How Much is Rome Worth To You?

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
byzgirl said:
This is not Church politics, its obedience to authority…that given to Peter. There is only one Seat (Chair of Peter) as there was only one Seat (Chair of Moses). These are not bound by ‘geography’.

This two seats complication sounds like a very big side stepping, in order to explain away that unique authority and ignore some of its implications (“I want to be in union, in word only, and still maintain my right to do whatever I want, regardless of what “Rome” says”)…

There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church **believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice” **

…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)
Click to expand...
I thought I would point out that 1. Christy is quite correct that Rome owns no copyright on Peter, even if we all recognize Rome’s unique role.
  1. That quoting Schmemann quoting Afanasiev may not be the best way to make your point since neither of them were in communion with Rome and Afanasiev’s (very influential: i.e., cited in Vatican2) ecclesiology, boarders on congregationalism at times and even the Orthodox feel the need to reign in his interpretation of the independence of the bishops (e.g., Zizioulas’ critique in Being and Communion). Yet both of them were able to articulate an understanding of the primacy of Rome.
  2. Your attempt to reduce ecclesial unity to direct legal submission to Roman authority and power is precisely what Schmemann has in mind we he talks about the over-juridical interpretation of Roman authority in the Latin West. Licking the boots of the Pope is never going to be an acceptable definition of Christian unity. If Latins wish to lick his boots, they can be my guest, but I really don’t see that flying anywhere else. Nor is it the understanding of the role of the Pope for most Eastern Catholics.
salaam.
 
byzgirl said:
This is not Church politics, its obedience to authority…"
Click to expand...
I have a responsibility to be obedient to those with Authority over me: My spiritual father and the Pastor and priest of my parish. That’s where my obedience lies.

Our Pastor and my spiritual father have to be obedient to the Bishop. That’s where their obedience lies.

Our Bishop is obedient to the Patriarch. That’s where his obedience lies.

Our Patriarch is the head of our Church and is currently in full union with Rome…that does not mean he is in submission to Rome.

For some reason, which I don’t understand, many Roman Catholics (mostly who don’t know Church History very well) think of the Pope of Rome (so as not to be confused with the Pope of Alexandria) as some kind of Spiritual Dictator.

The other Apostolic Founded Patriarchates are not “under” the Pope, they are in “union” as equals. The Pope is someone they can turn to as one would turn to an arbitrator if an agreement can not be reached on some matter with the other Churches.

Now speaking from the Roman Catholic lay person’s perspective - The Pope of Rome is their Patriarch and is the final word for their Bishop and priest(s). So perhaps because he is their end all of the Church, they seem to think he is ours too?

The “buck” stops with the Pope of Rome for Roman Catholics and the “buck” stops with our Patriarch for Melkite Catholics and the “buck” stops with the Pope of Alexandria for Coptics, etc.

Learn some more history and specifically research what make a Patriarchate a Patriarchate - you may be interested to know that it has nothing to do with religion, but on the historical secular significance of that particular city.

Best Wishes
 
our submission to Peter’s authority is not legalistic, but a matter of obedience to **Christ **(who gave him the keys).

Our debate with the Orthodox is chiefly over this point; they concede primacy, but not supremacy, to Peter’s seat.

We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ.
 
Peter_J said:
I’m a little confused. When you said that we just need greater mutual understanding, were you being facetious?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. Are you saying nationalism in the context of ecclesiology is a GOOD thing?:confused: I don’t see how your statement relates to my post. Please clarify.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Again, the authority that is bestowed upon the Pope, who sits in the Chair of Peter, is an authority which is not meant to “rule” over but rather “serve”. It is really not about power at all. You know what Jesus said with respect to that (last, first, etc), and how often Pope’s have failed at that admonition. That being said, our current Pope knows what it means to be the “servant of the servants of God” and is really trying to open up this discussion. We can do our part when we understand some of these issues better and can have an intelligent discussion in charity with others
 
Christy74 said:
I have a responsibility to be obedient to those with Authority over me: My spiritual father and the Pastor and priest of my parish. That’s where my obedience lies.

Our Pastor and my spiritual father have to be obedient to the Bishop. That’s where their obedience lies.

Our Bishop is obedient to the Patriarch. That’s where his obedience lies.

Our Patriarch is the head of our Church and is currently in full union with Rome…that does not mean he is in submission to Rome.

For some reason, which I don’t understand, many Roman Catholics (mostly who don’t know Church History very well) think of the Pope of Rome (so as not to be confused with the Pope of Alexandria) as some kind of Spiritual Dictator.

The other Apostolic Founded Patriarchates are not “under” the Pope, they are in “union” as equals. The Pope is someone they can turn to as one would turn to an arbitrator if an agreement can not be reached on some matter with the other Churches.

Now speaking from the Roman Catholic lay person’s perspective - The Pope of Rome is their Patriarch and is the final word for their Bishop and priest(s). So perhaps because he is their end all of the Church, they seem to think he is ours too?

The “buck” stops with the Pope of Rome for Roman Catholics and the “buck” stops with our Patriarch for Melkite Catholics and the “buck” stops with the Pope of Alexandria for Coptics, etc.

Learn some more history and specifically research what make a Patriarchate a Patriarchate - you may be interested to know that it has nothing to do with religion, but on the historical secular significance of that particular city.

Best Wishes
Click to expand...
The schism of 1054 was about jurisdiction, and it seems that it continues, for the Orthodox.

For the Catholic, Peter’s supremacy is not a secular office, but a heavenly one.

The buck stops with Peter because Christ desires it to stop there.
 
Some Catholic may indeed think of the Pope as a spiritual dictator, as you put it…however, they are usually cafeteria Catholics who are secularized and want to be their own Popes (deciding for themselves what they should or shouldn’t do, believe or not believe)…

The Pope is our spiritual Father. He is the Vicar of Christ and the head of the heavenly Church on Earth
 
Dear sister Christy and brother Badalliyah,

I want to make it very clear that, for myself at least, I look to my bishop first when there is some concern in my Church. You hear a defense of the papacy from me a lot NOT because I deny the authority of my bishop FIRST, but because we have people denying the head bishopric of the Pope. I’m not going to sit around and twiddle my thumbs when I hear someone saying (as many EO here have done):
  1. The head bishop is not necessary at all.
  2. The head bishop’s confirmation is not necessary for an ecumenical council to take place.
  3. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in the affairs of the Church if it is a matter that involves the entire Church.
  4. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in disputes between Patriarchal Churches.
  5. The head bishop does not have a special prayer from Christ to be able to confirm the faith of his brother bishops.
Those sentiments were not present in the early Church. They are only present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy.

We should defend the divinely established prerogatives of our bishops. But we should also defend the divinely established ministry of the Pope. Wouldn’t you agree?

So please don’t AUTOMATICALLY mistake a defense of the Pope as a diminution of my own bishop’s authority. I mean, just because I am defending the Pope doesn’t mean I am making ecclesiology a matter of legal submission to the Pope. I don’t understand why either of you would assume that. It’s simply that we are responding SPECIFICALLY to false conceptions about the Pope. If people were knocking my bishop, I would be defending my bishop. And if people were knocking the head bishop of my Church, I would be defending him. But people here are knocking the head bishop of the entire Church. And I feel duty bound to defend him.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Christy74 said:
I have a responsibility to be obedient to those with Authority over me: My spiritual father and the Pastor and priest of my parish. That’s where my obedience lies.

Our Pastor and my spiritual father have to be obedient to the Bishop. That’s where their obedience lies.

Our Bishop is obedient to the Patriarch. That’s where his obedience lies.

Our Patriarch is the head of our Church and is currently in full union with Rome…that does not mean he is in submission to Rome.

For some reason, which I don’t understand, many Roman Catholics (mostly who don’t know Church History very well) think of the Pope of Rome (so as not to be confused with the Pope of Alexandria) as some kind of Spiritual Dictator.

The other Apostolic Founded Patriarchates are not “under” the Pope, they are in “union” as equals. The Pope is someone they can turn to as one would turn to an arbitrator if an agreement can not be reached on some matter with the other Churches.

Now speaking from the Roman Catholic lay person’s perspective - The Pope of Rome is their Patriarch and is the final word for their Bishop and priest(s). So perhaps because he is their end all of the Church, they seem to think he is ours too?

He is because of Christ’s desire, not yours or mine.
He is the head of the Mystical Body of Christ…the Church…not a political leader.

The “buck” stops with the Pope of Rome for Roman Catholics and the “buck” stops with our Patriarch for Melkite Catholics and the “buck” stops with the Pope of Alexandria for Coptics, etc.

**The buck stops here, there, and everywhere? It would seem a very unstable ground for unity. For Protestants, the buck stops at the Bible…but then they can’t agree on what it says. What does that lead to? Certainly not the answer to Christ’s call for ‘one church’, ‘one mind’, ‘one faith’, ‘one baptism’. **

Learn some more history and specifically research what make a Patriarchate a Patriarchate - you may be interested to know that it has nothing to do with religion, but on the historical secular significance of that particular city.

Best Wishes
Click to expand...
 
*Originally Posted by Christy74
I have a responsibility to be obedient to those with Authority over me: My spiritual father and the Pastor and priest of my parish. That’s where my obedience lies. *

And what if that particular individual pastor or priest, of your parish, falls into heresy…are you planning on following him?
 
mardukm said:
Dear sister Christy and brother Badalliyah,

I want to make it very clear that, for myself at least, I look to my bishop first when there is some concern in my Church. You hear a defense of the papacy from me a lot NOT because I deny the authority of my bishop FIRST, but because we have people denying the head bishopric of the Pope. I’m not going to sit around and twiddle my thumbs when I hear someone saying (as many EO here have done):
  1. The head bishop is not necessary at all.
  2. The head bishop’s confirmation is not necessary for an ecumenical council to take place.
  3. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in the affairs of the Church if it is a matter that involves the entire Church.
  4. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in disputes between Patriarchal Churches.
  5. The head bishop does not have a special prayer from Christ to be able to confirm the faith of his brother bishops.
Those sentiments were not present in the early Church. They are only present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy.

We should defend the divinely established prerogatives of our bishops. But we should also defend the divinely established ministry of the Pope. Wouldn’t you agree?

So please don’t AUTOMATICALLY mistake a defense of the Pope as a diminution of my own bishop’s authority. I mean, just because I am defending the Pope doesn’t mean I am making ecclesiology a matter of legal submission to the Pope. I don’t understand why either of you would assume that. It’s simply that we are responding SPECIFICALLY to false conceptions about the Pope. If people were knocking my bishop, I would be defending my bishop. And if people were knocking the head bishop of my Church, I would be defending him. But people here are knocking the head bishop of the entire Church. And I feel duty bound to defend him.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
great post!!! A Big Amen!
 
Marduk,

I did not think you were arguing for any sort of Papal absolutism and I have no problems with the 5 points you outlined above. We might disagree over interpretation, but that is another matter. There were things I would argue with in your much earlier long post explaining why you remain in communion with Rome (Post #76), but I understood it and respected it and found it very thoughtful. I tried to give my own account of why I would remain with my Church in Post #125.

My comments against a Papal Tyrant were primarily directed at Byzgirl, whose position I find completely unacceptable. That said, I would also apologize to her about the “licking the boots of the Pope” comment because that inevitably was going to come across as angry in an internet forum and was not said, or typed for that matter, in anger. The basic point remains. Her position boils down to an understanding of the unity of the Body of Christ as obedience to a tyrant. She and the MP would get along swimmingly (until the MP found out she was talking about Rome). 😉

Rome is not the entirety of the Body of Christ, which is clearly broken. The Eucharistic and eschatological Body of Christ is found throughout the Churches, many of whom are tragically not in communion with one another.
 
40.png
byzgirl:
**The only Head of the Mystical Body of Christ is Christ, Himself! **

Where do people come up with this stuff and why are they in the Eastern Catholic Forum if they are not Eastern Catholic?

It seems to me that you are trying to “CHANGE” our Eastern Faith and convert us to become Roman Catholics…the Pope of Rome accepts our Faith and our differences why can’t you.

Lord Please have mercy on everyone here including me.
 
byzgirl said:
*Originally Posted by Christy74
I have a responsibility to be obedient to those with Authority over me: My spiritual father and the Pastor and priest of my parish. That’s where my obedience lies. *

And what if that particular individual pastor or priest, of your parish, falls into heresy…are you planning on following him?
Click to expand...
In the Eastern Churches we don’t have that problem and the other Liturgical problems that I hear about in the Roman Church…using popcorn and punch to Consecrate for Holy Eucharist and the Tabernacle of Christ not in the Church, people dancing during Mass/Divine Liturgy, etc. We don’t have those problems.
 
mardukm said:
I’m not going to sit around and twiddle my thumbs when I hear someone saying (as many EO here have done):
  1. The head bishop is not necessary at all.
  2. The head bishop’s confirmation is not necessary for an ecumenical council to take place.
  3. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in the affairs of the Church if it is a matter that involves the entire Church.
  4. The head bishop does not have a right to involve himself in disputes between Patriarchal Churches.
  5. The head bishop does not have a special prayer from Christ to be able to confirm the faith of his brother bishops.
Those sentiments were not present in the early Church. They are only present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy.

We should defend the divinely established prerogatives of our bishops. But we should also defend the divinely established ministry of the Pope. Wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify…I agree with what Marduk is saying here (i.e., when I said I agreed with the 5 points, I wasn’t rejecting a unique and trans-ecclesial role for the “head bishop”). The Patriarch of Rome has an absolutely crucial place within the Body of Christ that ought not be denied.

salaam.
 
I would like to make one thing clearer: I do believe that the Pope of Rome has inherited a unique charism of St. Peter, namely to be the center-point and reference point of orthodoxy and Church Unity. I believe that the Pope of Rome has inherited from Peter the duty of sheparding the whole Christian flock, and strengthening the bonds between all of us. I believe that the Pope is not “just another Patriarch that my own happens to be in Communion with”, but that he really is the “head of the whole body” in a certain (but not extremist) sense. In short, I would not accept a break between the Melkite Church and the Roman Church under any circumstances.

The difficulty in this topic is that the question wasn’t whether or not we’d leave Rome, but essentially what would we do if Rome “abolished” our tradition. Keeping in mind everything I said above, I’m saying it’s impossible for Rome to do so, even according to all the authority I acknowledged above. I will absolutely submit to the authority of the Pope, even over and above any other Patriarch if those Patriarchs try to break with Rome, but I won’t submit to an authority that the Pope doesn’t have. The Pope can’t tell me that black is white, or two and two is five, or that Christ is not God, and the Pope can’t tell me that the Melkite Church isn’t Catholic for refusing to dissolve and become a part of the Latin Church.

If Rome excommunicates the Patriarch for heresy, or supposed heresy (i.e. Chalcedon, when Rome sincerely thought that heresy was being upheld by certain Churches; I say this only if I could also believe that there was heresy, not if I clearly knew otherwise), that’s fine and I stand by Rome, but I’d stand by Rome as a Melkite. If Rome says that the non-Latin traditions (fully Apostolic and Faithful) are no longer accepted, then the Pope has lost his ability to think and act clearly and is uttering nonsense, and I’ll await his deposition for feebleness, or his resignation. In the mean time I’m still Catholic, because I’m still submitting to the authority of the Pope, just like I’d still be a loyal and upstanding citizen of the U.S. if I obey the traffic laws, and acknowledge a police officer’s right to pull me over for breaking them, while at the same time utterly refusing to allow him to search me just because I have a rosary hanging from my rear-view mirror. In the latter case I would actually be honoring the authority and prestige of the police officer by not submitting to such blatant abuse, not turning against him and his office.

In the case of the Church, if Rome says the non-Latins don’t exist in the Church, and that every Catholic must be Latin, then Rome is turning against its inherited duty of St. Peter’s Ministry. I honor the Petrine Ministry by not “submitting”, and by maintaining the Faith, just as St. Paul honored the Petrine Ministry by confronting St. Peter when he was acting hypocritically against the Gentiles in favor of the Jews. St. Paul didn’t turn against St. Peter, he helped him back up to exercising his God-given duty. In later times, St. Catherine of Sienna did exactly the same thing to the Pope who was playing political footsy with the French monarchy, and in doing so ended the “Avignon Papacy” and returned the Pope to Rome.

In short, the Petrine Ministry is WAY to important for me to simply let such a hypothetical action by the Pope stand unchallenged. I wouldn’t leave the Catholic Church and become Eastern Orthodox, or any other kind of Apostolic Christian, though I might not be welcome in my own Catholic Church for a while. It would be disobedience to the Pope to “obey” a command to disband the non-Latin Churches; if the Pope’s role, given by Christ, is to be the episcopal center of unity and orthodoxy, then I would be dishonoring both him and Christ by submitting to such an absurd command.

Incidently, I believe that simply “going Orthodox” would be exactly that: submitting to the absurd demand of an unFaithful Pope, so I can’t accept that as an answer either. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
 
Christy74 said:
**The only Head of the Mystical Body of Christ is Christ, Himself! **

Where do people come up with this stuff and why are they in the Eastern Catholic Forum if they are not Eastern Catholic?

It seems to me that you are trying to “CHANGE” our Eastern Faith and convert us to become Roman Catholics…the Pope of Rome accepts our Faith and our differences why can’t you.

Lord Please have mercy on everyone here including me.
Click to expand...
That sounds like complete paranoia. Pope John Paul II is the one who encouraged the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church to return to their roots, in custom and tradition…but, not in ‘authority’. His office, is the office of Peter, for ONE Church…not many.

I’d like to know what ‘Catholic’ means to Eastern rite Catholics. I’d have thought this an argument with members of the Orthodox Church, and not with Catholics themselves. You’re focusing, solely on the ‘Eastern’ segment, but complete giving Catholic a generic meaning that doesn’t give any creedence to its historical meaning. It denotes one Church (always has). I’ve had the argument with Protestants, for goodness sake! I’m surprised to find myself giving the same one for CATHOLICS!
 
byzgirl said:
That sounds like complete paranoia. Pope John Paul II is the one who encouraged the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church to return to their roots, in custom and tradition…but, not in ‘authority’. His office, is the office of Peter, for ONE Church…not many.

I’d like to know what ‘Catholic’ means to Eastern rite Catholics. I’d have thought this an argument with members of the Orthodox Church, and not with Catholics themselves. You’re focusing, solely on the ‘Eastern’ segment, but complete giving Catholic a generic meaning that doesn’t give any creedence to its historical meaning. It denotes one Church (always has). I’ve had the argument with Protestants, for goodness sake! I’m surprised to find myself giving the same one for CATHOLICS!
Click to expand...
Catholic does not designate that there is one Church. That point is made clearly in the creed by the use of the word ‘one’. Catholic refers to the fact that the Church calls all men in all places to the one Church. It means that it is everywhere. ‘Throughout the whole’ is the literal definition as Christy said.
 
"We will agree that Jesus founded one Church, not several. There must be a way to point to the one church, and clearly there is only one who retains Peter’s office (Peter could have ordained hundreds of Bishops, but only one could inherit his office.

…the church needs the charism of infallibility to teach authentically and acurately the teaching of Christ (which he clearly promised in Jn 17), otherwise no one could be assured that what he receives is true.

Because of factionalism and differences, there must be an identifiable persona to which the true church is linked, retaining the charism of infallibility (Jesus gave Peter the “keys” which clearly represent a singularly unique role in the Church). As Augustine put it, “where Peter is, there is the Church.”

Peter’s role transcends merely authority, but is meant to give assurance that God’s kingdom (which is already here on earth, though we pray for it’s fullness) is a visible witness to the world. It is meant to transform the world, but sadly our enemy has sucessfully created divisions which scandalize the world and render our witness often impotent."

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top