Orthodoxy, Papacy

[rinnie]

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

Oh Edwin on you still hung up on this. We have told you time after time th Pope can exercise his opinion and state what he thinks. We are not bound to that. But when he speaks with the Power of the Holy Spirit it comes straight from God. There is no question.

The Catechism underlines what the gospels have already highlighted that Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the twelve and that Jesus entrusted him with this mission. It is on Peter that Jesus build his Church and it is Peter who holds the keys to the kingdom. You either accept this or you don’t. Its really simple.Until Jesus comes back and takes the keys they are the Popes.

 

[Contarini]

Oh Edwin on you still hung up on this. We have told you time after time th Pope can exercise his opinion and state what he thinks. We are not bound to that.

But what if the Pope *acts *on the basis of this? If the Pope excommunicates a bishop, is that bishop cut off from the Church? Yes or no?

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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? … 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.

Yes, the pope has powers independent of the bishops. That is evinced by a similar scenario with an opposite result with Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI consulted the bishops for their opinion and the majority said artificial contraception should be allowed. The Pope wrote the encyclical anyway.

I don’t think I’m making your point and didn’t say collegiality is a gracious choice. It’s common practice, which may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s relevant. Your point is academic and omits the Holy Spirit, who is the guide in all these kinds of things. His will be done whether the pope consults the bishops or not.

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.

If you don’t understand the difference, you don’t understand the doctrine. ‘My’ apologists use it because it’s a very important distinction. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, it’s the Holy Spirit speaking. When he isn’t, it’s him speaking. That you don’t think it’s an important distinction may be one reason you’re not Catholic.

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.

That makes no sense. How can you separate papal authority from papal infallibility? Papal authority is practiced the way it’s envisioned. ‘Collegiality’ is a lay term which the bishops use for lack of a better word. Clericalism in the pristhood is club where collegiality is mandatory. The business of the Church, which is the business of preaching the Gospel and saving souls, is a different matter.

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

As I said above, I disagree.

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.

Hypotheticals and conjecture are not helpful for me in this discussion. You have a Protestant view of the papacy which colors all your ideas on the subject. I just don’t see it as you do.

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).

Jesus Christ set up the Church along centralized, authoritarian lines and it doesn’t matter whether people listen. The authority is in place and will remain in place, even to the authority to alter the lines if God so wishes.

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

This is about my remark the Pope told US bishops not to admit Catholic abortion mongers to Communion. It was in a letter to Cardinal McCarrick when he was Archbishop of Washington, DC. I don’ t know where to look for it. You can take my word for it or not.

I have frequently said that I’m not talking about how popes behave. I’m talking about how their powers are defined.

“I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heavenm, etc.” That’s how the pope’s powers are defined. You can call collegiality a gracious choice if you wish. I don’t think you can do any damage with it.

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.

Communion in the hand is a sacrilege decreed by Vatican II. The Pope can’t do anything about it. He could if he had the dictatorial powers you suppose him to have, but he doesn’t.

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.

Let me just say, yes, I’d like the pope to have dictatorial powers. He could then repair the Church in a year. As it is, it’s going to take a century.

Nothing is as it was in the first millennium.nor should it be.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, the pope has powers independent of the bishops.

Right. That’s where I (and the Orthodox) think your Communion has gone astray. That’s why the claim that Protestants make each believer his or her own Pope is so telling. Protestants (at least the more radical ones) claim the same independence and autonomy for individual believers that ultramontane Western Catholics claim for the Pope. But according to the ancient Tradition of the Catholic Church, no one–not you, not I, not Patriarch Bartholomew, and not Pope Benedict–has that kind of independence and autonomy over against other believers.

I don’t think I’m making your point and didn’t say collegiality is a gracious choice. It’s common practice, which may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s relevant.

Explain how? I think I’m saying the same thing. If it’s a practice that the Pope chooses to engage in, when he could in fact short-circuit it, then my point stands.

Your point is academic and omits the Holy Spirit, who is the guide in all these kinds of things. His will be done whether the pope consults the bishops or not.

I agree. I trust the Holy Spirit more radically than you do. I think the Holy Spirit’s will will be done whether the Pope has anything to do with it or not

It’s a bit ironic that you should accuse me of “omitting the Holy Spirit,” when the Catholic critique of the Orthodox does exactly that. Over and over again Catholics demand to know just how the Orthodox determine that a Council is Ecumenical, and when the Orthodox say, “through the work of the Holy Spirit,” Catholics scoff.

You create a juridical structure in which everything depends on the Pope, and justify this because otherwise you say certain problems will follow. When we point out the problems that follow from that structure, you accuse us of omitting the Holy Spirit

It’s like Calvinists, who push the doctrine of predestination to reprehensible extremes in the name of logical coherence, and then leave us hanging over the abyss of a tyrannical God in the name of mystery. . . . .

If you don’t understand the difference, you don’t understand the doctrine.

I do understand the difference–I just don’t find it terribly significant.

‘My’ apologists use it because it’s a very important distinction. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, it’s the Holy Spirit speaking.

And the rest of the time the Holy Spirit is silent?

Also, I thought that even ex cathedra statements have only “negative” infallibility and are not inspired in the way Scripture is inspired. Is your position different from this? It appears to be.

When he isn’t, it’s him speaking. That you don’t think it’s an important distinction may be one reason you’re not Catholic.

Yes. If to be Catholic you have to think that the Holy Spirit only speaks on the rare occasions when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then I will never be Catholic

That makes no sense. How can you separate papal authority from papal infallibility?

I’m saying that papal authority is a broader issue. Papal infallibility takes the form it does because of the prior commitment to a monarchical vision of the papacy. That’s the root problem. Deal with that, and any papal infallibility that makes sense in the light of a truly orthodox doctrine of papal authority will be fine. (That’s my response to those patristic texts that say things like, “The See of Rome will nevere err.”)

Papal authority is practiced the way it’s envisioned. ‘Collegiality’ is a lay term which the bishops use for lack of a better word. Clericalism in the pristhood is club where collegiality is mandatory. The business of the Church, which is the business of preaching the Gospel and saving souls, is a different matter.

I’m not sure that I quite understand you, but if you think that collegiality has nothing to do with the business of the Church, then your understanding of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. Again, this isn’t development, it’s mutation.

Jesus Christ set up the Church along centralized, authoritarian lines

I don’t see anything of the sort. In fact, Jesus told the Apostles that they were absolutely *not *to model their authority on the Gentile nations. From your perspective, this is reduced to an anodyne injunction to be kind and gentle. But what if it’s more than that? The Orthodox certainly think so. What if authority in the Church is the sort of thing that can only be legitimately exercised if we reject the assumptions about authority common in the Roman Empire and the Hellenistic kingdoms?

Let me just say, yes, I’d like the pope to have dictatorial powers. He could then repair the Church in a year. As it is, it’s going to take a century.

Well, there we are. Your view of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. You can delude yourself into thinking you are a traditional Christian, but you clearly aren’t.

Nothing is as it was in the first millennium.nor should it be.

So your faith really isn’t based on the Church’s Tradition, but just on the decisions of the Pope?

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

But what if the Pope *acts *on the basis of this? If the Pope excommunicates a bishop, is that bishop cut off from the Church? Yes or no?

Edwin

Yes! And its written in the bible Edwin. When Jesus gave him and him only the keys to the kingdom he had the power to bind and loose. Whatever he bounds in this world us bound in heaven also.

God chose him Edwin to be the leader of all. What do you think it would be like if all of the Bishops had the same exact authority. How would it be possible to ever come to an agreement if the vote was say six to six Edwin. What would you suggest drawing straws???

 

[Contarini]

If it’s not an ideal source than you should not have mentioned it as if it were, i.e., mentioning what you did without validating it first.

You’re right. (Of course, it’s a bit ironic of you to call me out on that one, given your persistent use of collections of out-of-context quotations compiled by Catholic apologists. But I should hold myself to a higher standard.)

Also, in a post I wrote directed to you (which you must have missed), I gave you a website where you could access Migne or the Fathers here: catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

All I see there are snippets, chosen to advance an apologetics agenda.

Why would he want to claim Honorius was orthodox, i.e., it’s not like papal infallibility had been defined at this point?

Maximus seems to have believed that Rome could be counted on to defend the orthodox position. You can call that papal infallibility or not as you like. It wasn’t the same as the position defined at Vatican I, which explicitly rejected the consensus of the Church as the basis for papal authority. Maximus, on the other hand, believed that the Pope expressed the Catholic consensus–just as Irenaeus did back in the second century.

Irenaeus didn’t bellieve in the Quatrodeciman practice either,

What does it mean to “believe in” a practice? He didn’t follow it. He doesn’t seem to have thought it was ideal. But he clearly defended it as a legitimate ancient tradition.

however, Pope Victor had the perspicacity to realize it was a heretical practice.

So you’re saying that the Pope was right?

Well, I suppose that’s one way of looking at it:shrug:

I’m sorry you’re going to have to delineate here because I’m not sure what you’re refering to, i.e., the Quartodeciman practice which was denouced at Constantinople I was I believe no different than the one in the 2nd century.

You may be right, but given the bare mention we can’t be sure. My guess would be that the folks spoken of at I Constantinople were those who rejected the consensus of the Church at 1 Nicea and went into schism. But I’d like to know more about it.

The fact that Quartodecimans do not exist any longer should be reason enough to believe that their practice was regarded as heretical

Not at all. There’s a strong push toward uniformity throughout the history of the Church.

Irenaues cites Pope Anicetus behaviour towards the Quartodecimans because he wished to convey to Pope St. Victor the need to avoid excommunication, i.e., he was hoping that Pope St. Victor would use other means (less severe than excommunication) by which to eliminate the Quartodeciman practice.

You’re reading that into what Irenaeus says, because your presuppositions require you to do so. He doesn’t say anything about eliminating the practice.

I think it was you who used the word “forced”,

You know, I think you’re right. I apologize. I should not have used that word.

and if he rebuked Victor it would be for the reasons mentioned above.

Those are the only reasons that your presuppositions allow you to accept. They are not the reasons suggested by the actual evidence.

Perhaps you didn’t read my article but they did in fact deceive Pope St. Zosimus.

The article does not prove this. It proves that Augustine says this. I can’t see that it provides evidence that they actually deceived anyone.

Both here and in the Monothelite case you are too quick to assume that the orthodox characterization of heretics is entirely trustworthy. (Hence, you assume that the Eastern Monothelites lacked the estimable and orthodox intentions that clearly motivated Honorius.) It’s much wiser to assume the opposite. We can assent to the judgment of the ancient Church on the ideas without naively trusting their judgment on the motives of the people involved. Early Christians routinely assumed that heretics were deceitful people, and they put the worst possible construction on their actions. I regard all such claims with extreme skepticism. Any church historian worth his salt (and not compelled to do otherwise by a misguided reverence for the Fathers) would do the same.

First, St. Cyprian did believe in the Roman primacy, second, his decision to rebaptize heretics (who were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form with water) was erroneous as Pope St. Stephen states when he refused to confirm the conciliar decision of the council of Carthage in 256 (which is what led to the altercation between St. Cyprian and the pope). Not to belabour the point much but Pope St. Stephen was safeguarding Tradition from innovations.

It’s not entirely clear who was innovating, but I agree that Pope St. Stephen was right.

Nevertheless, Edwin, it seems you think that every instance of defiance somehow means a denial of the Pope’s authority (or at least seems to put in question their authority), and I have to wonder about this because it’s quite clear from Scripture that even St. Paul, an apostle, had his authority questioned (heck he even exhorts St. Timothy that his authority would be questioned but to hold firm nevertheless).

No, but when you find orthodox Fathers who express belief in papal authority routinely turning around and standing up to Popes when they thought it necessary, you have to conclude that they understood papal authority as subordinate to the authority of the whole Church and the ancient Tradition, and that their expressions of belief in papal authority must be read as conditional.

Vatican I said that the Pope has immediate, ordinary jurisdiction over all Christians. You don’t find this in the Fathers.

Vatican I taught that papal authority is not subordinate to the authority of the Church as a whole. That’s alien to the mind of the Fathers.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Edwin if you use common sense for a second you will have to agree with me. There can only be one in authority on every sense.

When you have a business one must have the final say.

Jesus knew that he would have to have ONE who would be the decision maker. If not think about it why did he not choose 13. You seem to have the role of the Bishops backwards. Their job is to help the Pope. They all come into agreement on thing’s of course they do. That is how Jesus set it up. But when push comes to shove the Pope is the Chief. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians and the Tribe go’s Boom!!

Like I told you before Edwin go back to the O.T. Look at the Keys to the kingdom. See what that means. There you will get your answer.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin if you use common sense for a second you will have to agree with me. There can only be one in authority on every sense.

1. My common sense doesn’t tell me that. Sorry, but you have to appeal to something else. Maybe I have no common sense
2. Jesus seems to be telling the Apostles that they are going to exercise authority in a radically new way. I don’t see that in the history of Catholicism. I see an increasing assimilation of the Papacy to the Roman imperial model of authority.

Mind you, Constantinople fell into the opposite error, by submitting outright to the Roman emperors! I used to think that this error was worse, and in a way it is, but it’s also not written into Orthodox dogma in the way that the Roman error is written into your dogma. I may be wrong on this–I’m still trying to figure it out. It seems to me that there were Patriarchs who did stand up to the emperors, and it seems today that many Orthodox see the historical relations between their church and the state to have been a baleful influence on Orthodoxy. (Of course, other Orthodox–such as many of the leaders of the ROC–don’t!)

I’m not disputing that there are structures of leadership in the Church. And I have said over and over that I believe in Roman primacy.

But as a matter of fact most human structures of authority today do not give absolute control to one leader–those that do are generally regarded as dysfunctional. That of course doesn’t prove anything in itself–maybe modern democratic society is disordered! But your “common sense” argument doesn’t work in the light of that.

Jesus seems to be saying at the very least that the Church should have a less dictatorial form of authority than secular regimes. Yet today the Catholic Church is one of the most authoritarian institutions (probably the most authoritarian institution with any significance and global influence) on earth. Something seems to be wrong somewhere. . . . .

Edwin

 

[patricius79]

I can’t believe that we are in Communion with Monophysites. that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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?

Of course. There can be no error in his infallible teaching.

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?

The closest I can come to that is Pope Paul VI signing off on Vatican II even though he knew ‘the smoke of Satan’ had entered the Church there. He had grave misgivings about the doctrines of the Council and signed off reluctantly because the bishops has approved it overwhelmingly. Whether we can call that a fallible teaching is debateable. The only other thing I can think of is Pope Benedict XVI telling German Protestants Luther was right in his ‘faith alone’ heresy. The Pope added, ‘provided he doesn’t exclude charity.’ which, of course, he did. What the Pope said wasn’t error. The error was bringing it up in the first place. It was an excess of ecumenical zeal.

Can’t think of anything else. Can you?

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?

Just the kind of hypothetical I prefer to stay away from primarily because I’m not qualified to answer. If you want an uneducated opinion, a bishop is vowed to obey the pope. The scenario you describe would be a violation of the vow and the bishop could be bumped on that ground without ever getting to the doctrinal grounds. Further, if the pope removed the bishop’s faculties, all the bishops liturgical acts would be invalid and 'continu[ing] to exercise his ministry] would be moot.

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!

LOL. I’m a lay Catholic and try to stay away from opinions where heavy-duty theology is involved. Unless, of course, I have a handle on the subject. This one is way past me.

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.

That’s what I’d expect from you. Those bishops were on their way out the door anyway, so Shori’s little ‘let’s play pope’ act was a true laugher.

If you think that this is something that couldn’t happen in the Catholic Church, consider the Meletian schismat Antioch in the fourth century.

I think comparing the Church in its infancy to the Church today is a wasted exercise. It’s apples and oranges. Heresies were rampant then and sound doctrine had yet to be articulated. I think each era has to be judged according to its time and circumstance.

I’m certain it can’t happen in the Catholic Church today. The Church has been through worse times than ours and survived. The Lord will not leave us orphans. He will be with us always until the end of the world.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Right. That’s where I (and the Orthodox) think your Communion has gone astray. …

I think you have forgotten the significance of the keys. In the culture of the time the keeper of the keys was a significant figure. He was the master’s chief employee. He had absolute, unassailable authority over all the master’s slaves, his possessions and his lands. When the master was away, the keeper of the keys was the master. The Lord assigned the figure of the keeper of the keys to Peter, and to Peter only, for a reason. If He didn’t intend that Peter and his successors have absolute, unassailable authority over His house, he would not have used the comparison. Any other interpretation is a fabrication that can find no support in Scripture. That the popes don’t use that power to lord it over the Church simply follows the Lord’s instructions.

That said, I – and others – have repeatedly asked you for examples of the dictatorial power of popes and you have nothing to say except to continue the accusation. It’s getting old, Edwin.

Explain how? I think I’m saying the same thing. If it’s a practice that the Pope chooses to engage in, when he could in fact short-circuit it, then my point stands.

Your point doesn’t stand because you misunderstand papal authority and infallibility. You’re a Protestant. It’s a serious handicap.

I agree. I trust the Holy Spirit more radically than you do. I think the Holy Spirit’s will will be done whether the Pope has anything to do with it or not

You don’t talk like you do. You talk like you believe the opposite. You talk as if the popes are acting in defiance of the Holy Spirit.

It’s a bit ironic that you should accuse me of “omitting the Holy Spirit,” when the Catholic critique of the Orthodox does exactly that. Over and over again Catholics demand to know just how the Orthodox determine that a Council is Ecumenical, and when the Orthodox say, “through the work of the Holy Spirit,” Catholics scoff.

It’s not ironic at all if that’s what you’re doing.

As for the Orthodox, their line is risible. “Through the work of the Holy Spirit.” How do you know that? “We just do.” C’mon, Edwin. You’re smarter than that. Your problem is you have no objectivity. Depending on the Lord’s promise to send the Spirit to guide the Church to the truth isn’t the same thing as using it to declare a council ecumenical. That promise was never made. The Orthodox say what they say because they have no criteria for an EC, they haven’t had one in centuries and they need to keep the definition ambiguous so they can deny Catholic councils are ecumenical. It’s a farce.

You create a juridical structure in which everything depends on the Pope, and justify this because otherwise you say certain problems will follow. When we point out the problems that follow from that structure, you accuse us of omitting the Holy Spirit

No, Edwin, it’s you who create the structure you describe. It’s you who ascribe dictatorial powers to the pope without ever, in spite of your hypotheticals, which are fantacies, giving an example. I don’t recall your pointing out ‘the problems.’ Your lack of specificity is remarkable, actually.

It’s like Calvinists, who push the doctrine of predestination to reprehensible extremes in the name of logical coherence, and then leave us hanging over the abyss of a tyrannical God in the name of mystery. . . . .

Time for a nap, Edwin. Go lie down and shut your eyes.

I do understand the difference–I just don’t find it terribly significant.

And the rest of the time the Holy Spirit is silent?

Also, I thought that even ex cathedra statements have only “negative” infallibility and are not inspired in the way Scripture is inspired. Is your position different from this? It appears to be.

Yes. If to be Catholic you have to think that the Holy Spirit only speaks on the rare occasions when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then I will never be Catholic

I’m saying that papal authority is a broader issue. Papal infallibility takes the form it does because of the prior commitment to a monarchical vision of the papacy. That’s the root problem. Deal with that, and any papal infallibility that makes sense in the light of a truly orthodox doctrine of papal authority will be fine. (That’s my response to those patristic texts that say things like, “The See of Rome will nevere err.”)

I’m not sure that I quite understand you, but if you think that collegiality has nothing to do with the business of the Church, then your understanding of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. Again, this isn’t development, it’s mutation.

I don’t see anything of the sort. In fact, Jesus told the Apostles that they were absolutely *not *to model their authority on the Gentile nations. From your perspective, this is reduced to an anodyne injunction to be kind and gentle. But what if it’s more than that? The Orthodox certainly think so. What if authority in the Church is the sort of thing that can only be legitimately exercised if we reject the assumptions about authority common in the Roman Empire and the Hellenistic kingdoms?

Well, there we are. Your view of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. You can delude yourself into thinking you are a traditional Christian, but you clearly aren’t.

So your faith really isn’t based on the Church’s Tradition, but just on the decisions of the Pope?

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Edwin you keep saying as you did in your last post about Tradition and authority of the Pope. I don’t get it. How can you say its either or? If that’s what you are saying or is it my bad

What would be more of accepting Tradition if you are meaning Sacred Tradition then accepting the authority given to Peter by Christ with the keys to the kingdom

That is Tradition. Because that’s the way the Good Lord set it up. It was never the RCC. The RCC are just keeping with Tradition with You are Peter…

Maybe common sense is what you are lacking But seriously Edwin your Education does show in your posts. And most people who are educated to some degree do have a harder time seeing the forest for the trees.

While I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, the Pope being the Leader of the Church that Jesus build on him is pretty simple. Maybe its extra Grace from God, maybe its my Dad (He was the sharpest knife in the drawer) but forgive me for saying this. No disrespect. I just don’t get it. What don’t you see?

The Pope got the keys to the kingdom. Its written, Pope, Papa, Peter, Rock, I mean you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Now do you just disagree that the Pope has them now? Or are you saying Peter never had them?

To me it is plain as day that the Pope has them, has always had them, and will always have them. The devil will never win. The RCC will go through hell, Jesus told us that. But he promised us that hell would never prevail. And it never has. No matter what the RCC is the most persecuted Church in the world and always has been, and always will be. But it will survive the way God said it would!

 

[rinnie]

I think you have forgotten the significance of the keys. In the culture of the time the keeper of the keys was a significant figure. He was the master’s chief employee. He had absolute, unassailable authority over all the master’s slaves, his possessions and his lands. When the master was away, the keeper of the keys was the master. The Lord assigned the figure of the keeper of the keys to Peter, and to Peter only, for a reason. If He didn’t intend that Peter and his successors have absolute, unassailable authority over His house, he would not have used the comparison. Any other interpretation is a fabrication that can find no support in Scripture. That the popes don’t use that power to lord it over the Church simply follows the Lord’s instructions.

That said, I – and others – have repeatedly asked you for examples of the dictatorial power of popes and you have nothing to say except to continue the accusation. It’s getting old, Edwin.

Your point doesn’t stand because you misunderstand papal authority and infallibility. You’re a Protestant. It’s a serious handicap.

You don’t talk like you do. You talk like you believe the opposite. You talk as if the popes are acting in defiance of the Holy Spirit.

It’s not ironic at all if that’s what you’re doing.

As for the Orthodox, their line is risible. “Through the work of the Holy Spirit.” How do you know that? “We just do.” C’mon, Edwin. You’re smarter than that. Your problem is you have no objectivity. Depending on the Lord’s promise to send the Spirit to guide the Church to the truth isn’t the same thing as using it to declare a council ecumenical. That promise was never made. The Orthodox say what they say because they have no criteria for an EC, they haven’t had one in centuries and they need to keep the definition ambiguous so they can deny Catholic councils are ecumenical. It’s a farce.

No, Edwin, it’s you who create the structure you describe. It’s you who ascribe dictatorial powers to the pope without ever, in spite of your hypotheticals, which are fantacies, giving an example. I don’t recall your pointing out ‘the problems.’ Your lack of specificity is remarkable, actually.

Time for a nap, Edwin. Go lie down and shut your eyes.

I do understand the difference–I just don’t find it terribly significant.

And the rest of the time the Holy Spirit is silent?

Also, I thought that even ex cathedra statements have only “negative” infallibility and are not inspired in the way Scripture is inspired. Is your position different from this? It appears to be.

Yes. If to be Catholic you have to think that the Holy Spirit only speaks on the rare occasions when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then I will never be Catholic

I’m saying that papal authority is a broader issue. Papal infallibility takes the form it does because of the prior commitment to a monarchical vision of the papacy. That’s the root problem. Deal with that, and any papal infallibility that makes sense in the light of a truly orthodox doctrine of papal authority will be fine. (That’s my response to those patristic texts that say things like, “The See of Rome will nevere err.”)

I’m not sure that I quite understand you, but if you think that collegiality has nothing to do with the business of the Church, then your understanding of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. Again, this isn’t development, it’s mutation.

I don’t see anything of the sort. In fact, Jesus told the Apostles that they were absolutely *not *to model their authority on the Gentile nations. From your perspective, this is reduced to an anodyne injunction to be kind and gentle. But what if it’s more than that? The Orthodox certainly think so. What if authority in the Church is the sort of thing that can only be legitimately exercised if we reject the assumptions about authority common in the Roman Empire and the Hellenistic kingdoms?

Well, there we are. Your view of the Church is radically different from that of the Fathers. You can delude yourself into thinking you are a traditional Christian, but you clearly aren’t.

So your faith really isn’t based on the Church’s Tradition, but just on the decisions of the Pope?

Edwin

Exactly and who would know more about O.T Scripture then the Jews. And they knew exactly what the keys to the kingdom meant. That is why Peter was the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister is what they called the Pope in that day.

 

[rinnie]

Edwin, I also agree, Time to take a little nappie pooh! Catch ya on Mon!!

Have a great weekend all!!

 

[josie_L]

But what if the Pope acts on the basis of this? If the Pope excommunicates a bishop, is that bishop cut off from the Church? Yes or no?

Edwin

A pope cannot act on an opinion when excommunicating a bishop, i.e., he too is bound by the constitution of the Church (canon law. . . etc.).

Note: Here are some canons from the Council of Sardica which delineate in part the manner in which the pope could excommunicate:

Canon 3

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

Canon 4

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that— when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Canon 5

Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.

 

[josie_L]

I can’t believe that we are in Communion with Monophysites. that doesn’t make sense.

We are not in communion with Monophysites (John VIII is a Catholic who used to be Oriental Orthodox, i.e., Miaphysite).

 

[Contarini]

Edwin you keep saying as you did in your last post about Tradition and authority of the Pope. I don’t get it. How can you say its either or? If that’s what you are saying or is it my bad

Pius IX supposedly said, “I am the Tradition.”

I don’t think that Papacy and Tradition are necessarily either/or. But I think that given the way your Communion has exalted the Papacy, you have come to identify whatever the Pope says as the Tradition.

Of course Pope and Tradition don’t necessarily conflict. But neither do they necessarily coincide. As long as the Popes functioned as the guardians of the Tradition, they deserved all the praises that you find heaped on them in the passages carefully selected and presented out of context by Catholic apologists. But when they set themselves up above the Tradition–which they did in the eleventh century and cemented with a dogmatic definition in 1870–they ceased to function properly. I do not believe–as the Orthodox do–that the Papacy has thus ceased to function in any legitimate way. I recognize Papal primacy, and I recognize that the contemporary Popes do great work in defending historic Christianity. That’s one of the reasons I’ve tried to swallow the distortions and dysfunctions of the past 1000 years. Because I’m convinced that we–Christians generally–need the Papacy, and there will never be a substitute for it. But the Papacy can only properly fulfill its role when the Papacy submits itself to be once again a servant of the Church rather than the Church’s master.

What would be more of accepting Tradition if you are meaning Sacred Tradition then accepting the authority given to Peter by Christ with the keys to the kingdom

Because the way that authority has been defined since the eleventh century is not justified by Tradition.

You don’t need to be a historian to see that something is badly wrong with the way the Papacy functions in the modern world. And the more your apologists try to deny this, the more jarring becomes the contrast between the world of Catholic apologists and the real world.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Exactly and who would know more about O.T Scripture then the Jews. And they knew exactly what the keys to the kingdom meant. That is why Peter was the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister is what they called the Pope in that day.

Then why aren’t Jews Catholic?

At the very least, why don’t Jews have something like a Pope?

Appealing to the Jews makes no sense. The Jews are living proof that a religious tradition can function perfectly well without the kind of centralized authority that you declare to be just “common sense.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Pope added, ‘provided he doesn’t exclude charity.’ which, of course, he did.

Only in a causal sense. But that’s not the point. It’s just funny that you think you understand Luther better than Pope Benedict–not because he’s the Pope, but because he’s a darn good scholar and you are just a bombastic apologist.

Can’t think of anything else. Can you?

How about most papal encyclicals. Take Evangelium Vitae, for instance. Is everything in there infallible

If you want an uneducated opinion, a bishop is vowed to obey the pope.

And again, you provide all the evidence I need for my criticism of Catholic ecclesiology. Bishops vowing to obey the Pope makes no sense–it’s a complete distortion of the Tradition.

The scenario you describe would be a violation of the vow and the bishop could be bumped on that ground without ever getting to the doctrinal grounds. Further, if the pope removed the bishop’s faculties, all the bishops liturgical acts would be invalid and 'continu[ing] to exercise his ministry] would be moot.

and you just keep digging yourself in deeper. . . .

That’s what I’d expect from you. Those bishops were on their way out the door anyway, so Shori’s little ‘let’s play pope’ act was a true laugher.

No different than many papal excommunications of people who had already defied him, but that’s neither here nor there.
Actually it was significant, because it set the stage for the Episcopal Church to move
in and take the property, and set up “loyal dioceses.”

I think comparing the Church in its infancy to the Church today is a wasted exercise.

This is how modern RCs are taught to speak of the Church of the Fathers? Again, you show how far removed you are from any true respect for Tradition.

It’s apples and oranges. Heresies were rampant then and sound doctrine had yet to be articulated.

Nice to know that there were more heresies back then.

What if that’s why God didn’t let the Papacy mess things up until the second millennium? I don’t think the Church will ever not need the Papacy at all, but perhaps we don’t need it as much now. . . . .

And at the very least, your appeal to the “difference of times” nicely shows the absurdity and frivolity of the Catholic objection that the Orthodox haven’t called a formal “Ecumenical Council.” By your own admission, such things were more needed back then

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think you have forgotten the significance of the keys. In the culture of the time the keeper of the keys was a significant figure. He was the master’s chief employee. He had absolute, unassailable authority over all the master’s slaves, his possessions and his lands. When the master was away, the keeper of the keys was the master. The Lord assigned the figure of the keeper of the keys to Peter, and to Peter only, for a reason. If He didn’t intend that Peter and his successors have absolute, unassailable authority over His house, he would not have used the comparison.

Name the scholars of ancient culture and/or NT exegetes who support this interpretation.

You’re basing an awful lot on a metaphor.

That said, I – and others – have repeatedly asked you for examples of the dictatorial power of popes and you have nothing to say except to continue the accusation.

Ferde, I don’t need to. Every post of yours gives me all the ammunition I could wish.

You said that every bishop has to swear to obey the Pope and can be removed for not doing so. That’s all I need. It’s absurd of you to ask me to give more examples than that. By any reasonable standard, that’s a dictatorship.

I have said repeatedly that I recognize that the Popes use their powers with moderation. What is old is the dodge of pretending that I’m saying the Popes are power-hungry despots. Given the appalling powers that your Communion vests in them, the Popes are generally modest, humble, restrained people!

I object to your ecclesiology. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m saying that your Communion has lost the orthodox understanding of how the Church is structured. I’m not claiming that the Popes are running around deposing bishops at the slightest whim. Quite the contrary–I agree with you that if your view of the Church is true, then the Popes have been culpably remiss in the exercise of their powers. The thing is, your view of the Church isn’t true. And the contemporary Popes know that. They are trying, hesitantly and with great difficulty, to recover a more orthodox and healthy understanding of the Church. But the structures and habits of centuries are against them. And given the crises of the modern world, the “crutch” of absolute power is too tempting for them not to avail themselves of it from time to time. So at best, the cause of renewing a healthy sense of Church gains a foot and loses eleven inches. Maybe thirteen sometimes

Your point doesn’t stand because you misunderstand papal authority and infallibility. You’re a Protestant. It’s a serious handicap.

And yet you can’t point to what it is I don’t understand. Retreating to “you’re an outsider so you don’t get it” may be legitimate–the Orthodox certainly do it plenty–but it isn’t very convincing to outsiders, is it?

You don’t talk like you do. You talk like you believe the opposite. You talk as if the popes are acting in defiance of the Holy Spirit.

I think that the evidence of the past millennium shows that Popes can sometimes do so, yes. I do not think that they do so any more than any other individual–indeed, any other individual bishop who set himself up as the Popes have done would have been engaging in outright self-deification centuries ago. (Imagine what Constantinople or Alexandria would have done–I’d rather not, actually. Think of Hypatia, and then imagine the Alexandrian Popes armed with the Inquisition) The Roman Popes haven’t done that, because they really *are *in some sense the successors of Peter and Jesus hasn’t left them to their own devices

As for the Orthodox, their line is risible. “Through the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Thank you for once again making my point,.

You think that the Holy Spirit can’t be trusted unless you can tie Him down!

How do you know that? “We just do.” C’mon, Edwin. You’re smarter than that.

I am happy not to be smarter than Meyendorff or Florovsky or Schmemann . . . . .
You ought to know better than invoke the “you’re smarter than that” against the Orthodox. Are you calling them all stupid? I wouldn’t stand for that if someone used it against Catholics, either–or even Protestants taken as a whole (there are some specific forms of Protestantism that really are unbelievable to any reasonably intelligent, well-informed, and fair-minded person).

Depending on the Lord’s promise to send the Spirit to guide the Church to the truth isn’t the same thing as using it to declare a council ecumenical.

Indeed. And as the Orthodox point out over and over, they are doing the former and not the latter.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee before the fact that a particular Council will be ecumenical. You are the ones who say this, not the Orthodox. Then you try to force them into your mold. And then you claim to be the ones who rely on the Holy Spirit! You’re just like those Protestants who think they can’t rely on God’s mercy unless they have a signed and sealed contract (via penal substitution, forensic justification and/or eternal security). They can provide some nifty proof-texts too

Edwin