Official Relatio: "Consent of the Church"

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The following is the actual manner by which Humanae Vitae was promulgated (the source IIRC is a book I read entitled “Observer in Rome” whose author - I think his last mane was Brown - was one of the official Protestant observers invited to V2 - I read it several years ago, and I unfortunately left it in the U.S. when I moved here to the Philippines):
During the discussions on the Decree on the Church in the Modern World, a South American bishop brought up the issue of contraception, which caused a minor furor. The matter was quickly appealed to the Pope for a decision. Thereupon, the Pope established a special commission of a handful of bishops to investigate the matter. This majority of the bishops in the commission (I think it was something like 7 out of 9 or 9 out of 12 - something of that proportion) came back with a recommendation to relax the Church’s teaching on contraception. The Pope rejected the findings of the commission, and sent the matter to the general congregation for vote - the matter naturally included during the voting for the Decree on the Church in the Modern World. The bishops overwhelmingly approved the preservation of the Church’s Tradition on the issue (over a thousand bishops, about 90% of the quorum). Thereafter, though the matter could have easily been promulgated by conciliar authority as part of the Council’s decisions, the Pope decided to promulgate it on his personal authority in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

One can see how different the actual facts are from the severely abbreviated version circulated by Absolutist Petrine advocates (and many Catholics, innocently unaware) like a bad rumor. The rumor normatlly states that (1) the Pope decided on his own to bring up the matter; (2) the Pope rejected the advice of a majority of bishops - PERIOD. What this rumor fails to clarify is that (1) it came to the Pope’s attention by appeal; (2) the “majority of bishops” is referring to the majority of the handful bishops in the special commission, not the majority of bishops in the Council.

3.) This part here, is still puzzling to me:

“Finally, it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is, of that Church to which faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree. Therefore that strict necessity *, such as is required for a Dogmatic constitution, can in no way be demonstrated…Such a case is not to be established as a rule.”

As a Catholic, I believe that Rome is infallible in matters of faith and morals with regards to doctrines/dogmas; however, I can see an Orthodox Christian being turned off by this. Would something being taught by Rome only, for 2000 years, be made a doctrine even if it was never taught in the East? This part of the Relatio seems to suggest that since the Pope is the bishop of Rome, he doesn’t need to go any further than his See to find evidence of whether or not a doctrine is orthodox or not.*
Yes, I understand your concerns, for I had the same initial reservations when I was still not yet Catholic (though studying Catholicism). After some thought, however, I realized that the Relatio is not claiming that the underlined portion in the excerpt above justifies a general rejection of the consultation of other bishops, but merely as a justification for not imposing that consultation (i.e., their “manifest consent”) as a dogma. The consultation of other bishops will probably always remain normative during the formulation of an ex cathedra decree – only that it should not be imposed as a dogmatic necessity. Further - and this is the most important consideration - the underlined portion is not being used to justify a rejection of the Sacred Tradition that the agreement of the orthodox bishops is necessary even for a papal definition (this latter will always remain in force), but only as a justification for not dogmatizing the manifest consent (i.e., direct consultation) of those bishops.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

It is also important to note that the Relatio explicitly asserts that the bishops have the same sources as the Pope (which you actually quote in your next excerpt below). So it is not as if the Relatio is claiming that Rome has some sort of special revelation that the rest of the Church does not possess in the process of formulating an ex cathedra decree. Given all the foregoing, I fail to see how Orthodox can find what the Relatio states as objectionable.

4.) Going back to that same part that I just quoted, the Relatio states:
"…the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches. I reply. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same sources (fontes) that the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition. It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifcal defintions. But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent."

Forgive me if I have misunderstood. But is this pretty much saying: The reason why consulting the bishops isn’t an absolute necessity, is because the pope can determine what the bishops hold to sometimes when the teaching is obvious? And that the pope can look at Scripture and Traditions of the Church to see what the Church has always taught and therefore determine what the bishops believe today through those sources? He can determine what he Church’s consent is through those sources and THAT is why the consent of the bishops is not an absolute necessity…right?

Yes, that is correct, though I would slightly change the final statement “that is why the consent of the bishops is not an absolute necessity” to “that is why the manifest consent of the bishops is not an absolute necessity.” As plainly indicated in the excerpt above (I highlighted it), the personal investigation by the Pope, on the one hand, and the direct consultation of bishops, on the other, serves the same necessary end - to determine the agreement of the bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I hope this has helped. I will be especially busy for over a week, but if you have any other concerns or require other clarifications, please post them, and I will try to make the time to respond as promptly as I can (or perhaps hopefully others will help clarify matters before I do so).

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Glenda,

What I don’t understand is why some feel that the Church’s members must give a kind of permission to those who are guided by the Holy Spirit to act on the inspirations of that same Spirit.

This issue is not exactly what is being addressed by this thread. The concern of this thread is the relationship of the bishops with the Pope during an exercise of “papal” infallibility.

I imagine that your concern is with regards to the oft-stated aphorism proposed by Orthodox that a Council cannot be considered “Ecumenical” until the whole Church recognizes it as such. If I have surmised your intention correctly, may I suggest that you start a new thread in one of the other forums (perhaps “Apologetics” or “Non-Catholic Religions”) entitled What makes a Council “Ecumenical?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

In reading The Catholic’s Almanac’s Guide to the Catholic Church page 157, it says that" The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops when that body exercises supreme teaching authority with the successor of Peter."… “But when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accord with revelation itself. All are obliged to maintain and be ruled by this revelation, which, as written or preserved by tradition, is transmitted in its entirety through the care of the Roman Pontiff himself.” What this seems to say to me is that the Pope with the body of Bishops in union with him assures infallibility of the Pope when defining faith and morals. It does not seem to say that whatever the Pope says becomes infallible in of his personal thinking or understanding but that it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of truth. It seems to me that the Pope and his Bishops in view of their office and of the importance of the matter, strive to painstakingly and by appropriate means to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents, but they do not allow that there could be any new public revelation pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.

 

[Aramis]

I tend to agree with him, although I do not believe the terms High Petrine, Absolutist Petrine, or Low Petrine are used in Church docs. Maybe Mardukm did see those in a doc and could share, or is simply trying to clarify positions. At any rate, here is my sentiment on the relatio.

They’re not - they are his terms (and mine, now, by adoption) for the three basic camps about the papal role.

Labels are a useful tool. In this case, it really helps to dissect the arguments from ignorance of many.

The official documents seem to describe a papacy that falls, just barely, into the realm of his high petrine camp, close on the border with the absolutist camp.

The Eastern Orthdox seem firmly low-petrine. The Oriental Orthodox seem to be on the border between low and high petrine views, at least if one assumes Pope Shenouda instead of Pope Francis.

 

[glendab]

Hello Spina. No. the infallibility of the Pope doesn’t come from the Bishops, it comes from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit preserves the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him from error under certain circumstances. The Pope’s infallibility is a charism, not something the Bishops give him by their assent. (see 2035 in the Catechism)

In reading The Catholic’s Almanac’s Guide to the Catholic Church page 157,… What this seems to say to me is that the Pope with the body of Bishops in union with him assures infallibility of the Pope when defining faith and morals… It seems to me that the Pope and his Bishops in view of their office and of the importance of the matter, strive to painstakingly and by appropriate means to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents, but they do not allow that there could be any new public revelation pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.

Thank you Marduk for your thread. It is obvious you’ve put a bunch into this topic and I will pray that your friend “gets it.” No I don’t feel any need to start a thread of my own, but I do have one going in a subject of the heart - the supposed “unconditional” love of God. It would be nice if you chimed in with all your smarts, hint, hint…please?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello again Marduk.

Could you please explain those 3 terms: Low Petrine, High Petrine and the Absolutist? It would be nice to know. Please?

Glenda

 

[malphono]

Could you please explain those 3 terms: Low Petrine, High Petrine and the Absolutist? It would be nice to know. Please?

There was a thread here a couple months back entitled [thread=833565]“The Petrine views”[/thread] which might help.

 

[spina1953]

Hello Spina. No. the infallibility of the Pope doesn’t come from the Bishops, it comes from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit preserves the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him from error under certain circumstances. The Pope’s infallibility is a charism, not something the Bishops give him by their assent. (see 2035 in the Catechism)
glendab: I got this from my reading and in it, it says that the Doctrine on collegiality was stated by the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Nos.22 and23) (No.25) So I think I got it right on that score.

Thank you Marduk for your thread. It is obvious you’ve put a bunch into this topic and I will pray that your friend “gets it.” No I don’t feel any need to start a thread of my own, but I do have one going in a subject of the heart - the supposed “unconditional” love of God. It would be nice if you chimed in with all your smarts, hint, hint…please?

Glenda

 

[rapperelijah]

Thank you Mardukm for taking the time to explain the doctrine of PI. I have read the posts a couple of times and will continue going back and reading them to get a better grasp at your replies. I do see another part of the Relatio that I would like a better understanding of if you don’t mind.

From the Relatio:

"Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense. This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine]. But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith? Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved.

Likewise it is to be noted that dogmatic judgments of the Roman pontiff are especially concerned with controversies about the faith in which recourse has been had to the Holy See, and the Pontiff should therefore define them, either from the Scriptures, the holy Fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or from the Tradition of the Church of Rome which faithfully and religiously, has preserved what Peter passed down. Therefore whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth."

Much appreciated! Blessings.

 

[glendab]

Yo Malphono

There was a thread here a couple months back entitled [thread=833565]“The Petrine views”[/thread] which might help.

It would take me all night to read 19 pages of thread. I peeked at the last and found a brief synopsis of the three views and made the discovery that Marduk, (the scholar who should write a book or two) coined the phrases himself and gives quite a description of the three points of view. Interesting stuff.

Glenda

P.S. I still wish Marduk would lend his brain to the question of “unconditional” love of God. But if you’d like to give it a whirl, I’d be happy to “hear” what you think.

 

[mardukm]

Hi brother rapperelijah,

Thanks for your further queries:

From the Relatio:

"Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense. This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine]. But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith? Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved.

Likewise it is to be noted that dogmatic judgments of the Roman pontiff are especially concerned with controversies about the faith in which recourse has been had to the Holy See, and the Pontiff should therefore define them, either from the Scriptures, the holy Fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or from the Tradition of the Church of Rome which faithfully and religiously, has preserved what Peter passed down. Therefore whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth."

The main focus of the excerpt you cite above is: “What happens if the bishops do not agree amongst themselves?”

I can see why this excerpt is confusing. The first paragraph seems to be saying that the consent of the Churches (i.e., the agreement that was clarified to be necessary in my previous posts) is only valid when there is no controversy (the “positive” sense), but when there is a controversy, then this agreement cannot be relied upon. And since, as the excerpt continues, recourse to the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are had primarily in exactly those cases wherein there is such controversy, then it would seem that it is more generally the case that the agreement of the Churches is not actually necessary during an exercise of “papal” infallibility.

That is a tempting interpretation, but it is incorrect (not that that is your particular interpretation).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

First, note that the excerpt explcitly defines what is meant by “consent of the Churches” - It is referring specifically to that which has UNIVERSAL reception and veneration. Think about that for a moment. Are there times when the Church is NOT in UNIVERSAL agreement? The obvious answer is “YES” - during times of doctrinal controversy.

What does it mean that the Church is not in universal agreement (referring, of course, to dogmatic matters, not issues of discipline or praxis or spirituality, or even local doctrinal expressions)? Does it mean that no individual bishop can agree with any other bishop? I hope it is obvious that such is an utterly ludicrous scenario. It is rather the case (and I dare anyone to challenge this) that during instances of controversy, there will indeed be a group of bishops in orthodox agreement, and there will be another group (or groups) of bishops in heterodox agreement. The group of orthodox bishops are the ones faithfully exercising the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium, while the heterodox group(s) are not (NOTE: before judgment is made, the heterodox bishops are still regarded as part of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, and as such, universal consensus would factually be absent). When the Pope exercises infallibility in an EXTRAordinary manner in such instances, his divine responsibility is not to pronounce new doctrine separate from or unknown to other bishops (indeed, as Pastor Aeternus asserts - “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles.”), but rather to diligently search out the orthodox group and pronounce judgment in AGREEMENT with them (hence, the prescriptions of Apostolic Canon 34 are preserved!). The Pope is simply exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisteirum in communion and in agreement with the group of orthodox bishops infallibly exercising the universal ORDINARY Magisterium who have preserved the Faith. No way, no how, is the Pope involved in a unilateral action when he promulgates an ex cathedra decree.

The excerpt is not saying that during times of controversy there can never be any agreement among bishops that can be taken as a standard, thus dictating an occasion wherein the Pope must make a unilateral decision. Heaven forbid (indeed, according to the divine consitution of the Church, heaven does forbit that!)! It is simply saying that UNIVERSAL agreement cannot be taken as the standard when there is controversy. There is actually a section in your quote which makes this explicitly and abundantly clear: “This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the WHOLE Church is required by it.” So the excerpt is certainly not saying that the agreement of the orthodox bishops is not necessary, but simply that the agreement of ALL the bishops (or, analogically, the WHOLE Church) is not necessary, particularly in the situation when there is no universal agreement among the bishops themselves. That makes sense, don’t you think?

Btw, the second portion you highlighted (“Who will decide…?”) is not a positive question, but a rhetorical one. It is not a proposal that should be answered with “the Pope will decide.” Rather, it is presenting an impossible scenario (actually, a reductio ad absurdum) simply to demonstrate why UNIVERSAL agreement cannot be used as a standard in such a situation wherein the bishops do not agree amongst themselves.

In distinction, Absolutist Petrine advocates interpret the idea that “there is no agreement among bishops during a controversy” to mean either that: (1) no bishop can agree with any other bishop, and therefore agreement cannot be a standard, so that it is the Pope’s responsibility to make a unilateral decision; or (2) the other bishops cannot agree amongst themselves because they have all fallen into heterodoxy or heresy, so it depends on the Pope to make a unilateral decision. Oh, yes! There are Catholics who unfortunately think that way - perhaps way too many - and not a few non-Catholics who are misinformed by such views and therefore believe that is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church! All I can say is, “Ugh!”

If you have any doubts about everything explained above, all you need do is search out the Relatio if it states anywhere, or gives any impression at all, that there will ever be a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. The Relatio actually intimates the exact opposite: "[Ecumenical Councils] never were necessary in order that the faithful who were of good will might know the truth with certainty, for this they could ALWAYS know from the ordinary magisterium of the Church, the bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff. [Ecumenical Councils] were not necessary for the knowing of the truth, but for the supression of error."The fact is, there will always be other orthodox bishops aside from the Pope. The divine consitution of the Church, taught infallibly by the universal Ordinary Magisterium, demands it. And whereever and whenever there are orthodox bishops, the Pope is bound Scripturally, Traditionally, and morally to make public, dogmatic decisions in agreement with them.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thanks for posting publicly. It saves me time with the cut and paste.

 

[glendab]

Hello Marduk.

I’m trying to follow along with your arguments. I need to ask of the 3 positions, Absolutist, Low and High Petrine, which are you?

The other thing I’d like to ask, Vincent of Lerins was mentioned and am I wrong to assume you guys are referencing the triple test for orthodoxy in belief or something else? Then there’s this: 2 examples of “controversies” and how they play out, one current the other old. The first is the date for the celebration of Easter and the second is the nullification of the holy days of obligation in the US. by the Bishops and their relieving us of having to attend on the additional days of Friday and Monday which now translates the Holy Day’s obligation to Sunday attendance. I guess what I am asking is how does your current explanations apply to these two instances.

Glenda

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Glenda,

I’m trying to follow along with your arguments. I need to ask of the 3 positions, Absolutist, Low and High Petrine, which are you?

High Petrine. I am a firm believer in the collegial ecclesiology of the Church as clarified by V2, and practiced by the Church for 2 millennia.

The other thing I’d like to ask, Vincent of Lerins was mentioned and am I wrong to assume you guys are referencing the triple test for orthodoxy in belief or something else?

On belief. We are discussing infallibility, which only refers to the doctrinal teachings of the Church.

Then there’s this: 2 examples of “controversies” and how they play out, one current the other old. The first is the date for the celebration of Easter

The date of the celebration of Easter was determined collegially. Some Absolutist Petrine advocates imagine that Pope St. Victor attempted to unilaterally decide the matter (because he attempted to excommunicate the Asian Churches). But Eusebius (who is the primary source for the controversy) informs us that he only did so AFTER he obtained the decisions of various synods from around the (then-known) world. There was a particular one from the Palestinian Synod which opposed in very strong terms the Quartodecimans. It is most likely that the Pope felt he had the backing of the synods for his decision, not that he felt he had some unilateral authority to excommunicate the Asian Churches.

and the second is the nullification of the holy days of obligation in the US. by the Bishops and their relieving us of having to attend on the additional days of Friday and Monday which now translates the Holy Day’s obligation to Sunday attendance.

The Church has always recognized that bishops have the primary say in their diocese. This is contained in our Canon Law - bishops, for the good of their flock, have the prerogative to dispense from laws, even from universal laws established by the supreme authority of the Church. (CIC 87 and 88; a similar canon for us here in the ECF - CCEO 1538)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

Hi Marduk: I want to thank you for the great information and explanation you gave. I have learned a lot that I was not sure of. I now have a better understanding of Consent of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

(4) It doesn’t matter if an Ecumenical Council through the official Relatio affirmed that the agreement of the bishops is necessary, because an Ecumenical Council has no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.
An Ecumenical Council by definition includes the Pope. This argument exposes the fact that Absolutist Petrine advocates imagine the Pope to be separate, above, or beyond an Ecumenical Council, a notion which must be rejected according to orthodox Catholic ecclesiology.

I hope the elaborations above sufficiently explains why those four points of the Absolutist Petrine view are “far off from Catholic orthodoxy.”

Blessings,
Marduk

But an ecumenical council cannot be regarded as ecumenical without the bishop of Rome’s confirmation, moreover, what if there was some canon which a pope disagreed with (for valid reasons), i.e., does he have the authority to reject it and/or denounce it by decree/epistle like St. Leo the Great did with canon 28, i.e., if he rejects it then must the other bishops reject it too?

 

[mardukm]

But an ecumenical council cannot be regarded as ecumenical without the bishop of Rome’s confirmation, moreover

: I don’t understand. If an Ecumenical Council limits a Pope’s authority, it has obviously done so with the Pope’s own confirmation. Are you claiming that the Pope confirms apart from an Ecumenical Council, or that when he is confirming he is doing so while not being a member of the Council? I’m sorry, but I cannot comprehend any council or Synod without a head bishop. It is ingrained in me as an Oriental. You speak as if the Pope is separate from or above an Ecumenical Council, which is impossible if you admit he is a member of it. We might be saying the same thing, but the way you put it is foreign to me.

what if there was some canon which a pope disagreed with (for valid reasons), i.e., does he have the authority to reject it and/or denounce it by decree/epistle like St. Leo the Great did with canon 28, i.e., if he rejects it then must the other bishops reject it too?

Yes, he has the authority to reject it. If the canon is a matter of praxis or discipline, however, such rejection would only be valid for his Patriarchate. It would mean the canon does not have ecumenical status, and that’s it. It does not mean the canon would be wholly invalid for the other Patriarchates. The Churches have different canons according to particular tradition, after all. The Canon would not be ecumenical, but only local (if the canon concerns a matter of doctrine, that would be different). A perfect example is Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It did not have ecumenical authority, but the Eastern Churches operated with that Canon as a local Canon. In any case, it’s practical effect did not change anything as far as the Eastern Churches’ relations to Rome - the Eastern Churches accepting that local canon still operated with the understanding that Rome had the ecclesiastical primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yo Malphono
It would take me all night to read 19 pages of thread. I peeked at the last and found a brief synopsis of the three views and made the discovery that Marduk, (the scholar who should write a book or two) coined the phrases himself and gives quite a description of the three points of view. Interesting stuff.

Glenda

In John Henry Newman’s lifetime, the Absolutist view would have been called the Ultramontane one. He also had a tough job trying to counter the vocal minority of Ultramontanes in England. His book “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk” (chapter 9) has more very helpful insights on what we are calling here the high Petrine view.

Thanks mardukm for the great posts!

 

[josie_L]

: I don’t understand. If an Ecumenical Council limits a Pope’s authority, it has obviously done so with the Pope’s own confirmation. Are you claiming that the Pope confirms apart from an Ecumenical Council, or that when he is confirming he is doing so while not being a member of the Council? I’m sorry, but I cannot comprehend any council or Synod without a head bishop. It is ingrained in me as an Oriental. You speak as if the Pope is separate from or above an Ecumenical Council, which is impossible if you admit he is a member of it. We might be saying the same thing, but the way you put it is foreign to me.

I didn’t think it was that confusing, i.e., for a council to be regarded as ecumenical or rather binding on the whole Church it needed the bishop of Rome to confirm it, not just because he was the only patriarch of the West, but because he was the visible head of the Church, i.e., without his approval/affirmation could a council still retain ecumenical status? Think of Trullo or the fifth ecumenical council.

Yes, he has the authority to reject it. If the canon is a matter of praxis or discipline, however, such rejection would only be valid for his Patriarchate. It would mean the canon does not have ecumenical status, and that’s it. It does not mean the canon would be wholly invalid for the other Patriarchates. The Churches have different canons according to particular tradition, after all. The Canon would not be ecumenical, but only local (if the canon concerns a matter of doctrine, that would be different). A perfect example is Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It did not have ecumenical authority, but the Eastern Churches operated with that Canon as a local Canon. In any case, it’s practical effect did not change anything as far as the Eastern Churches’ relations to Rome - the Eastern Churches accepting that local canon still operated with the understanding that Rome had the ecclesiastical primacy.

Yes, I am aware that the Churches have different regional canons, however, in the case of canon 28 how was it possible that it was accepted even regionally without taking into consideration that the pope was against it because it relegated Alexandria and Antioch to a lower status and thus repudiated Nicea? I know this canon did not touch upon the primacy of Rome, but it leaves one thinking that if Nicea specified the order in which the sees were to be respected so to speak then why does canon 28 hold any sway at all since it never received ecumenical status? Can a canon that is regional usurp a canon which is ecumenical? How could those who accepted it justify this (even before Trullo which they claimed was ecumenical)? And as for the relations between the Eastern Churches how is it functional/practical that in one part of the Church, Alexandria and Antioch still have precedence over Constantinople, yet in another part of the Church, Constantinople is now above that of Alexandria and Antioch (notwithstanding Nicea). Wouldn’t this have strained relations? Do you think that it was helpful, i.e., canon 28?