P
Peter_J
Guest
Perhaps you meant something more like “the Orthodox believe that infallibility hasn’t been *exercised *in recent times”?
The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
St_Stephen_1
Guest
Probably something like that.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Malphono,
I have some time in the next several days, so I’d like to get into this a bit more.
I think a lot of times, people think there was unilateral papal interference, when in fact there was an appeal made. Sometimes people don’t agree with the result of the appeal, and so the papacy gets all the flack.
Blessings,
Marduk
I have some time in the next several days, so I’d like to get into this a bit more.
Can you give some examples when a Pope has intervened in the affairs of a particular Church without any appeal being made? This question is for anyone.
I think a lot of times, people think there was unilateral papal interference, when in fact there was an appeal made. Sometimes people don’t agree with the result of the appeal, and so the papacy gets all the flack.
I know we disagree on this. I believe the Curia for the papal office (as distinct from the curia for the patriarchal office of the Pope for the Latin Church) has its uses, while you believe it should no longer exist. So you probably think that the only feasible means to curb the power of the Curia is to get rid of it altogether, and since you don’t think that will happen, then its power will never be curbed. Would that be accurate? I believe the Pope would curb its power if it he realized how it would help Church unity (though he probably has a lot more on his plate than figuring out how the Curia should work).Yes, but curtailed by whom? The “lawgiver” himself, who is the only one who could? Fat chance of that happening.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
malphono
Guest
One rather egregious case is that of the appointment of a Maronite Patriarch in 1955. We actually went through this in the course a monumental [thread=349702]thread[/thread] (overall, perhaps one of the best threads we’ve had in this forum) a few years back. Rather than repeat myself here, I’d suggest referring to that thread first. Start at page 24 and work forward. You’ll see where the tangent drops off.
To make a distinction between the “Papal curia” and the “Western Patriarchal curia” seems to me to be rather a stretch. There’s precisely one dicastery that is not involved with the Latin Church. And yes, I’ve held the position for many years that that one should be eliminated.
As for any “curbing of power” for whatsoever reason … you’re not serious, are you?
As I said earlier, fat chance of that happening.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Folks, let’s remember not to re-construct history according to the way our churches currently function.
The centralization that developed in the nineteenth century in the Catholic Church was certainly unheard of in the first millennium, but it’s equally false to pretend that the pope had merely a primacy of honor in the early Church.
We have all sorts of instances of papal involvement in non-Roman and non-Latin affairs in the first millennium, starting, of course, with St. Clement I’s instructions to the Corinthians concerning their unlawfully deposed presbyters, continuing through St. Leo I’s heavy-handed guidance of Chalcedon, through Pope St. Hormisdas’ attempt to resolve schism through the dissemination of his Formula, etc.
Heck, the only pope (in my opinion) to have committed a true act of heresy - Pope Honorius - only did so because he was too weak a leader. He should have exercised his supremacy more strongly in cracking down on the Monothelites, and he failed to do so.
As Marduk points out, it’s true that in all exercises of universal papal authority, an appeal was made first. But that’s also the case today, pretty much.
As far as I’m aware, the negative occurrences like Latinizations, etc., are due more to the Latin bishops as a whole than papal interference. The grievances that understandably led many Ruthenian Catholics into Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, were Bishop Ireland’s fault, not the pope’s. The pope knew very well that, as the Church’s consistent doctrine of collegiality teaches, he should not overrule the majority opinion of the bishops of a given area.
In 1453, as the Ottoman Turks’ assault on the Byzantine Empire left the latter in its death throes, a remarkable thing happened before the final battle: though the Byzantine emperors had been too afraid to declare the union achieved at Florence until 1452, fearing a backlash, it nonetheless transpired that the schism was forgotten as the end loomed near. Latins and Byzantines living in Constantinople honored the proclamation and received the Sacraments side-by-side before going out to the final battle.
(I read this in a book either by John Meyendorff or Kallistos Ware, I forget which)
Of course, once the Turks won, the patriarch whose election they controlled naturally repudiated the union.
At Vatican II, as you probably know, reform of the Curia was one of the topics that was taken off the table, so to speak (the others being contraception and clerical celibacy).
The centralization that developed in the nineteenth century in the Catholic Church was certainly unheard of in the first millennium, but it’s equally false to pretend that the pope had merely a primacy of honor in the early Church.
We have all sorts of instances of papal involvement in non-Roman and non-Latin affairs in the first millennium, starting, of course, with St. Clement I’s instructions to the Corinthians concerning their unlawfully deposed presbyters, continuing through St. Leo I’s heavy-handed guidance of Chalcedon, through Pope St. Hormisdas’ attempt to resolve schism through the dissemination of his Formula, etc.
Heck, the only pope (in my opinion) to have committed a true act of heresy - Pope Honorius - only did so because he was too weak a leader. He should have exercised his supremacy more strongly in cracking down on the Monothelites, and he failed to do so.
As Marduk points out, it’s true that in all exercises of universal papal authority, an appeal was made first. But that’s also the case today, pretty much.
As far as I’m aware, the negative occurrences like Latinizations, etc., are due more to the Latin bishops as a whole than papal interference. The grievances that understandably led many Ruthenian Catholics into Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, were Bishop Ireland’s fault, not the pope’s. The pope knew very well that, as the Church’s consistent doctrine of collegiality teaches, he should not overrule the majority opinion of the bishops of a given area.
Actually, basing my opinion off of history, I disagree, gus.
In 1453, as the Ottoman Turks’ assault on the Byzantine Empire left the latter in its death throes, a remarkable thing happened before the final battle: though the Byzantine emperors had been too afraid to declare the union achieved at Florence until 1452, fearing a backlash, it nonetheless transpired that the schism was forgotten as the end loomed near. Latins and Byzantines living in Constantinople honored the proclamation and received the Sacraments side-by-side before going out to the final battle.
(I read this in a book either by John Meyendorff or Kallistos Ware, I forget which)
Of course, once the Turks won, the patriarch whose election they controlled naturally repudiated the union.
The Curia has been controversial for a long time. Even the Latin bishops have problems with it.
At Vatican II, as you probably know, reform of the Curia was one of the topics that was taken off the table, so to speak (the others being contraception and clerical celibacy).
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
One further point:
(a) Rome is the ancient church of the princes and leaders of the Apostles, Saints Peter and Paul, who consecrated it with their martyrdom. This reason is linked to what has always been the Catholic perspective: the bishop of Rome inherits Saint Peter’s responsibilities, and is to the College of Bishops what Saint Peter was to the College of the Apostles. Thus, the Church of Rome is that which “presides in love” (St. Ignatius).
(b) Rome was an extremely important city as the capital of the empire. This is strictly a practical - though probably providential - reason for the Church of Rome’s importance in the first millennium.
(c) Finally - and don’t take my word for it, Eastern Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware said this - Rome was a beacon of orthodoxy in the first millennium. Other patriarchates and regions - eastern and western - constantly fell into heresy, schism, etc., and Rome alone stood firm. Whether this is a matter of theological importance or an accident of history is a question that rather encapsulates Catholic vs. Orthodox views on the matter. But it is perhaps for this third reason that you have Church fathers making assertions such as that no error can enter the Church of Rome (St. Cyprian) or that it is necessary for every church to be in agreement with Rome (St. Irenaeus).
Part of the reason this is so is that the Church of Rome was held in such high esteem in the first millennium, and orthodox bishops of the first millennium (at least until the ninth century) did indeed seek to be in accord with Rome. Kallistos Ware (in that book I was reading) says that Rome achieved this importance for three reasons:
(a) Rome is the ancient church of the princes and leaders of the Apostles, Saints Peter and Paul, who consecrated it with their martyrdom. This reason is linked to what has always been the Catholic perspective: the bishop of Rome inherits Saint Peter’s responsibilities, and is to the College of Bishops what Saint Peter was to the College of the Apostles. Thus, the Church of Rome is that which “presides in love” (St. Ignatius).
(b) Rome was an extremely important city as the capital of the empire. This is strictly a practical - though probably providential - reason for the Church of Rome’s importance in the first millennium.
(c) Finally - and don’t take my word for it, Eastern Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware said this - Rome was a beacon of orthodoxy in the first millennium. Other patriarchates and regions - eastern and western - constantly fell into heresy, schism, etc., and Rome alone stood firm. Whether this is a matter of theological importance or an accident of history is a question that rather encapsulates Catholic vs. Orthodox views on the matter. But it is perhaps for this third reason that you have Church fathers making assertions such as that no error can enter the Church of Rome (St. Cyprian) or that it is necessary for every church to be in agreement with Rome (St. Irenaeus).
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Well, up to Honorius I anyway, although there is also that period where St. Athanasius was pretty much the lone orthodox bishop, and that includes the Bishop of Rome.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
True, good point.
But during the Arian period, when St. Athanasius stood firm against the world, wasn’t Rome politically impotent rather than actually heterodox?
I’m thinking of Pope Liberius as an example: I know he’s been criticized for supporting Arians, but he was orthodox himself, wasn’t he? He just allowed some political accommodation to the Arians, right? (Whether he truly had no better choice or not I do not know; that’s historically specific enough to be beyond me. I’m just asking about his teachings)
M
mardukm
Guest
Actually, Pope St. Athanasius soundly defended Pope Liberius in no uncertain terms. Pope Liberius signed something under duress, but when he returned to Rome, he immediately repudiated it.
Blessings,
Marduk
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Everything I’ve read indicates that Rome basically sat out the Arian controversy between Nicaea and Constantinople. Hence “Athansius against the world”. That’s what I was referring to.
V
Vico
Guest
Also Arianism was the topic of western councils in that time period 325-381 A.D.
Council of Rome, 342 A.D.
Council of Mediolanum, 345 A.D.
Council of Mediolanum, 347 A.D.
Council of Mediolanum, 355 A.D.
Council of Ariminum, 359 A.D.
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s would be very difficult, if not impossible, to believe because of the Council of Sardica.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Hopeful.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Likewise.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Jay, the article is hope. I believe he and Benedict have been very close for some time.
M
mardukm
Guest
I read the first 4 and last 3 pages of your link, then gave up trying to find the exact place where we discussed the topic of the appointed Maronite Patriarch – but I do distinctly remember we had a discussion on it.
I recall that the last response on the matter was mine, and the gist of it was the following:
There are some factors we need to consider for the papal appointment.
First, that the Pope can appoint a bishop in a non-Latin Church is not unpatristic or uncanonical. If the Synod of the local Church cannot choose a patriarch or local bishop for some reason OR within the time prescribed by the Canons, the Pope can legitimately make an appointment. We can otherwise certainly wait for another Ecumenical Council to make the decision, but I believe we are fortunate that we as Catholics can turn to the Pope in such instances. I do not see such instances as a unilateral, dictatorial action by the bishop of Rome, but is done by him for the good of the local Church, since each local Church needs a visible head. Would you agree with this (if the underlined portion above is/was indeed the case)?
Second, I know from my research on that period of Lebanese history that the Maronite Church was strongly divided between a pro-Arab faction and a pro-French faction.
Third, there does not seem to be a record of a single contemporary objection to the Pope’s appointment of the Patriarch. In fact, there are some sources who refer to the Patriarch’s ascension to the throne as an election.
In light of the three factors above, is it not possible that the Synod - knowing they could never agree on a choice for a Patriarch - agreed to submit the matter to the Pope? Is it not also possible that they submitted a list of names to the Pope for selection, and the Pope simply chose one of those candidates - which would fully explain why certain Maronite sources refer to the ascension as an election (since the Synod was not devoid of participation in the choice of candidate)?
I present these points for consideration in light of the fact that I really don’t know the story behind the appointment, aside from the fact that there was an appointment. I don’t see any reason so far for us to automatically assume that - even if it was an appointment - this was a unilateral action by the Pope.
Those are my comments from my recollection of that past discussion (I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the appointment was sometime in the 1930’s, not in the 50’s. I’m probably mistaken, but I hope we are referring to the same set of circumstances
).
Blessings,
Marduk
I recall that the last response on the matter was mine, and the gist of it was the following:
There are some factors we need to consider for the papal appointment.
First, that the Pope can appoint a bishop in a non-Latin Church is not unpatristic or uncanonical. If the Synod of the local Church cannot choose a patriarch or local bishop for some reason OR within the time prescribed by the Canons, the Pope can legitimately make an appointment. We can otherwise certainly wait for another Ecumenical Council to make the decision, but I believe we are fortunate that we as Catholics can turn to the Pope in such instances. I do not see such instances as a unilateral, dictatorial action by the bishop of Rome, but is done by him for the good of the local Church, since each local Church needs a visible head. Would you agree with this (if the underlined portion above is/was indeed the case)?
Second, I know from my research on that period of Lebanese history that the Maronite Church was strongly divided between a pro-Arab faction and a pro-French faction.
Third, there does not seem to be a record of a single contemporary objection to the Pope’s appointment of the Patriarch. In fact, there are some sources who refer to the Patriarch’s ascension to the throne as an election.
In light of the three factors above, is it not possible that the Synod - knowing they could never agree on a choice for a Patriarch - agreed to submit the matter to the Pope? Is it not also possible that they submitted a list of names to the Pope for selection, and the Pope simply chose one of those candidates - which would fully explain why certain Maronite sources refer to the ascension as an election (since the Synod was not devoid of participation in the choice of candidate)?
I present these points for consideration in light of the fact that I really don’t know the story behind the appointment, aside from the fact that there was an appointment. I don’t see any reason so far for us to automatically assume that - even if it was an appointment - this was a unilateral action by the Pope.
Those are my comments from my recollection of that past discussion (I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the appointment was sometime in the 1930’s, not in the 50’s. I’m probably mistaken, but I hope we are referring to the same set of circumstances
).Blessings,
Marduk
F
fordhamstudent
Guest
Catholic/Orthodox dialogue has improved under Pope Benedict since his attempt at the re-sacralization of the liturgy and his concession to subject His Holiness’ role to theological analysis based on patristic theology rather than ultramontanist assertions. Many think the return of traditional forms of liturgical expression in the Latin Church during his reign are due simply to a desire of the Holy Father to re-unite the SSPX to the Church, but this is clearly false. The Holy Father firstly desires the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church to full communion with the Catholic Church as Sister Churches and His Holiness’ program of the restoration of traditional forms of liturgy and piety are directly related to ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox–who have viewed the interpretation of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II by the modern National Catholic Churches with disdain since they seem foreign to their mysteriological experience of the sacred Liturgy and the Church in general.
M
malphono
Guest
It looks like you couldn’t find it because you didn’t look at the right pages. It starts on page page 24. See [post=5364737]post 114[/post] as a jumping-off point.I read the first 4 and last 3 pages of your link, then gave up trying to find the exact place where we discussed the topic of the appointed Maronite Patriarch – but I do distinctly remember we had a discussion on it.
I recall that the last response on the matter was mine, and the gist of it was the following:
There are some factors we need to consider for the papal appointment.
First, that the Pope can appoint a bishop in a non-Latin Church is not unpatristic or uncanonical. If the Synod of the local Church cannot choose a patriarch or local bishop for some reason OR within the time prescribed by the Canons, the Pope can legitimately make an appointment. We can otherwise certainly wait for another Ecumenical Council to make the decision, but I believe we are fortunate that we as Catholics can turn to the Pope in such instances. I do not see such instances as a unilateral, dictatorial action by the bishop of Rome, but is done by him for the good of the local Church, since each local Church needs a visible head. Would you agree with this (if the underlined portion above is/was indeed the case)?
Second, I know from my research on that period of Lebanese history that the Maronite Church was strongly divided between a pro-Arab faction and a pro-French faction.
Third, there does not seem to be a record of a single contemporary objection to the Pope’s appointment of the Patriarch. In fact, there are some sources who refer to the Patriarch’s ascension to the throne as an election.
In light of the three factors above, is it not possible that the Synod - knowing they could never agree on a choice for a Patriarch - agreed to submit the matter to the Pope? Is it not also possible that they submitted a list of names to the Pope for selection, and the Pope simply chose one of those candidates - which would fully explain why certain Maronite sources refer to the ascension as an election (since the Synod was not devoid of participation in the choice of candidate)?
I present these points for consideration in light of the fact that I really don’t know the story behind the appointment, aside from the fact that there was an appointment. I don’t see any reason so far for us to automatically assume that - even if it was an appointment - this was a unilateral action by the Pope.
Those are my comments from my recollection of that past discussion (I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the appointment was sometime in the 1930’s, not in the 50’s. I’m probably mistaken, but I hope we are referring to the same set of circumstances
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status