Official Relatio: "Consent of the Church"

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Just letting you know that I am not an Ultramontanist!

I cannot claim to be ultramontanist, because that term developed within the context of and refers only to the Latin Catholic Church. I am a High Petrine advocate, which I believe is a more proper term for Catholics in general.

I believe you should not refuse to call yourself an ultramontanist, because that is the Traditional term given to Latin Catholic adherents to Vatican 1. However, I think you should work hard to explain to anyone who might misunderstand about the difference between High Petrine ultramontanism versus Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanism.

Just a suggestion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

I cannot claim to be ultramontanist, because that term developed within the context of and refers only to the Latin Catholic Church. I am a High Petrine advocate, which I believe is a more proper term for Catholics in general.

I believe you should not refuse to call yourself an ultramontanist, because that is the Traditional term given to Latin Catholic adherents to Vatican 1. However, I think you should work hard to explain to anyone who might misunderstand about the difference between High Petrine ultramontanism versus Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanism.

Just a suggestion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh, I always thought being an Ultramontanist meant having an absolutist Petrine view. Thank you for the clarifications.

 

[josie_L]

That’s confusing. You state this, but you just specifically admitted, that in the statement “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope,” the idea of the Pope’s confirmation “is missing” from the Ecumenical Council.

When I said “missing” I meant that you missed an essential point which you did not bring up during your discussions concerning “consent”, that for an ecumenical council to be considered ecumenical not only must the bishops in general agree, but of these bishops, there is one bishop whose ratification is absolutely necessary, i.e., the bishop of Rome. Without his ratification, could a council still be ecumenical, i.e., could it be possible to consider a council as ecumenical without the head bishop’s consent (think prior to the schism)? I keep thinking of the 5th ecumenical council wherein Pope Vigilius was held for 10 years by Emperor Justinian for not complying, and did not let him go until he ratified the council (even though at this point the council of some 160 bishops had already complied with Justinian and given their assent/confirmation). It seems that Justinian felt that Pope Vigilius’s ratification was necessary to affirm all that transpired at the council and make it as such universally binding on all Christians.

The only rationale I can think of to explain the apparent inconsistency in your explanation is that perhaps it is difficult for you to conceive that the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops. Is that the case? That is certainly not the belief nor praxis of the Catholic Church as demonstrated by our history - even Pope Pius IX himself eventually submitted to the correction of his brother bishops.

No, I have no problem with the pope being corrected by his brother bishops, it’s scriptural.

There is a difference between “clarifying” and claiming “it is missing.” Like I said, we are probably saying the same thing, but the expressions you use are strange to me.

This whole conversation is strange, i.e., I did not perceive my posts as being that difficult to comprehend, moreover, out of necessity I used “clarifying” because the word “missing” seemed to confuse you, i.e., since I already described what I meant by “missing” then there should no longer be an issue.

If an Ecumenical Council corrects the Pope, it is because the Pope has submitted to the correction of his brother bishops in the Council. It appears the difficulty is that you (perhaps) cannot conceive of the Pope being able to be corrected(?).

No, I don’t have an issue with that, i.e., I don’t think the pope is in his person infallible (Peter wasn’t and he was our first Pope).

Because that is part of the rule of faith - the head bishop’s consent is necessary for something that affects the Church in general (this is the case on every level of the hierarchy - metropolitan, patriarchal, and universal). A change such as Canon 28 affected the entire Church, so it needed the head bishop’s confirmation

.

But they didn’t get that confirmation, so what happens after that, i.e., what would have been the correct response or actions on the part of the bishops involved? .

The Pope does not have a right of veto. A “veto” is a unilateral prerogative, and the Pope does not have any unilateral prerogatives according to the divine constitution of the Church. Whatever personal decision he makes must be in agreement with that of other bishops. HIs disapproval of Canon 28 was obviously made with the agreement of other bishops based on the Tradition.

What about a line item veto (which is what I should have said initially)?

All we know is that the claim of apostolic succession from St. Andrew was rather late. We really can’t know for sure if it is factually incorrect.

It seems to me to be false because why bother using a socio-political rationale to appoint Constantinople to second rank, when you already had (according to Constantinople) apostolic succession via St. Andrew has a stronger argument.

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother QN,

That letter was written to the Chalcedonian Pope of Alexandria. I don’t believe we can extrapolate too much from it as far as the controversy between Rome and Constantinople. In other words, I don’t believe the Petrineness of the Sees was an issue in that controversy.

Wasn’t Rome’s objection to Constantinople’s claims not just a rejection of the political justifications, but also an assertion of Peter’s dignity? Pope Gregory says,

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.
newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

It seems that even if Constantinople were established by Andrew, it wouldn’t matter to Gregory because, unlike Alexandria and Antioch, it does not share in Petrine dignity. Otherwise, why not set up a patriarch of Ephesus and elevate him over Constantinople due to “Johannine prerogatives?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

When I said “missing” I meant that you missed an essential point which you did not bring up during your discussions concerning “consent”, that for an ecumenical council to be considered ecumenical not only must the bishops in general agree,

It was not missing…it was just not relevant. The focus of this thread has been about the “consent of the Church” during an exercise of “papal” infallibility. It is not about the constitution of an Ecumenical Council.

But they didn’t get that confirmation, so what happens after that, i.e., what would have been the correct response or actions on the part of the bishops involved?

Then they should recognize it as not having Ecumenical authority, but I don’t believe it automatically means their bishops have to reject it for their own Churches. We are, after all, referring to a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, not doctrine.

What about a line item veto (which is what I should have said initially)?

I have the same opinion on line-item vetoes.

It seems to me to be false because why bother using a socio-political rationale to appoint Constantinople to second rank, when you already had (according to Constantinople) apostolic succession via St. Andrew has a stronger argument.

IMO, Constantinople’s rise was not due to the bishops initially, but to the emperor. I think they did not have any choice. As time went on, it simply became tradition. I actually don’t think the rise of Contantinople was a “formal” (as opposed to “material” - to use a Latin Church distinction) opposition to the ancient Nicene Canon. So even if local bishops knew that they had apostolic succession from St. Andrew, the emperor wanted the “New Rome” rationale brought into play. It was only later that they broke free from the caeseropapism. You’ll notice that not only does the socio-political rationale disapprear from Canon 36 of Trullo, but there is also a specific canon which invalidates any ecclesiastical action done by virtue of undue influence from the secular power. I don’t think the earlier Church of Constantinople had that kind of authority to oppose the emperor.

Just a possibility

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Dear brother QN,

That letter was written to the Chalcedonian Pope of Alexandria. I don’t believe we can extrapolate too much from it as far as the controversy between Rome and Constantinople. In other words, I don’t believe the Petrineness of the Sees was an issue in that controversy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, Marduk. I will not insist on any definite interpretation of Gregory’s letter, but I think that “Petrinicity” must have something to do with the Nicene canon. What is it that the three sees of Rome, Alexandria an Antioch had in common? Per Gregory, their Petrine origin. If mere apostolic origin merely a sufficient criterion for the dignity and authority of a patriarchate, then any see founded or inhabited by an apostle would be fighting with Constantinople for “second place.” Apostolic origin is a reason for honor, but it is not by itself a tenable justification for the prerogatives assumed by Constantinople.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Let me clarify my post. I am not saying that Gregory is commenting on Rome vs. Constantinople. However, I think his explanation might provide some insight into the context of that struggle.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother QN,

Ahh. OK. You were talking about the Nicene Canon controversy, not the “universal bishop” controversy. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I agree that the primordial patriarchal prerogatives of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were due to their Petrine foundations; Jerusalem instituted relatively late for its purely religious significance…

As regards Constantinople, like I said, I don’t believe the bishops of Constantinople formally intended to oppose the Nicene Tradition at the outset – it was really the emperor behind the upgrade of Constantinople, and they could do little about it. But as time went on, it just became a tradition in the East that Constantinople was second. I think Latins should not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Easterns at Trullo finally admitted correction and removed the offensive portions of Canon 3/ Canon 28 when they renewed it. However, as noted earlier, why certain EO today are renewing the socio-political rationale is beyond me.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, Marduk. I will not insist on any definite interpretation of Gregory’s letter, but I think that “Petrinicity” must have something to do with the Nicene canon. What is it that the three sees of Rome, Alexandria an Antioch had in common? Per Gregory, their Petrine origin. If mere apostolic origin merely a sufficient criterion for the dignity and authority of a patriarchate, then any see founded or inhabited by an apostle would be fighting with Constantinople for “second place.” Apostolic origin is a reason for honor, but it is not by itself a tenable justification for the prerogatives assumed by Constantinople.

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother QN,

Ahh. OK. You were talking about the Nicene Canon controversy, not the “universal bishop” controversy. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I agree that the primordial patriarchal prerogatives of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were due to their Petrine foundations; Jerusalem instituted relatively late for its purely religious significance…

As regards Constantinople, like I said, I don’t believe the bishops of Constantinople formally intended to oppose the Nicene Tradition at the outset – it was really the emperor behind the upgrade of Constantinople, and they could do little about it. But as time went on, it just became a tradition in the East that Constantinople was second. I think Latins should not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Easterns at Trullo finally admitted correction and removed the offensive portions of Canon 3/ Canon 28 when they renewed it. However, as noted earlier, why certain EO today are renewing the socio-political rationale is beyond me.

Blessings,
Marduk

Probably because of Chalcedon, i.e., it created the rationale that you see in the EO today.

 

[josie_L]

IMO, Constantinople’s rise was not due to the bishops initially, but to the emperor. I think they did not have any choice. As time went on, it simply became tradition. I actually don’t think the rise of Contantinople was a “formal” (as opposed to “material” - to use a Latin Church distinction) opposition to the ancient Nicene Canon. So even if local bishops knew that they had apostolic succession from St. Andrew, the emperor wanted the “New Rome” rationale brought into play. It was only later that they broke free from the caeseropapism. You’ll notice that not only does the socio-political rationale disapprear from Canon 36 of Trullo, but there is also a specific canon which invalidates any ecclesiastical action done by virtue of undue influence from the secular power. I don’t think the earlier Church of Constantinople had that kind of authority to oppose the emperor.

Just a possibility

Blessings,
Marduk

I remember reading several sources that indicated that the mentality of the Church in the East vis a vis the state was different than that conceived in the West. I will have to update you on the matter (because I need to find those sources). But it might give some insight as to why the bishops allowed (I don’t believe it was just undue force) the state to intervene.