The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

I came across this concerning the Petrine views and like to share it : According to Michael Wheton he say that the council fathers unequivocally state two important points regarding the Bishop of Rome, which deny Papal claims. (1) Rome’s primacy is not based on a theological premise such as Matthew 16:18, but on political considerations, she was the ancient seat of Roman government. The earlier ranking of the Patriarchal sees reflects this. Rome was ranked first, with Alexandria second and Antioch in third place. Sir Steven Runciman says "It could not therefore be said that precedence depended upon the Apostolic foundation… Alexandria came next because she was the second city of the empire, equal in size and wealth to Rome itself… In addition to being the ancient seat of Roman government. St. Peter and Paul were martyred and buried. These two factors gave Rome a special prestige and an honorary primacy, but certainly not a universal authority over the Church. (2) The council Fathers emphatically state, “For the fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.” Thus the claim that Rome rules by divine right is denied by the council fathers, who in this canon strongly imply that any particular authority, primacy of honor, or special status enjoyed by Rome is a result of the councils conferred it. Furthermore, if the councils have the power to confer a primacy on Rome, they also have the power to retract it, just as Constantinople was moved to second place. The councils, then have a power to which Rome is subject.

What this tells me is that this was very much a political undertaking, strongly influenced by the emperor who interfered much in religious affairs. There is no doubt in my mind that it was political since the truth of the matter is that Peter’s see in Rome was founded by Peter and also Paul and was not conferred by any Roman authority nor by any council or council Father. On the other hand, the see of Constantinople was indeed founded by and suggested strongly by the emperor to elevate the city to the same status as Rome. Then, it seems to me that no council has the power or right to decide who can confer or reject any Papal authority, or bind the Pope to any council authority. In fact it appears and seems to me that the Pope does indeed have final authority in matters of the Church.

The 7 Ecumenical Councils and the other 4 Patriarchs never recognized the Pope as possessing final authority over anything in the Church. Before 1054 all important disciplinary and doctrinal decisions were made by Ecumenical Councils. As mandated by the canons the each local Church had self-government only subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. Each local Church was administered by the Primate and a council of the Bishops of the Church. The Churches were ranked according to a system of honor, but no Church had real authority over another. Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325, limited the authority of the Bishop of Rome to the West and affirmed the independence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381, elevated the Archbishop of Constantinople to Patriarchal rank. The Council of Chalcedon elevated the Bishop of Jerusalem to Patriarchal rank. That established the Pentarchy, or rule of the Church by 5 Patriarchs, with each Patriarch subject to the authority of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate.
There was no universal primacy in the ancient Church except for that of an Ecumenical Council. The Pope only had a primacy of honor as “first among equals” and nothing more. The ancient Popes did not have universal jurisdiction, infallibility, or authority over Ecumenical Councils. The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, demanded that Pope Vigilius accept its decrees or it would excommunicate him. The 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680, condemned Pope Honorius I for heresy. That means that the Ecumenical Councils did assume authority over the ancient Popes. There is no record of a Bishop of Rome ever exercising any authority over the entire Church or any of the other 4 Patriarchs during the time before the schism. When Pope St. Leo I, rightfully rejected the Council of Ephesus of 449, he lacked the authority to revoke the decrees of the council. It took the 4th Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, to reject the decisions of the Robber Council of Ephesus. When Pope Nicholas I objected to the assumption of St. Photius of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he lacked the power to remove him, but had to appeal to the Council of Constantinople of 869 to remove St. Photius.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Hi frjohnmoris: Its been awhile and want to thank you for your reply. I do not disagree with what you said. What I was trying to say is that there was a lot of political involvement from the emperor in these councils and the Eastern Bishops generally it seems to me went along with whatever the emperor wanted. Not always but sometimes. History shows that Roman emperors thought that they had the right to regulate religious affairs to suit their needs. Before the Edit of Milan the Church was underground as there were much persecution starting wit Nero and ending with Diocletian and with Licinius, Constantine wit him devised the policy declaring that all Christians and others( pagans) could follow whatever religion that they wanted. It also seems to me that when the first council in 325 there were still many priests and Bishops that remembered the persecutions so were not all that willing to confront the emperor on everything. I would think that it would have been rather hard during the persecutions to have unity of any kind and there were still gnostic’s and their writings that were used in the various Churches. There were still plenty of pagans in the 300’s AD. The emperors as I see it wanted unity under them so that they could control for the sake of the empire. On top of this from my own reading of history it appears that Constantine did not like Rome and preferred the East to the West. So in the end it seems to me that there was a lot of politics mixed in with religious thinking at that time which may have influenced the way the councils went. I could be wrong about it but that is my conclusion I have at this time. Peace and God bless

 

[spina1953]

I would like o point out that in saving the Church from persecution, Constantine exposed it to a new form of interference his own. He valued the right to intervene in any Roman institution if the tranquility and security of the empire was at stake. When the council of the entire Church met in AD 325 at Nicaea, he personally attended and firmly shaped the final decisions.
The political aspects I alluded to are from Sir Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, A Study of the papacy and the Eastern Churches PP.12-12 and Davis, op.cit.p.194 What they are saying is that Rome’s primacy was not based on any theological premise but on political consideration. First of all I would think that since Peter was not in Rome because of any political consideration and no emperor elected him to the see nor did any Church council. Constantinople was raised to the rank of patriarch by political means, it seems to me. And putting Alexandria after Constantinople was in my mind a slap in the face. Just because Constantinople was the new Rome does not justify the reason for it to be placed ahead of Alexandria or to be put on some equal footing status with Rome. it seems to me to be political rather than religious since peter’s see was not founded on any other considerations but that of Christ making Peter the rock on which he built His Church on. If the councils can confer or take away primacy of honor on Rome or any other see, then I begs the question that Christ did not found or build His Church on Peter but on the councils. It also seems to me that the Councils took the authority that was Peter and his successors and gave it to themselves. That is my conclusion of the matter so far as I see it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I would like o point out that in saving the Church from persecution, Constantine exposed it to a new form of interference his own. He valued the right to intervene in any Roman institution if the tranquility and security of the empire was at stake. When the council of the entire Church met in AD 325 at Nicaea, he personally attended and firmly shaped the final decisions.
The political aspects I alluded to are from Sir Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, A Study of the papacy and the Eastern Churches PP.12-12 and Davis, op.cit.p.194 What they are saying is that Rome’s primacy was not based on any theological premise but on political consideration. First of all I would think that since Peter was not in Rome because of any political consideration and no emperor elected him to the see nor did any Church council. Constantinople was raised to the rank of patriarch by political means, it seems to me. And putting Alexandria after Constantinople was in my mind a slap in the face. Just because Constantinople was the new Rome does not justify the reason for it to be placed ahead of Alexandria or to be put on some equal footing status with Rome. it seems to me to be political rather than religious since peter’s see was not founded on any other considerations but that of Christ making Peter the rock on which he built His Church on. If the councils can confer or take away primacy of honor on Rome or any other see, then I begs the question that Christ did not found or build His Church on Peter but on the councils. It also seems to me that the Councils took the authority that was Peter and his successors and gave it to themselves. That is my conclusion of the matter so far as I see it.

Although the Emperors had great influence over the Church, they did not have the power to define doctrine. Constantine and his immediate successors favored Arianism and exiled St. Athanesius 5 times. Finally, however, the Church refused to yield and at the 2nd Ecumenical Council nailed the final nail in the coffin of Arianism. The classic case of the Church standing up to the Emperor is, of course, the iconoclastic controversy.

Christ did not build His Church on St. Peter. Our Lord built His Church of the Faith confessed by St. Peter. St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles but in no way exercised the power exercised by modern Popes. The Ecumenical Councils followed the example set by the Apostles themselves. They made all important decisions by meeting in council. The councils were the final authority, When they Apostles decided to name a successor to Judas, St. Peter did not select the new Apostle, the Apostles acted in council. When the Apostles decided to resolve the dispute over how much of the Jewish law a new Christian had to follow, St. Peter did not make the decision, the Apostles meeting in council decided that Christ has liberated us from the Jewish law. Significantly, St. James as the local Bishop presided over the council, not St. Peter.
Every reputable church historian will tell you that the papacy was shaped more by the inheritance of political power in Rome and central Italy more than by theological principles. The Popes became a secular prince, and began to think of enlarging their power like the secular princes of the age. This corrupted the papacy and led to the development of the Pope and his Bishops as “princes of the Church,” and the Church as an absolute monarchy headed by the Pope. That model of the Church cannot be reconciled by the Church led by councils as found in the Book of Acts, the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the practice of the Church during the first 1,000 years of Christian history. It is also important to remember that most of the papal claims were based on a forgery, the Donation of Constantine. The very fact that 4 of the 5 ancient Patriarchs refused to accept the papal claims shows their invalidity. I papal supremacy had been the practice since the beginning of the Church, all 5 Patriarchs would have accepted the papal claims. The historical fact is that the Bishops of Rome did not claim authority over the other 4 Patriarchs until 1054 and we all know that the other 4 Patriarchs rejected the papal claims. That alone is enough to discredit the papal claims and shows that Christ never intended for his Church to operate like a medieval absolute monarchy.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Hi Fr.John Morris: I remember in one of your earlier posts many moons ago you said that all historians are biased when it comes to interpretation of history. I agree with you on that score. That being said I do agree with your first paragraph up to a point. It seems that Rowam Williams a theologian of the Church of England produced a book on Arius and the long drawn out controversy. he wondered at the wisdom of allowing an emperor to share spiritual authority or being granted that authority by several hundred bishops. As a Church strategist, Archbishop Williams sensed how difficult it must have been for bishops holding contrary opinions to oppose, face to face a powerful emperor who believed in imperial unity, and indeed in a show of religious unanimity. When Emperor Constantine was baptized on his deathbed in AD 337, the bishop who presided was a supporter of Arius. Within a few years the new emperor, a son of Constantine, made it clear that he too was a supporter, although Arius was dead by that time.

  It is a matter of interpretation concerning Peter whether it was faith on Peter's part that Jesus said he would build His Church. Was it faith or belief that Peter said Jesus is the Son of God? WE may never know.  I do however agree with you that Peter did not have the  power modern Popes exercise. And I rather doubt that he needed to have tat power since I would think all of the Apostles would have accepted what ever Peter might have said. When Judas was replaced by straw vote if I remember correctly, there was not real debate of any kind only that Peter thought hat he needed to be replace in order that there would again be 12 who knew  and followed Jesus while he was alive. As for the Council in Jerusalem if all of the Apostles were there, I think they would have gone with what Peter said. I also think that the Jews who were Christians believed that the Gentiles had to conform to the Law of Moses which was resolved. James presided over the council but could it be because Peter was no longer living in Jerusalem? That would be my take on the matter.

I also agree that there was r many bad Popes, but that is also true of Bishops an priests. But there is difference between teaching one thing while living completely different form what is being taught.

it does not make it right as one should live as one preaches and teaches. I think that the history of the very early Church prior to the 300’s AD is vague and not as easily understood. I think that there is much to learn concerning that time and how the Church was formed. I do know that there were lots of gnostic writings and different Christian thinking going on throughout the Roman empire since due to off and on persecutions unity in thought and belief was not a uniform thing.
I know that you favor Councils over an authority of a Pope but to me it seems quite reasonable that even in a council there must be one who has a final word, since even in a council there is not always a agreement with everyone on any one issue. But that’s just my take on it. Peace and God bless

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi Fr.John Morris: .
I know that you favor Councils over an authority of a Pope but to me it seems quite reasonable that even in a council there must be one who has a final word, since even in a council there is not always a agreement with everyone on any one issue. But that’s just my take on it. Peace and God bless

I agree completely that someone must have the final word. However, that someone is not the Bishop of Rome, but the Church. An Ecumenical Council only becomes and Ecumenical Council once it is accepted by the Church. The classic case would be the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449. The council met all the outward requirements of an Ecumenical Council, but it was rejected by the Church; not just the Pope, but the whole Church speaking at Chalcedon, which established the standard for orthodox Christology. Chalcedon did not accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo until after a committee examined it and declared it orthodox. This shows that a papal decree alone was not considered an authoritative statement of the doctrine of the Church. Unfortunately, as we know some people did not understand Chalcedon, so it became necessary to hold another Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553. Constantinople II again shows the limits of papal authority in the ancient undivided Church. Pope Vigilius was in Constantinople seeking refuge from the Visigoths who had invaded Italy. The Pope forbade the council from meeting, but it met without him. When he refused to attend or accept the decision of the council to denounce the Three Chapters to confirm that Chalcedon was not Nestorian and did not contradict the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the council removed his name from the dyptichs, thereby removing him from office. Finally after the council threatened to excommunicate him, Pope Vigilius relented and accepted the decisions of the council. The next council, Constantinople III in 680 condemned Pope Honorius I for heresy. When the legates of Pope Nicholas I claimed the right of the Pope to issue binding declarations on the doctrine of the Church at the Council of Constantinople of 869 which condemned St. Photius, Patriarch Ignatius and the representatives of the other 3 Eastern Patriarchs informed the papal legates that only the agreement of all 5 Patriarchs could make a doctrinal decision binding on the entire Church. Therefore the history of the Ecumenical Councils shows that the ancient Church did not recognize the Pope as having anything like the authority given him by the 1st Vatican Council.
Rome had a primacy of honor as senior Bishop of the Church, but had no jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchte as was affirmed by Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council. Like every other Bishop, the Bishop of Rome had to obey the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. Before the schism of 1054, every major decision on doctrine or administration was made not by the Pope, but by an Ecumenical Council. The history of the ancient undivided Church and the 7 Ecumenical Councils, is why I cannot accept the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. It if were true, the Church would have believed it from the beginning and its acceptance would be evident to anyone studying the history of the first 1,000 years of Christian history. Instead, the Christian history during the first 1,000 years shows that the Church did not accept anything remotely near that now taught by the modern Roman Catholic Church concerning the authority of the Pope.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Hi frjohnmorris: You say that someone has to have the final word but it is not the Bishop of Rome but the Church. To me the Church since it is made up of people how does that work when for example 5 patriarchs each having a strong argument for their position do not agree with each other, who then has the final word? it can’t then be the Church as the 5 patriarchs represent the Church, and besides the Church is not someone but the body of Christ. Also the Church is not a person, but the people that make up the Church.
It seems to me that while Peter was the leader in the sense he was the spokesperson for the disciples, Jesus was the leader of His followers. So it follows that Peter would be the head of the Church that Jesus is going to build on Peter. Just as they listened to Jesus, so to would they listen to Peter. At least that's the conclusion I have come to. If everyone has equal status in a council other than being able to voice their views on any particular issue or issues, someone has to decide or at the very least get everyone to agree or come to some kind of agreement, when all are not in agreement on any issue or issues and all are at odds with each other. That's my take on it. I do not think that councils are a bad thing, as one would think everyone should be on the same page so to speak.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi frjohnmorris: You say that someone has to have the final word but it is not the Bishop of Rome but the Church. To me the Church since it is made up of people how does that work when for example 5 patriarchs each having a strong argument for their position do not agree with each other, who then has the final word? it can’t then be the Church as the 5 patriarchs represent the Church, and besides the Church is not someone but the body of Christ. Also the Church is not a person, but the people that make up the Church.

   It seems to me that  while Peter was the leader in the sense he was the spokesperson for the disciples, Jesus was the leader of His followers. So it follows that Peter would be the head of the Church that Jesus is going to build on Peter. Just as they listened to Jesus, so to would they listen to Peter. At least that's the conclusion I have come to. If everyone has equal status in a council other than being able to voice their views on any particular issue or issues, someone has to decide or at the very least get everyone to agree or come to some kind of agreement, when all are not in agreement on any issue or issues and all are at odds with each other. That's my take on it. I do not think that councils are a bad thing, as one would think everyone should be on the same page so to speak.

The conciliar way that Eastern Orthodoxy favors was exactly how the Church operated during the Apostolic era, as we see from the Apostolic Council recorded in Ats 15. St. Peter spoke, but did not have the final word. St. James as the presiding Bishop by virtue of his position as Bishop of Jerusalem, where the council was held. presided and delivered the final decision of the council, not St. Peter. The conciliar system was the way that the Church operated during the first 1,000 years of its history, and the way that we have continued to operate since the schism. There have been times when it has been messy, but the same could be said of the papacy, the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy in Avignon, The Great Schism when at one time there were three Popes. The scandal of the corrupt and undemocratic rule of the Popes over central Italy. Popes like Alexander VI. The selling of indulgences, and other scandals show that one man rule is not more effective or honorable than our conciliar system.
Roman Catholics accuse Eastern Orthodox of being divided, yet Catholics are just as divided. In a major American city, there may be Latin Rite Catholics, Ukranian Rite Catholics, Byzantine Rite Catholics, Melkite Rite Catholics, Syriac Rite Catholics, Coptic Rite Catholics, and other various rites of the Catholic Church all under different Bishops. How is that different from our Greek, Antiochian, or Russian parishes under different Bishops? Instead of a Pope, we have Pan Orthodox meetings of the Primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches. They are having one next week. We also have national meetings of the heads of the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions and local Orthodox clergy brotherhood meetings.

Father John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me the world of Christianity has never presented a unified front, the estrangement between East and West emerged as the most basic division of Christendom. Ironically, both the Greek East and the Latin West developed religious terms for representing the global unity of Christianity. Put simply, the ideal of Christianity unity in the east revolved around the person of the emperor in Constantinople, while in the West it was centered on the authority of the Pope in Rome. In different ways, both emperors and Popes stood for the political, religious, and cultural unity of Christendom. Certainly, conflicts arose between East and West long before the formal break between Greek orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It seems to me that there were problems since the time when Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Church in Corinth. Even before when Paul said we do not belong to Apollo or Paul or etc. but to Christ as one Church. (paraphrased)
In context of the broader sacred geography and the sacred history of Christianity, however, East and West came into conflict over which city Constantinople or Rome would stand in the Christian world as heir to the holy city of Jerusalem. By contrast, Rome asserted a temporal connection, replying on an unbroken historical succession of Bishops of the city who could trace their lineage back to the founding of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter. In this sacred history, Rome was the heir to Jerusalem not because it held the cross upon which Jesus had been crucified, but because it represented the rock upon which Jesus had built His Church. In these calculations of sacred space and sacred time, therefore, Christians in the East and West produced different images of the unity of Christianity. The images of a unified Christianity they represented , however, were contradicted not only by the division between east and West, but also by the obvious diversity that could be observed among Eastern Christians and Western Christians. Although emperors and Popes asserted Christian unity, they faced a Christian world that from the third century on produced a diverse range of micro-Christianity. In the east, Christian unity was represented as a harmony of the human and divine that was administered by the emperor. In the West, Christian unity was represented as adherence to an unbroken apostolic succession, anchored in Rome, extending back to St. Peter.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It seems to me the world of Christianity has never presented a unified front, the estrangement between East and West emerged as the most basic division of Christendom. Ironically, both the Greek East and the Latin West developed religious terms for representing the global unity of Christianity. Put simply, the ideal of Christianity unity in the east revolved around the person of the emperor in Constantinople, while in the West it was centered on the authority of the Pope in Rome. In different ways, both emperors and Popes stood for the political, religious, and cultural unity of Christendom. Certainly, conflicts arose between East and West long before the formal break between Greek orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It seems to me that there were problems since the time when Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Church in Corinth. Even before when Paul said we do not belong to Apollo or Paul or etc. but to Christ as one Church. (paraphrased)

In context of the broader sacred geography and the sacred history of Christianity, however, East and West came into conflict over which city Constantinople or Rome would stand in the Christian world as heir to the holy city of Jerusalem.  By contrast, Rome asserted a temporal connection, replying on an unbroken historical succession of Bishops of the city who could trace their lineage back to the founding of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter. In this sacred history, Rome was the heir to Jerusalem not because it held the cross upon which Jesus had been crucified, but because it represented the rock upon which Jesus had built His Church. In these calculations of sacred space and sacred time, therefore, Christians in the East and West produced different images of the unity of Christianity. The images of a unified Christianity they represented , however, were contradicted not only by the division between east and West, but also by the obvious diversity that could be observed among Eastern Christians and Western Christians. Although emperors and Popes asserted Christian unity, they faced a Christian world that from the third century on produced a diverse range of micro-Christianity. In the east, Christian unity was represented as a harmony of the human and divine that was administered by the emperor. In the West, Christian unity was represented as adherence to an unbroken apostolic succession, anchored in Rome, extending back to St. Peter.

You completely misunderstand the Eastern Church. It is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but we do not need a power center like the Pope to hold us together as one Church. It was not the Emperor who held us together. We had no Christian Emperor during the first 300 years of our history and have not had an emperor since 1453. We are held together by our Holy Orthodox Faith and our common worship and mostly by the Holy Spirit who leads our Church and its Bishops to “rightly divide the word of the truth.” The Church is not an institution, but is a Eucharistic Assembly. Each local Assembly makes present the One Holy Catholic Church in all its fullness. The local Eucharistic Assemblies are united by the unity of their Bishop to the other Orthodox Bishops to form the world wide Eastern Orthodox Church which is built not on the person of St. Peter as the west erroneously believes, but on the Faith of St. Peter and is made present through the Eucharist.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

You completely misunderstand the Eastern Church. It is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but we do not need a power center like the Pope to hold us together as one Church. It was not the Emperor who held us together. We had no Christian Emperor during the first 300 years of our history and have not had an emperor since 1453. We are held together by our Holy Orthodox Faith and our common worship and mostly by the Holy Spirit who leads our Church and its Bishops to “rightly divide the word of the truth.” The Church is not an institution, but is a Eucharistic Assembly. Each local Assembly makes present the One Holy Catholic Church in all its fullness. The local Eucharistic Assemblies are united by the unity of their Bishop to the other Orthodox Bishops to form the world wide Eastern Orthodox Church which is built not on the person of St. Peter as the west erroneously believes, but on the Faith of St. Peter and is made present through the Eucharist.

Fr. John W. Morris

What happened historically was that the Bishops or Rome took upon themselves the trappings of imperial rule and adopted the values of a secular prince after the Pope became the ruler of central Italy. Thus, it was not the East that was ruled by an emperor. It was the West which was ruled by the imperial papacy. This began when the Popes took upon themselves the authority of the imperial government in Rome and central Italy and reached high point when Pope Leo III took upon himself imperial ambitions by bypassing the normal and legal processes to name an emperor in 800, by illegally crowning a barely literate Frankish prince to rival the real Emperor thereby putting himself in a position whereby the Emperor in Constantinople could act as a counter weight to challenge his power and authority. When Cardinal Humbert began the schism in 1054, basing the papal claims on the forged “Donation of Constantine,” he also liberated the Popes from having to answer to an Ecumenical Council or the other 4 Patriarchs of the Church who had acted to control the growing claims of the Popes. This led to complete papal domination of the Western Church with no rivals or power with the authority to prevent a Bishop of Rome from abusing his authority. Trough the years the Popes began to claim more and more power for themselves reaching a high point at Canossa when the German Emperor Henry IV stood barefoot in the snow in penance before Pope Gregory VII and in “Unam Sanctam” the decree of Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 in which the Pope made submission to the authority of the Pope a condition for salvation. Finally the 1st Vatican Council in 1870 removed all control over papal authority and recognized the power of the Pope to make doctrinal declarations infallibly speaking “ex cathedra.”

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[twf]

What happened historically was that the Bishops or Rome took upon themselves the trappings of imperial rule and adopted the values of a secular prince after the Pope became the ruler of central Italy. Thus, it was not the East that was ruled by an emperor. It was the West which was ruled by the imperial papacy. This began when the Popes took upon themselves the authority of the imperial government in Rome and central Italy and reached high point when Pope Leo III took upon himself imperial ambitions by bypassing the normal and legal processes to name an emperor in 800, by illegally crowning a barely literate Frankish prince to rival the real Emperor thereby putting himself in a position whereby the Emperor in Constantinople could act as a counter weight to challenge his power and authority. When Cardinal Humbert began the schism in 1054, basing the papal claims on the forged “Donation of Constantine,” he also liberated the Popes from having to answer to an Ecumenical Council or the other 4 Patriarchs of the Church who had acted to control the growing claims of the Popes. This led to complete papal domination of the Western Church with no rivals or power with the authority to prevent a Bishop of Rome from abusing his authority. Trough the years the Popes began to claim more and more power for themselves reaching a high point at Canossa when the German Emperor Henry IV stood barefoot in the snow in penance before Pope Gregory VII and in “Unam Sanctam” the decree of Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 in which the Pope made submission to the authority of the Pope a condition for salvation. Finally the 1st Vatican Council in 1870 removed all control over papal authority and recognized the power of the Pope to make doctrinal declarations infallibly speaking “ex cathedra.”

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,
With all due respect, I think that you are majorly downplaying the role and interference of both the Byzantine Emperors in Constantinople and the Tsars in Moscow in the life of the Orthodox Church. It is not only the Latin West that has, at times, been “in bed” with imperial power.
Your narrative is also incomplete as the Second Vatican Council “softened” and clarified the intent of the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic definitions on the papacy with a renewed emphasis on the collegiality of the entire episcopate - which has been the point of this entire thread. The “absolutist” extremes advocated by many from the High Middle Ages through Vatican I are criticized by many Catholics as well. The Pope rules with his brother bishops and not apart from them.

 

[twf]

You completely misunderstand the Eastern Church. It is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but we do not need a power center like the Pope to hold us together as one Church. It was not the Emperor who held us together. We had no Christian Emperor during the first 300 years of our history and have not had an emperor since 1453. We are held together by our Holy Orthodox Faith and our common worship and mostly by the Holy Spirit who leads our Church and its Bishops to “rightly divide the word of the truth.” The Church is not an institution, but is a Eucharistic Assembly. Each local Assembly makes present the One Holy Catholic Church in all its fullness. The local Eucharistic Assemblies are united by the unity of their Bishop to the other Orthodox Bishops to form the world wide Eastern Orthodox Church which is built not on the person of St. Peter as the west erroneously believes, but on the Faith of St. Peter and is made present through the Eucharist.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,
I have said this before, but I find that the Orthodox, and non-Catholics in general, insist on adopting an overly simplistic and narrow interpretation of Catholicism when attempting to refute those doctrines with which they disagree. There is more than one theological strand in the Latin Tradition and our faith is much more nuanced than outsiders (and sadly even many Catholics) seem to think. In Catholicism, and I believe this is also true of Orthodoxy, things are not always a “yes” or a “no”, but often a “both”. Scripture in particular often has many layers of meaning. Is the Rock of Matthew 16 St. Peter? Yes, as many Fathers and saints have testified, but that doesn’t mean that the Rock isn’t also Peter’s confession - his faith. In one sense St. Peter is the rock, but in another sense it is his faith that is the rock for it was the confession of the orthodox faith that made Peter the rock.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. **On the rock of this faith **confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. **Because of the faith he confessed **Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. (emphasis added)

Furthermore, we also believe that the Catholic Church is mystically present in each local Church.

833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church;** it is in these and formed out of **them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.” (emphasis added)

.
Note that for Catholics it is not an “either / or” but a both…the Catholic Church is both formed out of the many particular Churches, while at the same time each particular Church IS the Catholic Church. Likewise, we believe that while the whole Host (consecrated bread) is Christ, so is each piece of the broken Host distributed to the faithful in Holy Communion truly Christ.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
With all due respect, I think that you are majorly downplaying the role and interference of both the Byzantine Emperors in Constantinople and the Tsars in Moscow in the life of the Orthodox Church. It is not only the Latin West that has, at times, been “in bed” with imperial power.
Your narrative is also incomplete as the Second Vatican Council “softened” and clarified the intent of the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic definitions on the papacy with a renewed emphasis on the collegiality of the entire episcopate - which has been the point of this entire thread. The “absolutist” extremes advocated by many from the High Middle Ages through Vatican I are criticized by many Catholics as well. The Pope rules with his brother bishops and not apart from them.

In the East there is no doubt that at times, the secular authorities exercised undue influence over the Church. However, every time that the Emperors crossed the line and began to interfere in purely spiritual and doctrinal matters, the Church stood up to them and eventually won the day.
To illustrate the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, every national Eastern Orthodox Church is entirely self-governing. Each autocephalous Church elects its own Primate and Bishops and manages its own internal affairs. The Primate is subject to the will of the majority of the Holy Synod and can be overruled by the Holy Synod or removed by them. For example In the North American Archdiocese of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the clergy and people play a role in the selection of our Bishops. Every two years, we have an Archdiocese Convention made up of the Pastors and representatives of each parish. which approves the budget and financial statements which show where every penny comes from and how it is spent. The convention elects a Board of Trustees to manage the affairs of the Archdiocese between meetings of the Archdiocesan Convention. When we need a local Bishop, the people nominate three candidates from a ballot containing the names of every Priest who is qualified to be elected. The Local Synod of Bishops selects one of the from the three candidates getting the most votes. When we need a Metropolitan (Primate of the Archdiocese) the same procedure is followed except that the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch selects the new Metropolitan from one of three candidates who receive the most votes. Each parish is governed by the people who in an annual meeting approve the budget for the parish and elect a Parish Council which has the final say in all financial and non spiritual matters of the parish. Matters of international importance are decided by meetings representing all the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy.
It is my understanding that no such democratic practices exist in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead all power flows from the top. In the North American Roman Catholic Church the Pope appoints all Bishops. There is no vote of the clergy and faithful. The Bishop rules his diocese without participation of the clergy and faithful in the decision making process. In a parish the Pastor is not bound by the decisions of a parish council, which are only advisory. As I understand it the Pope had an absolute veto over the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council.
It is my understanding that Vatican II did not change the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or revoke the decrees of Vatican I. The Pope still has authority to declare dogma infallibly speaking “ex cathedra.” The Pope still has universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church. We Orthodox can accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as first among equals, but cannot accept the version of papal authority enacted by the 1st Vatican Council or give up our conciliar form of polity. No Patriarch including the Ecumenical Patriarch is above the authority of the Church or the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. No Patriarch or local autocephalous Church is above a Pan-Orthodox Council representing all the autocephalous Churches. A Patriarch can be out voted by the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate or removed for heresy, or corruption. Does such authority exist to remove a corrupt, heretical Pope or overrule a Papal decision within the Roman Catholic Church? My understanding is that it does not.

Fr. John w. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

You completely misunderstand the Eastern Church. It is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but we do not need a power center like the Pope to hold us together as one Church. It was not the Emperor who held us together. We had no Christian Emperor during the first 300 years of our history and have not had an emperor since 1453. We are held together by our Holy Orthodox Faith and our common worship and mostly by the Holy Spirit who leads our Church and its Bishops to “rightly divide the word of the truth.” The Church is not an institution, but is a Eucharistic Assembly. Each local Assembly makes present the One Holy Catholic Church in all its fullness. The local Eucharistic Assemblies are united by the unity of their Bishop to the other Orthodox Bishops to form the world wide Eastern Orthodox Church which is built not on the person of St. Peter as the west erroneously believes, but on the Faith of St. Peter and is made present through the Eucharist.

Fr. John W. Morris

This is generally a good post. The thing is, Eastern Orthodox Church don’t have a monopoly, so to speak, on being Eastern. Eastern Catholic Churches are Eastern Churches too (and, conversely, Western-Rite Orthodox are Western, so the Latin Church doesn’t have a monopoly on being Western).

 

[twf]

Father,
Has this “democratic” model of the laity controlling the “temporal” (financial, administrative, non-spiritual) business of the Church been in place since antiquity, or is it a more recent innovation? I ask because I’ve never come across any historical evidence of a “shift” in the Latin West from local democratic lay control to hierarchical control. As far as I know, in the Latin West at any rate, the clergy have always had ultimate control over all Church affairs even with lay people have been involved. In the ancient Church, at least in the West, the deacons had control of the temporal (material) affairs of the Church, not the laity. Certainly the pope has the final say at the universal level and the bishop has the final say at the diocesan level and the pastor has the final say at the parish level - but that doesn’t mean that they don’t involve the lay faithful in their decision making. No good priest, bishop, or pope works in a vacuum. Christ gave the apostles and their successors the power of binding and loosing and it is for them to govern the Church, but a good Christian leader is first and foremost a servant of those he rules. It is for this reason that one of the Pope’s titles is “Servant of the Servants of God”. A pastor has the final say in his parish, but that doesn’t mean he simply ignores the parish council or the financial committee; if he is doing his job properly and if he is a good and holy priest, he will carefully and prayerfully weigh their recommendations. We fear a strictly democratic model mainly because it has no place in our tradition, but also because we see the horrors it has wrought in Protestantism. I have found that in parishes with “weak” pastors who give in to every whim of the lay parish council, orthodoxy tends to suffer. This is a “fruit” of living n a largely post-Christian secular society. As far as the dioceses go, most bishops have several lay assistants in key posts - directors of youth ministry or evangelization, etc.

Regarding the appointment of bishops, it is not quite that simple. Each local province (archdiocese and subject dioceses) maintains a list of priests eligible for the episcopate. The bishops would consult their priest and lay advisers in drawing up these lists. When a see becomes vacant, the Apostolic Nuncio (ambassador or legate of the Holy See) for that particular country consults the local churches and draws up a list of three candidates. The Congregation for Bishops in Rome, which is a committee of several bishops from around the world (currently headed by a Canadian), then selects a candidate from the list of three. The Congregation finally presents their candidate to the Pope for final approval. The Latin Church is incredibly vast - there are over 2000 dioceses around the world - so you can imagine that bishop appointments are happening constantly - so in reality the Pope must largely rely upon this process. That being said, this process is purely a matter of disciplinary canon law and can be changed as it has in the past. There is no doctrinal reason why the Pope must have final approval for all bishops even in the Latin Church. But it must be remembered that the authority of the bishops is not derived from the papacy - it is equally of divine origin. From the Catechism:

894 “**The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, **govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 **But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. **Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. (emphasis added)

Regarding the removal of a heretical or corrupt pope, there are some who argue that a heretical pope, by excommunicating himself, disqualifies himself from the papal ministry - but I will leave that debate to the theologians. Either way, our faith tells us that even a heretical pope will never lead the Church into heresy for the Holy Spirit protects the Church. We take the prayer of Christ seriously: but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’ (Luke 22:32). Even if individual popes fall into heresy, the faith of St. Peter, that is, the rock upon which the Church is built (see my earlier post - the faith / confession of Peter is the rock in the Catholic tradition as well) will not.
That being said, we as Catholic Christians are only obliged to obey moral, legitimate authority. If a corrupt Pope commanded me to sin or to confess heresy, I would ignore him and rightfully so. A truly corrupt, heretical pope would likely be ignored by the entire Curia / Cardinals / Synod of Bishops until such pressure either forced him to abdicate (opening the way for a new election) or until he died. He has no authority to harm the Church. His authority is limited by Sacred Tradition and Divine Law. This is true at every level. We as Catholics are commanded to obey the civil authority, but if the civil authority tells me to sin (for example, renounce Christ), I am not obliged to obey - in fact I am obliged to disobey. If my priest commands me to miss mass, I am obliged to disobey him for he has no authority to overturn God’s law. This is also true of the Pope.

 

[spina1953]

It appears or seems to me that the Byzantine transformation of the Roman empire, began by Constantine the great, continued by Theodosius, and finally achieved by Justinian, produced no more that a nominally Christian state. its laws, its institutions, and a good deal of its public morality all retained unmistakable characteristics of the old paganism. Slavery continued to be legal: crimes especially political misdemeanors, were punished by law with exquisite cruelty. This contrast between professed Christianity and the practical savagery is aptly personified in the founder of the second empire; Constantine believed sincerely in the Christian God, paid honor to the Bishops, and exercising the right of a pagan husband and father putting Fausta and Crispus to death.

So glaring a contradiction between faith and life, however, could not last long without some attempt at reconciliation. Rather than sacrifice its actual paganism, the Byzantine empire attempted in self-justification to pervert the purity of the Christian idea. This compromise between truth and error lies at the heart of all those heresies( often devised by the imperial power and always, except in certain individual instances, favored by it) which distracted Christendom from the fourth century on.

The fundamental truth and distinctive idea of Christianity is the perfect union of the divine and the human individually achieved in Christ, and finding its social realization in Christian humanity, in which the divine is represented by the Church, centered in the supreme Pontiff, and the human by the state. This intimate relation between Church and state implies the primacy of the former, since the divine is previous in time and superior in being to the human. Heresy attacked the perfect unity of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ precisely in order to undermine the living bond between Church and state, and to confer upon the latter an absolute independence. hence it is clear why the emperors of the Eastern empire, intent on maintaining within Christendom the absolution of the pagan state, were so partial to all the heresies, which were but manifold variations on a single theme.

It is historically evident that all of the heresies actively supported or passively accepted by the majority of the Greek clergy encountered insuperable opposition from the Roman Church and finely came to grief on the rock of he Gospel. This is especially true of the Iconoclastic heresy; for in denying all external manifestation of the divine in the world it made a direct attack on the raison deter of the Chair of St. Peter as the real objective center of the visible Church.

I would point out that in the West it was not that much better in that many Popes and Bishops and clergy were very much corrupt. yet today the Church does not have that political power it once had due to having to maintain the West that the Eastern emperors should have done but neglected once Constantine and his successors left the West to their own designs.

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is generally a good post. The thing is, Eastern Orthodox Church don’t have a monopoly, so to speak, on being Eastern. Eastern Catholic Churches are Eastern Churches too (and, conversely, Western-Rite Orthodox are Western, so the Latin Church doesn’t have a monopoly on being Western).

I will try to be diplomatic, but given the amount of westernization that has taken place among Eastern Catholics, and their acceptance of papal authority, I do not think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are good examples of Eastern Christianity.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I will try to be diplomatic, but given the amount of westernization that has taken place among Eastern Catholics, and their acceptance of papal authority, I do not think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are good examples of Eastern Christianity.

Fr. John W. Morris

It seems to me that the Eastern Catholic Churches with their different rites, traditions, do not do everything that the Latin rite Churches do. Each has its own way and manor in which they worship. And in general I think that Rome does not much interfere with what they do. Just because they accept Papal authority does not mean that they have to do things that the Western Latin rite does. It seems to me that they do as they will within their practice of their particular rite.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It seems to me that the Eastern Catholic Churches with their different rites, traditions, do not do everything that the Latin rite Churches do. Each has its own way and manor in which they worship. And in general I think that Rome does not much interfere with what they do. Just because they accept Papal authority does not mean that they have to do things that the Western Latin rite does. It seems to me that they do as they will within their practice of their particular rite.

Their forms of worship may be Eastern, but by their Communion with Rome their theology is not Eastern, because they accept Western doctrine. Before Vatican II even their Eastern liturgical practices were highly Westernized. One of the chief factors that continue the division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome is the whole sordid history of the Roman missionaries who infiltrated the East in an effort to persuade people to leave the Eastern Churches and accept the papacy. Because of the explosive nature of this issue, it is best that it not be discussed with Eastern Orthodox. This conflict caused a meeting of the International Eastern Orthodox Catholic Dialogue held in Maryland a few years ago to end in great disharmony.

Fr. John W. Morris