Let's talk about primacy of honour

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Basically, you disagree that Rome was the head bishopric in the early Church - for if you agree that it was, then its agreement WOULD be necessary according to the apostolic canon. Please explain the rationale behind your statement, for historically speaking, it finds no support.

The early Church did not have the extreme universalized view that there is now.

You misunderstand. To claim that Eastern Christendom’s adherence to a canon without Rome’s approval is reflective of Rome’s lack of universal jurisdiction is a senseless argument. The Pope’s consent is not required for a canon to be valid in the Eastern portion of Christendom; rather it is required in order for it to be UNIVERSAL (i.e., accepted by ALL of Christendom). Can you PLEASE show us where the Catholic Church claims otherwise? I had encountered this argument when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, and my conscience dictated that I had to let go of such dishonest rhetoric (I’m not saying YOU are dishonest, and I know that this rhetoric does not come from you since I encountered it many years ago).

The matter of faith and morals, I submit, is different. If you want to discuss that, let me know.

Blessings,
Marduk

If it were as you say it would be much more acceptable. According to modern conceptions of the authority of the Roman Pontiff the ecumenical council has NO authority without the popes consent. Its declarations are void. Canon 54 emphasizes this. The west has defined collegiality in a way that there is none without the Roman Pontiff. The only reason why the eastern synods have the authority to govern themselves is because it has not been revoked by the supreme authority of the Church.
The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office[LG24].
A council can not be valid in one place but not another. If the Roman Poniff voids the decrees of a council they are voided for the whole Church. The authority of the college is not viewed as the addition of the authority of various Churches. It is a universal action of the bishops in communion with the pope so the rejection by the pope is a rejection for the whole. Even actions of the individual synods of the eastern churches are required to recieve the approval of the pope on issues of the patriarchate.

 

[rad]

You misunderstand. To claim that Eastern Christendom’s adherence to a canon without Rome’s approval is reflective of Rome’s lack of universal jurisdiction is a senseless argument.

I have always thought that if the bishop of Rome truly had jurusdiction over every Patriarchate and every bishop in the first 1000 years - then that position would be clearly explicated in at least some of the canons from the ecumenical councils.

But we find no canons of such nature. If the papal supremacy were true we expect to find it embodied in the canonical and conciliar tradition of the Church. We don’t.

The argument from silence is, in this matter, very deafening.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

I have always thought that if the bishop of Rome truly had jurusdiction over every Patriarchate and every bishop in the first 1000 years - then that position would be clearly explicated in at least some of the canons from the ecumenical councils.

But we find no canons of such nature. If the papal supremacy were true we expect to find it embodied in the canonical and conciliar tradition of the Church. We don’t.

The argument from silence is, in this matter, very deafening.

THANK YOU! That’s exactly what I’ve always believed. I find it hilarious sometimes that non-Catholics and anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. I have constantly asked for examples from history to back up their claim, and their only response is ALWAYS silence. The best they come up with is some extrapolated and exaggerated interpretations of solid Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother rad,

THANK YOU! That’s exactly what I’ve always believed. I find it hilarious sometimes that non-Catholics and anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. I have constantly asked for examples from history to back up their claim, and their only response is ALWAYS silence. The best they come up with is some extrapolated and exaggerated interpretations of solid Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

The only thing keeping the pope from doing what he wants is the moral commands of Christ. There is no limit on his authority. No one on earth can judge his actions, not even an ecumenical council. In a commentary on the use of sui iuris in the code of canons, Ivan Zuzek SJ says that the supreme authority of the universal Church (the Roman Pontiff) has complete authority over the sui iuris churches, even to the point of suppressing churches.

The current view as defined by the last two councils is that the pope can do what he wants. In response to this Karl Rahner said in his commentary in Chapt. 3 of Lumen Gentium that he won’t. It is an exhortation to simply trust that he won’t do as he wants, not that he can’t.

 

[mardukm]

The early Church did not have the extreme universalized view that there is now.

If it were as you say it would be much more acceptable. According to modern conceptions of the authority of the Roman Pontiff the ecumenical council has NO authority without the popes consent. Its declarations are void. Canon 54 emphasizes this. The west has defined collegiality in a way that there is none without the Roman Pontiff. The only reason why the eastern synods have the authority to govern themselves is because it has not been revoked by the supreme authority of the Church.
The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office[LG24].
A council can not be valid in one place but not another. If the Roman Poniff voids the decrees of a council they are voided for the whole Church. The authority of the college is not viewed as the addition of the authority of various Churches. It is a universal action of the bishops in communion with the pope so the rejection by the pope is a rejection for the whole. Even actions of the individual synods of the eastern churches are required to recieve the approval of the pope on issues of the patriarchate.

As I suspected. You DO have a problem with the Apostolic Canon. You really DO wish that the portion of the Apostolic canon which states that the consent of the head bishop is REQUIRED should be excised from the memory of the Church. Well, I cannot argue with that thinking. All I can say is that it is not apostolic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The only thing keeping the pope from doing what he wants is the moral commands of Christ. There is no limit on his authority. No one on earth can judge his actions, not even an ecumenical council. In a commentary on the use of sui iuris in the code of canons, Ivan Zuzek SJ says that the supreme authority of the universal Church (the Roman Pontiff) has complete authority over the sui iuris churches, even to the point of suppressing churches.

The current view as defined by the last two councils is that the pope can do what he wants. In response to this Karl Rahner said in his commentary in Chapt. 3 of Lumen Gentium that he won’t. It is an exhortation to simply trust that he won’t do as he wants, not that he can’t.

I would say the moral commands of Christ is a pretty big limit on that authority. We also have the dogmatic decree from the Vatican Council of the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops, and the consistent statements in the canons that the Pope’s universal authority is meant to REINFORCE and NOT supplant the proper, immediate ordinary authority of his brother bishops.

That’s enough for me. It is not enough for others, and I respect that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

THANK YOU! That’s exactly what I’ve always believed. I find it hilarious sometimes that non-Catholics and anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. I have constantly asked for examples from history to back up their claim, and their only response is ALWAYS silence. The best they come up with is some extrapolated and exaggerated interpretations of solid Catholic teaching.

Agreed!

There is an active thread on the illicit ordination of four bishops in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Pope cannot do anything about it and so he has remained silence on the matter for 9 months (it took place in March.) Even though the four bishops will probably lead to a major division in the Ukrainian Church the Pope is unable to intervene.

 

[jimmy]

As I suspected. You DO have a problem with the Apostolic Canon. You really DO wish that the portion of the Apostolic canon which states that the consent of the head bishop is REQUIRED should be excised from the memory of the Church. Well, I cannot argue with that thinking. All I can say is that it is not apostolic.

Blessings,
Marduk

My view doesn’t follow the view of apostolic as defined by Rome but it certainly is apostolic. I don’t think that Cyprian would agree with you, considering the fact that he held two councils in opposition to the declaration by Pope Stephen concerning baptism of heretics.

As I already mentioned, I have no problems with AC 34. I have problems with authority in the Church being reduced to the authority of the bishop of Rome or that delegated from him. AC 34 did not have this ultra centralized view of the Church. The bishop of Rome did not determine the truth. This is clearly seen in the fact that pope Leo rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon but the east continued to accept it regardless. The pope later accepted it in the 13th century. So the fact is that this extremely centralized interpretation of AC 34 was not present in the early Church. The bishop of Rome rejected the canon but the body of bishops still accepted it. So aparrently the pope can not simply veto a declaration by the council. Whether the pope vetoed it or not it still remained authoritative.

You are the one who said that a decision can be authoritative in the east even if the pope rejects it. Your assertion is that the popes rejection only means that it is not authoritative in the west. I have simply attempted to show that that is not an accurate interpretation of Vatican II. I have asserted that the popes veto of the document according to Vatican II and the modern western approach to ecclesiology is a veto for the whole Church. I have used Chalcedon to say this is not consistent with the early Church.

What do you mean by ‘from the memory of the Church’? Are you refering to tradition? I have seen ‘memory’ applied to tradition by Pope Benedict so that sounds like what you are saying.

I would say the moral commands of Christ is a pretty big limit on that authority.

So as long as we have a virtuous pope we should be pretty good.

 

[mardukm]

Agreed!

There is an active thread on the illicit ordination of four bishops in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Pope cannot do anything about it and so he has remained silence on the matter for 9 months (it took place in March.) Even though the four bishops will probably lead to a major division in the Ukrainian Church the Pope is unable to intervene.

Yes! That is a good example. Of course, now that those bishops have appealed directly to the Pope, that would give the Pope the necessary canonical leave to make a judgment on them, if he so chooses to exercise that prerogative.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

I have always thought that if the bishop of Rome truly had jurusdiction over every Patriarchate and every bishop in the first 1000 years - then that position would be clearly explicated in at least some of the canons from the ecumenical councils.

And I’ve always thought that if a council was truly ecumenical, that it would define what constitutes an ecumenical council.

But we find no canons of such nature. If the papal supremacy were true we expect to find it embodied in the canonical and conciliar tradition of the Church. We don’t.

But we can find no canons of such nature. If various councils were ecumenical, we would expect to find it in the canonical and conciliar tradition of the Church. We don’t.

The argument from silence is, in this matter, very deafening.

The argument from silence is, in this matter, very deafening - indeed.

But since this thread is entitled “[l]et’s talk about primacy of honour,” perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what it means to have primacy of honour. The ancient canons and conciliar tradition of the Church in this regard would be appreciated.

 

[rad]

Yes! That is a good example. Of course, now that those bishops have appealed directly to the Pope, that would give the Pope the necessary canonical leave to make a judgment on them, if he so chooses to exercise that prerogative.

Apparently not, dear Brother.

The four bishops appealed to the Pope on March 3 -that is 9 months ago.

The Pope has not bothered to reply to them. Since we cannot imagine the Pope is guilty of not excercising his papal authority when an appeal is made to him we can only conclude that this is not within his authority. It is ulra vires.

 

[rad]

But since this thread is entitled “[l]et’s talk about primacy of honour,” perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what it means to have primacy of honour.

Dear tdgesq,

Thank you for your question which touches a profound matter and not even the best theologians agree.

**“An Agreed statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989” **

from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

Please see the complete statement on the USCCB site
usccb.org/seia/conprim.shtml

“7. The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other”

 

[rad]

But since this thread is entitled “[l]et’s talk about primacy of honour,” perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what it means to have primacy of honour.

The inability of the Pope of Rome to intervene in the 9 month long dispute over the ordination of four bishops in the Ukrainian Catholic Church which is likely to bring it to schism is an example of what it means to enjoy primacy of honor but not primacy of authority.

The ancient canons and conciliar tradition of the Church in this regard would be appreciated.

The discussion between Mardukm and Jimmy shows that while we may be reading the same canons we do not undertand them in the same way. So it may be futile for an Orthodox to engage you on such a matter or “enlighten all of you” as you phrase it!

The best person would be another Catholic and Mardukm is very well placed to shed light on this becasue it is an area which he has studied deeply and he is aware of the Pope’s limited authority outside his own sui juris Church in Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy

My view doesn’t follow the view of apostolic as defined by Rome but it certainly is apostolic. I don’t think that Cyprian would agree with you, considering the fact that he held two councils in opposition to the declaration by Pope Stephen concerning baptism of heretics.

Yes, and the Nicene Council sided with the Pope on the issue. No matter how you look at it, Tradition agreed with the Pope. Are you now going to appeal to all those who disagreed with the decisions of Ecumenical Councils to state that the Ecumenical Councils really don’t have authority for the entire Church? I am confident you would not, so I do not see how your appeal to St. Cyprian’s opposition affects the orthodoxy and propriety of Pope St. Stephen’s decisions.

As I already mentioned, I have no problems with AC 34. I have problems with authority in the Church being reduced to the authority of the bishop of Rome or that delegated from him.

You nor any other non-Catholic (not saying YOU are not Catholic) apologist or polemicist here has given ANY proof that the bishop of Rome has acted in this tyrannical manner that you assume the Vatican Council gave him authority to do (and I as well as others have asked for this proof many times in the past). Your belief is not based on facts, but assumptions.

AC 34 did not have this ultra centralized view of the Church. The bishop of Rome did not determine the truth. This is clearly seen in the fact that pope Leo rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon but the east continued to accept it regardless. The pope later accepted it in the 13th century. So the fact is that this extremely centralized interpretation of AC 34 was not present in the early Church. The bishop of Rome rejected the canon but the body of bishops still accepted it. So aparrently the pope can not simply veto a declaration by the council. Whether the pope vetoed it or not it still remained authoritative.

You are the one who said that a decision can be authoritative in the east even if the pope rejects it. Your assertion is that the popes rejection only means that it is not authoritative in the west. I have simply attempted to show that that is not an accurate interpretation of Vatican II. I have asserted that the popes veto of the document according to Vatican II and the modern western approach to ecclesiology is a veto for the whole Church. I have used Chalcedon to say this is not consistent with the early Church.

No. You have “cut and pasted” statements from two separate decrees (the Decree on Infallibility and the Decree on the Primacy) to create a non-existent papacy for yourself with which you feel dissatisfaction. The fact is, the statement in the Decree on Infallibility that the Pope does not need consensus to proclaim an ex cathedra decree has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the statement in the Decree on the Primacy that the Pope has full, supreme, universal authority. The statement in the Decree on Infallibility is based on nothing more than the fact that the TRUTH does not need consensus. The Vatican Council does not abrogate the necessity of consensus from the body of the Pope’s brother bishops FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY (which is the purpose of the mutual consent of head bishop and body of bishops in the apostolic canon - you seem to understand this as you explicitly stated it somewhere else). All the Vatican Council is saying is that consensus is not necessary for TRUTH (i.e., the ex cathedra decree).

Tell me, do you seriously believe that when God revealed to St. Peter that the Gentiles should be let into the Church, St. Peter needed the consensus of the other Apostles to know that what he was teaching was the divine Truth? Certainly, the consensus of the rest of the Apostles would be necessary for the UNITY of the Church (which is what the apostolic canon states), but no way no how did St. Peter need the consensus of the Church to make his decree.

Do you seriously believe that the consensus on Pope St. Leo’s Tome added ANYTHING to the Truth of his decree? Certainly, consensus was necessary to ensure UNITY on the matter, but no consensus was required to determine the OBJECTIVE Truth of his decree.

What do you mean by ‘from the memory of the Church’? Are you refering to tradition? I have seen ‘memory’ applied to tradition by Pope Benedict so that sounds like what you are saying.

Yes. That would be a good interpretation of what I meant.

So as long as we have a virtuous pope we should be pretty good.

Just to be clear - So DESPITE your own admission of a moral law that the Pope is required to follow, DESPITE the clear infallible teaching of the Vatican Council that the Pope is obligated to uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops, and DESPITE the canons that assert that the universal authority of the bishop of Rome is meant to REINFORCE the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops, NOT supplant them, AND DESPITE the fact that you nor anyone else has given historical proof that the Pope acts in a manner by which he can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, you still maintain that there is no canonical or divine limit to the Pope’s exercise of his functions aside from his whim? If your response is “yes,” which I suspect it might be (judging from our conversation so far - if it is NOT, then I rejoice that I would be wrong), I just want you to see how utterly incomprehensible your position is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

Apparently not, dear Brother.

The four bishops appealed to the Pope on March 3 -that is 9 months ago.

The Pope has not bothered to reply to them. Since we cannot imagine the Pope is guilty of not excercising his papal authority when an appeal is made to him we can only conclude that this is not within his authority. It is ulra vires.

Actually, Catholic canon law indicates that when an appeal is made (to whatever authority), if a response is not obtained within a certain number of days (it might be 30 days, not sure), then the appeal is automatically assumed to be denied.

I did not realize the issue with the 4 bishops has gone on for such a long time.

In any case, on an internal matter such as this, I am always inclined to support patriarchal hegemony over the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

The best person would be another Catholic and Mardukm is very well placed to shed light on this becasue it is an area which he has studied deeply and he is aware of the Pope’s limited authority outside his own sui juris Church in Rome.

Thanks for the PR. The issue of papal authority - or rather papal license - was the last and hardest hurdle in my three-year swim across the Tiber, so it did occupy a lot of my studies. I have read only original documents on the matter, and not the interpretation of theologians or apologists - whether dissident, orthodox, or anti-Catholic. I read for myself and drew my own conclusions. What I discovered was that 99% of what I knew about the papacy were mere misinterpretations or downright misrepresentations of the actual Catholic teaching on the matter.

I hope you will be interested to read the following two threads, which I initiated to inform others of my discoveries on the issue during my swim across the Tiber:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259973

Pay special attention to page 16, posts #231-236, of the first link, which details the canons that limit the Pope’s supposed license within the Church.

Don’t worry. I’m not looking to convert you. I just want you to know where I am coming from.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Nicea sided with Cyprian if anything. Here is canon 19:Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity. Cyprian is a saint in the Catholic Church, he is not just some random heretic who opposed the pope or a council. Are we supposed to ignore history and just pretend that the fathers agreed with the current view?

No. You have “cut and pasted” statements from two separate decrees (the Decree on Infallibility and the Decree on the Primacy) to create a non-existent papacy for yourself with which you feel dissatisfaction. The fact is, the statement in the Decree on Infallibility that the Pope does not need consensus to proclaim an ex cathedra decree has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the statement in the Decree on the Primacy that the Pope has full, supreme, universal authority. The statement in the Decree on Infallibility is based on nothing more than the fact that the TRUTH does not need consensus. The Vatican Council does not abrogate the necessity of consensus from the body of the Pope’s brother bishops FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY (which is the purpose of the mutual consent of head bishop and body of bishops in the apostolic canon - you seem to understand this as you explicitly stated it somewhere else). All the Vatican Council is saying is that consensus is not necessary for TRUTH (i.e., the ex cathedra decree).

Actually I quoted from one document, Lumen Gentium, which is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II. The document clearly says that the pope does not need the consent of the bishops when defining a dogma ex cathedra. In other words, whether the bishops oppose it or not is irrelevant because the pope has a charism of infallibility and the job to shepherd the sheep.

Do you seriously believe that the consensus on Pope St. Leo’s Tome added ANYTHING to the Truth of his decree? Certainly, consensus was necessary to ensure UNITY on the matter, but no consensus was required to determine the OBJECTIVE Truth of his decree.

We are not talking about whether a document of pope Leo was true and therefore whether it needs the consensus of the bishops for it to be true. We are talking about whether the Tome is infallibly true because Pope St. Leo had a charism of infallibility which gauranteed the infallibility of the document. This brings up another question, did the bishops of Chalcedon affirm the Tome of Leo because it was written by Leo who had a charism of infallibility or because they found it to be true?

uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops, and DESPITE the canons that assert that the universal authority of the bishop of Rome is meant to REINFORCE the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops, NOT supplant them, AND DESPITE the fact that you nor anyone else has given historical proof that the Pope acts in a manner by which he can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, you still maintain that there is no canonical or divine limit to the Pope’s exercise of his functions aside from his whim? If your response is “yes,” which I suspect it might be (judging from our conversation so far - if it is NOT, then I rejoice that I would be wrong), I just want you to see how utterly incomprehensible your position is.

I say there are no limits on the popes authority because there aren’t. The Second Vatican Council specifically rejected any statements in the decree on the Church that would limit the authority of the pope. There was a group within the council that viewed collegiality along the lines that the pope could not act without the consent of the bishops. Their views were rejected. The view of those who did not place a restriction on the authority of the pope was what recieved approval.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Nicea sided with Cyprian if anything. Here is canon 19:Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.
Cyprian is a saint in the Catholic Church, he is not just some random heretic who opposed the pope or a council. Are we supposed to ignore history and just pretend that the fathers agreed with the current view?

Sorry, brother. The matter with the Paulinists supports St. Stephen. Here are some facts for your consideration:

1. The issue between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian was regarding the Novatians.
2. Pope St. Stephen affirmed that any Baptism done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was a valid baptism.
3. The Novatians indeed practiced Trinitarian Baptism.
4. St. Cyprian argued that ANY baptism by heretics is invalid, regardless of Trinitarian baptism.
5. The Nicene Council EXPLICITLY accepted the Baptism of the Novatians, who were also known, at the time of the Nicene Council, by the name “Cathari.” You can read about them in Canon VIII of Nicea.
6. The Paulinists were followers of Paul of Samosota, a heretic who defined the Trinity as “Father, Wisdom, and Word.” They did NOT practice Trinitarian Baptism, as defined by Pope St. Stephen.

Those are the facts. Let your conscience guide you to determine whether it was St. Cyprian’s teaching, or Pope St. Stephen’s teaching that was validated by the Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Those are the facts. Let your conscience guide you to determine whether it was St. Cyprian’s teaching, or Pope St. Stephen’s teaching that was validated by the Ecumenical Council.

Here is a patristic AND conciliar viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great. Please know that these Canons of Saint Basil were validated by an Ecumenical Council. The baptisms of heretics are rejected. Pope Saint Stephen’s teaching is NOT upheld.

But notice the typical balance of the Church Fathers - while the principle of no Sacraments and no Apostolic Succession outside the Church is clearly enunciated, Saint Basil also states very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church “economy” may be used if it is thought necessary in the case of Baptism.

Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the “First Canon” of Saint Basil is a shorter version)

---- "It seemed best to the ancients -I refer to Cyprian and our own
Firmilian- to subject all of these -Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae- to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of the severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church…

“But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted.”

Note the word “economy” used here by Saint Basil with reference to situations when baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the word economy with reference to the reception of the heterodox. I wanted to point this out since there are modern theologians who mistakenly say that the concept of “economy” was something created by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in the 19th century. Not so!

Now I think that all the Orthodox are doing is preserving the principles which were enunciated by the Church Fathers and which were operative in the early Church, principles which have faded from the mind of most Western Churches. However, the East has had no Reformation or Counter-Reformation. It has not had any codification of canon law such as The Catholic Church
had after Trent; so all the Orthodox can turn to is the teaching and canons of the first millennium to provide guidelines and insights with regard to modern questions which crop up today, including the matter of “one Baptism.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

Actually I quoted from one document, Lumen Gentium, which is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II. The document clearly says that the pope does not need the consent of the bishops when defining a dogma ex cathedra. In other words, whether the bishops oppose it or not is irrelevant because the pope has a charism of infallibility and the job to shepherd the sheep.

Yes. Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Notice what you have done above. You have imposed an interpretative addition to the text which it does not contain. This despite the fact that the only two times since the promulgation of Vatican I that the Pope has made ex cathedra decrees INTIMATELY involved the participation of his brother bishops. For your view to have even a modicum of merit, you must show me (and everyone else here) an instance where the Pope, on a matter of faith or morals, completely disregarded the voice of his brother bishops and made a decree contrary to the voice of the Church. So, indeed, as I suspected, and stated earlier, your position is not based on any facts, but only assumptions.

We are not talking about whether a document of pope Leo was true and therefore whether it needs the consensus of the bishops for it to be true. We are talking about whether the Tome is infallibly true because Pope St. Leo had a charism of infallibility which gauranteed the infallibility of the document.

I don’t know what the difference is between “true” and “infallibly true.” Since we are talking about the epistemological reality of the Church’s DIVINE doctrine, whatever is “true” must necessarily be “infallibly true.”

This brings up another question, did the bishops of Chalcedon affirm the Tome of Leo because it was written by Leo who had a charism of infallibility or because they found it to be true?

Fair enough. I had a similar discussion several months ago (I don’t recall if it was with you). I posed a responsive question that was never answered. Namely: Demonstrate to us that the Catholic Church defines religious obedience as BLIND obedience; demonstrate to us that conscience is NOT an indispensable element in the Church’s call to obedience.

What does it matter whether the bishops had to convince themselves of the truth of Pope St. Leo’s teaching? Answer this question: Was Pope St. Leo’s teaching infallibly true or not?

I say there are no limits on the popes authority because there aren’t. The Second Vatican Council specifically rejected any statements in the decree on the Church that would limit the authority of the pope. There was a group within the council that viewed collegiality along the lines that the pope could not act without the consent of the bishops. Their views were rejected. The view of those who did not place a restriction on the authority of the pope was what recieved approval.

Can you give more information on this? Let me ask you: was the rejection of collegial action based on a rejection of the value of consensus for UNITY, or was it based on a rejection of the value of consensus for the establishment of TRUTH.

Please read this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259973

According to the commentaries of the Council Fathers, the Pope is obligated to obtain the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops for his ex cathedra decrees EXCEPT in a case when the matter is SUFFICIENTLY clear from Sacred Tradition. So far, there has been no instance when the Pope has NOT required the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. So collegiality (if not conciliarity) has always been involved.

Blessings,
Marduk