How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

The “quiz” is just a bit too subjective. It is quite impossible to objectively determine all four points with absolute certainly, and I think you know that.

I absolutely agree. It should be noted that I’m only using conditions that are utilized by Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates themselves in their criticisms against the papacy. There is indeed a very high degree of subjectivism inherent in the Absolutist and Low Petrine paradigms.

But I have to clarify something: as I’ve said in prior threads, I have no problem with the hierarchical ecclesial model used by the Latin Church provided that model. It is, however, precisely where that model impinges upon the Synodal model of the East and Orient that I find to be a problem. And on that score, the same 2 (perhaps 3) names come back into play.

Agreed. It’s not my business how Latins want their own sui juris Church to be run. But we should also be wary about judging too quickly actions by the Pope that affect our own non-Latin Churches. Do these actions truly reflect a unilateral, dictatorial imposition on non-Latin Churches by the Pope?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Michael,

I trust your past posts in this thread contain your rationale for your “firm belief” about what the Catholic Church teaches. I and others addressed/refuted every single one of your points…

You did no such thing Marduk.

One canot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and no matter how hard you try you cannot make the reality match your hopes.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

You did no such thing Marduk.

One canot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and no matter how hard you try you cannot make the reality match your hopes.

Please feel free to select any one of the snippets you proposed, so we can focus on a particular issue. Then let’s discuss it properly, if you’re willing. We can’t rest on “Yes I did – no you didn’t” claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What is wrong with braking communion rather than submitting to the mediation of the Pope?

Well, it exacerbates the situation of apostolic churches’ being in schism with each other, which goes against our Lord’s wish that we be united (John 17:21).

If they were not sure of their reasons they could ask the opinion of another, but it need not be the Pope.

I agree with you, JohnVIII - our point is simply that appeal to the pope is a useful and necessary last resort. There has to be some kind of failsafe, and in the Catholic Church, we have not just ecumenical councils but also the pope to guide us if a crisis should demand his intervention.

This is a dynamic interaction within the One Church. This is how it has always been. I see no compelling reason to replace this with the mediation of the Pope. Someone, anyone, tell me that I, and the early Church, is and was wrong for doing this and WHY.

I don’t think you’re wrong at all, JohnVIII. Theistgal and I were speaking of large crises, of the possibility of appeal to the pope when other more local means of redressing such issues have been exhausted.

So we don’t want to replace the “dynamic interaction within the One Church” with “the mediation of the pope.” It’s just that the mediation of the pope is a critical part of this apparatus. On a day-to-day level, he doesn’t run the church. He does very little in/for the eastern Catholic churches - especially the ones with their own patriarch - and even in the Latin Church, the authority of the local bishop is of paramount importance. I’m a Latin Catholic, and my bishop leads the particular church to which I belong. The pope would only step in if his intervention were required due to some crisis.

I have since separated from communion with Rome, not because I have stopped believing in this, but because I believe that Rome puts out that the Absolutist Petrine view is the only true view and it does so dogmatically! So what action should I take?

I’m sorry to hear that. I genuinely disagree. My experiences and teachers, even as a Latin Catholic, have always undermined the Absolutist Petrine view in favor of the High Petrine one. I truly believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church holds a High Petrine view. The explanations of the kind offered by Marduk here on this forum are the only viewpoint that corresponds accurately, in my estimation, to the way the Catholic Church actually functions - i.e. all the bishops lead the Church together, their proper authority is sacrosanct, and the pope’s supreme authority comes into play *when *his leadership is required.

I feel like I have offended the Church of the Romans by being in communion with Her but not holding the prescribed view of the papacy! How could it be right for me to be in communion with Rome, seeing that I feel like I would be an offense to Rome if I were? I don’t get it!

I understand. But you should reconsider that perhaps your view of the papacy - your assent to what we’ve here been calling the High Petrine view - is indeed the Catholic Magisterium’s prescribed view of the papacy.

Take a look, for instance, at the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, which has very strongly and successfully preserved its heritage. Do you really think the Catholic Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory III, holds an Absolutist Petrine view?

Obviously I don’t in any way know him personally, but I highly doubt it.

I agree 100%. It is interesting that those who leave the Catholic Church based (in part or in full) because of this issue have all, with no exception, had an Absolutist Petrine (mis)understanding of the Catholic teaching on the papacy. We who accept the FULL teaching of the First Vatican Council do not adhere to the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, and thus are at peace with our Faith as Catholics. Even those Catholics who view the praxis of the Catholic Church as leaning towards the Absolutist Petrine paradigm, are able to remain because they understand that the High Petrine ideal is at least contained in the teaching itself.

Yes, this is the impression I’m getting, too. I feel genuinely confident that the Catholic Church teaches the High Petrine view due to the fact that even before I learned the terminology and such, the situation expressed by the High Petrine paradigm is the impression I was always given even here in the Latin Church.

I figure if the Latin hierarchy held an Absolutist Petrine view, then I as a Latin layman would probably have had it ingrained in me at some point, but I haven’t. That to me speaks volumes.

Agreed. It’s not my business how Latins want their own sui juris Church to be run.

I fully realize and admit that the pope wields his authority far more directly over the Latin Church than in other Catholic churches.

That said, I just want to say that my personal experience as a Latin Catholic living in the United States has always been one that feels more “High Petrine” than “Absolutist Petrine.”

Throughout my life, I’ve always truly felt like it is my bishop who is in charge of the particular church to which I belong. Even when growing up, I always sensed that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to which I belonged could not accurately be said to be a pyramid.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FoneBone,

That said, I just want to say that my personal experience as a Latin Catholic living in the United States has always been one that feels more “High Petrine” than “Absolutist Petrine.”

Throughout my life, I’ve always truly felt like it is my bishop who is in charge of the particular church to which I belong. Even when growing up, I always sensed that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to which I belonged could not accurately be said to be a pyramid.

I wouldn’t doubt it. At Vatican 1, all but 7 of the 40 bishops from the United States belonged to the Minority Party. It is hard to believe that the Absolutist Petrine view could have much purchase in a country like the United States.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gmcbroom]

I’m curious didn’t the Pope demonstrate use of his authority lately? For instance when he greeted an ArchBishop (I forgot whether it it was the ruthenians or byzantine catholic church) as Archbishop instead of Patriarch? This leads me to believe that the various suri iurius church synods can probably elevate one of their own to Patriarch. Then the Pope would acknowledge it and welcome him as a Patriarch.

Perhaps I’m wrong. In either case as I’m neither a Bishop, Patriarch, or Pope I’ll leave their affairs to them and just praise the Lord.

Peace be with you all.
gmcbroom

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother FoneBone,

I wouldn’t doubt it. At Vatican 1, all but 7 of the 40 bishops from the United States belonged to the Minority Party. It is hard to believe that the Absolutist Petrine view could have much purchase in a country like the United States.

Blessings,
Marduk

I didn’t think of it that way, but that makes sense.

Since the United States is so new, obviously it hasn’t factored much into Church history, but as a Catholic and an American I’m always fascinated to discover in what ways the interaction between the United States and the Catholic Church has played out so far.

For instance, a book I was reading on Vatican II described how gung-ho the bishops from the United States were about Dignitatis Humanae. Not surprising, obviously.

Anyway, you make a great point, Marduk. And for the sake of relevance, I will reiterate for everyone else on this thread as well: at least in my country, the Latin bishops definitely seem to have a High Petrine view.

 

[twf]

Fore Bone:

I didn’t think of it that way, but that makes sense.

Since the United States is so new, obviously it hasn’t factored much into Church history, but as a Catholic and an American I’m always fascinated to discover in what ways the interaction between the United States and the Catholic Church has played out so far.

For instance, a book I was reading on Vatican II described how gung-ho the bishops from the United States were about Dignitatis Humanae. Not surprising, obviously.

Anyway, you make a great point, Marduk. And for the sake of relevance, I will reiterate for everyone else on this thread as well: at least in my country, the Latin bishops definitely seem to have a High Petrine view.

I believe this to be the case in Canada as well. It is interesting that something as fundamental as the role of the deacon can vary considerably between dioceses of the Latin Church. The papacy reinstated the permanent diaconate in the Latin Church decades ago, but the popes have completely left the implementation of this decision to the local bishops - a decision extremely vital to the life of any particular church. Many dioceses in Eastern Canada have had an active ministry of permanent deacons for decades. Here in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, our past several bishops decided not to foster vocations to the permanent diaconate, but recently our current archbishop has announced that he will only now, decades after Rome paved the way, implement a program for the formation of permanent deacons. Our neighbouring dioceses, on the other hand, continue to focus only on transitional deacons and fostering vocations to the priesthood. When to stand and when to kneel during the liturgy also varies from diocese to diocese and is determined solely by the local bishop. In my archdiocese, the archbishop asks us to kneel throughout the entire eucharistic canon - in the neighbouring diocese, the bishop asks the faithful to kneel only during the consecration itself. There are numerous other examples.

 

[Alfonsus]

While our orthodox brother say that the Roman have lost the true understanding of primacy, I believe the same is blurr in the orthodox circle.
Consider the tension between EP and MP, and churches take side between the two.

Articles I read shows pan-orthodox synod preparation at Chambesy again reach no agreement. While all orthodox churches decries “supremacy,” still there is no agreed definition what “primacy” should be (including the consequences, rights and responsibilities it entails), even among churches in the orthodox communion.

aoiusa.org/blog/2011/03/pan-orthodox-synod-postponed-over-differences-between-churches/

Some people gave me articles such as article regarding primacy from Met. Hilarion. But at best, and in practice, I can only relate it as position of Met. Hilarion or at best position of MP. But it is not possible to say that it as position of the orthodox church as a whole.

 

[Rence]

Do you mean Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthdox? Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome as much as any other Catholics. Eastern Orthodox are not under the authority of Pope at all

How are the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics different? How are they different from the Latin Catholics?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Yes, this is the impression I’m getting, too. I feel genuinely confident that the Catholic Church teaches the High Petrine view due to the fact that even before I learned the terminology and such, the situation expressed by the High Petrine paradigm is the impression I was always given even here in the Latin Church.

I figure if the Latin hierarchy held an Absolutist Petrine view, then I as a Latin layman would probably have had it ingrained in me at some point, but I haven’t. That to me speaks volumes.

AMEN!!! I cannot applaud this enough!

I was ALWAYS taught, both in the post-baptismal catechumenate I underwent and in my three years as a fully initiated Catholic (my anniversary of that day will be on Good Friday, YAY!!), the the High Petrine view.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

How are the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics different? How are they different from the Latin Catholics?

This link might help you out on that:

maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

 

[JohnVIII]

I am not using these high-low-absolute classifications.

I firmly believe that the Latin church teaches Papal supremacy, not Papal primacy. It hasn’t held a true notion of what primacy actually is in many centuries. For the most part Roman Catholics have forgotten what it means.

Only if I could accept Papal supremacy could I become a Roman Catholic again. That is what I would convert to because that is what the Papacy teaches – that is the dogma.

Thank you for clarifying that. I am close to where you are on this. Where I may differ is that I have not out-ruled the possibility of returning to Roman communion without any changes in what I accept or don’t accept. I only need to first find a way that this could be ethical. And one more thing too, I need to be at peace with it.

Even if the “High Petrine view” is the actual view if the Roman Church I would still have a problem with it. It is dogmatic, and those who don’t agree with it 100% are under an anathema! I only agree with the High Petrine view about 95%, some well meaning brother after trying to correct me may end up condemning me because of the 5%! And perhaps they should, if it is dogmatic. - Could I find peace with my brothers under this scenario?

And now my dear brother in God’s true faith, Brother Marduk,

I agree 100%. It is interesting that those who leave the Catholic Church based (in part or in full) because of this issue have all, with no exception, had an Absolutist Petrine (mis)understanding of the Catholic teaching on the papacy. We who accept the FULL teaching of the First Vatican Council do not adhere to the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations, and thus are at peace with our Faith as Catholics. Even those Catholics who view the praxis of the Catholic Church as leaning towards the Absolutist Petrine paradigm, are able to remain because they understand that the High Petrine ideal is at least contained in the teaching itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

May I respond to a small part of what you asked of brother Michael…

Dear brother Michael,

…Is my description of your mindset on the matter - analogous to the strict monotheist who accuses Christians of being polytheists (see post #60) - accurate?
Marduk

So in the Godhead their are three persons, but only one God. You seem to be saying that likewise even though V1 says, “absolute fullness, of this supreme power” because it defines this whole matter as something altogether different in MORE official documents from V1, and it can’t really be something altogether different, it must be that V1 is “a Mystery” just as the Mystery of the Godhead. So is V1 raised to even a higher level now? First it was a dogma, with the penalty of anathema to all who don’t confess the same, now it is a Divine Eternal Mystery like the Godhead!

Just as someone may try to explain the Mystery of the Godhead in worldly terms so that even though it cannot be comprehended it can be apprehended, you said, [paraphrasing] “The Pope holds the absolute power personally, but he may only exercise this authority in concord with all the bishops”. (Forgive me for paraphrasing, if need be I will find where you said this and get an exact quote.) (This is what I meant when I once told you that I thought that there is a piece of the Absolutist Petrine view contained within the High Petrine view.)

So I must accept the view the Roman Church holds concerning the power of the Pope or else I am under an anathema. And I must understand that this view is that the Pope holds absolute power and can use it without the consent of the Church - BUT, what this really means is that the Pope may ONLY use this power in concord with his fellow bishops. — Surely it would not be ethical for me to be in communion with Rome until I can fully accept this new article of faith of the Catholic Church! (If it could be demoted to just an opinion and not dogma then there would be no problem.)

Blessings!

Dear Brother Fone Bone 2001,

So we don’t want to replace the “dynamic interaction within the One Church” with “the mediation of the pope.” It’s just that the mediation of the pope is a critical part of this apparatus. On a day-to-day level, he doesn’t run the church. He does very little in/for the eastern Catholic churches - especially the ones with their own patriarch - and even in the Latin Church, the authority of the local bishop is of paramount importance. I’m a Latin Catholic, and my bishop leads the particular church to which I belong. The pope would only step in if his intervention were required due to some crisis.

Having the Pope as a last resort is a “critical part of this apparatus”? I take it that you would disagree with the decision that the local church of Carthage made in 419 AD:

Canon #134 of the Regional Council of Carthage, 419 AD:
“It has pleased the Counsel to decree that if Presbyters, Deacons, and other lower Clerics in whatever causes they may have are not satisfied with the decision of their own Bishops, the shall be heard and the differences between them shall be adjusted by those whom they may appoint with the consent of their own Bishop to review their case. But if they want to take an appeal even from the decision rendered by these men, they shall have no right to an appeal, except to the votes of the African Council or to the Primates of their own provinces, As for anyone that insists upon carrying an appeal across the sea [Rome], let him not be received in communion by anyone in Africa.”

 

[guanophore]

How are the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics different? How are they different from the Latin Catholics?

The Eastern Catholics are Orthodox who are in communion with the successor of Peter, and who have been subjected to Latinizaitons in their liturgy and practices.

They use Greek and Slavic languages in the liturgy, instead of Latin. I recommend you attend Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Church near you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

As usual, you offer much that is worthy of consideration.

Even if the “High Petrine view” is the actual view if the Roman Church I would still have a problem with it. It is dogmatic, and those who don’t agree with it 100% are under an anathema! I only agree with the High Petrine view about 95%, some well meaning brother after trying to correct me may end up condemning me because of the 5%! And perhaps they should, if it is dogmatic. - Could I find peace with my brothers under this scenario?

Am I correct in assuming that your 5% difference is based on the dogmatic nature of the Catholic teaching on the papacy?

So in the Godhead their are three persons, but only one God. You seem to be saying that likewise even though V1 says, “absolute fullness, of this supreme power” because it defines this whole matter as something altogether different in MORE official documents from V1, and it can’t really be something altogether different, it must be that V1 is “a Mystery” just as the Mystery of the Godhead. So is V1 raised to even a higher level now? First it was a dogma, with the penalty of anathema to all who don’t confess the same, now it is a Divine Eternal Mystery like the Godhead!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t believe I ever called it a “Mystery.” My only point was that one should not take little snippets of dogmatic teachings to form one’s own caricature of that teaching. Would you agree with that? Please respond.

Just as someone may try to explain the Mystery of the Godhead in worldly terms so that even though it cannot be comprehended it can be apprehended, you said, [paraphrasing] “The Pope holds the absolute power personally, but he may only exercise this authority in concord with all the bishops”. (Forgive me for paraphrasing, if need be I will find where you said this and get an exact quote.) (This is what I meant when I once told you that I thought that there is a piece of the Absolutist Petrine view contained within the High Petrine view.)

I am 100% positive I have never stated at any point in time that the Pope has “absolute power.” I think you are imposing a meaning on the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” that is not there. To be more precise, I think you are (mis)interpreting the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” to be “fullness of absolute power.” Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, all you have to understand is that the term “absolute power” is not equivalent to “supreme power.” Any standard dictionary will tell you that “absolute power” refers to a certain type of power that has no limits. That is very different from the concept of “supreme power.” “Supreme” simply means “highest.” It by no means denotes nor connotes, especially in the Church, the concept of “absolute.” Absolute power is able to be exercised at the mere discretion or choosing of the wielder of absolute power. “Supreme power,” on the other hand, simply means the “highest power” in relation to all other powers. For example, the Patriarch holds “supreme power” in his patriarchate, but not “absolute power.” Not even the Ecumenical Council, which has “supreme power” in the Church, has “absolute power,” for the very reason that even an Ecumenical Council is subject to the Laws of Christ, and the dogmatic Decrees of prior Ecumenical Councils. Are you beginning to see the difference between “supreme power” and “absolute power”? Absolute power has no limits, but merely supreme power is indeed limited in its exercise.

If you can see the difference, then I hope you will concede that the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” is by no means a statement that the Pope has “absolute power.” The “absolute fullness of supreme power” simply and concisely means that whatever prereogatives of this “supreme power” (which, by definition, has limits) the Pope possesses, he has the absolute fullness of that (delimited) power.

Brother Adrian, there is no great mystery involved here. IMO, the only great mystery is how Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates can pretend to supprot their exaggerations from the very text of the the Vatican Decrees.

Having the Pope as a last resort is a “critical part of this apparatus”? I take it that you would disagree with the decision that the local church of Carthage made in 419 AD:

Canon #134 of the Regional Council of Carthage, 419 AD:
“It has pleased the Counsel to decree that if Presbyters, Deacons, and other lower Clerics in whatever causes they may have are not satisfied with the decision of their own Bishops, the shall be heard and the differences between them shall be adjusted by those whom they may appoint with the consent of their own Bishop to review their case. But if they want to take an appeal even from the decision rendered by these men, they shall have no right to an appeal, except to the votes of the African Council or to the Primates of their own provinces, As for anyone that insists upon carrying an appeal across the sea [Rome], let him not be received in communion by anyone in Africa.”

I believe you are failing to consider the historical and circumstantial contexts in which these canons were given. Would you be willing to take a look at those contexts? I would explain it right now, but I don’t have the time. I’ll do so if you are willing to consider what I would offer you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

IMO, the only great mystery is how Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates can pretend to supprot their exaggerations from the very text of the the Vatican Decrees.

Sorry to butt in here, but the above is very easy when looking at the language used. Those who insist on the “Absolute Petrine” position take their justification from that very language, and those who hold the “Low Petrine” position do the same, mainly by way of extreme reaction to the former.

The problem as I see it is not that the dogmatic definitions (which were absolutely unnecessary in the first place, and hence they became the crux of the problem, but I digress) themselves define an “Absolute Petrine” view, but rather that (a) they remain unclarified and (b) that, as I’ve said before, the practice in Rome gives them foundation.

Again sorry to be a buttinski, but I thought I’d toss in another unsolicited :twocents:

 

[kotim]

Folks, the real issue is interpretation and the way in which we hear and receive things as we either grow up in age or in time within the church.

For 99% of the faithful, the difference explicitly between extreme, high or medium petrine view is not relevent. Most people know that in the CAtholic Church the Pope is the boss, and that is all they need to know or indeed care to know. So indeed when it comes to theology the vast vast majority of the lay people do not really percieve the difference in reality between the high or absolute petrine view, nor do they really care becasue it does not impact upon them.

There for it is natural that the majority of people will talk of the pope and his power as somewhat of a position as absolute. It is as simple as that.

I know the Pope is not all powerful so to speak but many/vast majority do, simply becasue as I said above, the high petrine view can easily be interpreted this way, by those who do not do a lot of study, For 99% of the faithful the difference between absolute and high Petrine is not a concern.

On top of this every anti catholic trys to tell catholics that the Pope is all powerful, so it is not any wonder that the general view by the laiety is one that is of an absolute Petrine view.

 

[dcointin]

I can honestly say that I’m coming to the point where I believe that Rome was always accorded more than a primacy of honor by the Church, but exactly what I’m still considering

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear Brother Fone Bone 2001,

Having the Pope as a last resort is a “critical part of this apparatus”? I take it that you would disagree with the decision that the local church of Carthage made in 419 AD:

Canon #134 of the Regional Council of Carthage, 419 AD:
“It has pleased the Counsel to decree that if Presbyters, Deacons, and other lower Clerics in whatever causes they may have are not satisfied with the decision of their own Bishops, the shall be heard and the differences between them shall be adjusted by those whom they may appoint with the consent of their own Bishop to review their case. But if they want to take an appeal even from the decision rendered by these men, they shall have no right to an appeal, except to the votes of the African Council or to the Primates of their own provinces, As for anyone that insists upon carrying an appeal across the sea [Rome], let him not be received in communion by anyone in Africa.”

Dear Brother JohnVIII,

Well, no, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that canon. I fully admit that I don’t know the context - historical or otherwise - of that selection. That said, the fact that the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Pontiff is a critical part of the Church’s structure in general does not legitimize every possible appeal every single individual would like to make. It would be unacceptable to attempt an appeal that undermines the lawful authority of local bishops.

As I said, I don’t know the context of that quote. But my answer to your question is no: I have no problem, in theory, with certain bishops or synods saying to everyone in their jurisdiction, “Look, my/our judgment is final. Don’t go whining to the pope about this matter.”

I think you are imposing a meaning on the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” that is not there. To be more precise, I think you are (mis)interpreting the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” to be “fullness of absolute power.” Am I correct in that assumption?

“Supreme” simply means “highest.” It by no means denotes nor connotes, especially in the Church, the concept of “absolute.” Absolute power is able to be exercised at the mere discretion or choosing of the wielder of absolute power. “Supreme power,” on the other hand, simply means the “highest power” in relation to all other powers. For example, the Patriarch holds “supreme power” in his patriarchate, but not “absolute power.” Not even the Ecumenical Council, which has “supreme power” in the Church, has “absolute power,” for the very reason that even an Ecumenical Council is subject to the Laws of Christ, and the dogmatic Decrees of prior Ecumenical Councils. Are you beginning to see the difference between “supreme power” and “absolute power”?

If you can see the difference, then I hope you will concede that the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” is by no means a statement that the Pope has “absolute power.” The “absolute fullness of supreme power” simply and concisely means that whatever prereogatives of this “supreme power” (which, by definition, has limits) the Pope possesses, he has the absolute fullness of that (delimited) power.

Brother Adrian, there is no great mystery involved here. IMO, the only great mystery is how Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates can pretend to supprot their exaggerations from the very text of the the Vatican Decrees.

Marduk, as usual your explanations are so clear and precise. Thank you again.

Folks, the real issue is interpretation and the way in which we hear and receive things as we either grow up in age or in time within the church.

For 99% of the faithful, the difference explicitly between extreme, high or medium petrine view is not relevent. Most people know that in the CAtholic Church the Pope is the boss, and that is all they need to know or indeed care to know. So indeed when it comes to theology the vast vast majority of the lay people do not really percieve the difference in reality between the high or absolute petrine view, nor do they really care becasue it does not impact upon them.

I actually disagree. Growing up as a Latin Catholic living in the United States, I didn’t know any of this ecclesiological terminology. But even I perceived that what we’ve here been calling the “Absolutist Petrine” view is inconsistent with the way the Catholic Magisterium itself has always viewed the papacy.

At the same time as I was given this impression, my catechists/teachers also consistently and explicitly taught me that the structure of the church is not a pyramid, that not all authority is an extension of papal authority, and that in a very real sense, the leader of our particular church is our bishop, who exercises real headship as a successor to Christ’s Apostles.

And remember, this was my experience as a member of the Latin Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Kotim,

For 99% of the faithful, the difference explicitly between extreme, high or medium petrine view is not relevent. Most people know that in the CAtholic Church the Pope is the boss, and that is all they need to know or indeed care to know. So indeed when it comes to theology the vast vast majority of the lay people do not really percieve the difference in reality between the high or absolute petrine view, nor do they really care becasue it does not impact upon them.

I know the Pope is not all powerful so to speak but many/vast majority do, simply becasue as I said above, the high petrine view can easily be interpreted this way, by those who do not do a lot of study, For 99% of the faithful the difference between absolute and high Petrine is not a concern.

Is it possible that it is not much of a concern because the Pope really is not seen as an absolute authority who micromanages the Church? I gather the only time that the Pope’s name is regularly heard is when he is honored in the Liturgy, or when the secular news brings him up. Seriously, in your own parish, when there is a problem that extends beyond the parish setting, do people immediately say, “let’s go to the Pope to settle this,” or do they say, “let’s go to the bishop to settle this?” In the day-to-day affairs of any local parish, is it really just “all about the Pope” or is there an awareness that whatever happens is under the local bishop’s purview first and foremost?

There for it is natural that the majority of people will talk of the pope and his power as somewhat of a position as absolute. It is as simple as that.

I don’t know if you are from the United States. Have you ever heard of the “Supreme Court”? I guarantee you that no one in the U.S. understands that to mean that the Supreme Court has absolute power in the United States.

I have to wonder about the logic (or lack of it ) of American Catholics (who hold an Absolutist Petrine view) and American Orthodox (who hold a Low Petrine view) who think that saying the Pope has “supreme authority” is tantamount to him having “absolute authority.” As I’ve noted many times, my understanding is certainly colored by my upbringing as an Oriental Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox assign the term “supreme” to our head bishops (i.e. Patriarchs) all the time, but I (nor any OO) would ever say that the Supreme head of the Coptic Orthodox Church has absolute power in the COC.

Blessings,
Marduk