Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I’m afraid you must, because none of these examples proves your point. The fact is:
(1) The Pope has always worked collegially or through synod in the deposition of bishops.

Says who/what? In the cases I listed, there is no record of the pope working through a synod.

(3) When Catholic sources state that “the Pope did this” or “the Pope did that,” most don’t realize that this merely means that the Pope either confirmed a prior decision of other authorities, initiated an action in synod, or initiated an action where collegial action was taken.

It seems that this claim of yours is based largely on speculation. With documents like Dictatus Papae (which still represented the mindset of the papacy) and Unam Sanctam, I don’t know who would have prohibited the pope from doing anything he so desired.

(4) During the Middle Ages, for about 400 years, the Pope could do nothing without the Colllege of bishops (during this time, the College that elected him required the Pope to sign a sort of pre-nup before taking office, to prevent unilateral abuses of power).

Please provide evidence to substantiate this claim.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. But it’s obvious you misunderstand the Vatican machinery. Depositions are carried out only after an appeal has been made by OTHER AUTHORITIES and extensive investigation by authorities OTHER THAN THE POPE. The Pope makes his decisions based on the (name removed by moderator)ut of those OTHER AUTHORITIES. The deposition is a truly collegial action. That it does not happen in a formal synod is a poor criticism.

No, it is a valid criticism. Even if what you say is true, on what grounds does the pope have the final word in the process?

None of your examples demonstrates that the Pope removes bishops “at will.” Neither does he initiate a process of deposition, nor does he base a decision to depose on his unilateral will alone without the (name removed by moderator)ut of OTHER AUTHORITIES. Your whole position is a straw man, I’m afraid.

I am afraid it is still “at will”. By your own admission, “the pope makes a decision based on the (name removed by moderator)ut of other authorities.” Regardless of what other authorities suggest, it is ultimately the pope’s decision. The adviser cannot override the action of the advised.

You have only cited instances of the Pope deposing Latin bishops. This is only as “bad” as the actions of the Patriarch of Antioch, or the actions of the Synod of Jerusalem stripping their former Patriarch of the episcopal diginity.

No, synodal action is not comparable - that was the function of the early Church.

They are local actions relevant for a local Church. So you have no rational basis for fearmongering. The examples you gave, even if they prove your claim (and they do not), has no relevance for the relationship between the Western Church and the Eastern or Oriental Churches, for they are all merely examples of INTERNAL LATIN Church governance.

Even if you are correct, (that his powers are confined to the western church) the abuses are in no way justified. I will reassert that this argument has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You have given no authoritative magisterial source that this is a “normative” power of the Pope, much less that such a “power” has actually been used in the history of the Latin Catholic Church.

Actually, I have. You, however, assert [without evidence] that these depositions took place only through a synod’s authority.

In any event. I will be away from a computer until Monday evening. Just letting you know in case you don’t hear a timely response to your [presumable] next post. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

 

[mardukm]

Pope Benedict :

“When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.”

The doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millenium is not the Low Petrine novelty of “mere honor.” I have met EO who also adhere to a High Petrine view, so if you are referring to such EO, then I would agree with your statement that the statement above agrees with the EO position (at least that particular EO position which affirms the High Petrine view).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk, I respect your point of view but in this case I don’t see how you can say that.

The Curia the extension of the Papacy. It is the power of the Pope, it is the way the Pope has to work because no one man can actually do what is claimed for the Pope, so he delegates his own authority to his staff.

I agree with you as far as the Latin Catholic Church is concerned. But when it comes to the non-Latin Churches, the Popes have not a few times been at odds with Curial officials. That’s the whole problem with delegated authority - it can be abused. These Curial officials have been given the power, but - unfortunately - not the same sense of responsibility for the ENTIRE Church that the Pope by virtue of his office possesses. So these Curial officials are often only acting with a very Latin mindset in the interests of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

The Low Petrine view is just as much a cause for the schism on the matter of ecclesiology as the Absolutist Petrine view.

Not exactly. It wasn’t adopting the Low Petrine view that caused it but rather it was the departure from the High Petrine view. What’s the difference? The East really became it’s own version of a Christianity. It wanted to have the blessing of Rome so that there could be two versions of Catholic Christianity with full acknowledged legitimacy (the attempted 8th Ecumenical by Photius but rejected by Pope John VIII). The East had to either be forever held back by Rome or continue in its own identity. If Constantinople had the blessing of Rome to be co-equal in universal High Petrine prerogatives there would have been no split. So the East had to give up the High Petrine view, and when it did the world didn’t come to an end!

If Rome had acknowledged another See as co-equal, the whole idea of there being only “one true church” would have to be modified. So, Rome saved this “one true church” idea at the cost of splitting the Church. There are now 3 “one true church”'s, 3 Catholic Churches, and 3 Orthodox Churches, but at least they all believe they are the one.

“Catholic” should not be a sub-set of “Christian”. If one is the sub-set of the other then Christian should be a sub-set of Catholic, because “Catholic” means universal. How can the universe be a sub-set of something less then the universe! When you exclude a Christian from being Catholic by the use of some dogma you do nothing to change that Christian, you only make the communion of Rome to be less than Catholic.

God Himself caused the splits in the Catholic Church, not Rome nor Constantinople nor Alexandria (the Monophysites). I believe we were all wrong to think that we were the only true version of Christianity. Such an idea only lead to war and hatred of other Christians because they believed in Christ in some other way then we did. God divided us to teach us that we are not the only Christians. We thought we were the 'one true church" so God made us into 3 Churches.

Having said all this I do believe we will soon return to unity in a High Petrine fashion, but not because we all just one day will decide to return to the old ways, but because Russia will force us all into it via an arrangement with the Vatican to further it’s agenda. What the Pope and Russia agree to, 97% of all the Orthodox will follow, and the remaining 3% will be so exceedingly divided amongst themselves that they will not have the power to remain for very long. - Even if you don’t believe this will happen as I do, take it as a hypothetical so I can ask you, ‘Do you really think that a union such as this would be better than just letting each Church in Christ have its own identity even if it means not being in communion with Rome?’

Maybe some of what I say may not make sense to you but I hope I at least helped to make it more clear why I think the Low Petrine view is the best. You think that even if you were to agree with me on this that Rome could never change to it because of dogma. I say that if the Churches in the East can then so could Rome. The Low Petrine view is better because it allows more freedom, and Christ died to set us free.

 

[JohnVIII]

Then supply me with the historical evidence that a see, or a bishop received the ministry of St.Peter to bring the gospel to the Jewish people.

Then supply me with the historical evidence that St.Peter **did not **establish the See of Antioch, and that he did not co-establish the See of Rome with St. Paul.

Our history was changed to suit political advantages. Antioch was probably actually established by Apostle Barnabas. Constantinople probably by Apostle John rather than Andrew. Apostle Peter ministered to places like Cappadocia, so that means St Basil the Great may have actually been a successor to Cephas! Can you prove a negative? I know I cannot!

 

[mardukm]

Mark, I’ll respond to your post within 2 days.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I agree with you as far as the Latin Catholic Church is concerned. But when it comes to the non-Latin Churches, the Popes have not a few times been at odds with Curial officials. That’s the whole problem with delegated authority - it can be abused. These Curial officials have been given the power, but - unfortunately - not the same sense of responsibility for the ENTIRE Church that the Pope by virtue of his office possesses. So these Curial officials are often only acting with a very Latin mindset in the interests of the Latin Catholic Church.

If (for arguments sake) we agree that Our Lord intended the modern Papacy, and we agree that the Pope cannot do the job alone, then we have to conclude the Lord intended the Curia.

Together with the bishop of Rome, the curia is the papacy. It’s mistakes are the Pope’s mistakes because the Pope’s have created it and charged it to do their work (which they are utterly incapable of doing themselves).

kind regards,
Michael