The Papacy: an acorn and an oak?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I happened upon this article on Catholic Answers called “Peter and the Eastern Orthodox” By Fr. Ray Ryland, a former “This Rock” contributor. I found the acorn and the oak metaphor particularly fascinating. What do you all think of this excerpt? Any thoughts?

**When the Catholic Church teaches that the papacy and its jurisdiction existed from the beginning, what does it mean? Simply this: In its essential features and substance, the papacy of the earliest centuries is identical with the modern papacy. There are great outward differences between them, but those differences are like the differences between the acorn and the oak. They are only differences in stages of normal growth.

Never forget that from the middle of the first century until the early fourth century, the Church lived under persecution, much of it ferocious. John Henry Cardinal Newman reminds us that “an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted.”…

Non-Catholic critics of papal primacy assert that it was created by the exaggerated claims the popes made for their office. Those critics rule out in advance what the popes say about their office. While papal testimony to the office of Peter is not conclusive proof of papal primacy, serious historical research cannot exclude it on principle. Our Lord necessarily bore witness to himself. In time and space the Catholic Church is the extension of the Incarnation. She also speaks with Christ’s authority. If popes are truly successors to Peter and in charge of the messianic kingdom on earth, they have a duty to proclaim the truth about their office. The popes have fulfilled that duty. By their backgrounds they represent a broad range of ethnic and cultural diversity, yet for 19 centuries they have borne a single, unvarying witness about the papal office.**

 

[JonNC]

I happened upon this article on Catholic Answers called “Peter and the Eastern Orthodox” By Fr. Ray Ryland, a former “This Rock” contributor. I found the acorn and the oak metaphor particularly fascinating. What do you all think of this excerpt? Any thoughts?

**When the Catholic Church teaches that the papacy and its jurisdiction existed from the beginning, what does it mean? Simply this: In its essential features and substance, the papacy of the earliest centuries is identical with the modern papacy. There are great outward differences between them, but those differences are like the differences between the acorn and the oak. They are only differences in stages of normal growth.

Never forget that from the middle of the first century until the early fourth century, the Church lived under persecution, much of it ferocious. John Henry Cardinal Newman reminds us that “an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted.”…

Non-Catholic critics of papal primacy assert that it was created by the exaggerated claims the popes made for their office.** Those critics rule out in advance what the popes say about their office. While papal testimony to the office of Peter is not conclusive proof of papal primacy, serious historical research cannot exclude it on principle. Our Lord necessarily bore witness to himself. In time and space the Catholic Church is the extension of the Incarnation. She also speaks with Christ’s authority. If popes are truly successors to Peter and in charge of the messianic kingdom on earth, they have a duty to proclaim the truth about their office. The popes have fulfilled that duty. By their backgrounds they represent a broad range of ethnic and cultural diversity, yet for 19 centuries they have borne a single, unvarying witness about the papal office.

But western non-Catholics are not alone in this. Frankly, gurney, I can’t get past the Council of Nicea, Canon 6

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

Now, if you can get the Orthodox to agree with the nature of the “Oak” as Rome sees itself today, then I will accept it.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

But western non-Catholics are not alone in this. Frankly, gurney, I can’t get past the Council of Nicea, Canon 6

Now, if you can get the Orthodox to agree with the nature of the “Oak” as Rome sees itself today, then I will accept it.

Jon

It is not only an Orthodox Canon, as we were the same church at that time. It is thus also a Roman Catholic canon from a Catholic council, but not one hint if it appears in the long since codified (and further re-codified) canons of the modern Papacy, the CCC nor the CCEO. It has been edited and redacted out of the public consciousness of modern Roman Catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For those just tuning in, Canon 6 is:

***The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail.***

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please elaborate, Jon. thanks!

. Frankly, gurney, I can’t get past the Council of Nicea, Canon 6

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Please elaborate, Jon. thanks!

As the canon makes clear, the Bishop of Rome has his jurisdiction, just as the other patriarchs do. His is of the west. I have not seen in the councils any indication of universal jurisdiction, much less infallibility (ex cathedra). A primacy of leadership and counsel? Perhaps. But as I said, were the Orthodox to defer to universal jurisdiction…

Jon

 

[Janet1983]

I never heard of that Canon… but it does somewhat contradict papal universal jurisdiction…

 

[Hesychios]

As the canon makes clear, the Bishop of Rome has his jurisdiction, just as the other patriarchs do. His is of the west.

Not exactly

The Metropolitanate of Rome extends to central Italy which probably included Tuscany directly to the north and may have included as far as Naples to the south, and that would be what canon 6 refers to.

Milan was a Metropolitanate in it’s own right. Seville was a Metropolitan See and I think Carthage would be counted in that number too, but it sadly ended in such a state that we have very little to study.

 

[JonNC]

Not exactly

The Metropolitanate of Rome extends to central Italy which probably included Tuscany directly to the north and may have included as far as Naples to the south, and that would be what canon 6 refers to.

Milan was a Metropolitanate in it’s own right. Seville was a Metropolitan See and I think Carthage would be counted in that number too, but it sadly ended in such a state that we have very little to study.

Thanks Michael,
What I mean by “west” is his jurisdiction was not over Greece, or Jerusalem, etc. Is that your understanding?

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

Thanks Michael,
What I mean by “west” is his jurisdiction was not over Greece, or Jerusalem, etc. Is that your understanding?

Jon

Well yes, of course, but my point is that his authority in the west was also limited at the time. This is easily ascertained by the fact that he was not appointing the bishops outside of central Italy, which is specifically the issue that canon 6 is directly concerned with.

In other words, he was not acting as “the Metropolitan” in this regard for north Africa, Spain and Gaul or even the Po valley, much the less Syria, Cyprus, Palestine or Achaia.

 

[JonNC]

Well yes, of course, but my point is that his authority in the west was also limited at the time. This is easily ascertained by the fact that he was not appointing the bishops outside of central Italy, which is specifically the issue that canon 6 is directly concerned with.

In other words, he was not acting as “the Metropolitan” in this regard for north Africa, Spain and Gaul or even the Po valley, much the less Syria, Cyprus, Palestine or Achaia.

Gottcha.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Nine_Two]

I thought about doing a point by point refutation of that article, but the fact is it is dead wrong.

It’s not an acorn to an oak, more like an acorn to kid with his tongue stuck on a metal pole.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

An acorn turned into a kid with his tongue stuck against a frozen pole? That would be quite the metamorphosis!?

I thought about doing a point by point refutation of that article, but the fact is it is dead wrong.

It’s not an acorn to an oak, more like an acorn to kid with his tongue stuck on a metal pole.

 

[Nine_Two]

An acorn turned into a kid with his tongue stuck against a frozen pole? That would be quite the metamorphosis!?

Something that doesn’t resemble the original.

From Servant of Servants to King of Kings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Nine,

I really wish you’d do what you were considering doing—take the article and refute it point by point. Like you said, it would be time-consuming, but it would be beneficial and thought-provoking for those of us who are on the fence about the papacy. I truly am. There hasn’t been a weekend that goes by where my wife and I are ‘considering’ going to confession and going back but the papacy, the infallibility and unversal jurisdiction stuff as well as certain attitudes and points of Catholicism keep me from doing so.

And I’m not going to lie here. The attitude and triumphalism, the condescending tone, the talking down to people and overzealous nasty talk in this forum has done more to witness AGAINST the Catholic Church for me than for it, lately.

Something that doesn’t resemble the original.

From Servant of Servants to King of Kings.

 

[Nine_Two]

Alright Gurney, as you requested, I’ll try. Just a word of warning, I was up extra early this morning, so my brain is likely operating like it is several hours later, so if something makes absolutely no sense, uhhh, well something will happen. Or not. (Did that make sense?)

IWhen the Catholic Church teaches that the papacy and its jurisdiction existed from the beginning, what does it mean? This depends on how you define “Papacy” I hear many defining the office of Pope as distinct from the office of the Bishop of Rome or the office of Patriarch of the West. These titles are the same thing (with the last of the three simply declaring territory). Of these only the title “Bishop of Rome” dates to the Apostles. Both Patriarch and Pope were much later titles.

Simply this: In its essential features and substance, the papacy of the earliest centuries is identical with the modern papacy. There are great outward differences between them, but those differences are like the differences between the acorn and the oak. They are only differences in stages of normal growth.

 

[Nine_Two]

By their backgrounds they represent a broad range of ethnic and cultural diversity, yet for 19 centuries they have borne a single, unvarying witness about the papal office.

Single witness? I thought the whole point of this article was that it had been changing over time? Isn’t this self defeating. Additionally it only seems to have really changed in the last 10 centuries.

Oh, and 600 years of Italians isn’t ethnic and cultural diversity. A good try to make this sound good in modern PC language.

Ok Gurney, I hope that makes sense.

 

[Nine_Two]

Just one more note on the baring witness to oneself… It isn’t even Christ baring witness to himself that has led me to follow him, its his apostles baring witness to his resurrection unto death (no one goes that far over a prank), this witness leads me to take Christ’s witness seriously, and not Christ’s witness on its own.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nine Two, I am going on record today on CAF as saying you ARE the King of Zimbabwe!