I read Abbe Guettee’s work when I was in the OO communion. It’s as jaundiced an account of the early Church for the Low Petrine position as are the accounts of Absolutist Petrine advocates for their own position.
).Yes, you could say that. Either Rome was rash, or the Eastern sees were. Did the 4 of the 5 apostolic sees become heretical or just one? Given our presuppositions, we probably both arrive at different conclusions to this question. I assume the Church was conciliar, so one errant bishop does not mean that the Church was any less Orthodox or holy. You, on the other hand, assume a high Petrine view, so the Bishop of Rome cannot, by definition, be wrong. Am I right? (I am simplifying).
Was the Roman pope’s addition of the filioque infallible? I cannot get a clear answer on what RC doctrine is infallible, so I have no idea.
I am not a worthy substitute for Josephdaniel, lamentably.
. If you think I don’t understand the papacy now, you should have seen me a few years ago! I have become infuriatingly catholic, even by the standards of my Opus Dei RC wife.
I am attracted to the EO because of three things: truth, beauty and spiritual disciplines. Oddly, the third may be the most important; I think the prayer and fasting disciplines of the EO enable me to become more Christlike, by God’s grace. To the Early Church, fasting was as normal as prayer, as we read in the Didache. Yet it seems to have almost disappeared from the disciplines of many Latin RCs (though I know ECs here differ).
Hey JesusforMadrid,
Which is precisely my point. I’m not a scholar in Church history like Marduk, but even if his version of events is correct the point still stands. No one would strike the pope from the diptychs, no one would excommunicate him, Leo’s famous Tome would have just been received and not examined, Nestorius would not have been seated, Leo would have gotten his council in the West and on and on…
I don’t know what your presupposition is. Can you please clarify? My presupposition is that they were all orthodox and that there was just a misunderstanding.
Agreed — and neither would 4 errant Eastern patriarchs make the Church less Orthodox or holy.
I believe you are confusing the High Petrine view with the Absolutist Petrine view. Next time, I will give you a more detailed explanation on the differences.
Nope, and you won’t find a single, informed Catholic claim that the addition of that text was an infallible act. I will guarantee that. Go ahead and ask your question in the “Ask an Apologist” Section. At best, any official Apologist here on CAF will affirm that the teaching behind filioque is an infallible teaching, but not a single one will claim that the addition of the text itself was an infallible act.
The act of adding a piece of text to a local Creed is not a matter of faith or morals. What is a matter of faith or morals is the teaching behind the text. Does that help?
Yes. I do believe that the pre-Schism Church believed that an ex cathedra decree by the bishop of Rome applied to the Universal Church. I can give you three examples:
Yes. That’s the way it has always been. What makes you think otherwise? Please don’t confuse the LOCAL addition of the filioque text into the Creed, with the UNIVERSAL teaching that filioque represents (i.e., that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son). Rome has always insisted on the universality of the latter (i.e., the teaching behind the use of filioque), but never the former (i.e., the addition of the text).
The EC’s are phasing it out, even as we speak, and have been doing so for a while.
The filioque made its way into the local Creed of the Easterns not because of anything that Rome did or said, but because of (1) the Eastern bishops themselves, for one raeson or another, and (2) local secular authorities imposing it on their EC subjects.
Does this mean that you originally held an Absolutist Petrine view of the matter? I sometimes see the Absolutist Petrine view as “trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.”You should check out the Coptic Orthodox Church if the strictness of fasting disciplines is important to you. Owing to the generally more penitential nature of Oriental spirituality (in relation to Eastern spirituality), Coptic fasting rules are more strict.
Understood.
I believe the “uncomfortableness” is not due to any inherent theological inconsistencies (since all Catholics believe the same things, after all, even if expressed differently according to our unique theological Traditions), but due to a natural process of “coming out of the catacombs” so to speak. I think there are still a lot of non-Latin Catholics who see their unique theological and spiritual patrimonies as somehow “second-class” in relation to the Latin Church’s. That attitude is slowly, but surely, being phased out. Give it another 10 years or so.
No sense in forgiving an offense that has never occurred. Your posts are very irenic, brother, and filled with a spirit of charity.
You can get a sense of the differences between the High Petrine and the Absolutist Petrine views by taking a gander at the debate between the two camps at this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546249&page=26), beginning with post #379.
That’s not true. A Pope who becomes a heretic and tries to spread his error is no longer Pope by virtue of divine law itself. Here is an excerpt from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
You make this statement because of a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on the matter. The Vatican statement that a Pope’s ex cathedra decree is irreformible not by the consent of the Church is only a statement about the nature of an ex cathedra decree AS Truth. Nothing more, nothing less. That Pope St. Leo’s Tome was examined does not affect that teaching one bit, because the Fathers at the Council affirmed that Pope St. Leo’s teaching was indeed God-revealed Truth. If it was indeed God-revealed Truth, then you must admit that it had the nature of Truth even BEFORE the Council Fathers said so. The point is, Truth is never determined by consensus. Such a belief is only a modernist heresy.
I think you’re confusing Nestorius with the situation of Pope Dioscorus. In any case, I understand your point - though, of course, I disagree. The situation doesn’t prove what you think it does. No one, not even the Pope, can depose a bishop without a canonical trial at which he has the opportunity to defend himself. A bishop has his rights and prerogatives by divine establishment, not because of the Pope. Every bishop has a right to be a member of a Council and not even the Pope can take that right away. The Catholic Canons recognize this. So even if the Council Fathers at Chalcedon permitted Pope Dioscorus to set as a member in Council, though contrary to the wishes of Pope Leo, it still proves nothing against the Catholic teaching on the papacy.
The specifics of an Ecumenical Council were basically determined by the Emperor in the pre-Schism Church - that includes its location. So I don’t know what you think your statement proves.
So far, your examples have really only been straw man arguments. You have an exaggerated conception of the papacy, and you are basing your criticisms on that misconception, not on what the papacy actually is according to Catholic teaching.
Now I think, to the common man, an “Ecumenical Council” would be one in which ALL local churches met together and took council. But just how important is it that the Pope is there. Let the following 2 scenario be the context of the question: Scenario 1) There has been several times in Church history where there was no pope! A few years here or there, maybe it was because the pope had died and something delayed the election of a new pope. Now what if an “Ecumenical Council” was held during one of these times and every local church in the world was there, even Rome, but not the pope, because there was no pope at that time. Would this council be an “Ecumenical Council”? (I’m going to guess you would say “no” because the “head”, the Pope, would have to be there). Now scenario 2) All the local churches throughout the world, excepting only the great Church of Alexandria (which btw, is one of the Sees of St Peter) held council. The Pope was there in this scenario. Would this council be an “Ecumenical Council”? (I’m going to guess you would say “yes” for this).
I can promise you I will never get frustrated at your questions.
Not very important at all. In fact, a few of the Ecum Councils have the papal legates affirming that it is not customary for the Pope to be personally present at an Ecumenical Council, though he is present through his legates. The only dogmatic necessity from the Catholic perspective is the confirmation of the Pope (a necessity obtained from Luke 22, and the Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34). All other conditions are merely canonical (that he has to call the Council, that he determines its agenda, that he has to promulgate its decrees, etc. etc.) and can change.
I would indeed answer “no,” but not because “the Pope would have to be there” (for, in fact, the Pope’s personal presence is not necessary for the Council to proceed). My answer would be “no” based on the Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34 which states that any group of bishops cannot do anything of great importance without the consent of the head bishop. As stated, the only dogmatic imperative on the part of the Pope is his confirmation. A Council can be intended to be Ecumenical, but it could never in fact be Ecumenical without the Pope’s consent (a la confirmation). The Church would simply have to wait until a new Pope was elected and he confirmed that Council.
Not necessarily. Catholic Canon law recognizes that every bishop has a RIGHT to be present and vote at an Ecumenical Council. Catholic Canon law also affirms that if someone with a right to vote was unlawfully impeded or not given a chance to vote, then the results of the vote would be invalid. The bishops of the Church of Alexandria must at least have been invited to the Ecumenical Council for the Council to be validly Ecumenical. If they were absent because they refused to come, it would still be a valid Ecumenical Council. If they came, and willfully left before the voting, it would still be a valid Ecumenical Council. If they were absent because they were never offered the opportunity to come, or were unlawfully impeded, then it would not be a valid Ecumenical Council.
I’m not quite sure I follow what you are saying here. Perhaps you can re-assess and re-state after reading my responses to your two scenarios above.
I would not admit it.
Though the High and Absolutist Petrine views both affirm the necessity of the Pope for a Council to be truly “ecumenical,” there is a big difference in our respective understandings of that principle. The Absolutist Petrine view claims that the Pope’s approval is the ONLY thing necessary for a Council to be considered “ecumenical.” The High Petrine view, in distinction, believes that the approval of the Pope AND his brother bishops are equally necessary for a Council to be considered “ecumenical.” You can see this tension between the two positions in the debate I am having with brother SteveB in the other thread.That depends on how one conceives of the term “ruler.” If one assumes that St. John Chrysostom was using the term in the secular sense of “lording it over,” I would agree with you. But if he understood that being a “ruler” in the Church must be defined according to Christ’s prescription (as he who serves the most), then I have no problem with accepting the Truth of St. Chrysostom’s statement about St. Peter.
It’s not a matter of the Apostles being headless, but of the Church being headless. According to Tradition, St. Peter chose his successor, and his successor would have become the head of the Church. Now, would the Apostles have considered St. Peter’s successor as their head? If the Apostles understood that any office of leadership in the Church is about service and not about “lording it over others,” then I do not and cannot doubt that they would have accepted St. Peter’s successor as the new head of the Church.
IMO, no. I believe they would at best be equal. the Church in Corinth could indeed have appealed to St. John instead of Pope St. Clement to settle their troubles. They chose to appeal to Pope St. Clement. But that demonstrates nothing more than that they chose to appeal to Pope St. Clement instead of St. John - nothing more, nothing less. It would seem that those who somehow divine that Pope St. Clement was greater than St. John because of this episode have an agenda — an agenda that I cannot fathom and thus cannot accept.
I have never heard the Church of Alexandria referred to as a “See of St. Peter”. Antioch was established by St. Peter and Rome by St.Peter and St. Paul. St. Mark founded Alexandria.
No, I am not thinking of it in the “Orthodox authors” sense. The idea that all bishops hold the Keys is a modern day theory coming from the EO in support of the Low Petrine view. Since I am still not personally settled on what view is right, I’m not going to say that this theory is either right or wrong, but although someone could argue that scripture implies that the Keys were also given to the 12 Apostles as well as to Peter, the scriptures only specifically says that they were given to Peter.
Here are some additional testimonies from St. Clement of Alexandria:
OK. I get it. Thanks.
I went to Luke 22 and read it right after you said this. I understand what you’re saying and I find it interesting. But I didn’t mean to make a point of the Pope’s actual presents at a council, rather His authority there as opposed to just having Rome simply represented there without the Pope’s authority, which would be the case if the Pope had died and yet Rome sent some representative from Rome to such a council.
So what if the Pope were invited but didn’t come (or refused to send a representative)? Different rules for the Bishop of Rome than any other bishop! Now there is a part of this that I have no problem with and another part of it that I do. These “different rules” are actually fine and proper for the one who it is that is the first hierarch at such a council. What I have a problem with is that the first hierarch ALWAYS has to be the bishop of Rome, as if it is a divine right exclusive to the bishops of Rome; even to the extent that if there were no Pope (using whatever scenario this could happen that you wish) the universal Church would hopelessly be left headless without any recourse! - This is why I say that there is an element of the Absolutest view within the High Church view.