The Papal Claims

[JJR1453]

Actually, JJR1453, I think there’s a big flaw in your argument. Yes, the Orthodox do not at this time claim to have held any Ecumenical Councils since 787. But consider …

As of the beginning of the 15th century, Catholics did not claim to have held any Ecumenical Councils since the 9th century – that’s about five-and-a-half “empty” centuries.

But in the 16th century, some Catholics (I want to say it was St. Robert Bellarmine specifically?) proposed that there had been several Ecumenical Councils in those 5 “empty” centuries after all, and these proposed Councils were soon added to the standard list.

Clearly, you’re argument breaks down on this point. I mean, how can you possibly know that there won’t come a time when Orthodox say “You know, there were some Ecumenical Councils during the second millennium, after all”? (Actually, some Orthodox have already proposed some possible candidates, such as the the Blachernae Council (1285).)

I can see your point, as to the Latern councils that were only observed as ecumenical at a later date. As for *all *the councils before the 15th century I can not. Lyons II being a case in point:

“Meanwhile a delegation of Tartars had also arrived. Although the number of participants does not seem to have been especially large, the whole christian world was present either in person or through representatives, and it was evident that the council, as Gregory X had wished, was universal and ecumenical.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum14.htm

However, you bring up an interesting discussion. How do you think the Orthodox would go about confirming a council as Ecumenical? How would the process go? In simple terms, would all the represenatives of the Church have to agree and also would there be a certain amount of time where the council is in a sort of “limbo” state, so as to judge if the laity too would also accept said council as Ecumenical?

God bless

JJR

 

[Ghosty]

This is the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and the difference between how Conciliarity is practiced by the two. In Orthodoxy, we see the Patriarchs in equal terms–no one is above the other.

A cursory review of Eastern Orthodox history does not bear out this contention at all, unfortunately. Where was the equality of Patriarchs when the Patriarch of Antioch was appointed by Constantinople for 150 years (ending a century ago)?

I think it’s more true to say that there has been an ongoing struggle within the Eastern Orthodox Communion to define what exactly the roles of the Patriarchs are (or even whether there should BE Patriarchs, as can be seen in Russian Orthodox history with the Tsar’s and a synod of Bishops running the Church), even within their own Churches, let alone the Communion as a whole.

Since the break with Rome there has not been a “Papal model”, but it’s certainly not been an ecclesiology where you could say definitively that “all Patriarchs are equal”. We happen to live during a time where that is a rallying cry of the Eastern Orthodox, but two centuries ago we would have heard something different.

This isn’t to say that the Catholic Church hasn’t also had it’s variability; it certainly has. What we’re seeing today, in terms of the Ravenna Document, seems merely to be a return, or even restatement, of the policies of the Church as they were intended by the majority even at Vatican I. They not much of a step away from the intentions of Vatican I, though they do represent a step away from an extremist ultra-montane interpretation (which was never widely accepted in the Catholic Communion to begin with).

As Mardukm has shown, reading the actual dialogue of Vatican I and what was said by the supporters of Papal Primacy, we don’t have much of a difference between the view then, and the view today; what we have is a Church getting over the intervening headache, much as we have been getting over the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

There’s still work to be done, especially with regards to the Eastern Catholic Churches (do we REALLY need Vatican curial offices that help to determine non-Latin Church policies), but none of the work that’s being done indicates a reversal of doctrines, or a movement away from what has been continuously taught by the Catholic Church, only a move back in proper practice.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Palamite]

I’m not nearly as concerned about the primacy of Rome as of the charism of infallibility that the Pope has.

In that case, the answer is clearly NO. It is only through a bizarre process of analogies and strained syllogisms that one can pull this 19th century dogma out of ANYTHING the ancient Fathers, Eastern or Western, said on this topic.

What do the early fathers say? By early, I mean fifth century and before. In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18?

The consensus of the Fathers is that St.Peter was so named by our Lord Jesus Christ because of his confession of faith. True faith is the gift of God, and is more precious, and I dare say, RARER than people may realize. It is not something cheap. St.Peter confessed that He was both “Christ” and “Son of the Living God”. The Lord Himself states that this was from God the Father, and not a result of St.Peter’s cleverness. Hence, the name change. It is also why Christ says “upon this rock I will build my Church.”

I’m honestly lost as to how the Pope’s infallibility, under certain circumstances, follows from Scripture and history.

You’re baffled because it doesn’t.

 

[Palamite]

How can it be “more Orthodox” if it is ALREADY NORMATIVE in the Catholic Church. And everything the Pope does, even ex cathedra pronouncements, are formed collegially with the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops.

By his (the Pope’s) benevolence. Strictly speaking, the Pope can do as he pleases. This has no real resemblance to the ancient synodal structure of the Orthodox Church. The emphasis upon collegiality in the documents of Vatican II at first seems commendable, until one realizes it does nothing to displace the idea that the Pope has universal jurisdiction or a gift for personal infallibility under certain circumstances.

Catholicism lives and breathes collegiality.

Sort of. And only recently.

Orthodox just need to be made more aware of it. I would call the collegial reality within Catholicism simply patristic, not “more Orthodox,” But like I said, if you feel a need to make it seem like the Catholic Church is becoming “more Orthodox” in order for you to accept the agreement, then that is fine by me.

Anyone with a memory that goes further back than the Second Vatican Council KNOWS that there was an attempt at said Council to “turn back the clock” as much as they could get away with, without having to say “mea culpa”, at least in some respects. Either way, the Church of Christ (the Orthodox Church, which I hope the moderators here think I’m entitled to say, as it is my belief) is whole and complete with or without Rome, just as She was at Pentecost or the Last Supper.

 

[mercygate]

By his (the Pope’s) benevolence. Strictly speaking, the Pope can do as he pleases. This has no real resemblance to the ancient synodal structure of the Orthodox Church. The emphasis upon collegiality in the documents of Vatican II at first seems commendable, until one realizes it does nothing to displace the idea that the Pope has universal jurisdiction or a gift for personal infallibility under certain circumstances.

Sort of. And only recently.

Anyone with a memory that goes further back than the Second Vatican Council KNOWS that there was an attempt at said Council to “turn back the clock” as much as they could get away with, without having to say “mea culpa”, at least in some respects. Either way, the Church of Christ (the Orthodox Church, which I hope the moderators here think I’m entitled to say, as it is my belief) is whole and complete with or without Rome, just as She was at Pentecost or the Last Supper.

No. As long as we are not in Communion with one another, neither of us is complete.

 

[mardukm]

Hello brother Palamite!

I am really happy to see your handle here!

If no one has yet responded to your posts by Sunday, I will do so then.

Until then, abundant blessings.

Marduk