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

[Antonius_Lupus]

Not to add any confusion to this discussion, but:

It should always be remembered that the Second Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican was a continuation (in many respects) of the First Ecumenical Synod of the same name. The First Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican was cut short before the full issues of collegiality could be fully dealt with, and it wasn’t officially closed until Pope Bl. John XXIII.

Thus, Vatican II is a great way to interpret Vatican I, especially on issues of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Just my 2cents.

 

[theistgal]

I think the best answer to the OP’s question is: the Bishop of Rome has the exact same amount of authority over the Eastern Rites as he does over the Western Rites.

 

[malphono]

None of the Roman Pontiffs since V1 have ever interpreted the V1 Decrees according to the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Isn’t that like walking a little too close to quicksand? Off-hand, I can think of 2 (possibly 3) who appear to have done just that, at least in practice.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This obedience, within the limits of the canons, to the Pope no more undermines his own Christ-given authority than does the submission of an EO bishop to the greater authority of an ecumenical council.

Well said, twf.

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t that like walking a little too close to quicksand?

I have no problem with quicksand. I know the physical principles involved and can extricate myself from quicksand with a little effort. Walking too close to the edge of cliff, on the other hand, is a bit more – precarious.

Off-hand, I can think of 2 (possibly 3) who appear to have done just that, at least in practice.

There have been 11 Popes since V1 (Pio Nono included). Did any of the 2 or 3 Popes you have identified perform his actions

• on his own initiative?
• without the advice or counsel of anyone else in the Church?
• without the support of anyone else in the Church?
• in contradiction to the authority of a local bishop?

These are the caricatures proposed by the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates. I will agree with you if you can answer “YES” to *every single one * of these questions for each of the 2 or 3 Popes. Or maybe you have other conditions in mind that would lean towards an Absolutist Petrine interpretation of their actions?

Blerssings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I have no problem with quicksand. I know the physical principles involved and can extricate myself from quicksand with a little effort. Walking too close to the edge of cliff, on the other hand, is a bit more – precarious.

Mazel Tov.

There have been 11 Popes since V1 (Pio Nono included). Did any of the 2 or 3 Popes you have identified perform his actions

• on his own initiative?
• without the advice or counsel of anyone else in the Church?
• without the support of anyone else in the Church?
• in contradiction to the authority of a local bishop?

These are the caricatures proposed by the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates. I will agree with you if you can answer “YES” to ***every single one *** of these questions for each of the 2 or 3 Popes. Or maybe you have other conditions in mind that would lean towards an Absolutist Petrine interpretation of their actions?

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.

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.

 

[Aramis]

The original question of this thread was specifically over the authority of the bishop of Rome in the eastern church context, not how good that is or how bad that is.

We cannot have anything like an honest discussion over it as long as one person is spreading his own interpretation in contradiction to what the church repeatedly states in all of it’s formal declarations.

If I have posted anything incorrect, please point it out. Is my interpretation correct, or is it not?

Unfortunately, Michael, you, a schismatic Catholic, are the one with the outlier position.

Papal authority is limited far more in practice than on paper… in part, because the various EC’s could very easily break communion (not unlike yourself), and in part because Tradition is binding, and in part because other documents (which you consistently ignore) specifically limit the papal right to use the authority, and in part, because the pope’s too busy to actually miswield most of the discretionary authority he does have.

It’s like claiming the US president could start a nuclear war on a whim.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Unfortunately, Michael, you, a schismatic Catholic, are the one with the outlier position.

I didn’t know brother Hesychios was a former Catholic…

In any case, do you really believe brother’s past is affecting his view?

 

[Hesychios]

I didn’t know brother Hesychios was a former Catholic…

Roman Catholic (baptised and confirmed) for fifty years.

 

[dcointin]

Roman Catholic (baptised and confirmed) for fifty years.

I’m curious what you make of fathers like St. Maximos the Confessor who speak favorably of Roman primacy.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Unfortunately, Michael, you, a schismatic Catholic, are the one with the outlier position.

Papal authority is limited far more in practice than on paper… in part, because the various EC’s could very easily break communion (not unlike yourself), and in part because Tradition is binding, and in part because other documents (which you consistently ignore) specifically limit the papal right to use the authority, and in part, because the pope’s too busy to actually miswield most of the discretionary authority he does have.

It’s like claiming the US president could start a nuclear war on a whim.

I found the term “schismatic Catholic” to be rather off-putting!

Michael is a full member of the Orthodox Catholic Church. For him to be “schismatic” would, in my view, mean that he stayed outside communion with Rome “in limbo” so to speak. He did not - but joined the Orthodox Church.

I don’t see how that makes him “schismatic” in any sense unless we are going back to calling the Orthodox “schismatics.”

Hope not!

Michael, I am so very sorry!!

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

…Somewhat ironically it is that kind of Papacy which I would convert to if I were going to convert, and if I did convert then I too would defend it because I believe it to be the true expression of the teaching of that church.

Brother Hesychios,

Did I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if you believed that the High Petrine view was trully the view of Rome (rather than the Absolutist Petrine view) you “would convert to if” you “were going to convert”?

 

[JohnVIII]

theistgal;7769752:

Still don’t see the problem, unless it’s just a dislike for any kind of authority in general. I don’t know any long-running organizations that can survive too long without someone at the top making the hard decisions.

And the Orthodox have those too- they just have more than one; and when they disagree there’s no Pope to mediate so they just go out of communion with each other.

At the risk of degenerating into caricature… this is my impression too.

What is wrong with braking communion rather than submitting to the mediation of the Pope? I’m honestly asking this question! You see, what I have been taught to believe is that if your bishop has done (as you see it) something very bad and serious it is not your place to try and correct him and the ONLY thing you can do remove yourself from communion with him. This happened ALL THE TIME in the early days of the Church, were they all wrong for doing it? A canon I have referred to many times from the 1st EC states that you may not “refuse to commune” with those who were twice married. Does that not imply that there are both good and bad reasons for “refusing to commune”? I know you are referring to when one jurisdiction decides not to commune with another one, but it is all the same thing in principle. “When they disagree”, really now, trying to make it sound like someone will brake communion over a disagreement over the shape of bananas! I don’t think it’s ever done for trivial reasons! If they were not sure of their reasons they could ask the opinion of another, but it need not be the Pope. I read were some bishop asked a question about remaining in communion with some other bishop to St Basil. Now St Basil was not the Pope!

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.

Let me make it clear where I am coming from. I see that the Church has having held a somewhat lower version of the High Petrine view during the bulk of it’s history. I actually like the Low Petrine view better but I have to admit, against my bias, that the High Petrine view is 95% correct. However, I cannot buy the “proofs” presented that this is the position of the Roman Church today. I still looks to me like Rome holds essentially a Absolutist Petrine view. I joined communion with the Roman Church for a number of reasons, one of which was that I came to believe that Rome did hold a unique primacy within the Church and therefore it was important to be in communion with Rome. 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? To me it would be wrong to remain in the Roman Church and try to change it. To me it would be wrong to condemn Rome for being “Absolutist”. To me there is only one thing I can do, that is simply brake communion. If I instead turned to the mediation of Rome (if I could do such a thing) what do you think Rome would say?

It appears to me that most everyone on this forum thinks that for the sake of the unity of the Church everyone should always NO MATTER WHAT remain in communion with Rome and with each other. To me this is a form of false unity. Of course, ideally we should, but we are all sinners, and the path of salvation comes with many tears!

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!

 

[Aramis]

I didn’t know brother Hesychios was a former Catholic…

In any case, do you really believe brother’s past is affecting his view?

Yes. I do suspect such quite strongly.

I believe he’s come to believe he was taught the Absolute Authority as a Catholic, and he may very well have been so taught, but if he was, his catechists taught wrongly. His time in Orthodoxy would certainly do nothing but enhance that view.

I doubt there is malice.

 

[Hesychios]

Brother Hesychios,

Did I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if you believed that the High Petrine view was trully the view of Rome (rather than the Absolutist Petrine view) you “would convert to if” you “were going to convert”?

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.

 

[willwhite07]

Byzantene eastern rite is under Rome therefore we are under the authority of our holy father and all there of…

 

[guanophore]

Byzantene eastern rite is under Rome therefore we are under the authority of our holy father and all there of…

The whole flock of God is under the care of the successor of Peter. Jesus did not say to Peter “feed my lambs - except for those that don’t want you to be their shepherd”.

The successor of Peter has the responsibilty and gifts to feed and care for the WHOLE flock of God. All those who reject his care are no less subject to it, they are just rebellious subjects.

 

[mardukm]

Yes. I do suspect such quite strongly.

I believe he’s come to believe he was taught the Absolute Authority as a Catholic, and he may very well have been so taught, but if he was, his catechists taught wrongly. His time in Orthodoxy would certainly do nothing but enhance that view.

I doubt there is malice.

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

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

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.

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 (from your claim that the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate was a “gift” to your misinterpretation of the Canon “there is no recourse or appeal from a judgment of the Roman Pontiff”). You have not responded. Is my description of your mindset on the matter - analogous to the strict monotheist who accuses Christians of being polytheists (see post #60) - accurate?

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.

That’s not what you stated earlier. If what you are saying here right now is what you meant, that’s fine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The whole flock of God is under the care of the successor of Peter. Jesus did not say to Peter “feed my lambs - except for those that don’t want you to be their shepherd”.

The successor of Peter has the responsibilty and gifts to feed and care for the WHOLE flock of God. All those who reject his care are no less subject to it, they are just rebellious subjects.

This is what I have always believed as well. That is the Pope’s divine responsibility. He must care for the whole household according to Christ’s command (see Matthew 24), even if others do not want his care.

Blessings,
Marduk