops’ whilst actually failing to address the encyclical. Rather than absolutist lenses it appears you read anything through ‘my opinion over rules the facts’ lenses.

Lets examine the text again shall we?

‘Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” (S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis Comment. in Joan., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55)’

This statement clearly shows that Pope Leo XIII taught that the Pope has the same authority over each and every member of the laity in a particular diocese as the bishop of that diocese has. Why else does Pope Leo XIII compare their powers and state that 'certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs’ ? Pope Leo XIII again makes this point when he says ‘Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority. Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life’

You admit that the Pope can exercise his authority personally but somehow state that this is not exercised seperately to the bishops. One illustation will suffice to show the absurdity of such a proposition, say the Pope wants to do X and all the bishops want to do Y, what happens? You either believe that the Pope cannot do X therefore unduly limiting the Popes powers and commiting the heresy of conciliarism or you believe the absurdity that the Pope is somehow acting together with the bishops in doing X despite the fact they oppose X and want Y.

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

Where does it say here that the Pope can act separated or apart from his brother bishops, or that the Pope can impede the authority of orthodox bishops in their local jurisdictions on just his say-so? I’ll give you the answer - NOWHERE.

Do yourself a favor and take off your Absolutist Petrine lenses for just a moment. Then maybe you’ll notice the highlighted portion. Pope St. Leo is here describing HOW the Pope and bishops SHARE THINGS IN COMMON.:banghead:

You seem utterly incapable of engaging in discussion with anyone without insulting them one way or another. How you think you’ll convince anyone to believe your point of view whilst doing this is beyond me

So – Where does it say that the Pope can act separated or apart from his brother bishops, or that he can impede the authority of orthodox bishops in their local sees on just his say-so? NOWHERE. All it says is that the supreme authority must be obeyed. But you are forgetting the most important premise that the Pope can only use the Petrine authority for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Contrary to the claims of some Absolutist Petrine advocates I have debated here in CAF, the Pope has no authority to do otherwise. Pope St. Leo does not say, “subject to and obeys ME.” Rather, he says, “subject to and obeys Peter.” There is a standard in the Church, enshrined in Sacred Tradition, to which ALL bishops (including the Pope) are bound to submit. If and when it is necessary for the Pope to actively exercise his unique Petrine authority to instruct his brother bishops, it must and can only be exercised according to this Sacred Tradition. We ALL hope that the bishops will obey their head bishops WHEN IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH. But make no mistake about it. The bishops don’t have to recognize or submit to an authority that is not acting for the good of the Church. In case you did not know, our Catholic Canons state that local bishops can, FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR FLOCK, dispense even from universal canon laws and papal rescripts. So much for the Absolutist Petrine hogwash.

You mean the phrase that actually doesn’t exist and you like to read into these statements in order to make them compatible with your gallicanist and conciliarist point of view?

If the Syllabus condemned this statement, then it perfectly supports the High Petrine view.

No Marduk the Syllabus is condemning the idea that this doctrine is dated or old, it is supporting this doctrine so your so called ‘high petrine’ view is not supported by it.

Your entire reply was frankly of poor standard, it ignored the sources quoted and misquoted or was simply dishonest when addressing facts. You constantly accuse others of wearing ‘absolutist petrine’ lenses but the fact is you cannot distinguish facts from opinions or understand the clear meaning of words quoted to you.

 

[jmj1984]

Just a further explanation here. Pope Pius VI condemned the idea that the Pope only POSSESSES power in extraordinary cases. What the High Petrine view offers, what the early Church believed and practiced (perfectly preserved in practice by the Oriental Orthodox Church [if not perfectly believed], and perfectly preserved in teaching by the Catholic Church [if not always perfectly practiced]), and what Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 taught is that head bishops ALWAYS POSSESS ordinary power or authority. The distinction is that it can only be EXERCISED in an EXTRAordinary manner. It is an important distinction. V1, V2 and our Canons adhere to this by making the distinction between ORDINARY authority, and PROPER authority.

Catholics and non-Catholics should take special note that while our Canons state that a local bishop has ORDINARY, IMMEDIATE, and PROPER authority in his local diocese, the Pope is only described as having ORDINARY and IMMEDIATE authority in that same local diocese. Note that the canonical term PROPER is missing from the description of the papal prerogative. PROPER is the canonical term that refers to the regular exercise of authority. ONLY the local bishop can regularly exercise jurisdction in his local diocese.

NOTE: While the Pope’s authority in another local diocese is described as ORDINARY and IMMEDIATE, the authority of every other head bishop (e.g., Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Major Archbishop, Catholicos, etc.) in another local diocese is described only as ORDINARY. The term “immediate” is missing because that canonical term refers to the fact that the authority comes DIRECTLY from God. The authority of other head bishops does not come DIRECTLY from God, but was established BY THE CHURCH. This is why the authority of every LOCAL bishop is ALSO described as IMMEDIATE - because their authority comes DIRECTLY from God.

As a recap, in any single local diocese:

• the authority of the local bishop is IMMEDIATE, ORDINARY and PROPER.
• the authority of the Pope is IMMEDIATE and ORDINARY.
• the authority of any other head bishop is ORDINARY.

I hope that helps those who are seeking to understand the Catholic Church, or who might currently have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

Stop being dishonest with yourself and others Marduk **you have repeatedly stated that the Pope cannot interfere in a diocese except in extroardinary circumstances, Pope Pius VI has completely rejected this view, he has not referenced the idea that the Pope only has power in extraordinary circumstances but spoken specificially of dioceses ** ‘that the power of the Primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to themselves absolutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides as unnjust reservations and injurious to bishops’

Pope Pius VI doesnt agree with you, if you can’t see that theres no point in continuing this discussion not because you’ve proved me wrong but because you cannot tell the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’, ‘I agree’ and ‘I disagree’. And if you can’t make these basic distinctions you put yourself beyond the pale of discussion.

 

[jmj1984]

Lets analyse your supposed reconciliation of the sources I provided again.

Your response to Pope Pius VI was… to misinterpret and twist his words and completely fail to address the issue addressed.

You have repeatedly stated that the Pope cannot interfere in a bishops diocese except in extraordinary circumstances and that he cannot impede a bishop in his own diocese. Let us examine how this claim is dealt with by Pope Pius VI.

‘All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees… that the power of the Primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to themselves absolutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides as unnjust reservations and injurious to bishops’

Your view is soundly condemned, the Pope does have power in dioceses apart from extraordinary circumstances. Instead of dealing with this self-evident contradiction of your view however you ignored it and gave us a very interesting but irrelevant elucidation of your personal opinion.

Let us look at how you have dealt with Pope Pius IX… you haven’t dealt with it, you’ve misread it and as a result completely failed to address the issue at hand.

‘34 - The doctrine of those who compared the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages and 38- The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the church into East and West’

Pope Pius IX is NOT condemning the idea that 'The Roman Pontiff is a free prince within the universal church’ he is condemning the idea that this is an idea which was made up in the middle ages and thus false or old fashioned and not relevant today. He cannot be saying that this idea did not exist or was not the common view in the middle ages because its a historical fact that it was and he cannot be condemning the idea itself both because the way he is doing it would be completely illogical and long winded but also because then he would write ‘The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince in the universal church’ and not the rest of the sentence. In condemning the idea that this statement is out of date or made up Pope Pius IX declares his support for it

The next point follows because if you accept that the pope must consult others or always exercises his powers collegially the hundreds of decisions made without advice or consent or any collegial (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever must have been wrong and therefore would have contributed to the ‘schism’. This is unavoidable from your line of reasoning.

Pope Pius VI in auctorem fidei condemns the following assertions 'Likewise in that it says it is convinced that ‘the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the church cannot be altered nor hindered, and when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of the church demands it’ in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church…

**Therefore the Pope can alter and hinder the rights of both individual bishops and bishops as a whole **and a bishop cannot attempt to return to his original rights without the Popes permission nor can he protect himself by saying that he believes resisting the Pope is 'for the greater good of the church’.

What was your response to this? Nothing, you didn’t even address the encyclical.

 

[jmj1984]

Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical 'Mystici Corporis ‘Therefore, the bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they are bound with the Divine Head of the whole body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called ‘principal parts of the members of the Lord’, but, as far as each ones own diocese is concerned, because as true sheperds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them; yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff’

Pope Clement VI stating the true catholic doctrine to the armenians in Super Quibusdam states ‘In the sixth place if you have believed and still believe that the plenitude of power of the Roman Pontiff, extends so far that it is possible to transfer patriarchs, the Catholicon, the archbishops, bishops, Abbots, and whatsoever prelates from the offices in which they have been established to other offices of greater or lesser jurisdiction, or, as their sins demand, to demote, to depose, excommunicate, or to surrender them to Satan’

In reference solely to Mystici Corporis there are two things to point out:

1)The bishops derive their ordinary jurisdiction from the Pope that gives it to them
2) It is a common rule of law, that one cannot give to another a greater right than one possesses over something, the nemo plus rule. The Pope could not give to Bishops ordinary jurisdiction over their dioceses unless he himself possessed it and it is absurd to say that in giving this right to them he divested himself of that right.

Looking at both the encyclicals together we see several things. As we have already established the bishops derive their jurisdiction from the Pope, Pope Clement VI makes it clear that the Pope can promote, demote, depose or excommunicate bishops. He can do much more than impede a bishop he can take their diocese away from them, assign them to new dioceses, demote them or simply ‘put them out to pasture’ or even excommunicate them!

In the light of these facts the arguments over whether the Pope can or can’t impede a bishop are entirely irrelevant.

 

[jmj1984]

Let us also make reference to several other sources of Catholic dogma which are incompatible with your view of the Popes power.

'**…By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same peter as well as through his succesors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, be strengthened?

By passing a preceding judgement on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgement, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable councils

As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his succesors have free judgement over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest see is judged by no one’
** Pope St Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus. DS 350

Your insistence on placing limits on papal power by saying that the Pope cannot impede a bishop in his diocese and always exercise his power collegially requires someone to pass judgement on the Pope. And yet numerous encyclicals including this one have made it clear that no one can pass judgement on the Pope, yet you would have bishops do this as a matter of routine.

Let us look again at what Pope Clement VI says on this matter in Super Quibusdam '**
First, whether you have believed, believe, or are prepared to believe with the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, that blessed Peter received complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from our Lord Jesus Christ; and that every power of Jurisdiction, which in certain lands and provinces and in different parts of the world… was completely subject to the authority and power which blessed Peter received from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, over whomsoever are believers in Christ in all parts of the world…

In the third place, if you and the Armenians subject to you have believed and do believe that the Roman Pontiffs who have been and we who are now the Roman Pontiff and, those, who in future will be succesively as legitimate Vicars of Christ and full of power in the highest degree, have received immediately from Christ Himself over the complete and universal body of the church militant, every jurisdiction of power which Christ as fitting head had in human life’**

All the bishops and their jurisdiction is subject to the pope. Something which as we have already discussed can be removed or reduced when the Pope so wishes. And Are you honestly going to argue with me that Christ couldn’t over rule or impede the apostles? I think not

 

[louis91766]

Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical 'Mystici Corporis ‘Therefore, the bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they are bound with the Divine Head of the whole body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called ‘principal parts of the members of the Lord’, but, as far as each ones own diocese is concerned, because as true sheperds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them; yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff’]

Was this believed in the early Church, say before 1054 or was it something that came later after 1300? Did the bishops of the Eastern Churches believe that they were under the authority of the Roman Pontiff? If so, then why did they stay with Constantinople and not Rome, when the split between East and west developed at about 1054?

 

[Hesychios]

Was this believed in the early Church, say before 1054 or was it something that came later after 1300? Did the bishops of the Eastern Churches believe that they were under the authority of the Roman Pontiff? If so, then why did they stay with Constantinople and not Rome, when the split between East and west developed at about 1054?

They did not ‘stay with Constantinople’, since they did not see any one as a ‘Supreme Pontiff’, it is not part of the traditional church governance. They had their own Synods and the Synods each had Metropolitans (some Metropolitans carried the added distinction of being called ‘Patriarchs’). These eastern bishops were not choosing for either the bishop of Rome nor for the bishop of Constantinople, they were just doing what they always had done, and what they knew by the canons.

 

[louis91766]

They did not ‘stay with Constantinople’, since they did not see any one as a ‘Supreme Pontiff’, it is not part of the traditional church governance. They had their own Synods and the Synods each had Metropolitans (some Metropolitans carried the added distinction of being called ‘Patriarchs’). These eastern bishops were not choosing for either the bishop of Rome nor for the bishop of Constantinople, they were just doing what they always had done, and what they knew by the canons.

Didn’t they retain communion with Constantinople and break communion with Rome at some point?

 

[Hesychios]

Didn’t they retain communion with Constantinople and break communion with Rome at some point?

They did nothing different, they continued on as before. This was not a ‘rejection of Rome’ as some would have it, there was no choice to be made here.

For what it is worth (I know you realize this but it bears repeating), the Patriarch of Constantinople is not a version of Pope, and Orthodox bishops do not follow him as western bishops might follow a Pope. If the Ecumenical Patriarch was proceeding in a new direction, charting some new course unfamiliar to the rest, very likely he would be going it alone.

He (the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) is the Metropolitan of a specific synod, the likes of which there are many others in Orthodoxy (and which he does not control), Somehow, the Papacy found itself out of communion with all of them, yet there is no evidence of a concerted effort by the Orthodox to break off relations with Rome, not singly or together. The idea did not come from them and they did not initiate it.

However, we do know that a Cardinal composed the Bull of excommunication and placed it on the altar of Hagia Sophia when there was no living Pope (so he in effect had ‘no boss’, but the EP was actually superior to him in ecclesiastical rank). The Cardinal excommunicated the EP and all who follow him, the EP responded by excommunicating him personally, not the Pope (he was dead anyway) and not the Pope’s followers.

The other Patriarchal synods appear to have done nothing specific at this time, and the Patriarch of Antioch is known to have tried to maintain communion with both parties for a number of years.

It took a long time for relations to harden, some say the schism was not widespread until crusaders were deposing eastern bishops and placing Latins on their thrones, alienating the entire east. I myself am not certain about that, the explanation sounds too simplistic, but I have to mention it.

 

[louis91766]

Somehow, the Papacy found itself out of communion with all of them, yet there is no evidence of a concerted effort by the Orthodox to break off relations with Rome, not singly or together.

So the Eastern Orthodox bishops did not retain communion with Rome, but did retain communion with Constantinople? Somehow you don’t seem to like this fact that I have mentioned here and above?

 

[Hesychios]

So the Eastern Orthodox bishops did not retain communion with Rome, but did retain communion with Constantinople? Somehow you don’t seem to like this fact that I have mentioned here and above?

I am quite comfortable with the facts, which is why I presented them to you.

From the Orthodox viewpoint, the church at Rome left the communion. This schism has always bothered the Orthodox, but they do not show any evidence of ‘needing’ to be under the Pope. It was not seen in this way. There were no new theories, nor questions like “what do we do now?” kind of things. No "How do we survive?’, nor “Who’s going to do this, that and the other thing for us, now that we don’t have a Pope?” Not even one new canon.

On the other hand, the Papacy has written and put in place many new canons explaining the the highest authority and how it functions, naming the Pope as the ‘go-to’ person, and explaining that other offices, like the curial officials and patriarchs act in his name. None of this dates from before the schism.

You were asking about the statement by Pius XII, as such “they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff”.

Clearly the Orthodox eastern Catholics would have been surprised to read such a thing, which is why I bring all this up. The modern Pope is claiming that bishops around the world are deputized to function by the Supreme Pontiff. This is some new thinking in the western church which was not present in 1054AD.

 

[jmj1984]

Was this believed in the early Church, say before 1054 or was it something that came later after 1300? Did the bishops of the Eastern Churches believe that they were under the authority of the Roman Pontiff? If so, then why did they stay with Constantinople and not Rome, when the split between East and west developed at about 1054?

Who can read minds. What they believed or did not believe is really beside the point, what matters is whether it is true or not. And as we believe that The Roman Catholic church is 'The one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as this is its authentic and infallible teaching, we know that it is true.

Pope Benedict XIV says on the subject in Allatae Sunt '**Oriental Church United With Roman Church

1. Certainly, that man would have to be declared utterly inexperienced in ecclesiastical history who did not know of the mighty efforts of the Roman Pontiffs to bring the Orientals into unity since the fatal schism of Photius; he laid hold of the See of Constantinople when the lawful Patriarch St. Ignatius was forcefully ejected in the time of Pope St. Nicholas I. Our Predecessor St. Leo IX sent his legates to Constantinople to put an end to this schism, which, after almost two centuries’ respite, had been renewed by Michael Cerularius; but their efforts came to nothing. Subsequently Urban II summoned the Greeks to the council of Bari. They accomplished very little though, even though St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, was fully engaged in working for unity between them and the Roman Church and in revealing to them the errors of their ways by the light of his teaching. At the Council of Lyons which Blessed Gregory X convened, the emperor Michael Palaeologus and the Greek bishops accepted unity with the Roman Church, but then changed their minds and abandoned it again. The Council of Florence, in the pontificate of Eugenius IV, which was attended by John Palaeologus and Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the other Oriental bishops, decreed union; everyone present accepted it. At the same Council the churches of the Armenians and the Jacobites returned to obedience to the Apostolic See. When Pope Eugenius left Florence for Rome, he received an embassy from the king of the Ethiopians and restored the Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Maronites to obedience to the Roman See. But as it is written in St. Matthew’s Gospel, chap. 13, the seed which fell on a rock produced no fruit since it had no place to put down roots: “These are those who at once receive the word of God with joy but do not have roots in themselves; when tribulation and persecution come on account of the word, they stumble at once.” Thus, scarcely had Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, like a new Photius, tried to destroy the union by raising his voice against it, than all the desired fruit immediately vanished.
2. That man too would betray his ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the Orientals confirmed that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and add to the Creed the word Filioque (“and from the Son”); that they would admit that both leavened and unleavened bread was matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that they would accept the dogma of purgatory, of the beatific vision and of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; in a word, that every care was taken to overthrow all errors opposed to the Catholic faith. But there was never any question of causing harm to the venerable Oriental rite. That man would be utterly ignorant also of the present discipline of the Church who had not discovered that the Roman Pontiffs, undeterred by past fruitless attempts, have always intended to restore the Greeks to union and have always followed and still follow the path We have explained just above. This can be clearly gathered both from their words and from their deeds. **’

 

[louis91766]

They did not ‘stay with Constantinople’, …

This is what I do not understand.
I thought that the facts were that they did maintain communion with Constantinople and did not go with Rome when there was a break in communion.
However, you claim that they did not stay with Constantinople when the break came?

 

[Hesychios]

This is what I do not understand.
I thought that the facts were that they did maintain communion with Constantinople and did not go with Rome when there was a break in communion.
However, you claim that they did not stay with Constantinople when the break came?

I think the problem here is that my way of describing this is a new perspective for Roman catholics and therefore is coming across as a bit arcane.

The communion of Holy Orthodoxy is composed of many synods, actually self governing churches, acting like partners. It is a lot like a confederation, and Rome was part of this. To be Orthodox one must believe what Orthodox believe, and hold fast to the received teaching. Orthodox strive to remain constant, in communion with one another, with the help of God striving to remain true to their received Apostolic faith. It is an effort made continually, on an ongoing basis.

In the dispute of 1054 there were two contending parties: Rome and Constantinople. They had issues with each other, but these parochial concerns were by and large not issues shared by the other churches in the communion. This was not a matter of great hostility between (for example) Rome and Antioch, nor of Constantinople and Antioch. Nor for that matter between Alexandria and Cyprus or Jerusalem and anybody.

It was a dispute between Rome and Constantinople, two separate particular self-governing churches.

Constantinople preferred to remain Orthodox and continue to conform itself to the received Apostolic faith, and Rome decided to go it’s own way. Communion between churches is always a mutual act. The Orthodox churches did not choose to follow one or the other of these contending parties (they don’t ‘follow’ other primates), they chose to remain constant in their Orthodox Catholicism and it happens that the church and synod of Constantinople was also determined to remain Orthodox with them.

 

[louis91766]

Who can read minds. What they believed or did not believe is really beside the point, what matters is whether it is true or not. And as we believe that The Roman Catholic church is 'The one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as this is its authentic and infallible teaching, we know that it is true.

Pope Benedict XIV says on the subject in Allatae Sunt '**Oriental Church United With Roman Church

1. Certainly, that man would have to be declared utterly inexperienced in ecclesiastical history who did not know of the mighty efforts of the Roman Pontiffs to bring the Orientals into unity since the fatal schism of Photius; he laid hold of the See of Constantinople when the lawful Patriarch St. Ignatius was forcefully ejected in the time of Pope St. Nicholas I. Our Predecessor St. Leo IX sent his legates to Constantinople to put an end to this schism, which, after almost two centuries’ respite, had been renewed by Michael Cerularius; but their efforts came to nothing. Subsequently Urban II summoned the Greeks to the council of Bari. They accomplished very little though, even though St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, was fully engaged in working for unity between them and the Roman Church and in revealing to them the errors of their ways by the light of his teaching. At the Council of Lyons which Blessed Gregory X convened, the emperor Michael Palaeologus and the Greek bishops accepted unity with the Roman Church, but then changed their minds and abandoned it again. The Council of Florence, in the pontificate of Eugenius IV, which was attended by John Palaeologus and Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the other Oriental bishops, decreed union; everyone present accepted it. At the same Council the churches of the Armenians and the Jacobites returned to obedience to the Apostolic See. When Pope Eugenius left Florence for Rome, he received an embassy from the king of the Ethiopians and restored the Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Maronites to obedience to the Roman See. But as it is written in St. Matthew’s Gospel, chap. 13, the seed which fell on a rock produced no fruit since it had no place to put down roots: “These are those who at once receive the word of God with joy but do not have roots in themselves; when tribulation and persecution come on account of the word, they stumble at once.” Thus, scarcely had Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, like a new Photius, tried to destroy the union by raising his voice against it, than all the desired fruit immediately vanished.
2. That man too would betray his ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the Orientals confirmed that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and add to the Creed the word Filioque (“and from the Son”); that they would admit that both leavened and unleavened bread was matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that they would accept the dogma of purgatory, of the beatific vision and of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; in a word, that every care was taken to overthrow all errors opposed to the Catholic faith. But there was never any question of causing harm to the venerable Oriental rite. That man would be utterly ignorant also of the present discipline of the Church who had not discovered that the Roman Pontiffs, undeterred by past fruitless attempts, have always intended to restore the Greeks to union and have always followed and still follow the path We have explained just above. This can be clearly gathered both from their words and from their deeds. **’

Was this just an opinion of the Pope at that time, or is it infallible doctrine which can never be changed. A lot of things, which people thought could not be changed, have been changed later on. For example:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
this teaching has been changed and it is now taught that Jews can be saved and that schismatic Orthodox can be saved. In fact, according to the RC rules now in effect (see the missalette at Mass) Orthodox Christians who do not even recognise the infalliblity of the Roman Pope, are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church without converting to Roman Catholicism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I have been following your conversation with brother Louis, and agree 100% with what you have written in your past several posts. I do want to make some comments and also need to make some clarification to this current post.

From the Orthodox viewpoint, the church at Rome left the communion. This schism has always bothered the Orthodox, but they do not show any evidence of ‘needing’ to be under the Pope. It was not seen in this way. There were no new theories, nor questions like “what do we do now?” kind of things. No "How do we survive?’, nor “Who’s going to do this, that and the other thing for us, now that we don’t have a Pope?” Not even one new canon.

According to the High Petrine understanding, the papacy is a necessary thing. As stated before, the difference between the Catholic High Petrine view and the Orthdox (Eastern or Oriental) High Petrine view is that the Orthodox do not believe the current occupant of the primatial See of Rome is orthodox.

So Orthodox High Petrine advocates would say, “the papacy is necessary only if its occupant is orthodox. Without this orthodoxy, we do not and can not need it.”

The Low Petrine view seems to say “the papacy is NEVER necessary.”

Which do you propose is:
(1) The more patristic understanding;
(2) The understanding more likely to achieve unity.

On the other hand, the Papacy has written and put in place many new canons explaining the the highest authority and how it functions, naming the Pope as the ‘go-to’ person, and explaining that other offices, like the curial officials and patriarchs act in his name. None of this dates from before the schism.

The highlighted portion above is absolutely not true. I’m sure brother Vico can give you the appropriate Eastern codes that explicitly affirm that Patriarchs act as juridical persons IN THEIR OWN NAME.

You were asking about the statement by Pius XII, as such “they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff”.

Clearly the Orthodox eastern Catholics would have been surprised to read such a thing, which is why I bring all this up. The modern Pope is claiming that bishops around the world are deputized to function by the Supreme Pontiff. This is some new thinking in the western church which was not present in 1054AD.

There are a few things you may not understand about Catholic ecclesiology.

(1) In Catholic ecclesiology, there is a distinction made between the POWER OF ORDERS, and the POWER OF JURISDICTION. The power of Orders is ALWAYS GREATER than the power of Jurisdiction. Though the power of jurisdiction might be obtained directly from the Pope, the power of Orders comes DIRECTLY FROM GOD, and it is a power that the Pope has ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY to impede.

(2) When it states that the power of jurisdiction is obtained directly from the Pope, this is NOT saying that the Pope can, on his whim and fancy, take this power of jurisdiction away. In Catholic ecclesioogy, an ACQUIRED right (something given) has the exact same potency as a NATURAL right. Once the Pope grants the power of jurisdiction, it is VERY, VERY, VERY difficult for the Pope to take it away.

(3) Also consider that when official Catholic sources say (i.e., not the misinterpretations of Absolutist Petrine advocates) that a bishop’s power of jurisdiction is obtained from the Pope, this is merely referring to the fact that no bishop can exercise jurisdiction without being in communion with the bishop of Rome. This is a very patristic standard, for in general no bishop can exercise jurisdiction without being in communion with his head bishop - a patristic standard that Orthodox High Petrine advocates accept (something foreign to the Low Petrine view). This does not mean that the Pope is actively micromanaging the Church, going around on his mere say-so who can or who cannot be bishop.

I hope that helps. I look forward to your comments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Louis,

This is what I do not understand.
I thought that the facts were that they did maintain communion with Constantinople and did not go with Rome when there was a break in communion.
However, you claim that they did not stay with Constantinople when the break came?

Something that you need to understand about the Orthodox perspective - a perspective shared by many (most? all?) Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

UNITY is based on THE STANDARD OF THE FAITH. It is NOT based merely on being in communion with a particular bishop. When Orthodox (whether in communion with Rome or not) say “we are communion with…,” what we mean is that we recognize the orthodoxy of the bishop with whom we are in communion.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Really Marduk aside from uncharitable comments 101 what was the point of that reply?

All you said was ‘shout’ ‘The Pope can’t act apart from his brother bishops, the Pope can’t act apart from his brother bishops’ whilst actually failing to address the encyclical. Rather than absolutist lenses it appears you read anything through ‘my opinion over rules the facts’ lenses.

Well, once you actually produce a text that states that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in his local diocese, then we can start having a real discussion. But I have no interest in responding to your erroneous opinions that you are imposing on the texts you cite.

Lets examine the text again shall we?

What you mean is “let’s discuss my opinions on what the text means.” Sorry, as repeatedly stated, unless you produce the text (ANY text) that ACTUALLY says that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that he can impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in that bishop’s local diocese, what is there to respond to?

‘Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” (S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis Comment. in Joan., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55)’

The Pope feeds the lambs, the Pope has authority over the WHOLE Church, and this universal authority CAN be exercised uniquely in a PERSONAL way by the Pope, a universal authority that can ALSO be exercise by the College in union with him. That’s all it says.

Now, where does it say that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that he can impede the authority of an orthdox bishop in his local diocese. Produce the text - your PERSONAL erroneous misinterpretations ain’t cuttin’ it.

This statement clearly shows that Pope Leo XIII taught that the Pope has the same authority over each and every member of the laity in a particular diocese as the bishop of that diocese has.

Sure. But he cannot exercise it to impede the authority of the local bishop. Haven’t you ever read the Decree of Vatican 1? It states that the Pope’s authority is NOT to be used to impede the authority of the local bishops, but is INSTEAD to be used to defend, strengthen, and support it. So much for your Absolutist Petrine errors.

Why else does Pope Leo XIII compare their powers and state that 'certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs’?

Sure. Like I said, the Pope has ORDINARY jurisdiction in each and every diocese (EVERY head bishop - metropolitan, patriarch, etc.- has this kind of ordinary jurisdiction in each and every diocese). But there is only ONE bishop that has PROPER jurisdiction in that local diocese - THE LOCAL BISHOP, NOT the Metropolitan, NOT the Patriarch, NOT the Primate, NOT the Catholicos, NOT the Pope. You should check out our Canons when you have the time. You might learn something on the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Pope Leo XIII again makes this point when he says 'Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority.
Yes. As I’ve mentioned to you, as V1, V2, the Official Relatio, and our Canons assert, on the assumption that when the Pope is exercising this unique jurisdiction, he is doing so ONLY in RESPONSE to the needs of the Church. The Pope’s unique Petrine authority can ONLY be used IN RESPONSE to the NEEDS of the Church. He has no authority to do otherwise. I’ve said this before, but you did not respond - because you know you cannot refute this ecclesiological Truth. You are very good at avoidance, I must say.

Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life.

And where does it say that the Pope can exercise this authority in the Church SEPARATED OR APART FROM HIS BROTHER BISHOPS? High Petrine advocates like to take things IN CONTEXT. We take into account the FACT that Christ instituted NOT JUST PETER, but the REST OF THE APOSTLES AS WELL, to be the foundation of the Church. And this COLLEGIAL authority has been handed down to the Pope and his brother bishops DOWN TO THIS DAY in the Apostolic Succession. Do you deny this?

You admit that the Pope can exercise his authority personally but somehow state that this is not exercised seperately to the bishops. One illustation will suffice to show the absurdity of such a proposition, say the Pope wants to do X and all the bishops want to do Y, what happens? You either believe that the Pope cannot do X therefore unduly limiting the Popes powers and commiting the heresy of conciliarism or you believe the absurdity that the Pope is somehow acting together with the bishops in doing X despite the fact they oppose X and want Y.

Take off your Absolutist Petrine lenses, and you will see the log of absurdity in your own eye. Bishops have no absolute imperative to follow the Pope if the Pope’s decision (1) contradicts Sacred Tradition; (2) Is not for the good of their flock. Again, do yourself a favor. Divest yourself of your ignorance and errors, and read the Canons of the Church. I don’t mean the tired, old myopic snippets that Absolutist Petrine advocates ALWAYS focus on in pretended support of their position. I’m talking about a CONTEXTUAL reading of the Canons. As stated in a past post, CONTEXT is the bane of your Absolutist Petrine camp. You can’t take the Truth!

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Still waiting for the texts I requested. Oh never mind. I think we’re done. You know you can’t produce it. Your position has absolutely no support from any Magisterial document of the Church. I’ll respond to the rest of your misinterpreted quotes when I have more time,