Petrine vs Apostolic question

[Jofantioch]

I’m trying to figure out how the Roman Church views the Apostles besides Peter. Please answer any or all of my questions.

1. Are the bishops ordained in the line of St. Paul, Andrew, Bartholomew, James, etc. less bishops than those ordained in the line of Peter?
2. The creed says “one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church”, do you think that this is sufficient? Shouldn’t St. Peter be mentioned somewhere?
3. I’ve always understood that all priests are in the image of Christ and hear confessions etc. as His physical stand-in for the sacraments. How can the Pope be more in the image of Christ than that? (please stay on the image topic, I understand the difference in responsibilities)

Thanks

 

[Formosus]

1.All Bishops are Bishops regardless of which Apostle their orders go back to.

1. Yes that is sufficient, Peter was an Apostle was he not?
2. The Pope is more so in the Image of Christ in that he governs the Latin Church in the role of Patriarch. Aside from that , he is more in the Image of Christ because Christ gave Peter and his successors the ability to teach infallibily on issues of Faith and Morals. So it is a better representation of Christ as teacher, symbolically at least.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jofantioch,

I’m trying to figure out how the Roman Church views the Apostles besides Peter. Please answer any or all of my questions.

Thank you for your questions.

1. Are the bishops ordained in the line of St. Paul, Andrew, Bartholomew, James, etc. less bishops than those ordained in the line of Peter?

No, they all share the same prerogatives as bishops. However, the immediate successors of Peter (those in the line of Roman Succession) have been given a greater responsibility than his brother bishops. He is meant to confirm the others in the faith, as Peter our first Pope himself was. In order to fulfill this greater responsibility, Christ promised His personal solicitude, and also gave him the keys of the Kingdom.

These special prerogatives and responsibilities are not considered episcopal. Episcopal prerogatives are ALWAYS ordinary and immediate - both their use and the circumstances of their use are always ordinary and immediate, Papal prerogatives are different. They are ordinary and immediate in the sense that the Pope can never be hindered in their use when they are needed; but their use and the circumstances for their use are ALWAYS EXTRAordinary. Further, in certain circumstances, their use is not only extraordinary, but also mediate. This is especially true as regards his actions in connection with Churches not in his immediate Patriarchal jurisdiction.

2. The creed says “one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church”, do you think that this is sufficient? Shouldn’t St. Peter be mentioned somewhere?

As Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria asserted, our faith is not just in the Creed. For what it addresses, the Creed is sufficient, but the Creed does not address everything the Church believes. Where do you find any statement on the the two Wills of Christ? Why is the theological term THEOTOKOS not contained in it? Where is the teaching on theosis? Etc. Etc.

3. I’ve always understood that all priests are in the image of Christ and hear confessions etc. as His physical stand-in for the sacraments. How can the Pope be more in the image of Christ than that? (please stay on the image topic, I understand the difference in responsibilities).

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that the Pope is “more in the image of Christ” than other priests. EVERY PRIEST is as much a sacerdos - able to offer up the Sacrifice - as the Pope is. What more is there about priesthood to understand?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. Are the bishops ordained in the line of St. Paul, Andrew, Bartholomew, James, etc. less bishops than those ordained in the line of Peter?

There’s no such thing as “less of a bishop”. All bishops, whether major archbishops, bishops or patriarchs (such as the pope) all have the same holy orders intertwined from all of the Apostles and can ordain other men to the bishopric (in the West they need a specific mandate from the Holy Father because he is head of the Western Church, but in the Eastern Rites in Communion with the Roman Church there need not be a specific mandate for an ordination of a bishop but is usually handled by that particular churches synod per a vote of the other bishops). The Chair of Rome was founded by Sts Peter & Paul and early lists of Christian sees always started with Rome.

Bishops have immediate rule over their jurisdictions and the Pope has immediate rule over his Patriarchate. When he acts as head of the Church on Earth (by speaking ex Cathedra confirming a matter of faith and morals), he is acting as the extraordinary head of the church. Each jurisdiction has its own ordinary head (i.e. bishop).

2. The creed says “one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church”, do you think that this is sufficient? Shouldn’t St. Peter be mentioned somewhere?

Yes, it is sufficent as there is only one, one, holy catholic and apostolic church. It is the communion of churches headed by the Pope in Rome and the other Patriarchs of the other 23 sui ierus churches in communion with him.

3. I’ve always understood that all priests are in the image of Christ and hear confessions etc. as His physical stand-in for the sacraments. How can the Pope be more in the image of Christ than that? (please stay on the image topic, I understand the difference in responsibilities)

All priests when acting as priests are sacramentally acting in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ when performing their 7 priestly duties (the 7 sacraments). The power to grant absolution for confessions is conferred to the Priest by his local Ordinary (bishop). I’m not really sure what you are asking as far as “more in the image of Christ”, because the Pope is a Priest and a Bishop, as are other Bishops also Priests. He is head of the diocese of Rome, the prelate of the Holy See, and according to our ancient tradition head of the Church on Earth in matters of faith and morals. I.e. we Catholics first follow our Bishop who should be following the faith and morals of the Pope who is entrusted with safeguarding the Tradition of the Church along with the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church, or the college of Bishops).

Perhaps you should clarify your concerns because none of them really make any sense.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Jofantioch,

Thank you for your questions.

No, they all share the same prerogatives as bishops. However, the immediate successors of Peter (those in the line of Roman Succession) have been given a greater responsibility than his brother bishops. He is meant to confirm the others in the faith, as Peter our first Pope himself was. In order to fulfill this greater responsibility, Christ promised His personal solicitude, and also gave him the keys of the Kingdom.

These special prerogatives and responsibilities are not considered episcopal. Episcopal prerogatives are ALWAYS ordinary and immediate - both their use and the circumstances of their use are always ordinary and immediate, Papal prerogatives are different. They are ordinary and immediate in the sense that the Pope can never be hindered in their use when they are needed; but their use and the circumstances for their use are ALWAYS EXTRAordinary. Further, in certain circumstances, their use is not only extraordinary, but also mediate. This is especially true as regards his actions in connection with Churches not in his immediate Patriarchal jurisdiction.

Yes, you talk about the limits on the pope’s power, but you seem somewhat alone in asserting it.

As Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria asserted, our faith is not just in the Creed. For what it addresses, the Creed is sufficient, but the Creed does not address everything the Church believes. Where do you find any statement on the the two Wills of Christ?

Who was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

Why is the theological term THEOTOKOS not contained in it?

Ibid

Where is the teaching on theosis? Etc. Etc.

I thought you said theosis was an EO invention?

The very use of the term Apostolic means something vital. If the petrine office was so important (and Rome’s theology thinks it is VERY important), it should be there.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that the Pope is “more in the image of Christ” than other priests. EVERY PRIEST is as much a sacerdos - able to offer up the Sacrifice - as the Pope is. What more is there about priesthood to understand?

I don’t know about priests and popes, but Orthodoxy teaches the priest is but the extension of the bishop, who subsists in the episcopacy, which is the priesthood of Christ. No priest serves but by his bishops permission, and only because the bishop cannot be humanly everywhere.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There’s no such thing as “less of a bishop”. All bishops, whether major archbishops, bishops or patriarchs (such as the pope) all have the same holy orders intertwined from all of the Apostles and can ordain other men to the bishopric (in the West they need a specific mandate from the Holy Father because he is head of the Western Church, but in the Eastern Rites in Communion with the Roman Church there need not be a specific mandate for an ordination of a bishop but is usually handled by that particular churches synod per a vote of the other bishops). The Chair of Rome was founded by Sts Peter & Paul and early lists of Christian sees always started with Rome.

If that were true, the Ukrainians would have their own patriarchate by now.
I don’t know of any bishop not approved by Rome now, a distinct change from the ancient church.

Bishops have immediate rule over their jurisdictions and the Pope has immediate rule over his Patriarchate. When he acts as head of the Church on Earth (by speaking ex Cathedra confirming a matter of faith and morals), he is acting as the extraordinary head of the church. Each jurisdiction has its own ordinary head (i.e. bishop).

And when he suppresses and creates diocese in the East, what is acting as then?

Yes, it is sufficent as there is only one, one, holy catholic and apostolic church. It is the communion of churches headed by the Pope in Rome and the other Patriarchs of the other 23 sui ierus churches in communion with him.

You have to redefine One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic to achieve this.

Both Vatican I and II define the Catholic bishops as those in union with the pope. No such definition existed in the ancient Church.

All priests when acting as priests are sacramentally acting in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ when performing their 7 priestly duties (the 7 sacraments). The power to grant absolution for confessions is conferred to the Priest by his local Ordinary (bishop). I’m not really sure what you are asking as far as “more in the image of Christ”, because the Pope is a Priest and a Bishop, as are other Bishops also Priests. He is head of the diocese of Rome, the prelate of the Holy See, and according to our ancient tradition head of the Church on Earth in matters of faith and morals. I.e. we Catholics first follow our Bishop who should be following the faith and morals of the Pope who is entrusted with safeguarding the Tradition of the Church along with the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church, or the college of Bishops).

Perhaps you should clarify your concerns because none of them really make any sense.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, you talk about the limits on the pope’s power, but you seem somewhat alone in asserting it.

According to the papal prerogatives poll, my viewpoint seems to be in the majority.

Who was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is the two wills of Christ mentioned.

ibid.

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is the term THEOTOKOS mentioned?

I thought you said theosis was an EO invention?

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is theosis mentioned? And where did I mention that theosis is an EO invention? Yeah, I know you can’t answer that.

The very use of the term Apostolic means something vital. If the petrine office was so important (and Rome’s theology thinks it is VERY important), it should be there.

Yet, you can’t even defend the idea that EVERYTHING we must believe must be contained in the Creed.

I don’t know about priests and popes, but Orthodoxy teaches the priest is but the extension of the bishop, who subsists in the episcopacy, which is the priesthood of Christ. No priest serves but by his bishops permission, and only because the bishop cannot be humanly everywhere.

Yes, we are in agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If that were true, the Ukrainians would have their own patriarchate by now.
I don’t know of any bishop not approved by Rome now, a distinct change from the ancient church.

I am talking about the specific functions of a bishop. The head of the Ukrainian church is equal to the head of the Bishop of Rome. The Pope’s papal perogatives come not from his being bishop but from his being the head of the see of St. Peter & Paul. The Ukrainian bishop can ordain other bishops as the pope can and can perform all other functions he can. Patriarchates entered the church episcopal language much later than the fact that Rome was recognized as head of the church on Earth in matters of faith and morals. Patriarchates were only deemed necessary when Rome began falling apart and was split between East & West (politically, followed by the final 1054 religious split). Alexandria and Rome had historically come from the same theological background and often shared co-consecrators for ordinations. It was not till the Arabian conquest of Egypt that the Greeks sought to suppress the Coptic Pope and replace him with their own Greek Pope.
Isa Almisry:

And when he suppresses and creates diocese in the East, what is acting as then?

What eparchies in the East has he suppressed/created?
Isa Almisry:

You have to redefine One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic to achieve this.

We don’t… but our brother Orthodox do.
Isa Almisry:

Both Vatican I and II define the Catholic bishops as those in union with the pope. No such definition existed in the ancient Church.

Because it wasn’t defined doesn’t make it not true.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am talking about the specific functions of a bishop. The head of the Ukrainian church is equal to the head of the Bishop of Rome. The Pope’s papal perogatives come not from his being bishop but from his being the head of the see of St. Peter & Paul. The Ukrainian bishop can ordain other bishops as the pope can and can perform all other functions he can. Patriarchates entered the church episcopal language much later than the fact that Rome was recognized as head of the church on Earth in matters of faith and morals. Patriarchates were only deemed necessary when Rome began falling apart and was split between East & West (politically, followed by the final 1054 religious split).

Patriarchs have been recognized from before the Ecumenical councils, which just (except for Constantinople and Jerusalem) just affirmed tradition. So it predates the Vatican by quite a bit.

Alexandria and Rome had historically come from the same theological background and often shared co-consecrators for ordinations.

Btw, the title pope at Alexandria predates that at Rome.

It was not till the Arabian conquest of Egypt that the Greeks sought to suppress the Coptic Pope and replace him with their own Greek Pope.

Actually it predates this. consult canon 30 of Chalcedon.

What eparchies in the East has he suppressed/created?

For one thing, the Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

We don’t… but our brother Orthodox do.

yeah, that’s why we recite the unchanged Creed.

Because it wasn’t defined doesn’t make it not true.

Can’t confess silence.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

According to the papal prerogatives poll, my viewpoint seems to be in the majority.

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is the two wills of Christ mentioned.

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is the term THEOTOKOS mentioned?

Not avoiding the issue. There is a basis in the Creed for all of the above (which is why we keep the boundaries our Fathers set). there is no basis for the papacy in it.

Don’t avoid the issue. Where is theosis mentioned? And where did I mention that theosis is an EO invention? Yeah, I know you can’t answer that.

I don’t know if those threads exist anymore.

Yet, you can’t even defend the idea that EVERYTHING we must believe must be contained in the Creed.

not defending it. But everything must agree with it, and a dogma that states one bishop can alter the Creed, which was done, doesn’t.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

a dogma that states one bishop can alter the Creed, which was done, doesn’t.

Isa where did one bishop alter the creed?

Polemic as always in your reduction. Consider starting a new thread where this polemic belongs. This is the area for Eastern Catholics to be unmolested by anti-Catholic polemicists. The rules change was pretty clear.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa where did one bishop alter the creed?

Polemic as always in your reduction. Consider starting a new thread where this polemic belongs. This is the area for Eastern Catholics to be unmolested by anti-Catholic polemicists. The rules change was pretty clear.

Yes, and I have seen a number of “Eastern Catholics” question the filioque, not the least Apotheum’s signature.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yes, and I have seen a number of “Eastern Catholics” question the filioque, not the least Apotheum’s signature.

So you are now an Eastern Catholic internally working your way through this issue?

Apotheouns situation as a Catholic formulating his understanding is his own - your history and and purpose here is different altogether. If you want to make a case for Orthodoxy, apologetics or non-Catholic religions is the place to do.

 

[Hesychios]

So you are now an Eastern Catholic internally working your way through this issue?

…your history and and purpose here is different altogether. If you want to make a case for Orthodoxy, apologetics or non-Catholic religions is the place to do.

Are you implying that the eastern catholic understanding of these things is different from the orthodox? Well, so be it, you are entitled to your opinion.

I find it interesting that you “invite to leave” someone who disagrees with you, as if you alone know the appropriate eastern catholic response to a question. Why second guess another’s motives, on an internet discussion board of all places? If he was an Orthodox Christian agreeing with you would you be so quick to show him the door?

I suggest the proper approach is to report an innapropriate post and let the administration here decide if an answer is not relevant to the topic.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Are you implying that the eastern catholic understanding of these things is different from the orthodox? Well, so be it, you are entitled to your opinion.

I find it interesting that you “invite to leave” someone who disagrees with you, as if you alone know the appropriate eastern catholic response to a question. Why second guess another’s motives, on an internet discussion board of all places? If he was an Orthodox Christian agreeing with you would you be so quick to show him the door?

I suggest the proper approach is to report an innapropriate post and let the administration here decide if an answer is not relevant to the topic.

Michael

Michael I can’t be bothered to engage in the mental gymnastics it would take to give you the benifit of the doubt on the ever-so-casual and overlysimplistic comment “Are you implying that the eastern catholic understanding of these things is different from the orthodox?” You have been around (5,000+ posts to your credit!) long enough to well know that is a loaded and somewhat provacative question.

I didn’t invite a single soul to leave and I defy you to demonstrate that with a direct quote you can attribute to me. I plainly pointed out that in the context of someone asking about petrine ministry and apostolic succession, wading in with difficult to support polemic opinions on the scale of “one man changes the creed” is neither germaine to the OP, nor appropriate for a forum it has been made clear is not set up for Catholic-Orthodox debate anymore. You went through the transition - you should be aware of the new format.

So whether he was “an Orthodox Christian agreeing with me” well sorry, no dice - you want to impugn me for judging motives, and then you do the same. Polemic is polemic.

I will make a final point of the irony in your final point: “I suggest the proper approach is to report an innapropriate post and let the administration here decide if an answer is not relevant to the topic.” If that is how you feel, shouldn’t you have done likewise rather than speak up and post about my inappropriateness?