If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
Every church has to approve an ecumenical Council, not just Rome.

This is why the Council is normally accepted officially at a subsequent gathering.

As to canon 28, it had full force and effect throughout the church, except it was not recognized in the west. Nothing the Popes did or said could change that, and whenever the bishops of the east gathered together after that point they observed the new order of priority, completely ignoring the bishop of Rome’s objections.

Finally, hundreds of years later, Rome reversed itself at the Latin Council of Lateran of 1215 and accepted the Orthodox order of precedence. It seems they recognized they cannot do anything about it.

From the CCEO (promulgated by Pope John Paul II) in 1990 …

Canon 59
  1. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Your posts always seem to assume that Rome has some dark agenda behind all it’s actions.
You assume that Rome felt some sort of competition when in reality she may have been defending the integrity of the other ancient Sees. It’s curious that those that argue so intensely for ancient times side with a See that leap frogged over the other ancient Sees and pass judgment on Rome.
And so we see later that Russia even joined on the action.
 
Under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the Pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary authority in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.

The full description is under Title 3, Canons 42 to 54 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Peace:thumbsup:
 
Hesychios said:
It should be the faith which holds them together. It works better.

This idea was a later development, a back-reading to attempt to justify a political reality in the west.

All bishops are Peter.
Click to expand...
You see that is what the big problem is here. You are telling us what should and should not hold us together. You do not have the right to say what we need or do not need.

Christ left us a Church, ONE CHURCH OHCAC to teach us and tell us what we need and do not need,

It is not our faith which should hold us together it is the HOLY SPRIT which holds us together. If it were as simple as our faith we would all pretty much feel our faith was enough.

I feel that my Faith is unbreakable, but then I turn around and I sin, If my faith were all that I needed why do I sin? No one can say my faith in Christ is not enough, but yet I fail? Why is that?

Its quite simple my Faith cannot run a Church, It is GOD, the Holy SPirit that CANNOT sin that keeps the Church in check. The same as the faith of the Apostles. Did Peter not have einough faith in God when he failed God and denied him.

I think not. Jesus KNOWS a heart and he knew the LOVE Peter had for him. Where did you ever hear Jesus question Peters LOVE for God. But look what happened when he walked on water, it was his faith that led him, and then his faith that failed him when he got scared.

We never rely on any ONE MANS faith. Its all about the Holy Spirit, and it us the Holy Spirit that is promised to us to lead us and speak through the Bishops. Its Gods promise to us.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the Pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary authority in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.

The full description is under Title 3, Canons 42 to 54 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Peace:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
And why is it the POPE and ONLY the Pope can speak on his own or together with the Bishops. But why could not ONE Bishop ever speak without the Pope?

If all of their Authority were the same it would be impossible for this to be.

It was Peter that stated God made his choice among us that it would be through MY MOUTH. Why was he not called on that, and why would he say that if it were not true. No one Apostle stood up and denied it.

And why after the death of Christ on the Cross did John tell Jesus in a round about way that Peter left I didn’t, Peter denied you 3 times I did not.

ANd what did Christ do 3 times he said Peter feed my sheep.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Trullo? we don’t acknoledge any ecumenical value of this council. In fact the Pope rejected and refused to sign 102 canons and He renews Canon 28!

So how do you see any validity out of that?

Peace
Click to expand...
As an Eastern Catholic priest pointed out to me, Rome accepted Trullo de facto when it accepted the 7th ecumenical council. IIRC, the first canon says that all the canons from the Quinisext Council are accepted. 👍

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Hesychios said:
In the first place, primacy is operative throughout the church, at every level and in every place. The Orthodox understand this principle very well.

A common misconception ( was mine as well, in a former life) was that the patriarchs were like Popes. This makes it a convenient argument to claim that (as I have often read) patriarchs were “jealous of the Pope’s power, wanting a portion of it” and that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the misconception that Patriarchs are like Popes. I have heard this error from both sides.

However, I am not equating a Patriarch with a Papacy. Benedict XVI has three offices, Pope, Patriarch and Bishop and all three have different authorities and responsibilities. The office of Patriarch is not a theological office. It is more about Church Discipline. Very similar to the office of Bishop but the Patriarch does have a certain amount of plenary authority over his subordinate Bishops.

Let me give some examples of authority of the Patriarch of the Latin Rite and then I would like you as well as Eastern Catholics to tell me if your Patriarchs have a similar authority.
  1. As Patriarch, John Paul II permitted non-ordained people to clean the chalice after communion. Bishops in the Latin rite then had the prerogative to permit the non-ordained to clean the chalice after communion. Shortly after John Ratzinger became the Patriarch he prohibited any Bishop in the Latin Rite to permit non-ordained from cleaning the Chalice after communion.
  2. As Patriarch, John Paul II, instituted the Pastoral Provision which permitted Bishops to accept married Anglican Priests into the Catholic Priesthood.
  3. As Patriarch, John Paul II permitted girls to serve as alter servers.
In all of these cases the Bishops of the Latin Rite had to accept the Latin Rite Patriarch’s decision. However, as Patriarch of the Latin Rite, none of these examples were authoritative over the Eastern Rites since it would be interfering with the authority of the Eastern Patriarchs.

So what I am asking is do Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs have any plenary powers over the other Bishops.
 
Hail_Linus said:
So what I am asking is do Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs have any plenary powers over the other Bishops.
Click to expand...
In the type of examples you provided, the Synods of bishops would normally decide policy changes. IOW they generally discuss and vote on it, keeping in mind historic precedents and what has been considered traditional practice. Probably some of those things you mention they would not even consider, but if they were brought up they would be dicussed as a synod.

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent … but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.”
This is Apostolic Canon34/35, which refers to the relationship of the Metropolitan to the Synod.
 
Hesychios said:
It should be the faith which holds them together. It works better.
Click to expand...
God guards the purity of the faith through the Pope
This idea was a later development, a back-reading to attempt to justify a political reality in the west.
Click to expand...
This is what the Catholics would also say about the Orthodox rejection of the Papacy 🤷
All bishops are Peter.
Click to expand...
But there are quotes from the ECFs that say otherwise…

I’m just saying, it’s more complicated 🙂

God bless
 
jam070406 said:
Ok. This really didn’t address Leo’s quotes in post #6 though.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. And why do you call him Leo? That is rather insulting! He is known as Pope St Leo the Great. And he is certainly not writing about the modern day papacy of Rome. 😉
 
Cavaradossi said:
Looking for proof for the papacy in the writings of the Church Fathers is like looking for proof that gunslingers in the 1800s used Colt 45 handguns based only on descriptions of the guns they used at the time. You are reading an anachronistic conception of the function of the bishop of Rome into the Church Fathers. If the papacy were so central to the functioning of the pre-schism Church, why are there no canons which regulate how the pope relates to the general councils or how the pope relates to other churches (after all there are canons which regulate how metropolitan bishops relate to their bishops)? The problem is that the modern papacy is completely unlike what it was within the Church during the first millennium, and you are reading this modern papacy into historical documents written when it did not exist.
Click to expand...
Indeed! 👍
 
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers’ excellence [Ss Peter and Paul] we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God’s Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God’s Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles’ merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope St Leo the Great
 
jam070406 said:
Which council states all Bishops are Peter?
Click to expand...
We, as Catholics, are required to state which council proves our “modern day papacy” to be ancient so that we can prove our doctrines and the Orthodox can say something like “all Bishops are peter” without citing a council.

Why the double standard?

Questions for EO:

1.) Does everything HAVE to be in a council for it to be believed?
2.) When are councils held?
3.) What is the purpose of a council? Are they held just for fun or are they held when there are controversies?
 
In my opinion, if we want to know what Jesus did when He gave the keys to Peter, we have to look at it in a Judaic historical context. Once one sees the hierarchy that was practiced in the OT, what Jesus does for Peter becomes very clear.

We can start with the OT, move to the NT, and then perhaps move to the Early Church. Is everyone in agreement with this? 🙂
 
Mickey said:
Yes, it does. And why do you call him Leo? That is rather insulting! He is known as Pope St Leo the Great. And he is certainly not writing about the modern day papacy of Rome. 😉
Click to expand...
No, it didn’t.
The quotes may not spell out in great detail the modern Papacy. But it doesn’t look good for the modern EO understanding, that denies the authority of Peter’s seat as expressed by Pope St. Leo the Great.
 
jam070406 said:
The quotes may not spell out in great detail the modern Papacy.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
jam070406 said:
But it doesn’t look good for the modern EO understanding,
Click to expand...
The modern understanding of the Holy Orthodox Church is the same as the ancient understanding.
jam070406 said:
that denies the authority of Peter’s seat as expressed by Pope St. Leo the Great.
Click to expand...
Huh? St Peter is a great saint of the Holy Orthodox Church and is highly venerated along with St Paul. We have a feast day dedicated to both of these great saints preceded by a long period of fasting. Pope St Leo talks about these two great saints in the last quote I posted.
 
Mickey said:
Indeed.
The modern understanding of the Holy Orthodox Church is the same as the ancient understanding.
Huh? St Peter is a great saint of the Holy Orthodox Church and is highly venerated along with St Paul. We have a feast day dedicated to both of these great saints preceded by a long period of fasting. Pope St Leo talks about these two great saints in the last quote I posted.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top