Let's talk about primacy of honour

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

The Assyrian Church of the East, in early theology, considers the relationship between the see of Peter and their patriarchal see to be analogous to that of the patriarch to the bishops.

Therefore, this church, which broke with the rest of the church at the time of Nestor, retains a teaching that the petrine role exists, and is patriarch to patriarchs. This bit of ancient theology was used to bring about dialog for reunion; it resulted in the common christology declaration, and the catholics ceasing to consider them nestorians and thus heretics.

Thank you for your insight. From my understanding, all non-Catholic apostolic Churches recognized the Petrine office at one point. This is evident from the historic records. Unfortunately, the schisms occured. However, those that have recovered the appreciation for the Petrine office have followed their conscience and come back into communion with the bishop of Rome.

There are many prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians/clerics today who have expressed that the Pope’s prerogatives are not one of mere honor, and have been critical of the nationalist tendency of Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Schmemman, Clement. Propescu, Lossky, et al). The situation is hopeful. It might move at a snail’s pace, but eventually the will of the Holy Spirit will prevail.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

I am aware of this and this is the position of the Orthodox Church.

There is only ONE baptism and it is the baptism of the Church. It may NEVER be repeated.

Therefore those who have been baptized in the Church, then departed into schism, may NOT be baptized again when they return to the Church.

Nor for that matter may heretics who were once baptized in the Church, then departed into heresy, be baptized again when they return to the Church.

Oh I see the confusion. You think that St. Basil’s statement only refers to that same generation of schismatics/heretics. That if these SAME schismatics/heretics left the Church, they would not need to be re-baptized upon return. I think that is a very strange way of interpreting St. Basil’s letter.

First of all, St. Basil makes a SPECIFIC distinction between heretics and schismatics, but your circumstance doesn’t. So obviously, St. Basil is not talking about an individual schismatic/heretic who leaves the church and returns in his/her lifetime. St. Basil is talking about the very ecclesiological make-up of heretical GROUPS, on the one hand, and schismatic GROUPS on the other. IOW, a truly heretical group loses the grace to confer baptism, while a schismatic group does not.

Second, like Pope St. Stephen, St. Basil informs us of the distinctive reason why the baptism of certain groups can be accepted - “For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us have not been baptized at all. Although this escaped the vigilance of the great Dionysius, we must by no means imitate his error.”

St. Cyprian did not make this distinction, brother; St. Stephen did. And the Eastern Orthodox Church does not make this distinction, brother; the Catholic Church does.

I’m sorry, but the current EO understanding of economy is truly at odds with St. Basil, and I gather with all of early Christianity (after it was settled by the Ecumenical Council, that is).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I spent almost 90 minutes reading. I wrote a lengthy summation of my response but then I discarded it because I feared to hurt you. It is obvious that these matters of papal authority are not simply theological matters for you but you have a great deal of yourself invested in them.

So may I just say that I found the whole extremely complex argumentation unconvincing. Far too idiosyncratic.

The most telling point against your theories is that the Catholics who participated in the threads - and they are no intellectual or theological sluggards - found your theology and ecclesiology and theories of papal authority as something innovative and unacceptable.

In other words, you seem to be at odds with your brother Catholics, both of the West and of the East. There seems little point in conducting a discussion with the Orthodox while your own Church brothers do not agree with you.

It was kind of alarming that you say you base your conversion to Catholicism in large part on these particular interpretations of your own. It suggests that you have not converted to Catholicism in reality but to a construct of it in your own mind which does not correspond to Catholic reality.

But these matters are better left to you and your Catholic brothers. Your very idiosyncratic ideas of the restrictions on papal authority should be discussed with them “in house” before undertaking any discussion with the Orthodox.

Don’t worry, brother, I have thick skin. Last I looked, the majority of my Catholic brethren agreed with me (according to the poll thread). And no one has been able to prove - not dissident Catholics, not schismatic ultra-Trads, not dissatisfied Catholics, not non-Catholics, not anti-Cahtolics - that the Pope can do what he wants, whereever he wants, whenever he wants on his mere whim and fancy, nor that the only restriction on the Pope is his own whim and fancy.

I don’t know why you would want to stop discussion because of the different comments of a few Catholics. If you want to stop dialogue that is fine. It would have been great to read your replies to my many posts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Thank you for your insight. From my understanding, all non-Catholic apostolic Churches recognized the Petrine office at one point. This is evident from the historic records.

Where is the canonical evidence of the “Petrine office”? Unless the Church embodied this in the canons it is meaningless.

 

[mardukm]

Where is the canonical evidence of the “Petrine office”? Unless the Church embodied this in the canons it is meaningless.

Would the official decrees and Acts of Ecumenical Councils count? I don’t have time to do the research right now, but I’m sure it shouldn’t be too hard to find. Perhaps others who have more time for research, or who have such quotes on hand already, can provide the proof for you. Or if you want to wait till next weekend…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Karl Rahner’s a THEOLOGIAN whose specialty was theology, NOT ECCLESIOLOGY. I would rather heed the commentaries of the bishops of the First Vatican Council regarding the papacy (did you read the link I gave you?).

This is all I am going to say right now. Ecclesiology is a subdivision of theology. As a theologian it is his job to know ecclesiology and to explain it. Many of his writings were ecclesiologically based. Many of his writings are like the bishop and the primacy or similar things. The same can be said of Pope Benedict. He is a theologian but all his writings are ecclesiological in nature. When he writes about the Eucharist he is not far from speaking about ecclesiology. It was Karl Rahner as the theologian of the German bishops who determined the theology of Vatican II. The commissions in Rome would send the schemas to the bishops to read and study and the German bishops would have Karl Rahner and a few other theologians (including Joseph Ratzinger) write a commentary on the schema so that they would be prepared for the discussion. The final document for Lumen Gentium turned out pretty much as the German bishops had planned. You can’t ignore Rahner when studying Vatican II. He was just as influential as bishop Gasser was at Vatican I.

 

[jimmy]

Yes.

Yes

No. My point is that the truth of the Tome was not dependent on the approbation of the bishops. Their deliberations had absolutely no effect on the truth of the Tome (Are you arguing otherwise? ). They agreed with the truth of the Tome not out of obligation to the Pope, but because of the invisible movement of the Holy Spirit. Is there a problem with that?

(CONTINUED)

No I am arguing that according to the Roman view it is absolutely impossible for the pope to err therefore the bishops of Chalcedon simply accepted the Tome because Pope Leo wrote it, not because it affirmed orthodoxy as they had known it. So Leo taught the whole council and the bishops simply listened. They were all ignorant until Leo wrote his Tome essentially.

I am also arguing against this idea and saying that the bishops did not have the preconception that the pope is infallible and therefore what he writes is gauranteed to be free from error. So consequently they read the Tome and they judged it to be orthodox theology. Now, whether what was written in the Tome is true or not is not dependant on the judgement but that doesn’t mean that the Tome was infallible because Leo had a charism of infallibility. Similar to the fact that a judge judges a man innocent of murder does not actually effect or cause the innocence of the man. The judge does not determine whether he was actually innocent. Or it is also similar to God’s foreknowledge. The fact that God foreknew that Adam would sin did not mean that He forced Adam to sin. In the case of Chalcedon the fact that the bishops judged the Tome does not affect whether what the Tome says is orthodox or not but it does recognize it. So it leaves open the possibility that Leo could err but it does not affect whether he actually did err.

You ask the question whether the consensus of the bishops is disregarded in relation to truth or in relation to conscience. I think you believe that the only accurate response would be to say that consensus is disregarded in relation to truth because consensus doesn’t determine truth. By making this about conscience you have made the assumption that Leo could not err and that the bishops only read the Tome to inform their consciences about the true faith which Leo was teaching them.

We could consequently also bring this into epistemology. How do we know the truth? What is our relationship to God? Do we simply inform our consciences by listening to what the Pope says and applying it to our lives?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

This is all I am going to say right now. Ecclesiology is a subdivision of theology. As a theologian it is his job to know ecclesiology and to explain it. Many of his writings were ecclesiologically based. Many of his writings are like the bishop and the primacy or similar things. The same can be said of Pope Benedict. He is a theologian but all his writings are ecclesiological in nature. When he writes about the Eucharist he is not far from speaking about ecclesiology. It was Karl Rahner as the theologian of the German bishops who determined the theology of Vatican II. The commissions in Rome would send the schemas to the bishops to read and study and the German bishops would have Karl Rahner and a few other theologians (including Joseph Ratzinger) write a commentary on the schema so that they would be prepared for the discussion. The final document for Lumen Gentium turned out pretty much as the German bishops had planned. You can’t ignore Rahner when studying Vatican II. He was just as influential as bishop Gasser was at Vatican I.

Granted, but I would rather you would let you understanding be influenced by strict ecclesiologists such as Yves Congar:
“What we understand by ‘collegiality’ really consists of two distinct things which are only bound together by the deep root of communion. The term ‘collegial’ has become trendy; it geets used in a broad and rather pragmatic sense: such-and-such a project, we say, has collegial guidance. As far as the Church is concerned, we sometimes say that collegiality is lacking when a decision has been taken by someone in authority without consultation at grass-roots level. This is an incorrect usage of the word which we tolerate in order to speak about an authentic and traditional reality. The deep-seated tradition is, in fact, that the community co-operates in regulating its own life, not by usurping authority which is structured and differentiated, but by a whole system of advice, information, confident communicating from top to bottom and from botton to top, between all hte parties concerned. The Church is a body: it has a head, but the whole of the body is alive.” (Congar, Challenge to the Church. p.38)
I have personally not read Karl Rahner. However, from how you have presented him, Yves Congar would not share his view that the Catholic Church is an organization completely centralized in the papacy.

I did not read Yves Congar during my swim across the Tiber. However, I was very blessed to read of such a solid Latin Catholic supporting what I had already discovered during my journey.

You may also give heed to Ratzinger’s own assessment of the Council. In relation to our very topic regarding centralization “versus” collegiality, he states “…for every statement advanced in one direction, the text finds one supporting the other side, and this restores the balance, leaving the texts open to interpretation in both directions.” (Ratzinger, Theological highlights of Vatican II, p.115)

Our Eastern and Oriental Churches have worked hard to sway the direction to the side of collegiality. I don’t see how your centralization opinions helps our cause any.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Our Eastern and Oriental Churches have worked hard to sway the direction to the side of collegiality. I don’t see how your centralization opinions helps our cause any.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am not trying to sway it toward centralization. I just see that as how the west sees it, including and especially Rome itself. I would rejoice if I could see a collegial view of the Church that didn’t appear to be simply for show. But I don’t see it. It appears that the idea of collegiality as defined is just for show. They might say that the bishops are infallible when they are gathered together, but then they say that it is the popes option to exercise infallibility personally or collegially. Collegiality seems to have no base because it is constantly undercut by statements about the pope. For example the establishment of the synod of bishops in the 1960’s established that the bishops have no voting authority in the synod unless the pope says they do. They only have an advisory role. This does not sound like collegiality at all, it sounds like a way for the pope to exercise his own authority. Seeing someone commenting on the use of sui iuris in canon law saying that the pope has the authority even to suppress a Church is not encouraging either. I would rejoice if it could be shown that collegiality is not contradictory to the western conception of the Church.

I rather find the centralization depressing. I wouldn’t be talking about it if I didn’t think it was blatant in the texts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I am not trying to sway it toward centralization. I just see that as how the west sees it, including and especially Rome itself. I would rejoice if I could see a collegial view of the Church that didn’t appear to be simply for show. But I don’t see it. It appears that the idea of collegiality as defined is just for show. They might say that the bishops are infallible when they are gathered together, but then they say that it is the popes option to exercise infallibility personally or collegially. Collegiality seems to have no base because it is constantly undercut by statements about the pope. For example the establishment of the synod of bishops in the 1960’s established that the bishops have no voting authority in the synod unless the pope says they do. They only have an advisory role. This does not sound like collegiality at all, it sounds like a way for the pope to exercise his own authority. Seeing someone commenting on the use of sui iuris in canon law saying that the pope has the authority even to suppress a Church is not encouraging either. I would rejoice if it could be shown that collegiality is not contradictory to the western conception of the Church.

I rather find the centralization depressing. I wouldn’t be talking about it if I didn’t think it was blatant in the texts.

I hear you and naturally I sympathize. But as demonstrated by the statements from Yves Congar, not all Latins view our Church in the centralized way you have depicted it. And certainly, the majority of Popes in the past century did not view it that way either. So there is hope, wouldn’t you agree?

It boils down to this:
You are an Oriental who has a distinctly ultra-Trad, centralized understanding of our Catholic ecclesiology, and therefore, understandably has several grievances because of that internal tension between your identity as an Oriental and what you percieve to be the reality of our Church.

I am an Oriental who has a distinctly Oriental, collegial understanding of our Catholic ecclesiology, and therefore, understandably has no grievances because there is no tension between my identity as an Oriental and what I perceive to be the reality in our Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I hear you and naturally I sympathize. But as demonstrated by the statements from Yves Congar, not all Latins view our Church in the centralized way you have depicted it. And certainly, the majority of Popes in the past century did not view it that way either. So there is hope, wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t know about that? Maybe they haven’t stated it quite in the way I have but there have been many instances where the Eastern Churches authority has been compromised(like the ban on married priests in North America).

It boils down to this:
You are an Oriental who has a distinctly ultra-Trad, centralized understanding of our Catholic ecclesiology, and therefore, understandably has several grievances because of that internal tension between your identity as an Oriental and what you percieve to be the reality of our Church.

I am an Oriental who has a distinctly Oriental, collegial understanding of our Catholic ecclesiology, and therefore, understandably has no grievances because there is no tension between my identity as an Oriental and what I perceive to be the reality in our Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very true.

 

[rad]

I don’t know why you would want to stop discussion because of the different comments of a few Catholics.

Because you have obviously created a highly idiosyncratic position for yourself with which intelligent and conservative Catholics disagree. That is almost certain evidence that the Magisterium would disagree with you also.

Have you ever submitted your theories for inspection to an expert such as a Catholic canon lawyer or even just a competent Catholic theologian?

If you want to stop dialogue that is fine. It would have been great to read your replies to my many posts.

What can I say for which you would not have a rebuttal? You have spent hundreds, evne thousands of hours formulating your theories and I do not have the interest nor the available time. I earnestly suggest that you seek out a canon lawyer in your Church and discuss it with him.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t know about that? Maybe they haven’t stated it quite in the way I have but there have been many instances where the Eastern Churches authority has been compromised(like the ban on married priests in North America).

NO!. The authority of the Eastern Churches was not compromised in any way during that episode. North America (except for some portions of Alaska) has TRADITIONALLY been assigned to the WESTERN Patriarchate. From the canonical perspective, the Pope had every right to make that decision. Our grievance in that episode should not be with the papacy, but with Abp Ireland and other LOCAL Latin ordinaries.

Bad example.

The Pope has even given up the title of Patriarch of the West, and restricted it to Patriach of the Latins. The Catholic Church is imbued with all these signs of hope for the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. Though I sympathize with your grievances, I do not understand them.

Very true.

Now the question comes. Whose perspective is more conducive to achieving the goals and hopes of our Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. Is it your perspective which IMHO breeds ONLY discontent, or is it my perspective that seeks to inform others of the legitimate understanding AND reality of collegiality in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Because you have obviously created a highly idiosyncratic position for yourself with which intelligent and conservative Catholics disagree. That is almost certain evidence that the Magisterium would disagree with you also.

Have you ever submitted your theories for inspection to an expert such as a Catholic canon lawyer or even just a competent Catholic theologian?

I guess you never read the second link.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

The Pope has even given up the title of Patriarch of the West, and restricted it to Patriach of the Latins.

Restricted it to the title “Patriarch of the Latins” ? This may be a mistake of yours which bolsters your belief that the Pope is restricted in his authority over you and your priests and bishops who form the Eastern segment of the Catholic Church.

Do you have references for the title “Patriarch of the Latins” and that it is an official and current title?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

Restricted it to the title “Patriarch of the Latins” ? This may be a mistake of yours which bolsters your belief that the Pope is restricted in his authority over you and your priests and bishops who form the Eastern segment of the Catholic Church.

Do you have references for the title “Patriarch of the West” and that it is an official and current title?

Are you an Orthodox Christian? It is very strange to me that you have not kept up with this matter, because there was a big hoolabaloo from the EOC regarding the fact that the Pope had given up the title of “Patriarch of the West.” You can do your own google search on the matter, I’m sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

I guess you never read the second link.

Blessings,
Marduk

I found it very unconvincing, as did your fellow Catholics in that thread. Your theories all stem from a personal drive to justify your conversion to Rome while, at the same time, retaining the autonomy which you once knew in the Coptic Orthodox Church. At least when Solovyov went to Catholicism he embraced the totality of the teaching on the papacy and did not pick and choose.

 

[rad]

Dear brother rad,

Are you an Orthodox Christian? It is very strange to me that you have not kept up with this matter, because there was a big hoolabaloo from the EOC regarding the fact that the Pope had given up the title of “Patriarch of the West.” You can do your own google search on the matter, I’m sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am perfectly ware that he gave away his official title of “Patriarch of the West.”

My contention with you is your claim that he retained a title of “Patriarch of the Latins.”

Can you reference that please? That is what I have never heard of.

 

[mardukm]

I found it very unconvincing, as did your fellow Catholics in that thread.

I guess you just skimmed over the parts where the most prominent members of the Majority party in the Vatican Council asserted that the Pope’s authority is not absolute, and that he is bound by the canons.

I guess you just skimmed over the part where I quoted the Swiss bishops and Pio Nono’s response to them.

I think you just looked at the few Latin Catholics (2, maybe 3 at most) who made an issue over the matter, and overlooked the other Latin Catholics who supported me.

Your theories all stem from a personal drive to justify your conversion to Rome while, at the same time, retaining the autonomy which you once knew in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Autonomy is AOK in the Catholic Church. It is the way our ecclesiology works. We don’t practice nationalistic autocephaly per se, a notion that even some prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized.

At least when Solovyov went to Catholicism he embraced the totality of the teaching on the papacy and did not pick and choose.

Haven’t read much of Solovyev, though I’ve been dying to do so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Dear Marduk and Dear Jimmy,

I should step aside from involvement with this thread since I am getting in the way of a great discussion between you two.

I find Jimmy’s words true and insightful but I find Marduk’s equally noteworthy as he battles strongly to defend his position.