Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[anthony022071]

BTW, what is your position on the Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council?

St. Maximos:

“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826),writing to Pope Leo III:

“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

 

[Hesychios]

Well, it is not looking like the answer is forthcoming on this thread. I hate to close the can on it so early, but I was not looking to start a whole thread like we have and I am beginning to see that the whole concept of the office is not well laid out in documents.

It’s beginning to look like the modern office is based upon a lot of conjecture, which is why there are so many conflicting opinions about it.

For instance, my brother Aramis posted very early in this thread:
“In calling a council, the pope KNOWS that he’s placing the church into the hands of the council. He can set the agenda, break the ties, run the discussions… but at the end of the day, in council, he’s just one vote, plus a tiebreaker.”

Is he right? Anthony disagrees.

Where are the rules laid out that the Pope gets just one vote, and could be out-voted in Council? How old are those rules? They would be canons.

Where are the rules that say a Pope has veto power over everything in Council? How old are those rules? They would be canons.

“Opinions are like noses” it is said “everyone has one”. On another thread in another place I have been disputing with a convert to the Roman Catholic church. He insists that the Pope is not superior to a Council according to Catholic understanding, and I was trying to refute him. I don’t really have the evidence to do so, all I have is an opinion like everyone else.

The Patristic quotes offered her tells us next to nothing about how the Popes relate to a council or the rest of the church, and what specific rules govern their actions, what limits would be natural to a role as the highest primate in a church.

What is particularly disturbing to me is that there have been high level talks between the east and the west over the role of the Papacy in the church, and there promises to be more. But instead of having a strong historical documentary position on it, the two groups are starting to look like opinionated factions.

Since the role of the Papacy has been morphing continually for centuries, there is no way to determine what changes are proper to it and what are not.

 

[anthony022071]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for that, but I was hoping that you would point out the early canons. Any help you can provide is appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael

There aren’t any early canons detailing the powers of the pope,except perhaps for those of the Council of Sardica.
The pope’s authority to unilaterally intervene in another local church was taken for granted as traditional authority stemming from Peter,the head apostle. The earliest example of a Roman pope weilding authority over another local church is Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians.

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Then there is the example of Pope Victor who threatened to excommunicate the Asian churches over the date of Easter. Irenaeus wrote a letter to Victor pleading with him to reconsider,and he appealed to the example of Pope Anicetus,who conceded to Polycarp on the same matter.

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord … nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

Irenaeus didn’t argue that Victor didn’t have the authority to excommunicate the Asian churches.

 

[Hesychios]

Irenaeus didn’t argue that Victor didn’t have the authority to excommunicate the Asian churches.

Actually, anybody can excommunicate anybody.

The Asian churches could have excommunicated the Roman church, or just the bishop. But schism is a tragedy, so the decision to do this is very serious.

Not surpising that this would make people upset, Irenaeus included.

What is often assumed by RC is that this act would have isolated just the Asian churches. Perhaps that is because they imagine themselves in the position of possibly being excommunicated by a Pope, and to them personally it means this would throw them out of the only church.

In fact such an episode could have isolated the west. There is no reason to believe that the other churches of the east would have “blockaded” the Asian churches, the tragedy could have spread as different sets of churches had to “pick sides” as it were, and many would have chosen to commune with both Rome and Asia, as has happened at other times. Such a scenario would have been nothing but a tragic farce as it unfolded, and a poor witness.

Reason enough to try and talk hotheads out of rash decisions.


Michael

 

[tdgesq]

Well, it is not looking like the answer is forthcoming on this thread. I hate to close the can on it so early, but I was not looking to start a whole thread like we have and I am beginning to see that the whole concept of the office is not well laid out in documents.

That is because you are asking the wrong question. You want a code of canons that set forth the extent of papal authority within an ecumenical council, but organized codes of this type (that are not apocryphal) did not exist until around the twelfth century or so. Perhaps you can show us the well laid out documents that set forth the requirements for an authoritative ecumenical council, whether it includes the consent of the bishop of Rome or not.

It’s beginning to look like the modern office is based upon a lot of conjecture, which is why there are so many conflicting opinions about it.

I would argue less conjecture than what can otherwise be historically offered for a valid and binding ecumenical council.

For instance, my brother Aramis posted very early in this thread:
“In calling a council, the pope KNOWS that he’s placing the church into the hands of the council. He can set the agenda, break the ties, run the discussions… but at the end of the day, in council, he’s just one vote, plus a tiebreaker.”

I disagree with him. The Eastern Code of Canons make the position of the Catholic Church clear. But if you find that disagreement disturbing, I offer the interpretation of many of your ROC brethren who declare our baptisms to be invalid. The one thing that we know is necessary for salvation. Somebody among the Orthodox is right and somebody is wrong. That is the way of things.

Is he right? Anthony disagrees.

In practice, he is right, with a few notable exceptions of which I know of at least. In terms of actual authority, he is incorrect.

Where are the rules laid out that the Pope gets just one vote, and could be out-voted in Council? How old are those rules? They would be canons.

I know of no such rule.

Where are the rules that say a Pope has veto power over everything in Council? How old are those rules? They would be canons.

How about Chalcedon? The East approved this portion of Canon 28:

The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her.

Of course Pope Leo exercised his authority and said this was unacceptable, specifically that Constantinople should take second place under this understanding of Rome’s authority.

“Opinions are like noses” it is said “everyone has one”. On another thread in another place I have been disputing with a convert to the Roman Catholic church. He insists that the Pope is not superior to a Council according to Catholic understanding, and I was trying to refute him. I don’t really have the evidence to do so, all I have is an opinion like everyone else.

There is another saying that mimics the one you gave above. I wonder how applicable that is here. I agree with you that you just have an opinion with no evidence. I disagree with the rest. I know an Orthodox poster who seeks to sow discord between Catholics when I see one.

The Patristic quotes offered her tells us next to nothing about how the Popes relate to a council or the rest of the church, and what specific rules govern their actions, what limits would be natural to a role as the highest primate in a church.

Then give some quotes that better show what constitutes a binding ecumenical council?

What is particularly disturbing to me is that there have been high level talks between the east and the west over the role of the Papacy in the church, and there promises to be more. But instead of having a strong historical documentary position on it, the two groups are starting to look like opinionated factions.

What is particularly disturbing to me is that you act like you know more about the historical record than our learned bishops and theologians who attend the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I assure you, you do not.

continued . . .

 

[tdgesq]

Since the role of the Papacy has been morphing continually for centuries, there is no way to determine what changes are proper to it and what are not.

Where did that come from? Perhaps you can explain how anybody can figure out what constitutes an ecumenical council when four Eastern Patriarchs show up at Constantinople IV, and then later declare it invalid. Or when the Patriarch of Constantinople and multiple Eastern legates and bishops agreed to Florence, and then, once again, declared it invalid. Can you point to the ancient canons that allow for that?

What the Catholic Church has for the authority of the Pope within an ecumenical council is a mountain of evidence compared to what you have to offer.

 

[jimmy]

Try Matthew 16:18. What part of*, when Jesus Christ said, **“whatever you[PETER] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” *is unclear?

What is unclear about it is that the exact same authority is given to all the apostles in chapter 18 of the same gospel. To seperate the keys from the authority to bind and to loose seems to be sophistry to me. To bind and to loose is to have the keys.

 

[HailMary]

What is unclear about it is that the exact same authority is given to all the apostles in chapter 18 of the same gospel. To seperate the keys from the authority to bind and to loose seems to be sophistry to me. To bind and to loose is to have the keys.

Separation? Who said that?

 

[Aramis]

Buried in the CCEO is one interesting tidbit (it’s late, and I’ve ot time to dig up the cite): The pope, unlike all other bishops, may vote in any synod as a bishop.

 

[jimmy]

Separation? Who said that?

You quoted the CA article as saying that the apostles were given the ability to bind and loose but not the keys. That is what I mean by seperating them. I think it is incorrect.

 

[Hesychios]

That is because you are asking the wrong question.

You are basically telling me that there is nothing. I made simple requests and a few comments on the responses. No one can even tell me when the canons explicitly delineating the rights and prerogatives of the bishop of Rome that DO exist, today, for your church…were composed, or by whom.

What I see here in your post is a bit of veiled insult and diversion.

That’s OK. It wasn’t my idea to start a thread. So if you have nothing substantive to add that’s fine with me.

Michael

 

[jj2011]

Hi Hail,

Are there early church canons detailing the connection between this assignment to Peter and the bishop of Rome?

In other words, what is to prevent this mandate to being interpreted as belonging to every priest or bishop? Does Nicea mention it?

In Christ,
Michael

Yes, there are canons establishing that the Roman Pontiff is head and lord of the patriarchs. Formerly these were believed to be part of a spurious collection called Arabic Canons of Nicea. However, Syriac manuscripts attribute the canons to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat, and the canons exist in Assyrian, Jacobite and even Coptic collections by such canonists as Elias of Damascus, Bar Hebraeus, and Ibn 'Assal.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, there are canons establishing that the Roman Pontiff is head and lord of the patriarchs. Formerly these were believed to be part of a spurious collection called Arabic Canons of Nicea. However, Syriac manuscripts attribute the canons to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat, and the canons exist in Assyrian, Jacobite and even Coptic collections by such canonists as Elias of Damascus, Bar Hebraeus, and Ibn 'Assal.

Do you happen to have links, or a book reference?

Thanks
Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, there are canons establishing that the Roman Pontiff is head and lord of the patriarchs. Formerly these were believed to be part of a spurious collection called Arabic Canons of Nicea. However, Syriac manuscripts attribute the canons to St. Maruthas of Maiperqat, and the canons exist in Assyrian, Jacobite and even Coptic collections by such canonists as Elias of Damascus, Bar Hebraeus, and Ibn 'Assal.

Do you happen to have links, or a book reference?

Do these detail the actual responsibilities and duties of the office? For instance, do they indicate that only a bishop of Rome can call a Council, or that he may veto a Council?

Do they mention anything else along those lines…such as only a bishop of Rome can name other bishops?

I am looking for the foundation of the Papal role as exercised today. Such evidence would clear up a lot of foggy grey, because we are dealing with certain claims of prerogative that are being challenged in 2007 as overreaching by the bishops of Rome.

Since the role of the bishop of Rome has changed over time and is subject to redefinition in talks with Orthodox, it would be helpful to know what is intrinsic to the office, and what is incidental.

Things we know that Popes have done in the past may not be done the same way in the future. For example…it would help clarify disputes between the posters on this forum and elsewhere about what role a Pope does play in a Council. ie: Does he get just one vote?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[jj2011]

Do you happen to have links, or a book reference?

Do these detail the actual responsibilities and duties of the office? For instance, do they indicate that only a bishop of Rome can call a Council, or that he may veto a Council?

Do they mention anything else along those lines…such as only a bishop of Rome can name other bishops?

I am looking for the foundation of the Papal role as exercised today. Such evidence would clear up a lot of foggy grey, because we are dealing with certain claims of prerogative that are being challenged in 2007 as overreaching by the bishops of Rome.

Since the role of the bishop of Rome has changed over time and is subject to redefinition in talks with Orthodox, it would be helpful to know what is intrinsic to the office, and what is incidental.

Things we know that Popes have done in the past may not be done the same way in the future. For example…it would help clarify disputes between the posters on this forum and elsewhere about what role a Pope does play in a Council. ie: Does he get just one vote?

Thanks,
Michael

First, let me provide the scholarly reference you requested. There are about seventy canons ascribed to Saint Maruthas in the Syriac MSS. These canons appear in canon law collections that cross demoninational lines: Ibn 'Assal, a Copt, Bar Hebraeus a Jacobite, and the Assyrian Elias of Damascus.

The text and translation are available in: Voobos, Arthur, The Canons ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqat and related sources, Louvain 1982. It’s in the CSCO series. See:

melvyl.cdlib.org/F/LL1YVTU5PX854HYUGVKCTT58KNC5EI5RITUCAQ64R5UGM261G7-03149?func=full-set-set&set_number=003490&set_entry=000005&format=999

Later on, I will post the texts of the canons.

 

[jj2011]

The canons I cited exist in several recensions, but here is one translation:

Let there be four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four evangelists, and four rivers, and four elements of the world, and four corners, and four winds, and four elements of man, for of these four elements the whole world is composed. And let their Prince and governor be the lord of the see of Blessed Peter at Rome, as the apostles commanded…

The Patriarch Must Oversee Whatever His Metropolitans and Bishops Do. Let the patriarch oversee whatever is done by any of his metropolitans or bishops in the provinces over which they preside, and if he find any of these things to be unfitting, let him change it, and lay down whatever seems good to himself about that matter, for he is the father of them all, and they are his sons. Now metropolitans must acknowledge this authority over themselves, and revere him as an older brother, whom brethren set over themselves, and obey him because of his optimal regime, and superior years. For a patriarch within his jurisdiction is in the image of a father over his sons. And as the Patriarch has authority over his subjects, even so does the bishop of Rome have authority over all the patriarchs, as Peter had it over all the rulers of Christianity, and their Councils: for he is the vicar of Christ over his redemption, his churches, and the people in his care. Whoever contradicts this sanction, the fathers of the Council punish him with anathema.

 

[East_and_West]

The canons I cited exist in several recensions, but here is one translation:

Let there be four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four evangelists, and four rivers, and four elements of the world, and four corners, and four winds, and four elements of man, for of these four elements the whole world is composed. And let their Prince and governor be the lord of the see of Blessed Peter at Rome, as the apostles commanded…

The Patriarch Must Oversee Whatever His Metropolitans and Bishops Do. Let the patriarch oversee whatever is done by any of his metropolitans or bishops in the provinces over which they preside, and if he find any of these things to be unfitting, let him change it, and lay down whatever seems good to himself about that matter, for he is the father of them all, and they are his sons. Now metropolitans must acknowledge this authority over themselves, and revere him as an older brother, whom brethren set over themselves, and obey him because of his optimal regime, and superior years. For a patriarch within his jurisdiction is in the image of a father over his sons. And as the Patriarch has authority over his subjects, even so does the bishop of Rome have authority over all the patriarchs, as Peter had it over all the rulers of Christianity, and their Councils: for he is the vicar of Christ over his redemption, his churches, and the people in his care. Whoever contradicts this sanction, the fathers of the Council punish him with anathema.

Can you give a summary of the evidence that these cannons belong to the original council of Nicea? I believe that the scholarly consensus today is that they are not part of the original cannons.

 

[jj2011]

Can you give a summary of the evidence that these cannons belong to the original council of Nicea? I believe that the scholarly consensus today is that they are not part of the original cannons.

I didn’t say they’re canons of Nicea; they’re attributed to the fifth century St. Maruthas in the Syriac.

The salient point here is that the canons come from within the eastern church, as the Latins did not come to know these canons until the sixteenth century.

 

[HailMary]

You quoted the CA article as saying that the apostles were given the ability to bind and loose but not the keys. That is what I mean by seperating them. I think it is incorrect.

Just because they (the other apostles) were not granted the Keys, does not mean they don’t have any authority. Come on now.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Just because they (the other apostles) were not granted the Keys, does not mean they don’t have any authority. Come on now.

Do note the difference between any and all.