Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josephdaniel29]

It might help to read the article about Orthodox scholarship about hte Papacy here
bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#ORTHODOXY

these orthodox scholars like Meyendorf testify,e.g., that the Orthodox theory of Church government is not enough to refute the Catholic claims

Hogwash. Pick up Fr Meyendorff’s book The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church yourself and see all that he has to say, not just snippets from a Catholic apologetics site.

and that the Orthodox are still in the process of discerning the role of the Papacy in the first millenium

So is your Pope my friend.

Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority

And the so called “Ratzinger Proposal.”

 

[josie_L]

Hogwash. Pick up Fr Meyendorff’s book The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church yourself and see all that he has to say, not just snippets from a Catholic apologetics site.

So is your Pope my friend.

Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority

And the so called “Ratzinger Proposal.”

Before you start saying that the pope is encouraging an ecclesiology/primacy similiar to what the Orthodox preach, read “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger), it a reflection/analysis of Catholic ecclesiology vis a vis Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In other words, Joseph, he is wholly Catholic when it comes to ecclesiology.

 

[josie_L]

Hogwash. Pick up Fr Meyendorff’s book The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church yourself and see all that he has to say, not just snippets from a Catholic apologetics site.

I don’t think it’s necessarily hogwash (I am not contending that the people who wrote this were advocating a Catholic ecclesiology only that the Orthodox theologians in question saw a need to develop Orthodox ecclesiology):

(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

**“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” **(Schmemann, page 163-164)

bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

 

[patricius79]

Hogwash. Pick up Fr Meyendorff’s book The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church yourself and see all that he has to say, not just snippets from a Catholic apologetics site.
]

did you read the article? What was false about it? E.g.

“As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy.” (Afanassieff, page 92)

I would gladly read the book. I’ve been trying to order it through my library for months.

 

[patricius79]

So is your Pope my friend.

okay…

Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority

I agree that the Catholic Church is always discerning its doctrine. Which part of this article are you pointing to?

My position toward the Orthodox is pretty fair, I think. I want nothing more than fully unity with them (you)

 

[josephdaniel29]

did you read the article? What was false about it? E.g.

"As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Afanassieff, page 92)

I would gladly read the book. I’ve been trying to order it through my library for months.

You wrote.

these orthodox scholars like Meyendorf testify,e.g., that the Orthodox theory of Church government is not enough to refute the Catholic claims, and that the Orthodox are still in the process of discerning the role of the Papacy in the first millenium

Fr Meyendorff did not write that. You can’t make a statement like “Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff testify” based on the opinions of a single professor. That is one man’s opinion. There are many others.

In Christ
Joe

 

[patricius79]

You wrote.

Fr Meyendorff did not write that. You can’t make a statement like “Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff testify” based on the opinions of a single professor. That is one man’s opinion. There are many others.

In Christ
Joe

Fair enough. So you are saying that Meyedorff disagrees with him on this point?

What about Meyendorrf’s testiomony here:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

For example:

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (page 128f, 133)

 

[josephdaniel29]

Fair enough. So you are saying that Meyedorff disagrees with him on this point?

What about Meyendorrf’s testiomony here:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

For example:

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (page 128f, 133)

Of all that is true. No one disputes that. I think it’s important to understand that you can’t sum up Fr Meyendorff’s thinking in one or two parsed quotes. One thing that he makes absolutely clear is that the papacy as it is currently constituted is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. I know that you can find Orthodox thinkers who believe we have to re-evaluate our idea of primacy. What you are almost certainly not going to find are Orthodox who believe we have to accept the modern papacy. After all if they thought that why remain Orthodox?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What you are almost certainly not going to find are Orthodox who believe we have to accept the modern papacy. After all if they thought that why remain Orthodox?

What’s the diffrence between the modern papacy and the pre-modern papacy? ‘Pre-modern’ being 18th Century and before.

What it looks like you’re saying is the papacy is the only thing keeping us apart. Is that so?

 

[Contarini]

What’s the diffrence between the modern papacy and the pre-modern papacy? ‘Pre-modern’ being 18th Century and before.

How about you let the Orthodox tell you what they’re contrasting the “modern papacy” with?

The main difference between the “modern papacy” and the papacy of the first millennium (though you’re right that the 19th century was the point when the modern papacy was fully developed, with Vatican I), is that the papacy of the first millennium exercised authority collegially. Contemporary Popes (after Vatican II) pay lip-service to this, and to some extent genuinely try to restore it, but they have Vatican I and the whole trend of the past millennium against them. So in modern Catholicism collegiality is seen as something graciously conceded by the Pope rather than something intrinsic to the structure of the Church.

The view that in any conflict the group siding with the Pope is always orthodox makes collegiality impossible. In the first millennium you can find people using that language, just as you can find people speaking of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture (a point that Protestant apologists misinterpret using the same proof-texting methods that Catholics on this forum favor in the case of papal primacy). But when you look at the practice of the early Church as a whole, you see that in fact orthodox Christians stood up to Popes over and over again when they thought they were wrong. You find St. Maximus, the supposed defender of the Papacy, telling the imperial authorities that he will not submit to them even if the Papacy does. You find Irenaeus forcing Victor to back down regarding the Quartodecimans. You find Augustine saying “Rome has spoken, the case is settled” one minute, and then disagreeing with a later Pope who tried to reopen that very same case!

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

How about you let the Orthodox tell you what they’re contrasting the “modern papacy” with?

I think that’s what I asked him. It wasn’t a rhetorical question.

The main difference between the “modern papacy” and the papacy of the first millennium (though you’re right that the 19th century was the point when the modern papacy was fully developed, with Vatican I), is that the papacy of the first millennium exercised authority collegially.

The last ex cathedra dogmatic definitinon by a pope is the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Before declaring that dogma, the Pope wrote to all Catholic bishops in the world asking their opinion on the matter. The overwhelming consensus was that he should make the declaration and, on that ground, he did. That seems to me to be the definition of collegiality

Contemporary Popes (after Vatican II) pay lip-service to this, and to some extent genuinely try to restore it, but they have Vatican I and the whole trend of the past millennium against them. So in modern Catholicism collegiality is seen as something graciously conceded by the Pope rather than something intrinsic to the structure of the Church.

Since there have been no dogmatic declarations by any pope since 1950, could you show me your work?

From the inside, I can tell you modern popes are routinely ignored by the world’s bishops, none more so then the bishops of the United States. Five years ago Pope Benedict wrote to our bishops the told them in no uncertain terms, Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. We know how far that went. He has stressed the importance of receiving Communion on the tongue. Again no results. He has said homosexuals are not to be admitted to Seminarys, to marginal effect. I’d like to see the evidence for what you allege. I’d LOVE to see it! I’ve asked you several times to show me evidence of the alleged dictatorial powers of modern popes and you have yet to answer.

The view that in any conflict the group siding with the Pope is always orthodox makes collegiality impossible.

Begging the question.

In the first millennium you can find people using that language, just as you can find people speaking of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture (a point that Protestant apologists misinterpret using the same proof-texting methods that Catholics on this forum favor in the case of papal primacy). But when you look at the practice of the early Church as a whole, you see that in fact orthodox Christians stood up to Popes over and over again when they thought they were wrong. You find St. Maximus, the supposed defender of the Papacy, telling the imperial authorities that he will not submit to them even if the Papacy does. You find Irenaeus forcing Victor to back down regarding the Quartodecimans. You find Augustine saying “Rome has spoken, the case is settled” one minute, and then disagreeing with a later Pope who tried to reopen that very same case!

I think if a modern pope was clearly in error about a matter of doctrine, the bishops would not hesitate to tell him so. There’s no way to prove that, but your allegations are nothing but conjecture and an anti-pope bias. Your facts are correct, but other than that, your statements do not match reality.

 

[josie_L]

The view that in any conflict the group siding with the Pope is always orthodox makes collegiality impossible. In the first millennium you can find people using that language, just as you can find people speaking of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture (a point that Protestant apologists misinterpret using the same proof-texting methods that Catholics on this forum favor in the case of papal primacy). But when you look at the practice of the early Church as a whole, you see that in fact orthodox Christians stood up to Popes over and over again when they thought they were wrong. You find St. Maximus, the supposed defender of the Papacy, telling the imperial authorities that he will not submit to them even if the Papacy does. You find Irenaeus forcing Victor to back down regarding the Quartodecimans. You find Augustine saying “Rome has spoken, the case is settled” one minute, and then disagreeing with a later Pope who tried to reopen that very same case!

Edwin

Can you give a source for St. Maximus’s (a great defender of the papacy) comments because it seems pretty odd considering that he did defend Pope Honorius during the Monothelite heresy? As for Pope St.Victor who guarded the faith from the Quatrodeciman heresy (by initiating many councils to denouce it until at Constantinople I it was universally condemned), he was urged not forced by St. Irenaeus not to excommunicate the Asian Church. St. Augustine also had a high regard for the papacy, however, his disagreement with Pope St. Zosimus was on a superficial level in that the insincerity of Celestius and Pelagius led Pope St. Zosimus to believe (temporarily) that they were orthodox. This, of course, was later resolved by his eventual condemnation of said heretics, here is St. Augustine’s own words:

Here is St. Augustine’s account with regard to Celestius:

“When afterwards the awaited letters from Africa arrived in Rome…then when his presence was demanded, that by certain and clear answers it might be brought to light whether it was deceitful or orthodox, he absconded and refused the examination. Nor was that decision to be delayed any longer which might avail for the good of others, if not of their own obstancy and madness.” [37]

And of Pelagius he writes:

“He deceived the judgment of the Palestinians; therefore he was acquitted there. But the Church of Rome, where you know that he is well known, he could by no means deceive, although he tried his best; but, as I said, he could not succeed. For the Blessed Pope Zosimus called to mind what his predecessor, worthy of imitation, had thought of his acts. He attended likewise to the opinion felt by that Roman faith which is worthy of being proclaimed in the Lord (praedicanda in Domino Romanorum fides); he saw their common zeal inflamed in concord against his error on behalf of Catholic truth. Pelagius had long lived amongst them, and his doctrines could not be unknown; and they well enough knew Celestius to be his disciple, so as to be able to give a most fanciful and firm testimony to the fact.” [38]

Further on he speaks again of the manner in which Pelagius tried to deceive the “episcopal judgment of the Apostolic See” (ibid xvii. 19) :

"He seemed for a time to say what was in accord with the Catholic faith [viz. in his letter and libellus], but he was unable to deceive that See to the end. For after the rescripts of the African Council, into which province his pestilent doctrines had crept, but which it had not so widely pervaded, other writings of his were made public by the care of faithful brethren in the city of Rome, where he had lived a very long time, and had first been occupied with these conversations and disputes. These were attached by Pope Zosimus, to be anathematized, to his letters which he wrote to be carried throughout the Catholic world" (ibid xxi. 24).

bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

 

[steve_b]

How about you let the Orthodox tell you what they’re contrasting the “modern papacy” with?

The main difference between the “modern papacy” and the papacy of the first millennium (though you’re right that the 19th century was the point when the modern papacy was fully developed, with Vatican I), is that the papacy of the first millennium exercised authority collegially. Contemporary Popes (after Vatican II) pay lip-service to this, and to some extent genuinely try to restore it, but they have Vatican I and the whole trend of the past millennium against them. So in modern Catholicism collegiality is seen as something graciously conceded by the Pope rather than something intrinsic to the structure of the Church.

And the example(s) of this is where? You know someone is going to ask you for that, right? If I made such a statement against someone else’s faith, I wouldn’t make the statement without giving the example right away BEFORE someone asked me to give it.
C:

The view that in any conflict the group siding with the Pope is always orthodox makes collegiality impossible. In the first millennium you can find people using that language, just as you can find people speaking of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture (a point that Protestant apologists misinterpret using the same proof-texting methods that Catholics on this forum favor in the case of papal primacy). But when you look at the practice of the early Church as a whole, you see that in fact orthodox Christians stood up to Popes over and over again when they thought they were wrong. You find St. Maximus, the supposed defender of the Papacy, telling the imperial authorities that he will not submit to them even if the Papacy does. You find Irenaeus forcing Victor to back down regarding the Quartodecimans.

I know 500+ posts ago is a long time, and lots of water has gone under the bridge since then, but I gave you the following answer back on post #106 regarding Quartodecimans?

St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.

Things don’t seem quite as you state them then or now… What would I find regarding your Maximus comment?
C:

You find Augustine saying “Rome has spoken, the case is settled” one minute, and then disagreeing with a later Pope who tried to reopen that very same case!

Edwin

And what is the context of THAT comment?

 

[patricius79]

Of all that is true. No one disputes that. I think it’s important to understand that you can’t sum up Fr Meyendorff’s thinking in one or two parsed quotes. One thing that he makes absolutely clear is that the papacy as it is currently constituted is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. I know that you can find Orthodox thinkers who believe we have to re-evaluate our idea of primacy. What you are almost certainly not going to find are Orthodox who believe we have to accept the modern papacy. After all if they thought that why remain Orthodox?

In Christ
Joe

I agree. But I don’t understand what the basis is for being oout of full Communion with the Successor of Peter

Doesn’t Scheman say that the Orthodox have yet to make a truly Orthodox evaluation of the Papacy in the first millenium?

 

[josephdaniel29]

I agree. But I don’t understand what the basis is for being oout of full Communion with the Successor of Peter

Doesn’t Scheman say that the Orthodox have yet to make a truly Orthodox evaluation of the Papacy in the first millenium?

I think you are misreading what these Orthodox thinkers are saying. Re-evaluating the primacy of Rome doesn’t mean we are going to accept the understanding of the modern Catholic Church. Pope Benedict himself said the same thing while he was still cardinal.

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

**And **

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.

Further

Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

We will never accept the later developments of the Roman Church, such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as dogmatic. The Church of the first millennium did not see them as such and as Cardinal Ratzinger says it can’t be required of us to accept them now.

There were definitely different expressions of the faith in the fist millennium. Perhaps we could accept the form the modern Catholic Church has taken as a legitimate expression as well. That being said Catholics would have to accept our expression as being legitimate and that means not imposing your ideas of Papal Infallibility and supremacy upon us.

In Christ
Joe

 

[patricius79]

woops. I accidentally re-posted. sorry. joseph daniel I’m reading your post and will respond later

 

[patricius79]

I think you are misreading what these Orthodox thinkers are saying. Re-evaluating the primacy of Rome doesn’t mean we are going to accept the understanding of the modern Catholic Church. Pope Benedict himself said the same thing while he was still cardinal.

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

**And **

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.

Further

Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

We will never accept the later developments of the Roman Church, such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as dogmatic. The Church of the first millennium did not see them as such and as Cardinal Ratzinger says it can’t be required of us to accept them now.

There were definitely different expressions of the faith in the fist millennium. Perhaps we could accept the form the modern Catholic Church has taken as a legitimate expression as well. That being said Catholics would have to accept our expression as being legitimate and that means not imposing your ideas of Papal Infallibility and supremacy upon us.

In Christ
Joe

Thanks for your post.

I feel like I am still discerning the proposal of Ratzinger. at present, I feel okay with this form of reconciliation and perhaps I will feel great about it some day. in any case, I would submit to the Papacy in this matter anyway. as long as both sides are able to honestly saythat the position of the other side is not heretical, however much one might prefer a different expression

 

[Contarini]

The last ex cathedra dogmatic definitinon by a pope is the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Before declaring that dogma, the Pope wrote to all Catholic bishops in the world asking their opinion on the matter. The overwhelming consensus was that he should make the declaration and, on that ground, he did. That seems to me to be the definition of collegiality

And you’re making my point for me. You agree, don’t you, that according to Vatican I the Pope didn’t have to do this? He could quite validly have just defined the dogma without asking anyone. You consider “collegiality” a gracious choice by the Pope. The Pope chose to consult with the bishops, even though strictly speaking it was superfluous. That’s exactly what I said.

Since there have been no dogmatic declarations by any pope since 1950, could you show me your work?

I’m not talking only about dogmatic declarations. That’s a dodge that your apologists use all the time–when papal authority is challenged you fall back on the rarity of dogmatic declarations. I really don’t care as much about the “infallibility” issue per se–I care about the way papal authority is envisaged. If papal authority at all its levels was understood collegially, infallibility would cease to be a problem.

But in fact, your claim that the dogmatic definition of the Assumption was collegial has proved my point, as I said above.

The point that I’ve been making is that if, when the chips are down, Rome is always on the right side, then any arbitrary act exercised by the Pope would be valid. If Rome chose never to consult with the bishops, then there would be no recourse. If Rome chose to force the Eastern bishops to Latinize, for instance, they would have to Latinize or go into schism, wouldn’t they? We can all agree that this would be deplorable, and that the Pope is highly unlikely ever to do this. But there is nothing in the Church’s teaching that says the pope won’t.

From the inside, I can tell you modern popes are routinely ignored by the world’s bishops, none more so then the bishops of the United States.

Of course, and if I’m right that’s exactly what you would expect. As I said, Popes have been trying to exercise collegiality. But when you set up the Church along centralized, authoritarian lines, one effect is that people don’t listen to any exercise of primacy that isn’t authoritarian (unless, of course, they already want to).

Five years ago Pope Benedict wrote to our bishops the told them in no uncertain terms, Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Could I have a citation for the document in question, please?

We know how far that went. He has stressed the importance of receiving Communion on the tongue. Again no results. He has said homosexuals are not to be admitted to Seminarys, to marginal effect. I’d like to see the evidence for what you allege. I’d LOVE to see it! I’ve asked you several times to show me evidence of the alleged dictatorial powers of modern popes and you have yet to answer.

I have frequently said that I’m not talking about how popes behave. I’m talking about how their powers are defined. Collegiality is seen as a gracious choice by the popes–and indeed they are criticized by many conservatives for acting in a relatively restrained fashion.

Does the Pope have the right to command that everyone should receive communion on the tongue?
Is that because communion in the hand is intrinsically heretical?
If it isn’t, and yet the Pope has the right to tell local bishops how to do it, then my point stands. The Pope has dictatorial powers, whether he uses them dictatorially or not.
If the Pope has the right and chooses not to exercise it, then again, my point stands: the Pope exercises collegiality as a gracious concession and not because his authority is essentially collegial.

Only if collegiality is an essential part of the Pope’s primatial authority am I wrong. And like you, I’d be happy to be shown wrong. You would like the Pope to have dictatorial powers–I wish the Papacy was indeed of the same character as the first-millennium papacy.

Begging the question.

No, just a statement about what I mean by “collegiality,” as I see it exercised in the first millennium. Collegiality, to be meaningful, must be such that if the Pope were to act non-collegially he would be the one going into schism.

If the Pope cannot be a schismatic, then collegiality is a not an essential characteristic of papal primacy, but just an estimable quality that Popes should cultivate.

 

[Contarini]

I think if a modern pope was clearly in error about a matter of doctrine, the bishops would not hesitate to tell him so. There’s no way to prove that.

True. But we can at least try to clarify the issue. I assume that you consider this a real possibility–in other words, you aren’t talking about an error when speaking ex-cathedra, but about an error in his fallible teaching, right?

So are you saying that the Pope can fall into error of certain kinds, but that no modern pope has done so? Really? No modern Pope has erred in his fallible teaching?

Suppose that a Pope were to do this. And suppose that a bishop were to disagree with him. And suppose that the Pope were to excommunicate and depose that bishop, and the bishop were to continue exercising his ministry anyway. Who would be guilty of schism, the Pope or the bishop?

If you say “the bishop,” then again, my criticisms stand. If you say “the Pope,” then I’m pleased and surprised, and would like to understand your position better, because it’s a lot more hopeful than I thought!

An example in my own Communion. Katherine Jefferts-Schori and the leadership of my denomination generally have deposed four Episcopal bishops. I consider those depositions to be schismatic acts. If I were to move to or visit Pittsburgh or San Joaquin or Quincy or Fort Worth, I would consider those bishops to be the true Anglican bishops and would worship with their congregations rather than those part of the Episcopal Church.

If you think that this is something that couldn’t happen in the Catholic Church, consider the Meletian schism at Antioch in the fourth century. Basil the Great supported Meletius, and the Pope supported Paulinus. In the end Rome accepted Meletius. Before Rome did this, were the Meletians schismatics? The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to think not. (Note: I’m aware that the Meletian schism is very different from the Episcopal example inasmuch as in our case the leaders of our denomination are themselves on what we both agree is the less orthodox side! In the case of the Meletian schism, the problem was that there were doubts about Meletius’s orthodoxy, although everyone now seems to agree that these doubts were mistaken.)

Edwin

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks for your post.

I feel like I am still discerning the proposal of Ratzinger. at present, I feel okay with this form of reconciliation and perhaps I will feel great about it some day. in any case, I would submit to the Papacy in this matter anyway. as long as both sides are able to honestly saythat the position of the other side is not heretical, however much one might prefer a different expression

In my opinion the Ratzinger Proposal is the only course of action that has even the tiniest prayer of success. It requires both Churches to step back from their positions. I don’t know how likely it is that the Orthodox would ever stop regarding the second millennium developments as heretical but the course for the Catholic Church is much more difficult. The reason is it requires the Church to stop regarding as binding on all the faithful some of the basic (although later) dogmas of Catholicism. Since we haven’t formally defined any dogmas in the second millennium we don’t have that same issue.

In Christ
Joe