The Petrine views

[twf]

A great deal has been made of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles;
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account
him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do
those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Catholics claim that it affirms the authority of the Pope. I disagree, the canon establishes local primacies and says nothing about the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

This is obvious by Canon IX of the Council of Antioch in 341.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Notice that the canon is almost word for word of the Apostolic Canon, but is more specific and makes no provision of any kind of Papal primacy. Notice also that this canon obviously makes a reference to the Apostolic canon because of the phrase, “according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers…” Thus it can be considered an official interpretation of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles. Thus, this canon shows that I have interpreted Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles correctly as establishing local primacies and saying nothing to justify its use to support universal papal authority.

Fr. John

Father,
Catholics argue that the same principal applies at all levels - regional yes, but also at the universal level, even if that is not specifically what the canon refers to. That being said, Marduk and myself have several times now pointed out that the modern Orthodox understanding seems to contradict the command that the bishops do nothing without the head. You have often spoken of the synod overruling or even depositing the patriarch / metropolitan. How does this not violate the principal that the bishops do nothing apart from their head?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
Catholics argue that the same principal applies at all levels - regional yes, but also at the universal level, even if that is not specifically what the canon refers to. That being said, Marduk and myself have several times now pointed out that the modern Orthodox understanding seems to contradict the command that the bishops do nothing without the head. You have often spoken of the synod overruling or even depositing the patriarch / metropolitan. How does this not violate the principal that the bishops do nothing apart from their head?

How does it not violate this principle? I think that it is implied that the requirement that the Metropolitan receive the approval of the other Bishops of the province to do anything effecting the province, that they have the authority to remove him if he abuses his authority. What the canons mean is that no Bishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch has absolute authority. The principle is further elaborated by the Ecumenical Councils, that require two meetings every year of the Holy Synod. The ultimate authority is the Holy Synod, not the Patriarch.
Catholics can argue that the same principle applies at all levels, but they cannot show me a canon that recognizes universal papal jurisdiction, nor can they prove it from the history of the ancient undivided Church. In fact, the canons and history of the ancient undivided Church shows the exact opposite. The reason why the canons do not refer to the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is that he did not have universal jurisdiction during the age of the ancient Church. Since the canons were very specific about almost every other aspect of the life of the Church, if the Church recognized the universal authority of Rome, it would be found in the canons. I would also be found in the practice of the ancient Church. In fact, as I have already pointed out Canon IX of Chalcedon gives clergy the right to appeal to Constantinople, not Rome if they have a dispute with their Metropolitan. Canon 28 of Chalcedon also gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome. It does not matter that Rome did not like the canon, because the other 4 Patriarchs ignored the papal protests and followed the canon. That also shows that the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction.
The problem with this whole discussion is that people read modern Roman Catholic beliefs about the papacy back into the history of the Church. That is not how history is done. Real historians let history speak for itself. Every real historian recognizes that the papacy as it is today is the result of a long and complex development. No recognized professional historian argues that the papacy has always had the authority that was given it by Vatican I. Every standard history of Western Civ, or of the Christian Church has a section on the rise of the papacy which shows how it developed from the Bishop of Rome to the ruler of central Italy and how this role as a secular prince effected the growth of papal power and the attitude of the Bishop of Rome towards the other Bishops of the Church. The Popes began to think like princes and began to treat the other Bishops the way that princes treat their subjects. That is the real origin of the modern papacy. They were able to do that in the West, where Rome was the only Apostolic Church. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the East, the Eastern Patriarchs who also had Apostolic origins refused to surrender their historic rights to Rome. All historians recognize that. I have also noticed that no one has responded to my repeated mentions that most of the papal claims come from the forged Donation of Constantine.

Fr.John

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

mardukm:

Why does it not apply to the papacy? What justifies restricting AC 34 to something below the universal level?

I RESPOND: What justified applying the canon to the international level. Give me one historical example where it was applied to anything above the provincial level.

(1) the necessary confirmation of the bishop of Rome for an Ecumenical Council. Your claim in another post that “no historian…” is utterly irrelevant. Historians do not have any authority to determine the doctirne of the Church;
(2) the numerous appeals from Eastern bishops to the bishop of Rome. Since you have explicitly already admitted that appeal designates a recognition of primacy for the bishop of Constantinople, then you cannot deny that the historical fact of appeals to the bishop of Rome by bishops from all over the Church was (and still is to the CC) an evident recognition by the early Church of the headship of the bishop of Rome in the Church universal, and , thus, that AC 34 applies on the universal level.

The canon established the system of regional primacies with the Bishop of the provincial capital acting as the Metropolitan and presiding officer over the council of Bishops of the Province.

First of all, AC 34 makes no mention of “provincial capitals.” This is an eisegetic imposition of a later, developed ecclesiology into the ancient Canon. Secondly, AC 34 makes no mention of “councils.” It simply states that (1) bishops of every nation must recognize their head; (2) on matters of great importance for the whole, the consent of the head bishop is necessary; (3) on matters of great importance for the whole, the consensus of the other bishops is also necessary. The Catholic teaching on collegiality (which affirms the divine necessity of cooperation of the whole college of bishops whether in the formal setting of a council or dispersed throughout the world), is easily the best understanding of the Apostolic Canon, instead of the model you propose that restricts the matter to only council or synod - a formal setting that is not even mentioned in the Apostolic Canon itself.

Like all presiding officers, the Metropolitan had to abide by the will of the majority of the Holy Synod of the province.

According to AC 34, the bishops of a synod (if you wish to restrict it to that formal setting) must also abide by the will of the Metropolitan. That you consistently fail to acknowledge this demonstrates that your understanding does not adhere to the full teaching of AC 34.

He did not have veto power over the decisions of the Holy Synod.

Of course not. Who here has said otherwise, Father? Please respond to that, and don’t avoid it. I think your answer will expose the fact that you are actually creating a straw man.

Each province was independent and subject only to the authority of an Ecumenical Council…There was no level of the hierarchy above the provincial Metropolitan except an Ecumenical Council.

The Metropolitan was and always has been subject to the authority of a Patriarch, not just an Ecumenical Council (perhaps the one unique, solitary exception is Cyprus). This is the way it has always been. Your understanding is different not only from the CC, but also from the OOC. (Perhaps EO need to think twice before blithely claiming that the only difference between them and the OOC is Christology and some minor local small-t traditions - not saying that these differences need to be divisive, but only that these are real differences)

frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

I rather think you are reading the Low Petrine novelties back into the Canon. The custom of the Ecum Councils affirms that AC 34 applied on the universal level because of the necessary confirmation of the bishop of Rome.

I RESPOND: I am not reading any sort of Petrine view into the canon, because I do nto recognize them.

Don’t focus on the terminology, but the concept. You are reading a concept into the Canon that is not there. You take a small portion of the Canon (that the consensus of the bishops is necessary) and build your whole ecclesiology on that one small portion, meanwhile utterly neglecting the other portion of the Canon that the consent of the head bishop is also necessary. I have mentioned this before, but no response was offered. That seems to indicate a tacit admission that the ecclesiology you propose is a “cafeteria” ecclesiology, not the full ecclesiology of apostolic Tradition.

What history are you reading? I have studied the history of the ancient Church extensively, have taught Church history on the university level and can tell you that no professional historian accepts the argument that confirmation by the Bishop of Rome was necessary for the decisions of an Ecumenical Council to take effect.

I will trust that you have more access to facts, being a professional historian, but that does not by any means prove that your interpretations are correct. Case in point (as on many other points) is your interpretation of AC 34, which depends on excising a whole portion of the Canon in order to justify a modern ecclesiology.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Pope St. Leo I objected to the 28th canon of Chalcedon, but his objections had no effect because the other 4 Patriarchs ignored them and operated according to the canon.

Thanks for bringing this up. This operation was forced on the East by the secular power. It was not borne of the Church herself. The Latins or Orientals certainly never submitted to Constantinople’s imperial ambitions. But the Easterns accepted correction and acknowledged the Church’s true Tradition at Trullo, when they finally got rid of the offensive portions of that Canon (i.e., the part that pretends the secular status of a city was the determinant for the ranking of the primordial patriarchates). So a future Eastern Council admitted the orthodoxy of Pope St. Leo’s objections to Canon 28, accepting correction thereby. In all, another solid example that the divine necessity of cooperation between head and body, per AC 34, applied on the universal level.
"frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

What Apostolic Canon forces a priest to be in the married state?

The point is that the Latin Church violated the Apostolic Canons by forbidding the ordination of married Priests.

It is comments such as these which causes me to doubt your interpretations of history. I ask again, what Apostolic Canon says that priests MUST be married in order to be ordained? Either produce it, or admit there is no such Canon, and that you have rather read something into an ancient Canon that is not there to begin with.

Later in 692, the Council in Trullo condemned the Western Church for forbidding married clergy to have sexual relations with their wives.

(1) Your claim was that the Latin Church violated some as-yet unproduced apostolic canon for forbidding the ordination of married men. How does this supposed Trullan canon support your claim?
(2) Cite this supposed Trullan canon condemning the Westerns for forbidding married clergy sexual relations with their wives. This issue did not even come up in the West until the 11th-12th centuries, and the Latin Church ruled that those who are married cannot be priests. So to claim that some Synod in the 7th century ruled on a matter that was never an issue in the Latin Church at that time is really (sorry to say) not a very good display of historical acumen.

mardukm:

Yet, the canons of the Latin Church state that if the head does not seek the advice, its acts are invalid. Doesn’t sound like absolute power to me.

Further, I doubt the Pope as Patriarch of the Latins has ever promulgated anything for the whole Patriarchate unless it was either by appeal, or by the consensus of a good portion of the bishops. Maybe some of the High Petrine advocates in the LCC can say more on this matter.

Notwithstanding the prior two considerations, which refute your claim, the College of Cardinals historically replaced the Roman Synod.

I am quite sure that the College of Cardinals originated as the Holy Synod of the Western Patriarchate.
However, today does the College of Cardinals have the same authority as a Holy Synod has over the Primate of an autocephalous Orthodox Church?

Concisely, today, the Coll.of Cardinals+Curia is comparable to a Holy Synod (iow, the functions of the Coll.of Cardinals in the middle ages is equivalent to the functions of the Coll.of Cardinals+Curia today). But it is not an exact analogy. The proper analogy between a Holy Synod on the patriarchal level as far as its plenary authority is the Ecum Council on the universal level. Nuanced comparisons between Coll.of Cardinals+Curia and a Synod would deserve a thread of its own (aside from perhaps an expected comment from brother Malphono , such a discussion belongs in another thread).

I know that the Holy Synod can overrule the Patriarch of Antioch, because…

The problem is the presumption that the Synod can “overrule” or have authority OVER its head bishop. What happens is that his brother bishops offer correction to the head, and the head accepts. If not, then either: (1) his brother bishops accept correction from him, or (2) he appeals to a higher authority, unequivocally demonstrating that his Synod is not the ultimate authority ABOVE him. The bare facts demonstrate that within a Synod, the head bishop of the Synod will at times accept correction from his brother bishops of the Synod; other times, it is the head bishop of the Synod who offers correction to his brother bishops of the Synod.

To repeat, the fact that a metropolitan has the right to appeal to a higher authority refutes the idea that his synod has authority OVER him.

The term “Synod” unequivocally means “head bishop+other bishops in the plenary geographical jurisdiction.” Your statements seem to indicate that your own definition of “Synod” is “every bishop except the head bishop.” If you can explicitly and simply admit that “Synod” or “College” always means “a head bishop with his brother bishops,” then we can be in agreement. Otherwise, it would be plain that your concept of “Synod” is a headless creature, which is neither biblical nor patristic.

Btw, there are several posts in the “Orthodox Churches,Eastern Rite” thread to which you did not respond-perhaps you missed them (given the sheer volume of posts on the other topic being discussed in that thread). I’ll repeat the pertinent sections of those posts here soon - please wait instead of responding to them in the other thread - so we can carry on discussion from there into this thread (which is more proper for the topic). I’ll also repeat some points from prior posts above, in order to obtain an answer from you:

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[LionHeart777]

I have read at least one work by James Likoudis and found it nothing but pro-papal propaganda. Consult real historical sources written by real historians. James Likodis is not, neither are the authors of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia which is hardly an unbiased source.

Father John,

Respectfully,

This boils down to argumentum ad hominem; I would argue that what the evidence provided by both authors (from primary sources) refutes what you seemed to be implying by the words you wrote: “…St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop, something that is forgotten or ignored by advocates of universal papal jurisdiction…”

Also, it shows that this argument has been dealt with (it hasn’t been forgotten or ignored) and is a “non-issue” regarding the Catholic position.

Just because some Popes claimed universal jurisdiction does not mean that the rest of the Church recognized that claim. That is the problem.

Can I surmise from this that you have reversed what appears to have been the position implied by your words “…St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop…” ? Or did I misunderstand what you meant by writing that?

There were 5 Patriarchs, not just one and neither the other 4 nor the Ecumenical Councils ever recognized the claims of Rome to jurisdiction over any area except his own patriarchate. Perhaps had the other 4 Patriarchs known of the excessive claims of Rome and had acted earlier to remind the Pope of his proper place as first among equals, the papal claims would not have grown to the point that they caused caused the schism. It is not possible to reconcile the papacy with the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the historical operation of the ancient undivided Church.
Union is possible, but only on the basis of the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church which do not include universal papal jurisdiction.

Fr. John

I disagree with your analysis here. The only comment I will make though is to say that to think that the other 4 Patriarchs were unaware of the Popes’ claims (Popes Sts. Leo and Gregory, Hormisdas and Adrian I come to mind) is wishful thinking.

One example that comes to mind is the following, from John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his See:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359

I agree that Union is possible, but one obstacle I see is that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (at the very least some) do not agree on “the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church”.

Regards,

Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

Just to clarify:

I said:

I agree that Union is possible, but one obstacle I see is that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (at the very least some) do not agree on “the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church”.

That is to say, they don’t agree on what “the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church” were, at the very least on some specifics.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother LionHeart777,

To prevent any further misunderstanding, I would like to offer a critique of the article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

"It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council.

I am not sure what the author is implying here, for the Vatican Council NEVER used the term “universal bishop.” I’ll explain this more below.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power.

This is EXCELLENT. I doubt any Orthodox would disagree with this.

But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree.

This is the whole problem with the article. It confuses because it first asserts (correctly) that the Pope has no authority to usurp the apostolically constituted power of the local bishop, but then goes on to claim what seems like the opposite. Again, though, this is based on the erroneous assumption that V1 even used the term “universal bishop.” Any literate person can see the obvious error of this claim if they take the time to read Pastor Aeternus. Concisely, Pastor Aeternus never states the Pope is “universal bishop.” Rather, it simply stated that as primate (i.e., head bishop) of the Church universal, his jurisdiction is “episcopal.” The intent of the Fathers for using that term to describe the papal prerogatives was to insist that the primatial office is a NATURAL feature of the episcopate. IOW, it does not make the Pope an ontologically different type of bishop as other bishops.

Further, the article is absolutely incorrect in its claim that the term “immediate” is applied to the Pope as bishop of the universal Church. Rather, the term “immediate” is applied to the Pope as “head bishop” or primate of the universal Church. The terms “bishop” and “head bishop”(primate) are two distinct terminologies employed by the Church, and they are not equivalent in their functions within the Church. I explained this thoroughly in thread a while ago, but don’t have the time right now to look for it. You might remember it. If not, and you would like an explanation, please indicate so.

Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority,

It should be noted that this “universal authority” is not a “unilateral authority.” The matter at issue was brought to the Pope’s attention by appeal. The Pope does not go around micromanaging the affairs of the Church.

and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12).

I agree with this. But it should always be remembered that the subjection is according to the Canons. The Pope does not have the power nor prerogative to subject anyone to arbitrary authority.

The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, ‘Hist. eccl.’, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)"

Do you have a link to these documents. I find it hard to believe that after two of our greatest Popes have denied the title “universal bishop,” some future Catholics had the audacity to assign the term to him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

GaryTaylor, did you cut and paste posts #93-100 from mwt.net/~lnpalm/sixth.htm ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its from CatholicFidelityDOTcom.

 

[Peter_J]

Its from CatholicFidelityDOTcom.

My apologies.

So you did cut and paste posts #93-100 from another website? :ehh:

 

[GaryTaylor]

My apologies.

So you did cut and paste posts #93-100 from another website? :ehh:

The link is posted. it didn’t work for you either?

Here- catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-sixth-nicene-canon-and-the-papacy-by-fr-james-f-loughlin/

 

[Peter_J]

The link is posted. it didn’t work for you either?

Here- catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-sixth-nicene-canon-and-the-papacy-by-fr-james-f-loughlin/

I’m tempted to say “Is that a yes?” but I think I would feel a little silly saying that; so I’ll instead say “I’ll take that as a yes.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m tempted to say “Is that a yes?” but I think I would feel a little silly saying that; so I’ll instead say “I’ll take that as a yes.”

I’m not sure what your saying, I’m saying if you read the thread you would have seen the link along with the cut and paste which was due to typhoons and then understood the sequence of events.

Is that a yes that the link works for you or are you having typhoon issues also?

Oh, should I take it you’ll read and compare both and are going to report back on your findings?

 

[spina1953]

The link is posted. it didn’t work for you either?

Here- catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-sixth-nicene-canon-and-the-papacy-by-fr-james-f-loughlin/

Dear Gary: I looked up the web page you put on your post. I just want to thank you for it as I have learned a lot and it has helped me to follow the discussion much better. I did not know that there these places that had so much information that is so usefull in understanding the Catholic postion. Again thanks a lot for the web page.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear Gary: I looked up the web page you put on your post. I just want to thank you for it as I have learned a lot and it has helped me to follow the discussion much better. I did not know that there these places that had so much information that is so usefull in understanding the Catholic postion. Again thanks a lot for the web page.

Your welcome brother spina1953, I tend to focus on the order of grace, divinization. Through I enjoy history and enjoy listening to these guys also.

 

[spina1953]

Your welcome brother spina1953, I tend to focus on the order of grace, divinization. Through I enjoy history and enjoy listening to these guys also.

I agree with you! Also I to like history however, I tend to try and look at what was said or done from the way that those who lived it thought and understood their world about them and how they understood the issues before them. I sometimes think that modern man forgets to do that and sees it from the modern perspective instead of how they might have seen it. That being said, I try not to put my own interpertations on the history aspect. In the end it is how we live according to the Gospels that we are taught by the Catholic Church; if we can do that with love in our hearts for the love of God and our fellow man even if we fail God knows all and helps us with His grace to do His will to the best of our ability. At least that is how I have been understanding it. Correct me if I am worng.

 

[frjohnmorris]

One of the major problems that led to the schism, was that by the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great the West spoke Latin and the East Greek. As a result they did not really understand each other. At the time that St. John the Faster began to us the title Ecumenical Patriarch, it did not mean anything like universal Bishop. It merely meant the Patriarch of the Emperor which, of course, he was since he was the Patriarch of Constantinople. Therefore, St. John the Faster was not claiming to be universal Bishop. However, St. Gregory’s comments are important for this discussion because he also did not claim to be the Universal Bishop, but argued what we Eastern Orthodox are arguing on this subject. He would not have accepted the claims of the modern papacy either.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

One of the major problems that led to the schism, was that by the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great the West spoke Latin and the East Greek. As a result they did not really understand each other.
Fr. John

Amen, and its further complicated now through hard, difficult language bought on by continued heresy. Lets face it when we have to spend 20-pages on “guilt” correctly understood, I believe it gives us a good glimpse of the issues which confront us. Patience is indeed a virtue. Nevertheless I can’t help but think of the Coptic Pope and his words; “We must work quickly and seriously” on church unity.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Just to clarify:

I said:

That is to say, they don’t agree on what “the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church” were, at the very least on some specifics.

That is indeed the case. We both agree that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy as senior Bishop, but disagree on what that means. To Orthodox, it is that the Pope occupied the same position now occupied by the Patriarch of Constantinople and no more. Since Vatican 1, it means a lot more to Catholics. Vatican 1 which gave the Pope the authority to unilaterally issue dogmatic decrees which “Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”
The 1st Vatican Council also declared:
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

Those do not sound very collegial to me. It also does not sound anything like the arguments that some people have made during these discussions, for it gives the Pope absolute authority without any requirement that he consult the other Bishops of the Church.
There has never been any doubt in the East that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. However, at the same time, Eastern Orthodoxy considers all Bishops successors to St. Peter, not just the Bishop of Rome because they all share in the same Apostolic Office.
There is also no doubt that the ancient East recognized the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome. The difference is that we believe that through the centuries the Bishop of Rome began to make more of his primacy than was justified by the historic practice of the Church. Even Catholic historians recognize that Rome exercised no jurisdiction outside of the West. Thus, we argue that the ancient system of local self rule with an Ecumenical Council having authority over all Bishops including the Bishop of Rome is the correct model of Church administration. However, although a council might have all the outward appearances of an Ecumenical Council, it only becomes an Ecumenical Council after it is recognized by the Church. That is why every one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils begins its decrees with a listing of the councils it recognizes. As we all know the Robber Council of Ephesus did not make the grace and was rejected by the Church. However, the decision to revoke the decrees of the Council of Ephesus of 449 was not made by Pope St. Leo I alone, but had to be made by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There is no incident in the history of the ancient undivided Church in which any decision by the Pope with implications outside of the West was recognized unless it was ratified by the rest of the Church through an Ecumenical Council. Thus the ancient teaching of the Church was that the Pope was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. If a Pope objected to the decisions of a general council, like the Robber Council, he had the right to appeal for another council to hear his objections and overrule the previous council, but the Pope had no right to veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council on his own authority.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

To. Fr. Morris: I agree that one of the major problems between the East and the West is that the West spoke Latin while the East spoke Greek. At one time as I understand it, most of the Roman empire spoke Greek while the lower classes in the West spoke Latin if you will. Once the Roman empire split into the Easterm Roman empire and Roman Western empire Latin became more common among the West. Also imo, because of invasions by barbarnians into the Western half of the Roman empire the Eastern half of the Roman empire did not come to its aid. Also cultural differences helped cause misunderstandings as well as travel becoming more and more difficult and more dangerious due to the invasions from the East into the West and no aid from the East helped to estrange each half of the empire. There is also the policial gulf between East and West in so far Roman emporors residing in the Eastern half of the empire negelted the Western half of the empire. Another reason is that the Pope had to assume a role of trying to maintain some order of the Western half of the Roman empire. With no one ( the Emperor) willing to rule the West, and concentrate only on the East, it is no wonder that the West and East had a widening gulf.