The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?

[dochawk]

@dochawk

Do suppose, now that the EC has granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, that Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk will be granted the official title Patriarch or will Rome continue to try and keep the peace with the ROC?

Actually, I expect that Rome will continue to quietly ignore that issue.

The only reason Rome classifies him as a major-Archbishop instead of Patriarch is to pacify Moscow, and this has been the case for some time.

The UCC itself decided to return to the historical title of Patriarch, and uses it in correspondence with the Vatican.

I fully expect that they will follow Patriarchal protocol at their next election (informing the Pope) rather than major-archbishop (requesting approval for their choice)—and that Rome won’t raise any fuss.

hawk

 

[ziapueblo]

Actually, I expect that Rome will continue to quietly ignore that issue.

I figured

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Nonono I am not hoping that they schism make more schism, just that they schism and see why the whole thing is just so flawed and then stop schisming with rome, as in trading schisms.

 

[Wandile]

ChristMyLife:

but I believe they are incorrect about papal authority

The evidence of the fathers and history shows the east really acknowledged Rome’s authority over them.

Yet the Chieti Document, a joint Roman Catholic and Orthodox dialogue, both Churches acknowledge that Rome did not have canonical authority over the East. We must not confuse primacy with supremacy.

Not confusing anything. The Chieti document is a farce of a document with no authority at all just like all those documents produced from those commissions. Rome agreed to those commissions lacking authority so as to not be bound by their decisions but rather use their findings in an advisory manner, if necessary, as beginning points in future reunion discussions. That document was the product of compromisers who themselves probably don’t believe in papal supremacy. It was filled with German prelates and controversial figures who themselves push for less and lesspapal authority in the Catholic Church. No surprise that they ended producing the document they did.

 

[Genesis315]

With regard to the Chieti document, for us, “canonical” would be a matter of positive law, whereas the Pope’s jurisdiction is part of the constituent nature of the Church. The Pope (except in extraordinary circumstances) as a matter of custom and based on the laws promulgated at Nicea (which Rome received) did not take an active role in the East (the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch bore most of the burden) unless his intervention was necessary to serve unity.

There has been some confusion in Catholic circles based on the word “ordinary” when referring to the Pope’s jurisdiction at the First Vatican Council. This term is used in a precise way to mean “not delegated” (ie the Pope does not receive his authority as a delegation from other bishops). It does not mean “usual” or “common” or “routine.” In general, each bishop should govern his own church and bishops should coordinate their efforts as necessary. The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. The jurisdiction of the Pope is therefore traditionally used as an extraordinary means to serve unity. Unfortunately, events in the West gradually necessitated a more active role for the Pope. But this is not a necessity of the papacy. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic treatment is in the abstract–the “can” rather than the “should”–since what would be appropriate to serve unit in every situation cannot be foreseen.

It also bears pointing out that the Chieti document is a dialogue report. Unfortunately, unlike the Balamand document, they didn’t include the usual disclaimer on these things:

As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.

As the prior Pope explained:

The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede.html

 

[Genesis315]

Rome was the most conservative church, and seen the one which guarded all from heresy. Once conservative Rome accepted an idea, it was clear that it was not heretical.

Additionally, Rome had what we would today call “appellate jurisdiction” in settling disputes between other bishops. Parties could appeal to Rome to review other jurisdictions.

The logical consequence of each of these is deference to Rome in a dispute with Rome–and what follows from this is simply that Rome’s judgment should always be deferred to even outside of Rome. Formulated that in terms of jurisdiction, we get the Catholic understanding.

As I mentioned in my previous post, however, this jurisdiction, while “ordinary” in the sense of “not-delegated” was traditionally exercised extraordinarily to serve unity–this is the ideal. The West had it’s own extraordinary circumstances which required a more active role for the Pope.

What’s ironic is the Catholic Church has had much more synodal activity than than the separated Eastern Churches since the schism–which goes to the point that primacy is an important component for a functioning synodality (see the recent EO synod of Crete as exhibit A).

 

[dochawk]

The logical consequence of each of these is deference to Rome in a dispute with Rome–and what follows from this is simply that Rome’s judgment should always be deferred to even outside of Rome. Formulated that in terms of jurisdiction, we get the Catholic understanding.

Rome was most definitely deferred to outside of its boundaries, and throughout the Church.

One must be cautious is saying, this, though: all of these cases involve Rome reacting, whether to proposed theology or to a dispute brought to it. They don’t suggest a deference to Rome acting on its own (but then, the conservatism mentioned is closely tied to Rome not doing such things . . .)

hawk

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Moscow Patriarch has threated such breaking of communion with the EP. I pray that communion between the two will stay intact.

As I understand it, the Moscow patriarch did exactly that.

Russian Orthodox Church cuts ties with Constantinople | Religion | The Guardian

 

[ziapueblo]

I wonder how this will play out with the other two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches and the UGCC?

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Not confusing anything. The Chieti document is a farce of a document with no authority at all just like all those documents produced from those commissions. Rome agreed to those commissions lacking authority so as to not be bound by their decisions but rather use their findings in an advisory manner, if necessary, as beginning points in future reunion discussions. That document was the product of compromisers who themselves probably don’t believe in papal supremacy. It was filled with German prelates and controversial figures who themselves push for less and lesspapal authority in the Catholic Church. No surprise that they ended producing the document they did.

Interesting response lol!

One of the theologians on the committee for the Latin side is Msgr McPartlan (thats not German) and he wrote an article on the Chieti document. In it he says things like this . . .

The rules for that were very carefully clarified at the Council of Sardica in 343. It’s clear there was no recognition that the pope had direct jurisdiction in the East, but nevertheless bishops from the East could made an appeal to him, and so, what we say is that that practice manifested the communion of the Church.

So when we look at the first millennium it would be anachronistic to speak about the universal jurisdiction of the pope.

We have been looking at the first millennium and we have established a very good common basis. The Chieti document says that we must now build upon that common basis from the first millennium, but the Church’s life continues, there has been a second millennium, in which were developments, good and not so good, on both sides. So we need somehow to address the second millennium. The Orthodox, especially the Russian Orthodox, very much want to address the question of uniatism [Eastern Christians who entered into union with Rome at various points in the second millennium, but kept their liturgy and traditions, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church].

We agree that the basis for our moving forward today is the witness and the life of the undivided Church in the first millennium, and we have clarified some important points from the first millennium in the new document. We mustn’t get too bogged down in the second millennium, which is a very complex era.

Catholic and Orthodox find common ground in early Church understanding

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Yours was very interesting because you assume non-Germans means that they were not modernist/liberal themselves. If you haven’t noticed, the current pontificate has liberals running the show.

Have you ever looked at the names of the leading figures behind that document or the majority of the catholic members? I urge you to. You will see that it’s stacked with liberals.

It doesn’t help that the committee on the Catholic side is headed by liberal Cardinal Koch who , evidenced in his ministry as bishop and the scandals there, constantly concedes way too much as an ordinary form of governance. It also had Archbishop Bruno Forte. I mean you have to be kidding me if you think that anything other than what the comssion produced was possible to come out with such figures on the catholic side.

The document literllay said one of the most ridiculous things when it said, laughably:

“Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.”

Well these pre-schism eastern fathers probably weren’t informed:

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople

“… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns “

Patriarch St. John I Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople

“…And if anyone would say “How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem,” I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world…”

Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople

“Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness…”

“ **Abbot St. Theodore of Studion:

”if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See”

Name one ecumenical council that was accepted by the whole church and I will buy you a house . This was a mere capitulation to the Orthodox because these theologians wish to abolish papal authority which the reception of councils does. This is a complete and utter rejection of Vatican I which infallibly defined that the pope has always had universal jurisdiction. It also contradicts Vatican II on the dogmatic constitution of the church and how councils work.

Only liberal modernist theologians push to undermine Vatican I and they nearly got their way at Vatican II if it wasn’t for orthodox clergy pushing back. So they planned instead to get one of their own or at least someone they can manipulate in the seat of Peter which they have done, and now they are running wild. Undermining papal authority at every turn. The German bishops conference (which, the head of this commission is from) once said in defiance to Rome that “we are not a subsidiary of Rome”. This was after Rome rebuked their uncanonical and uncatholic redefinition of “local church” which was organized along National lines (notice the parallel to Eastern Orthodoxy) rather than diocesan which is the apostolic model.

 

[ziapueblo]

You’re using these quotes from these early Fathers as if they prove Papal supremacy. Here are a couple of quotes. You’d think St. Paul was the Pope!

St. John Chrysostom ~ Paul is the pilot of the Church, vessel of election, celestial trumpet, the leader of the spouse of Christ (the Church). [Homily on the words, “May it please God that ye be patient awhile”]

St. John Chrysostom ~ Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. [32nd Homily on the Epistle to Romans]

And this one. A Roman Catholic would only ever say this about the Pope of Rome and no one else:

St. John Chrysostom ~ For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now. [1st Homily on the Gospel of John].

In case you are wondering, I am Byzantine Catholic. I am Catholic because I believe in the historical and spiritual importance of being in communion with the bishop of Rome as it was in the first millennium.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

@Wandile

Not sure if you read the article but there are a couple of interesting things.

This was a mere capitulation to the Orthodox because these theologians wish to abolish papal authority which the reception of councils does.

A quote from the article:
“We have no mandate as Catholic delegates to the dialogue to change Catholic doctrine and we cannot possibly go against Catholic doctrine. We have to be absolutely faithful to Catholic doctrine . . .”

We have found common ground with the Orthodox on the relationship between synodality and primacy at the local, regional and universal life of the Church. This is a good thing! This is something that can bring us closer to full communion. In our lifetime, who knows?

ZP

 

[dochawk]

I wonder how this will play out with the other two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches and the UGCC?

As I read the articles, he has recognized both the KP and the UAOC, and they’re too have a synod and choose a patriarch. (note: unlike Rome, synods can remove Orthodox Patriarchs, including even the EP. The current leaders of the two churches weren’t elected under autocephaly, so it makes since to elect now).

The KP and UAOC and UCC get along very well. The UOC-MP, though, insists that it is canonical, and the others schismatic.

hawk

 

[Wandile]

Lol one of the bishops literllay said the pope had authority over an ecumenical council. The other St means said he obeys the apostolic see in all things. I mean you can try counter St Johns quotes but that doesn’t address the others who are pretty explicit about the pope and his authority.

Greek church historian of the first millennium Socrates Scholasticus writes :

“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome”

“ On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome”

Byzantine Emperor St. Marcian (in 450 [Letter 73 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in [Mansi VI:93AB]):

"In all that concerns the Catholic religion and the faith of Christians, we have thought it right to approach in the first place Your Holiness who is overseer and guardian of the divine faith “

Byzantine Empress St. Pulcheria (in 450 [Letter 77 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in [Mansi VI:101D]) said that she is confident that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon “will define the Catholic belief by your authority, as Christian faith and piety require.”

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus (says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to [Pope Theodore I of Rome] [Mansi X:914]):

“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed ."

St Maximus the confessor in Letter to Peter:

“ Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See .

 

[Wandile]

Theodore Abu Qurrah:

_“You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them ? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat. _

_“Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts." _

 

[Wandile]

_ “As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever.”_

 

[Wandile]

@Wandile

Not sure if you read the article but there are a couple of interesting things.

Wandile:

This was a mere capitulation to the Orthodox because these theologians wish to abolish papal authority which the reception of councils does.

A quote from the article:
“We have no mandate as Catholic delegates to the dialogue to change Catholic doctrine and we cannot possibly go against Catholic doctrine. We have to be absolutely faithful to Catholic doctrine . . .”

We have found common ground with the Orthodox on the relationship between synodality and primacy at the local, regional and universal life of the Church. This is a good thing! This is something that can bring us closer to full communion. In our lifetime, who knows?

ZP

I mean no disrespect but you cannot be this gullible. How many times at the recent synods on the family and youth have such things been said yet these same people who said this went on to undermine the faith ,regardless, by contradicting the council of Trent blatantly which infallibly decreed on the issues od divorce and remarriage.

These same bishops who speak of a “new paradigm” and lobby for acceptance of homosexual clergy and LGBT people and lifestyle as legitimate yet out of the other corner of their mouths say “we have not contradicted church teaching”.

 

[Wandile]

St Theodore of Studion:

“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter .”

 

[tafan2]

This thread is very interesting, and I am sure if I go back an read it all, I can figure out all of these acronyms. But just in case:
UGCC?
UCC?
EP?
KP?
UAOC?
UOC-MP?