Pope's role today and yesterday

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

The modern Papacy is an Ultramontanist invention.

It is the Low Petrine view that is a modern invention. The Absolutist Petrine view is also a modern invention. The Absolutist Petrine view was supported NOT by the Ultramontanists at Vatican 1, but by the group known as NEO-ultramontanists.

The Ultramontanists supported the principles of the High Petrine view, which was the historic position of the early Church, the position affirmed at Vatican 1, and the position the Catholic Church holds today.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’ by Thomas Bokenkotter was recommended by my pastor in relation to our diocese, its public teaching mission within the context of the universal church.

I requested a most basic and objective history of the Catholic Church. I have found this book very informative in the Church’s early origins, how and why the papacy developed to present papal authority, most appropriate and the rightly so in context of events leading to these papal decrees. It is not about the pope having power for himself.

In regards to papal authority, it is about having a recognized source within the world that upholds the will of God over mankind. That reflects the work of God Himself, not man.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephback,

Ultramontanist? Say what? What does Montanism have to do with the Papacy?

The term “Ultramontanism” has nothing to do with Montanism (i.e., the heretic Montanus). Ultramontanism is a term used during the 17th thru 19th centuries which literall means “over the mountains.” It’s talking about the Alps. Catholics in Italy sometimes would call the Catholics over the Alps “ultramontanists.” Over time, the term came to designate the Catholics in Italy with respect to those Catholics in France. Many Catholics in France espoused the Gallican heresy, and they derisively called the Catholics in Italy who were opposed to their heresy “ultramontanists” - i.e., those who are over the mountains.

So traditional Ultramontanism refers to the teaching that was in opposition to Gallicanism. Ultramontanism espoused a High Petrine view of ecclesiology in opposition to the Low Petrine innovations of the Gallican heresy. Sometime before the heydey of Vatican 1, another group cropped up which represented some extreme positions regarding the papacy. This new group were referred to as NEO-ultramontanists. They reflected what can be called an Absolutist Petrine view of ecclesiology. The Ultramontanists were just as much in opposition to the views of the Gallicans as they were to the views of the Neo-ultramontanists. The traditional High Petrine Ultramontanist position is the one that won the day at Vatican 1, not the excesses of the Low Petrine Gallicans, nor those of the Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanists.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

For anyone interested, I wanted to elaborate on the following post a little more.

Does the Pope even use such a title?

I understand that the Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church, not the bishop of the universal Church. There is a big difference.

“Head bishop of the universal Church” would be an acceptable title from the High Petrine perspective.

“Bishop of the universal Church” is something Absolutist Petrine advocates would probabaly find acceptable, but I think Pope St. Gregory explicitly rejected such a title.

The term “bishop of the universal Church” or “universal bishop” has no place in the history of the Church. It was explicitly rejected by both Pope St. Leo and Pope St. Gregory.

A more appropos and orthodox title is “head bishop of the universal Church.” One of the official titles of the Pope is “supreme bishop of the universal Church,” which is equivalent.

So what is the difference between the “bishop of the universal Church” and “head bishop of the universal Church?” A very important one.

The fact is, a bishop so called has proper authority in ALL matters within his jurisdiction. He can basically micromanage his sphere of jurisdiction; no one need appeal to him for him to directly exercise his authority anywhere within his jurisdiction.

A head bishop, on the other hand, DOES NOT have proper authority in ALL matters within his jurisdiction. For example, a metropolitan ONLY has proper authority in matters that pertain to the ENTIRE metropolitan See, but he DOES NOT have proper authority in the jurisdiction of a local bishop within his metropolitan See.
He can intervene in the affairs of a local diocese within his metropolitan see normally only upon appeal, or if the local bishop is impeded. In other words, he can use his authority in a local diocese only in an extraordinary manner.

Saying the Pope is the bishop of the universal Church, instead of the head (or supreme) bishop of the universal Church, is tantamount to saying that the Pope has proper authority in ALL matters in the universal Church, and not merely in matters that pertain to the universal Church. This would mean he can micromanage the universal Church, intervene in local affairs without appeal, or intervene in local affairs even if the local bishop is not impeded, hence himself impeding the authority of the local bishop. But according to Pastor Aeternus, the Pope does not have the authority to impede the authority of the local bishop. Hence, it is altogether inappropriate and erroneous to assign the title “bishop of the universal Church” to the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

The last time I was at a Ukrainian Catholic Church (earlier this year) Pope Benedict was referred to as “Our most holy universal Pontiff Benedict Pope of Rome”

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hello Catholics,

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Pope’s role the first 1000 years and afterwards. What is the main difference? Many orthodox say they will consider reuniting with the pope if it was like the first thousand years. Exactly what was the pope’s role and how did it develop? Was the Pope always the bishop of the* universal *church?

Thanks

The Catholic Church has essentially put the first millennium standard on the table, and the Orthodox aren’t going for it (so far).

I think there are many complex reasons for this, one being that the Orthodox Church isn’t really organized in a way conducive to this kind of negotiation. Who in the Orthodox Church has the authority to speak for Orthodoxy on this matter?

Also, there’s the not unimportant fact that the Orthodox themselves don’t really use the first millennium standard today. They may have beef with the way the Catholic Church works today (and not unreasonably so), but the historical fact remains that the bishop of Rome had more than a primacy of honor in the first millennium.

Or to put it more specifically: the bishop of Rome in the first millennium did have more authority than the patriarch of Constantinople does today in Orthodoxy as their “first among equals.”

To start things off, let me say that in the 1st millennium, the “High Petrine view” was the reality. Both the “Absolute Petrine view” espoused (some insist it is de jure, while other say it is merely de facto, but either way it is what is espoused) by Rome, and the “Low Petrine view” (the famous “primus inter pares”) commonly held by the EO are subsequent developments. That’s as much as I will say, and I’ve probably made a mistake even saying that.

I don’t think you’ve made a mistake, malphono. I agree, and I wish there were more Catholics like you willing to engage these issues with clarity, precision, intellectual responsibility, and honesty.

That said, I’m absolutely convinced that the Catholic Church’s more absolutist Petrine way of functioning today is definitely de facto and not de jure in any way. Rome - all modern popes, in fact - do espouse a High Petrine view, but I really hope that as the years go by, people like you continue to fearlessly engage these issues so that we can fix them.

The two sides involved have VERY different versions of the history involved.

There is likely some untruth, and some truth, on BOTH sides. As is usual, whenever humans are involved, things get messy. Both sides have done some wrong things, and both sides have done some right things since the breakup of the Eastern and Western Churches.

Agreed. The solution desperately needs the kind of critical honesty malphono has displayed above.

Does the Pope even use such a title?

I understand that the Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church, not the bishop of the universal Church. There is a big difference.

“Head bishop of the universal Church” would be an acceptable title from the High Petrine perspective.

“Bishop of the universal Church” is something Absolutist Petrine advocates would probabaly find acceptable, but I think Pope St. Gregory explicitly rejected such a title.

Blessings,
Marduk

Excellent distinction, Marduk. Thank you. As always, your participation in these threads constitutes a true deluge of clarity.

The fact is, a bishop so called has proper authority in ALL matters within his jurisdiction. He can basically micromanage his sphere of jurisdiction; no one need appeal to him for him to directly exercise his authority anywhere within his jurisdiction.

A head bishop, on the other hand, DOES NOT have proper authority in ALL matters within his jurisdiction. For example, a metropolitan ONLY has proper authority in matters that pertain to the ENTIRE metropolitan See, but he DOES NOT have proper authority in the jurisdiction of a local bishop within his metropolitan See.
He can intervene in the affairs of a local diocese within his metropolitan see normally only upon appeal, or if the local bishop is impeded. In other words, he can use his authority in a local diocese only in an extraordinary manner.

Saying the Pope is the bishop of the universal Church, instead of the head (or supreme) bishop of the universal Church, is tantamount to saying that the Pope has proper authority in ALL matters in the universal Church, and not merely in matters that pertain to the universal Church. This would mean he can micromanage the universal Church, intervene in local affairs without appeal, or intervene in local affairs even if the local bishop is not impeded, hence himself impeding the authority of the local bishop. But according to Pastor Aeternus, the Pope does not have the authority to impede the authority of the local bishop. Hence, it is altogether inappropriate and erroneous to assign the title “bishop of the universal Church” to the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you again for this even more impressive deluge of clarity.

 

[dvdjs]

The modern Papacy is an Ultramontanist invention.

Is this just sloganeering or do you actually have something in mind?

Let’s see. Consider our most the papacies of our recent, modern popes: Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XIII. Please detail their Ultramontanism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Seamus,

The last time I was at a Ukrainian Catholic Church (earlier this year) Pope Benedict was referred to as “Our most holy universal Pontiff Benedict Pope of Rome”

The term “pontiff” has two senses. It can apply to bishops or it can apply to the head bishop (historically, and analogically, it applied in the Jewish faith to either the chief priests or the high priest himself). I’m certain that Ukranians are using “pontiff” in the proper, orthodox sense as “head bishop.” You can ask a Ukranian Catholic for their own understanding, but if you do so, I hope you wil not neglect to explain to them the distinction that has been clarified here between a bishop and a head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Tertullian referred to the Pope as the “Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops”.

Every local primate is a “bishop of bishops”, the best examples being the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. But because he holds the primacy of honor, only the Pope of Rome can properly be called the “supreme” bishop.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

it is the authority that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople +Bartholomew has over the Orthodox Church in the modern day, since Rome left communion

Which pretty much means not that much authority. Or, depending on your jurisdiction, lots of authority. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has a primacy of honor- i.e., he is considered a symbol and figure of unity, and he can be called upon at certain points to act as an arbitrator if there is a dispute that is figured big enough to warrant such intervention. But just because he can be called upon doesn’t mean he is. And because of aforementioned status as a symbol of unity, he can be very influential.

 

[josephback]

Dear brother josephback,

The term “Ultramontanism” has nothing to do with Montanism (i.e., the heretic Montanus). Ultramontanism is a term used during the 17th thru 19th centuries which literall means “over the mountains.” It’s talking about the Alps. Catholics in Italy sometimes would call the Catholics over the Alps “ultramontanists.” Over time, the term came to designate the Catholics in Italy with respect to those Catholics in France. Many Catholics in France espoused the Gallican heresy, and they derisively called the Catholics in Italy who were opposed to their heresy “ultramontanists” - i.e., those who are over the mountains.

So traditional Ultramontanism refers to the teaching that was in opposition to Gallicanism. Ultramontanism espoused a High Petrine view of ecclesiology in opposition to the Low Petrine innovations of the Gallican heresy. Sometime before the heydey of Vatican 1, another group cropped up which represented some extreme positions regarding the papacy. This new group were referred to as NEO-ultramontanists. They reflected what can be called an Absolutist Petrine view of ecclesiology. The Ultramontanists were just as much in opposition to the views of the Gallicans as they were to the views of the Neo-ultramontanists. The traditional High Petrine Ultramontanist position is the one that won the day at Vatican 1, not the excesses of the Low Petrine Gallicans, nor those of the Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanists.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

I see. Thank you my brother!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The last time I was at a Ukrainian Catholic Church (earlier this year) Pope Benedict was referred to as “Our most holy universal Pontiff Benedict Pope of Rome”

Yes, and there are parishes, such as my own, that do not use “Our” in commemorating him for various reasons.

In fact, that form of commemorating the Pope simply inserts him into the way the Ukrainian Orthodox used to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rome itself does not recognize that form, but “the Holy Father Benedict, Pope of Rome” in official Byzantine liturgical translations published in Rome.

This was the subject of some scholarly articles which I could possibly and eventually dig up.

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes, and there are parishes, such as my own, that do not use “Our” in commemorating him for various reasons.

In fact, that form of commemorating the Pope simply inserts him into the way the Ukrainian Orthodox used to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rome itself does not recognize that form, but “the Holy Father Benedict, Pope of Rome” in official Byzantine liturgical translations published in Rome.

This was the subject of some scholarly articles which I could possibly and eventually dig up.

Alex

I don’t mind it. He is our Pope. For that matter, as a Ruthenian I wouldn’t mind if we prayed for “our Patriarch Sviatoslav”, since we don’t have one of our own. As long as a bishop doesn’t mind us stealing his affection, why not?

 

[Vico]

Yes, and there are parishes, such as my own, that do not use “Our” in commemorating him for various reasons.

In fact, that form of commemorating the Pope simply inserts him into the way the Ukrainian Orthodox used to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rome itself does not recognize that form, but “the Holy Father Benedict, Pope of Rome” in official Byzantine liturgical translations published in Rome.

This was the subject of some scholarly articles which I could possibly and eventually dig up.

Alex

“Our” is used in The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysotsom (and Basil) promulgated in 2006 for the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Church Sui Juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. (It is approved by all four bishops).