Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

As, as Orthodox have stated here in abundance, the Church does not depend nor rise and fall with individual hierarchs, there can be no comparison. The damage a heretic patriarach, let alone as schimatic, can do pales in comparison to that a heretic pope does in the Latin conception of things.

The ecclesiology is not at issue. It is the fact that there is disunity in your Church as well. So don’t go there.

Either Rome can’t control what is going on, in which the much vaunted value for unity comes into question, or it can and doesn’t, in which case we Orthodox will act accordingly to the things we see.

I used to proffer this argument before I crossed the Tiber. I realized it is utter nonsense. To argue against the value of the papacy based on the fact that there is disobedience in the Catholic Church is like blaming the Holy Spirit for not guarding the unity of the Church. :doh2:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Canons 42 thru 54 of the Eastern Code of Canons clearly identifies the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, as the Supreme Authority in the Church.

No they don’t. They specifically identify the Ecumenical Council as the Supreme authority of the Church, with the Pope as head bishop. Naturally, I don’t deny that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks on his own authority,

In the Latin Code, the Pope is over and above an Ecumenical Council:
Canon 338, Section 1. It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.

I don’t know why certain Catholics and non-Catholic polemicsts keep using this Canon to somehow “prove” that the Pope is over and above the Ecumenical Council. This is a purely administrative prerogative, and does not denote the Pope being over and above his brother bishops. The real litmust test rests in the authority granted to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, which the Eastern AND Latin Codes clearly state requires the approval of BOTH the head and the body, not one without the other!

BTW, I would like to take the time to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the non-Catholic polemical appeal to Canon 338 is. Namely, EVERY Orthodox Church grants this administrative prerogative to all their head bishops. Yet, for some strange reason that only the polemic mind can fathom, when the head bishop of the Catholic Church is admitted to have the same prerogative, it translates to “the Pope is over and above the Council.” :banghead: :banghead:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Your OP, to which I was responding:

However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the TRUTH of Pope Leo’s doctrine required conciliar consent (and this is ALL that Vatican I meant after all). It was simply that for that doctrine to become universal, the consent of the Council was nevertheless required.

According to the constitution and canons (posted by your coreligionists in 414 and 418), no, the council’s consent is NOT required. At all. For anything.

I’ve responded to my fellow Catholics’ statements. Further, you should read the many Canons I proffered earlier (posts #240 - #245). They will change your mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Why’s that a difference? Are you a proponent of some Christian version of the Islamic notion of abrogation?

If you want to bring history into it then know that John Chrysostomon accepted ordination by men not in communion with Rome.

Because it may show a change in his thinking over time.

In any study of a person of the past, especially those whose status changed, the chronological positioning of their statements is important in understanding them, and seeing if the statements are truly universal, or if they were universal only until he came into union (and then solely papal accolades thereafter). The latter case would indicate a change in his thinking and belief.

Because it’s just good historical practice to consider chronology as part of context.

To step off topic for a moment, to make example of the importance of chronology…
it was stated strongly by David Duke, when he was a very senior member of the KKK, that blacks were not even humans. Now, 30 years later, he not only acknowledges them as humans, but as equals. One could easily make the case by quoting without the temporal context, that he still believes blacks are not humans, or to the contrary, that the KKK didn’t believe that as a corporate body.

Similarly, many scientists spoke out against global warming as unproven, but now accept that there is a measurable warming trend. Often, opponents use their old refutations, now recanted, to criticize new works, sometimes even ones they now endorse.

Due to St. John’s history of schism, it is vital to know which are from his time in schism, and which are not.

 

[mardukm]

mardukm;2858134:

I agree with you insofar as it is on an issue of defined

theological and moral doctrine. But I don’t agree with you on matters of doctrinal theologoumena. It is obviously to the latter that the question refers, for there are NO DIFFERENCES among the Churches with regard to de fide doctrines. Wouldn’t you agree? So I don’t see the reason for your disagreement.

The person who was interviewed did not specify what he meant by doctrines,whether defined or unofficial. In any case,a doctrine from the pope,even if unofficial,should be regarded with something more than respect. It should be considered as coming from the mouth of Peter,just as the church fathers regarded the doctrines of the popes. Who is a local bishop or a local church to contradict the pope and to say that the pope’s doctrines are “incompatible” with the discipline of their particular church? That way of thinking leads to dissent and heresy.

Let me just give you an example. The notion of purgatorial fire is theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, and probably prevalent among popular piety. If the Pope tried to impose this teaching on the Eastern or Oriental Churches, our bishops simply reject it, and it would very well be within the rights of our bishops to do so.

anthony022071:

mardukm:

The only head that is above the body is Jesus Christ.Look to I Corinthians 12 for a proper understanding of the relationship of the earthly head to the earthly body - one cannot say to the other “I have no need of you.”

There is also a visible,earthly head to the church. Peter was the head of the apostles,and the pope is the head of the church.

Brother, you’re preaching to the choir. No Catholic denies that the Pope is the head bishop. Whether he is over and above his brother bishops, on the other hand, is another matter altogether. The Petrine office of the papacy is one of service, brother, not domination. Even when he proclaims a matter ex cathedra, he is doing it for the SAKE of the Church, serving it as its pastor, not as some sort of domineering ruler.

I will not be ashamed to say that I believe some Latin Catholics have a very wrong MISconception of the office of the papacy - the same MISconception proffered by anti-Catholic polemicists. The function of the Pope is TO SERVE - he is the Servant of Servants - NOT to dominate. I challenge any Catholic here, Latin, Eastern, or Oriental to contradict this right and true definition of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

1. Are there Vatican departments which exercise rights over the Patriarchs of sui juris Churches?
2. Which departments?

I believe it is called the Congregation of Eastern Churches. From my understanding, it is composed of Eastern and Latin Cardinals, maybe only Eastern Cardinals? Not sure. Someone more knowledgeable in the workings of the Curia may be able to give a more concise answer.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If you want to bring history into it then know that John Chrysostomon accepted ordination by men not in communion with Rome.

I refuted this claim here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2841852&highlight=Chrysostom#post2841852

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Due to St. John’s history of schism, it is vital to know which are from his time in schism, and which are not.

I feel I refuted this idea that St. John was in schism from Rome here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2841852&highlight=Chrysostom#post2841852

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

I feel I refuted this idea that St. John was in schism from Rome here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2841852&highlight=Chrysostom#post2841852

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

It doesn’t negate his growth in understanding over time, and the importance of examining it in a chronology.

I tend to agree, tho, that he was not fully in union until later in life.

 

[prodromos]

To argue against the value of the papacy based on the fact that there is disobedience in the Catholic Church is like blaming the Holy Spirit for not guarding the unity of the Church. :doh2:

Nonsense! The Church is one. The Holy Spirit has never failed in guarding the unity of the Church.

 

[Montalban]

Because it may show a change in his thinking over time.

Show this then… where he says he’s changed his mind.

In any study of a person of the past, especially those whose status changed, the chronological positioning of their statements is important in understanding them, and seeing if the statements are truly universal, or if they were universal only until he came into union (and then solely papal accolades thereafter). The latter case would indicate a change in his thinking and belief.

Because it’s just good historical practice to consider chronology as part of context.

Due to St. John’s history of schism, it is vital to know which are from his time in schism, and which are not.

He spent most of his life ‘in schism’. Most of his writings were in this period.

This Catholic apologist web-site gives some clues to the case
“when St. Chrysostom wrote this treatise, he neither was nor ever had been in communion with the Church of Rome, and, in fact, he remained outside of that communion for at least seventeen more years, perhaps for as many as twenty-six.” (Puller, Primitive Saints)
As he proceeds to prove this in 146 large octavo pages, together with about fifty pages of extra notes, I cannot reply to it here. It is only necessary at present to state that there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents – whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city – were never excommunicated.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

They accept that Meletius was not Rome’s chosen man. They then pretend there’s no evidence about John’s schism; ignoring that he accepted ordination from the men Rome did not choose. Which is the point I made. And the point you wish to re-write. Rome wanted someone else. Rome didn’t have any power. Rome was ignored. John accepted ordiantion from the men Rome didn’t want.

Not being in ‘communion’ with is different from excommunication; it begs the point because Rome didn’t have the power to excommunicate them anyway. That’s the whole point. Despite Rome’s wishes the East was happy with them being in the See of Antioch.

It’s also of interest to note that an Ecumenical Council was headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome.
"The work of the Council of Constantinople was completed. Theologically, it had carried the logic of the Council of Nicea and cautiously applied that Council’s reasoning about the Son’s relation to the Father to the Holy Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology. Administratively, the Council continued the eastern practice of accommodating the ecclesiastical organization to the civil organisation of the Empire, sowing the seeds for discord among the four great sees of East and West by raising the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as New Rome. All in all, it proved to be a remarkable Council. It was never intended to be an ecumenical council: the Bishop of Rome was not invited: only 150 Eastern bishops were present; only one by accident from the West. Only at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 did it begin to rank in the East with the Council of Nicea as more than a local council. Because of the schism at Antioch its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. Strong doubts were later expressed about the authenticity of its creed. Its canons were rejected in the west for nine hundred years.
Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), pp128-129.

con’t…

 

[Montalban]

…con’t from above

I feel I refuted this idea that St. John was in schism from Rome here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801eaw.asp Says that the Pope sent Lucifer to Antioch with authority…
“Pope Liberius authorized Athanasius to convoke a council to resolve the schism in Antioch. He sent two legates (Eusebius and Lucifer) with jurisdiction and authority in the East to preside with Athanasius over a council in Alexandria. The synod at Alexandria accepted the regularity of Meletius’s ordination. It appointed an Episcopal commission, which included the papal legates, to reconcile the divided Catholics in Antioch.”

What did he do…
"Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus.

It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the church. Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself went to Antioch, where he found the church in great disorder, the people not being agreed among themselves. For not only did the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoius, divide the church, but, as we before said, the followers of Meletius also, from attachment to their teacher, separated themselves from those with whom they agreed in sentiment. When therefore Lucifer had constituted Paulinus their bishop, he again departed."
Socrates Scholasticus
“The Ecclesiastical History” Book III.6

Thus the Papal person proclaimed Paulinus bishop in direct opposition to Meletius. Meletius continued with his own support in direct opposition to the decision of the Pope’s man.
“Now recall that Paulinus is the Pope’s man. Meletius continued to hold church services (outside the city walls) during this time. And the two continued in ‘office’. One not being the Pope’s choice. An arrangement was made that when one died, the other would succeed.”
Socrates Scholasticus
“The Ecclesiastical History” Book V.5

Paulinus actually argued from canon law that there should not be a co-bishop!
And of John Chrysostomon; continually consecrated by Meletius, he later separated from him WITHOUT joining in communion with the Pope’s man, Paulinus.
see Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History"Book VI.3

"About this period Meletius, bishop of Antioch, fell sick and died: in whose praise Gregory, the brother of Basil, pronounced a funeral oration. The body of the deceased bishop was by his friends conveyed to Antioch; where those who had identified themselves with his interests again refused subjection to Paulinus, but caused Flavian to be substituted in the place of Meletius, and the people began to quarrel anew. Thus again the Antiochian church was divided into rival factions, not grounded on any difference of faith, but simply on a preference of bishops.
Socrates Scholasticus
“The Ecclesiastical History” Book V.9

And as noted John Chrysostomon took orders from Flavian (after Meletius’ death). Flavian was not in favour with Alexandria nor Rome. Flavian then sent messengers to Alexandria AND Rome to work out peace.
see Socrates Scholasticus
“The Ecclesiastical History” Book V.15

At that time there were several and rival claimants to be the proper patriarch in Antioch. Paulinus was the man favoured by Rome and Alexandria. Meletius was favoured by others. Jerome accompanied Paulinus back to Rome in order to get more support for him.

Ambrose hoped that a general council would be called in support of his friend. He hoped that the Pope would be the influence to make this happen.

“Ambrose was agitating for a general council to bring matters to a head, and succeeded in persuading the western emperor, Gratian, to convoke one in Rome. A number of western metropolitans assembled there in the summer of 382, but the east declined to cooperate. In fact Theodosius had no wish to see the settlement he was establishing upset by western meddling, and had already re-convened the council of the previous year at Constantinople. When the belated western summons reached them, the eastern bishops gathered there sent a courteous but firm reply, excusing themselves from attending, apart from a token delegation of three, but not yielding an inch on the disputed issues.”
Kelly, J. N. D., (1975), “Jerome: His life, writings and controversies”, (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA), pp80-81.

Thus the eastern churches did not obey the Pope. John Chrysostomon (sometimes used by Catholic apologists as a pro-Papal writer) always recognised Meletius as the legitimate bishop; someone not in communion with Rome.

 

[Montalban]

It doesn’t negate his growth in understanding over time, and the importance of examining it in a chronology.

I tend to agree, tho, that he was not fully in union until later in life.

Firstly, you’re assuming his position changed.

Secondly it affects his writings by showing the he himself acted in such manner as to live his whole clerical life outside of communion with Rome.

Unless you too think that he was acting inconsistantly too - writing one thing, living another

For the record, I’ve already gone over this with mardukm in the past
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1811717&highlight=Meletius#post1811717

and, just before he gets his two cents in, with SteveB here

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The ecclesiology is not at issue. It is the fact that there is disunity in your Church as well. So don’t go there.

Yes, but our solution works, and yours doesn’t.

I used to proffer this argument before I crossed the Tiber. I realized it is utter nonsense. To argue against the value of the papacy based on the fact that there is disobedience in the Catholic Church is like blaming the Holy Spirit for not guarding the unity of the Church. :doh2:

Blessings,
Marduk

then such grandiose claims should not be made.

Your church and our Church both have had divisions. The only one we have that has lasted was the Old Ritualists, which I contend a) originated when the ROC erred, and for which she was chastised and b) remained confined to the ROC. The Old Calendarists group might end up the same way, but I doubt it, as for instance in the US some have already been accomodated by the EP, and fully canonical Churches, including the largest, are on the Old Calendar.

Even if I let you off for the Protestants, that leaves the Old Catholics, whose vagranti have been a festering problem for true Apostolic succession, and what Vatican II unleshed on the WHOLE of your church (I understand that the Easterners also have to update or whatever their rites?)

Now we keep on being told that we need a center to hold, but we don’t see it.

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

But if all Cardinals hold the keys, then the office can be vacant.

Else how do they hold them when there’s no Pope?

The chair could be empty

So, which is it? Do Cardinals cease to hold the keys when the Pope dies? Or can they hold the keys by virtue of the ‘position’ of Peter, if not through the successor of Peter?

 

[anthony022071]

First, the question was not with respect to the “whole church,” but with respect to the Ecumenical Council, which indeed requires the approbation of BOTH the head and body, not one without the other - that is what the Eastern AND Latin Code of Canons state.

The bishop conflated the consent of the whole church with bishops in council.

Question to Bishop Murray
Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council.

Second, the Pope is normally the last in the line of approving bishops.

Perhaps the bishops of the Robber Council of Ephesus thought that they could pronounce doctrine for the whole church. Councils are not infallible in matters of faith,but the pope is. That is why the pope must have the last word and has authority over a council.
The pope are the final point of reference.

But there is generally a whole list of approvals before it gets to the Pope for his confirmation.

The pope has the final say in the matter.

Even if you were to appeal to Pope St. Leo’s actions at Chalcedon, your argument still fails, for even if Pope Leo instructed the bishops at Chalcedon to no longer discuss the matter, he nevertheless understood that for his pronouncement to have UNIVERSAL authority, it needed to obtain the consent of the Council.

And the bishops of the council understood that whatever decisions they made had to have confirmation from the pope. They pleaded with Pope Leo in a letter to accept Canon 28,but he refused,and so it was considered null and void.

However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the TRUTH of Pope Leo’s doctrine required conciliar consent (and this is ALL that Vatican I meant after all). It was simply that for that doctrine to become universal, the consent of the Council was nevertheless required.

And who determines whether a council is ecumentical? Who determines whether the decisions of a council are universally valid? The pope.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

< Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them. >

No argument there, brother. But the fact remains that the NATURE of papal infallibility was still debated.

Those Irish clergymen were denying the authority of the pope in matters of doctrinen and his universal jurisdiction over the whole church. They evidently had made up their minds about pope was fallible. They may as well have been Anglicans.

 

[anthony022071]

No argument there, brother. But the fact remains that the NATURE of papal infallibility was still debated.

Edit:

Those Irish clergymen were denying the authority of the pope in matters of doctrine and his universal jurisdiction over the whole church. They evidently had made up their minds that the pope was fallible. They may as well have been Anglicans.

If someone really believes that the pope is the successor to Peter by tradition founded by Christ,and that the pope always pronounces the true doctrine,and that he has the authority to bind and loosen,then there is no reason to insist on the supposed right to dissent from the pope on matters of doctrine.

 

[mardukm]

If someone really believes that the pope is the successor to Peter by tradition founded by Christ,and that the pope always pronounces the true doctrine,and that he has the authority to bind and loosen,then there is no reason to insist on the supposed right to dissent from the pope on matters of doctrine.

This is where we, though both Catholics, have to part ways. I do NOT believe that the Pope ALWAYS pronounces true doctrine. This is one of the questions Vatican I debated, and they proclaimed infallibly that the Pope does NOT ALWAYS pronounce true doctrine, but can do so only under certain conditions. Vatican I laid out those conditions for us rather clearly.

Indeed, the Pope may make a pronouncement on a theologoumenon, stating that he personally believes it. But I am not bound to believe it on danger of losing my salvation. Again, he may make a pronouncement on a scientific or mathematical doctrine, even proclaiming it to be true. Certainly, I am not bound to believe THAT under threat of losing my salvation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

This is where we, though both Catholics, have to part ways. I do NOT believe that the Pope ALWAYS pronounces true doctrine. This is one of the questions Vatican I debated, and they proclaimed infallibly that the Pope does NOT ALWAYS pronounce true doctrine, but can do so only under certain conditions. Vatican I laid out those conditions for us rather clearly.

Indeed, the Pope may make a pronouncement on a theologoumenon, stating that he personally believes it. But I am not bound to believe it on danger of losing my salvation. Again, he may make a pronouncement on a scientific or mathematical doctrine, even proclaiming it to be true. Certainly, I am not bound to believe THAT under threat of losing my salvation.

Blessings,
Marduk

When I said that the pope always pronounces the true doctrine,
I meant matters of faith and morals spoken ex cathedra. I was not referring to unofficial or personal opinions,or to scientific matters.

Not every doctrine of the church must be a matter of salvation in order for Catholics to be obligated to believe it. It is enough if a doctrine is true and orthodox for it to warrant belief. No one is likely to lose their salvation for not believing in the Assumption of Mary,but if it is true,then it behooves Catholics to believe it,because it is part of the fullness of the faith.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I have noticed that we have several new members here in the ECF. I would like to ask our new members if they can participate in this poll. Before you vote, I beg you to read through the entire thread. It is 30 pages worth of (name removed by moderator)ut from posters, but it is well worth the read. There are several clarifications/explanations that needed to be made to my original statement throughout the thread because some thought I was denying Catholic teaching on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Sedevacantists, please do not participate in the poll.