The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

CONT’d
Pastor Aeternus: The Roman Pontiff, on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps with divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scriptures and with the apostolic tradition. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposti of faith that was handed down through the apostles.

Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser: we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance.

CONT’d

There is an historical problem with your argument. The 7 Ecumenical Councils were called together by the emperor, not the Pope.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

that all bishops possess the keys? The bishops possess the keys, of course, only in communion with their coryphaeus, never apart. It is only as a member of the college that they possess the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, I think also reading from antiquity forward there’s also significance in perspective reading Origen.

“But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter;” and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose.”

biblehub.com/topical/naves/k/kingdom_of_heaven–keys_of.htm

It noteworthy to add St Ambrose “the minister receives the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward.”

St. Augustine

Tract 124 on the Gospel of John

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troubled life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,” he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ is delivered from evil”

As minister, it is yet to be Universally stated as to the responsibilities and authority in regards here; “it also refers to the power to distinguish right from false doctrine, the power to govern and make/apply disciplinary decisions in the Church (See CCC 553).”

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I think also reading from antiquity forward there’s also significance in perspective reading Origen.

“But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter;” and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose.”

biblehub.com/topical/naves/k/kingdom_of_heaven–keys_of.htm

It noteworthy to add St Ambrose “the minister receives the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward.”

St. Augustine

Tract 124 on the Gospel of John

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troubled life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,” he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ is delivered from evil”

As minister, it is yet to be Universally stated as to the responsibilities and authority in regards here; “it also refers to the power to distinguish right from false doctrine, the power to govern and make/apply disciplinary decisions in the Church (See CCC 553).”

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

That is not quite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, for it defies the keys as the power to absolve repentant sinners. Our Lord gave that authority to all the Apostles after His Resurrection.
The quote from Blessed Augustine shows what I have been arguing all along. Christ built His Church on the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.
I would use quotes from Origen very sparingly because he was condemned for heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constatinople II in 553.

Fr. John

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Misplaced Book,

Thanks for explaining your point. My intention was that the example you gave does not actually go to the point (and I have yet to see a single historical instance that could actually prove your point). The excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre and his group came about not because they said “no” to the Pope, but because of a long drawn out set of circumstances wherein he disobeyed several orthodox Church authorities before it finally came to the Pope’s attention (this is what normally happened in the history of the undivided Church in the patristic age).

Furthermore, to repeat, the issue with the SSPX is not the form of the Liturgy (the Tridentine form was never abrogated to begin with; only that its use was severely limited). The whole issue with Abp Fellay and his group was his heterodox NEO-ultramontanist ecclesiology (particularly: (1) rejection of collegiality; (2) support for absolute papal supremacy; (3) refusal to recognize that there can be Christians properly so-called outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church).

In any case, this incident involves a matter within the Latin Patriarchate, not an Oriental or Eastern Catholic Church.

In order to prove your point, one must provide an incident that meets all of the following conditions:
(1) It involves an Oriental or Eastern Catholic hierarch, not a Latin hierarch;
(2) It involves saying “No” to a UNILATERAL decision by the Pope - i.e., not one borne of an appeal to the Pope.
(3) It involves a situation wherein no other bishop is in agreement with the Pope of Rome on the matter.

Those others have not given a single instance in the history of the Church that meets the conditions outlined above.

Agreed. I hope you will agree that we need to change this perception that the Pope is an absolute ruler of the Church.

What the Church of Antioch in the EO communion did (relatively recently) with regards to making all its bishops under a metropolitan mere auxiliary bishops is more to the point you are making than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Catholic communion.

I respect their traditionalism as well. But their absolutist Petrine/neo-ultramontanist position is not the Tradition of the Latin Church (much less the Catholic Church as a whole). I would hope you would agree with the High Petrine advocates in the Catholic Church on that point.

Blessings,
Marduk

One point. Feneism is the heresy that limits the Church to the visible church, and says all those apart from it are damned. Abp. Lefebvre wasn’t a feneite.

 

[frjohnmorris]

What the Church of Antioch in the EO communion did (relatively recently) with regards to making all its bishops under a metropolitan mere auxiliary bishops is more to the point you are making than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Catholic communion.

I RESPOND: It is not the same thing. Metropolitan Philip makes no claim to infallibility. He is also under the authority of the Holy Synod of Antioch, and has to abide by the decisions of the convention of the Archdiocese and Board of Trustees concerning the financial and temporal affairs of the Archdiocese. We gained our autonomy from the Patriarchate very quickly and doubled the number of Bishops without clear guidelines of the division of authority. Things had to be worked out. Unfortunately, one Bishop and a few trouble makers caused a controversy where one was not needed. That particular Bishop has since transferred to another jurisdiction where he has been, shall we say, less than successful. As far as the operation of the Antiochian Archdiocese nothing has changed except the title of our local Bishops. I supported the Metropolitan because I believe that the Antiochian Archdiocese needs unity on the national level.
One thing that I do not understand about the operation of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, is that as I understand it, there is no American Primate of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but every Bishop relates directly to Rome. Does that not make every diocesan Bishop an auxiliary to the Pope?

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Mardukm,

Are you saying the Pope DOESN’T have the power to remove any bishop anywhere?

So Canon 28 elevating Constantinople in authority is accepted by Rome?

Actually Rome did accept canon 28 of Chalcedon in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council during the Latin occupation of Costantiople when there was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONT’d

Brother Anthony, I hope you see the import of this. We need only apply a few evident truisms to arrive at the definite conclusion that “papal” infallibility does exist (those not in the Catholic communion might not agree with the conclusion, but they cannot deny the following truisms):
Truism (1) - It is a definite rule of Tradition (with a capital “T”) that a head bishop has the unique prerogative to speak for and represent the plenary geographic jurisdiction of whom he is head. No other bishop in that plenary geographic jurisdiction has that prerogative;
Truism (2) - No local Church is infallible in and of itself, but the Church as a whole is indeed infallible.
Truism (3) - Since a patriarch or metropolitan represents in his person a local Church that is in fact not infallible, they do not, as the representative of that local Church, have the ability to speak with an infallibility that a local Church does not possess.
Conclusion (4) - However, since the Pope represents the WHOLE Church which is indeed infallible, he must necessarily, when in that specific role of representing the whole infallible Church, share in the infallibility of that body which he represents.

A major source of "non-"Catholic objections to “papal” infallibility is the misconception that it is utterly unique and separate from the infallibility of the Church. Understanding that it is in fact merely a subset (so to speak) of the Church’s own infallibility puts things in a very different perspective. Analogically, an Ecumenical Council does not possess an infallibility that is uniquely separate from the infallibility of the Church, but rather merely utilzes that selfsame infallibility (i.e., the Church’s own infallibility) in an extraordinary way. The Ecumenical Council formally represents the infallible Church, and respresenting the whole infallible Church as such, it necessarily shares in the Church’s infallibility. It is In this same sense - i.e., as representative of the infallible Church, not some private person expressing his personal belief that should be imposed on the Church - that we say that the Pope “is infallible.” Btw, you might notice that I am always careful to put “papal” in quotes when I speak of “papal” infallibility. I am simply aligning my expressions with the intentions of the Fathers of V1 when they changed the title of the Decree from “the infallibility of the Pope” to the “infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” – indeed, the infallibility utilized by the Pope is not his personal property, but is rather the Church’s infallibility utilized in an extraordinary way (like the Ecumenical Council utilizes the Church’s infallibility in an extraordinary way).

• AP view: the Pope does not need the Church in the process of an ex cathedra decree;
  HP view: The Church necessarily aids the Pope in the process of an ex cathedra decree, because infallibility is not revelation nor inspiration.
  Pastor Aeternus: The Roman Pontiff, on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps with divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scriptures and with the apostolic tradition. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposti of faith that was handed down through the apostles.

Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser: we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance.

CONT’d

However to be considered a infallible Ecumenical Council, its decrees must be accepted by the Church. The example is the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449, which was rejected by the Church at Chalcedon in 451.
The Church is infallible, but no council or Bishop, including the Bishop of Rome possesses infallibility as a personal attribute. In the ancient undivided Church as the protos, the Bishop of Rome had great influence, but still had to submit his opinions on doctrinal matters concerning the Church to the whole Church for ratification. The classic example is the Tome of Leo which had to be ratified by the Council of Chalcedon for it to have ecumenical authority.

Fr. John

 

[twf]

What the Church of Antioch in the EO communion did (relatively recently) with regards to making all its bishops under a metropolitan mere auxiliary bishops is more to the point you are making than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Catholic communion.

I RESPOND: It is not the same thing. Metropolitan Philip makes no claim to infallibility. He is also under the authority of the Holy Synod of Antioch, and has to abide by the decisions of the convention of the Archdiocese and Board of Trustees concerning the financial and temporal affairs of the Archdiocese. We gained our autonomy from the Patriarchate very quickly and doubled the number of Bishops without clear guidelines of the division of authority. Things had to be worked out. Unfortunately, one Bishop and a few trouble makers caused a controversy where one was not needed. That particular Bishop has since transferred to another jurisdiction where he has been, shall we say, less than successful. As far as the operation of the Antiochian Archdiocese nothing has changed except the title of our local Bishops. I supported the Metropolitan because I believe that the Antiochian Archdiocese needs unity on the national level.
One thing that I do not understand about the operation of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, is that as I understand it, there is no American Primate of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but every Bishop relates directly to Rome. Does that not make every diocesan Bishop an auxiliary to the Pope?

Fr. John

Father,
This isn’t accurate. While it is true that there is no Latin primate in the US there is both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop and the provincial metropolitan archbishops. The national conference collectively makes decisions for all the American dioceses which are ratified by Rome. The metropolitans have certain prerogatives within their provinces that the local bishops do not. The Pope does not micromanage the local bishops. Within the confies of Latin canon law they rule their dioceses with considerable autonomy. The American episcopal conference is more restrictive than some. In the US the bishops have collectively decided that all must kneel throughout the eucharistic canon of the mass. In Canada, this is decided by the local bishop - in some dioceses we kneel for the entire canon, in others we kneel only for the consecration.

Aux Bishops are totally dependent upon the Ordinary. Diocesan bishops are autonomous within the confines of the law. Can the Pope intervene if need be? Yes, but the bishop derives his power from Christ and the canons, not from the pope. The local bishop is also typically autonomous from the metropolitan. The Archbishop of Vancouver is metropolitan in British Columbia, but he has no right to enforce kneeling throughout the canon on the diocese of Prince George - that is the sole decision of the Bishop of Prince George - but as metropolitan he can drive to any church in Prince George and celebrate the sacraments. The Archbishop of Toronto, on the other hand, has four aux bishops each responsible for a region. The regional bishop of York, as an aux of the Archbishop of Toronto, can be instructed by his archbishop to enforce kneeling throughout the canon.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
This isn’t accurate. While it is true that there is no Latin primate in the US there is both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop and the provincial metropolitan archbishops. The national conference collectively makes decisions for all the American dioceses which are ratified by Rome. The metropolitans have certain prerogatives within their provinces that the local bishops do not. The Pope does not micromanage the local bishops. Within the confies of Latin canon law they rule their dioceses with considerable autonomy. The American episcopal conference is more restrictive than some. In the US the bishops have collectively decided that all must kneel throughout the eucharistic canon of the mass. In Canada, this is decided by the local bishop - in some dioceses we kneel for the entire canon, in others we kneel only for the consecration.

Aux Bishops are totally dependent upon the Ordinary. Diocesan bishops are autonomous within the confines of the law. Can the Pope intervene if need be? Yes, but the bishop derives his power from Christ and the canons, not from the pope. The local bishop is also typically autonomous from the metropolitan. The Archbishop of Vancouver is metropolitan in British Columbia, but he has no right to enforce kneeling throughout the canon on the diocese of Prince George - that is the sole decision of the Bishop of Prince George - but as metropolitan he can drive to any church in Prince George and celebrate the sacraments. The Archbishop of Toronto, on the other hand, has four aux bishops each responsible for a region. The regional bishop of York, as an aux of the Archbishop of Toronto, can be instructed by his archbishop to enforce kneeling throughout the canon.

Thank you for clarifying that point for me. We Eastern Orthodox have similar organization to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America. What is the difference between a Catholic Metropolitan and a Catholic Archbishop?
Each autocephalous Church of Eastern Orthodoxy administers their own affairs. As a result there are different titles with different meanings. Our Antiochian organization in North America is like the Archdiocese of Toronto. Our Metropolitan is the primate and the regional Bishops are his auxiliaries. Archbishop is an honorific title within the Antiochian Patriarchte. The Archbishop of Los Angeles is still an aux. of the Metropolitan. In the Greek Archdiocese, the diocesan Bishops are all Metropolitans and their Primate is an Archbishop.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONT’d

(5) AP view: The Pope is above an Ecumenical Council;
HP view: the Pope is a member of the Ecumenical Council as its head bishop and can be corrected by his brothers within that Council.
Sacred Tradition: ****
(1) Pope Vigilius: The relevance of this instance in Church history to support the High Petrine view is obvious. What is often overlooked, however, is that whereas two previous ecumenical councils deposed an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Pope Vigilius was never deposed. The Council Fathers could have simply disposed of him and claimed “your agreement is not needed anyway, so go back to your see and don’t bother us.” (which is the position of Low Petrine advocates). In fact, it would have been rather easy to depose Pope VIgilius since he had lost support in many quarters of the Latin Patriarchate. Instead, the Council kept him bound until he gave his confirmation. The implications for the unique position of the bishop of Rome in the early Church is important for Catholics.

CONT’d

The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, did depose Pope Vigilus who was in Constantinople because of the Ostrogoth invasion of Italy. He issued a decree forbidding the Council to meet. The council met without him showing that did not accept the authority of the Pope over Ecumenical Councils. Because he refused to attend and agree to its decisions, the council removed his name from the official lists of Patriarchs, called the Diptychs, thereby excommunicating him and removing him from office. Once again showing the authority of an Ecumenical Council over a Pope. The emperor then imprisoned him. After 6 months, Vigilius recanted and accepted the decrees of the council condemning the 3 Chapters. He claimed that he had been misled by his advisers. The council accepted his repentance and restored him to office. Significantly, both Milan and Aquileia broke Communion with Pope Vigilius to protest his agreement with the council showing that even in the West at that time the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction. It is incidents like this that support my belief that the Pope had only a primacy of honor during the time of the ancient undivided Church. Remember this all took place 500 years before the schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
This isn’t accurate. While it is true that there is no Latin primate in the US there is both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop and the provincial metropolitan archbishops. The national conference collectively makes decisions for all the American dioceses which are ratified by Rome. The metropolitans have certain prerogatives within their provinces that the local bishops do not. The Pope does not micromanage the local bishops. Within the confies of Latin canon law they rule their dioceses with considerable autonomy. The American episcopal conference is more restrictive than some. In the US the bishops have collectively decided that all must kneel throughout the eucharistic canon of the mass. In Canada, this is decided by the local bishop - in some dioceses we kneel for the entire canon, in others we kneel only for the consecration.

Aux Bishops are totally dependent upon the Ordinary. Diocesan bishops are autonomous within the confines of the law. Can the Pope intervene if need be? Yes, but the bishop derives his power from Christ and the canons, not from the pope. The local bishop is also typically autonomous from the metropolitan. The Archbishop of Vancouver is metropolitan in British Columbia, but he has no right to enforce kneeling throughout the canon on the diocese of Prince George - that is the sole decision of the Bishop of Prince George - but as metropolitan he can drive to any church in Prince George and celebrate the sacraments. The Archbishop of Toronto, on the other hand, has four aux bishops each responsible for a region. The regional bishop of York, as an aux of the Archbishop of Toronto, can be instructed by his archbishop to enforce kneeling throughout the canon.

That is interesting because canon XX of Nicaea I in 325 forbids kneeling on Sundays.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

On the flip side, Eastern Orthodox (never once have I heard an Oriental claim this, to the extent that and EO has) say all bishops are equal in authority (from bishop to Ecumenical Patriarch), yet when push comes to shove, those in higher rank win - for example Bishop Jerome ROCOR-WR was “retired” without consent by Met. Hilarion’s request, signed by the MP Patriarch, sure it was “the Synod” who met - just as the Pope has his “advisors” (some select group or subset of Cardinals or the Curia) who meet for these things. Yet it’s much more rare for the Pope to act in this way, in practice, I’ve seen it more frequently among EO and OO - while EO say each bishop is equal and can’t be out-bishopped. Is there a major difference in being outdone by one Bishop in consult with his advisors (Latin Papal model) or a group of bishops advising each other, with their head (EO synodal model)? Not really.

Every Bishop is equal in spiritual authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, every Bishop is subject to a higher authority, ultimately the Primate and Holy Synod under which he serves. That means that the Holy Synod of ROCOR has authority to force a Bishop in the ROCOR to retire. Even a Patriarch can be removed by the Holy Synod. It happened a few years ago in Jerusalem. Within an autocephalous or autonomous Church the highest authority is the Synod of Bishops which can override a decision made by the Primate.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Can a Catholic Bishop suspend a Priest, or does he have the approval of Rome to suspend a Priest? Our Metropolitan can suspend a Priest on the recommendation of his local Bishop, but the Priest can appeal to the Patriarchate, which would appoint a spiritual court to hear his appeal and make a decision in the case. I may have be wrong, because I have never dealt with it. A local Bishop may have the authority to suspend a Priest and then inform the Metropolitan. Then the Priest could appeal to the Metropolitan and after that the Patriarchate. In the 34 years that I have been an Antiochian Priest, I only know of one case where a suspended Priest has carried the matter all the way to the Patriarchate. He lost his case because it was clear that he deserved suspension.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is not quite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, for it defies the keys as the power to absolve repentant sinners. Our Lord gave that authority to all the Apostles after His Resurrection.
The quote from Blessed Augustine shows what I have been arguing all along. Christ built His Church on the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.
I would use quotes from Origen very sparingly because he was condemned for heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constatinople II in 553.

Fr. John

Father Augustine states; “received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the “person” of Peter”.

Father when the Word goes out it becomes reality. Let there be light, light became a reality. Gods word affected St Peter personally just like it effected Paul personally, Judas personally and the rest. Its consistent with exactly how the Lord penetrates a soul, and then the soul radiates outward which signifies.

In our reality an example is, as a ref in a football game calls a difficult play a touchdown, its done it becomes reality for the specific player.

“It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

He’s “wrong” as “everything” from God is a “gift” and God only Crowns His own gifts, nothing else.

What Augustine does is add perspective to the Universal Church as addressed in John in relation to St Peter and then the Apostles in Matthew. Its indicative and true of not only Augustine’s period, but today in relation to the Church Universal which is very different than Augustine’s time. The Church Universal was specifically the Catholic/Apostolic thinking.

What Origen does in place the significance of the Keys in comprehensive understanding as to virtues, also while I’m here, it adds clarity to what his thinking indeed was with the seven heaven which is Biblical. . For example the Lord himself refers to many rooms, as does St Teresa in Interior Castle expand on the same conceptual thinking.

The Chair of St Peter is indeed a physical reality and representative of the Biblical dialogue in Matthew of the Lords eternal Word going out and becoming reality. As He starts speaking to St Peter and then ends with; “never prevail”, knowing St Peter wasn’t to be here but a short time. Same with “Im with you all days”.

The four posts on St Peters Chair which form the chair, are represented by St Ambrose and Augustine to the West, and Athanasius and St John Chrysostom to the East.

I’ll show you, as to the CCC…

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a10.htm#981

Scroll down the bottom to the footnotes and what you see is the same Saints I mentioned in relation to the Chair I spoke on, mentioned along with Biblical reference. They all understood the significance of the office/chair to be the same. St Athanasius was quiet here as far as I know, however, the significance of his interaction with Pope Julius is a textbook example of how indeed the united Church functions. And today it will function even better with the super information hwy, mass communication and travel. The CCC is a brief understanding and correct yet there’s a lack of in-depth understanding, thus the footnotes.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

There is an historical problem with your argument. The 7 Ecumenical Councils were called together by the emperor, not the Pope.

The Fathers of V1 were of course primarily thinking of Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope after the Great Schism. They were no doubt also thinking of the 4th Ecum, which was called at the initiative of the Pope of Rome.

In any case, notwithstanding the anomalous condition of the secular power often attempting to direct the affairs of the Church during the patristic age, it is the prerogative of every head bishop (according to their geographical sphere of jurisdiction) to convene the body of bishops in that jurisdiction (i.e., it is the prerogative of the metropolitan to convene a metropolitan synod; it is the prerogative of the patriarch to convene a patriarchal synod; and it is the prerogative of the Pope of Rome to convene an ecumenical council). Besides, before the marriage of Church/State and the first Ecum, we have patristic evidence that the Pope of Rome possessed this prerogative among the Churches - it was Pope St. Victor who directed all the Churches to hold local synods over the matter of Easter and report their results back to him. That would probably have been the first Ecum if the Church had the resources to actually hold such a prodigious meeting of bishops from all over the world.

That is not quite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, for it defies the keys as the power to absolve repentant sinners. Our Lord gave that authority to all the Apostles after His Resurrection.

Brother Gary was quoting the Catechism 553. The teaching of the Catechism should be taken in context.

The quote from Blessed Augustine shows what I have been arguing all along. Christ built His Church on the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.

The official Catholic position is that the Rock is St. Peter and his confession (and Christ, of course), according to the common authority of the Fathers of the early Church. We do not seek to falsely bifurcate the two. We can’t speak of St. Peter as the Rock without his confession, and we can’t speak of his confession without St. Peter.

mardukm:

What the Church of Antioch in the EO communion did (relatively recently) with regards to making all its bishops under a metropolitan mere auxiliary bishops is more to the point you are making than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Catholic communion.

I RESPOND: It is not the same thing. Metropolitan Philip makes no claim to infallibility

The issue involved is the primacy, not the infallibility.

As far as the operation of the Antiochian Archdiocese nothing has changed except the title of our local Bishops. I supported the Metropolitan because I believe that the Antiochian Archdiocese needs unity on the national level.

One thing that I do not understand about the operation of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, is that as I understand it, there is no American Primate of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. but every Bishop relates directly to Rome. Does that not make every diocesan Bishop an auxiliary to the Pope?

(1) The Primate of the American Catholic Church is traditionally the Abp of Boston.
(2) I thought we had the same understanding of “auxiliary bishops” as being distinct from “suffragans?” I’m confused now by your definition of “auxiliary bishop.” In Catholic ecclesiology, “auxiliary bishops” have no ordinary or proper jurisdiction. Any authority which they might have in a particular diocese is derived from and under the direction of the ordinary of that diocese, who is the proper bishop of the diocese.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Actually Rome did accept canon 28 of Chalcedon in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council during the Latin occupation of Costantiople when there was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rome accepted Canon 28 in 869, over 3.5 centuries before the Latin occupation.

However to be considered a infallible Ecumenical Council, its decrees must be accepted by the Church.

The Pope cannot grant infallibility to the Church nor an Ecumenical Council because it is not his to give;
The Ecumenical Council cannot grant infallibility to the Church or the Pope because it is not the Council’s to give;
The Church cannot grant infallibility to the Pope or the Ecumenical Council because it is not the Church’s to give;
God and God alone can grant infallibility because it is His and His alone to give.
God grants His Church infallibility for the preservation and dispensation of His Truth. Infallibility is intimately connected to the Magisterium (Ii.e., teaching authority) of the Church, the Magisterium itself being the Magisterium of God granted to the Church. The infallibility of the ORDINARY, universal Magisterium is evident in the day-to-day teaching and preaching of the Church (i.e., the Magisterium is exercised in an ordinary manner); the infallibility of the EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium is evident in the dogmatization of doctrines by the Ecumenical Council, or by the Pope teaching ex cathedra (i.e., the Magisterium is exercised in an extraordinary manner)., In the latter case (for an ex cathedra decree), the Pope exercises the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium concurrent with his brother bishops’ exercise of the infallibility of the ordinary, universal Magisterium. So it is an utterly false idea that the bishop of Rome alone is infallible during the process of formulating an ex cathedra decree.

I can personally accept the idea that the Church as a whole (i.e., consensus) is involved in determining the status of a Council as “Ecumenical,” but I am quite certain that the CC will reject any attribution of the infallibility of any of the Church’s teaching to consensus (the idea that truth comes by consensus is a modernist heresy).

The Church is infallible, but no council or Bishop, including the Bishop of Rome possesses infallibility as a personal attribute.

If you study the background debates of V1, as well as the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser, you would be surprised that the CC would actually agree to this. In fact, the Fathers of V1 changed the title of the Decree on infallibility from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to “the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” precisely to prevent the mistaken idea that infallibility is a personal attribute of the Pope. As it stands, Father, it appears you do not have a very good understanding of what V1 actually taught about “papal” infallibility (I say that with all due respect - I understand you are not a theologian).

In the ancient undivided Church as the protos, the Bishop of Rome had great influence, but still had to submit his opinions on doctrinal matters concerning the Church to the whole Church for ratification. The classic example is the Tome of Leo which had to be ratified by the Council of Chalcedon for it to have ecumenical authority.

As far as achieving the necessary consensus on the Truth, I would wholeheartedly agree to this statement, but I would not agree if by it you mean to say that the Truth of the Church is determined by that consensus.

Humbly.
Marduk

 

[twf]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

The Fathers of V1 were of course primarily thinking of Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope after the Great Schism. They were no doubt also thinking of the 4th Ecum, which was called at the initiative of the Pope of Rome.

In any case, notwithstanding the anomalous condition of the secular power often attempting to direct the affairs of the Church during the patristic age, it is the prerogative of every head bishop (according to their geographical sphere of jurisdiction) to convene the body of bishops in that jurisdiction (i.e., it is the prerogative of the metropolitan to convene a metropolitan synod; it is the prerogative of the patriarch to convene a patriarchal synod; and it is the prerogative of the Pope of Rome to convene an ecumenical council). Besides, before the marriage of Church/State and the first Ecum, we have patristic evidence that the Pope of Rome possessed this prerogative among the Churches - it was Pope St. Victor who directed all the Churches to hold local synods over the matter of Easter and report their results back to him. That would probably have been the first Ecum if the Church had the resources to actually hold such a prodigious meeting of bishops from all over the world.

Brother Gary was quoting the Catechism 553. The teaching of the Catechism should be taken in context.

The official Catholic position is that the Rock is St. Peter and his confession (and Christ, of course), according to the common authority of the Fathers of the early Church. We do not seek to falsely bifurcate the two. We can’t speak of St. Peter as the Rock without his confession, and we can’t speak of his confession without St. Peter.

The issue involved is the primacy, not the infallibility.

(1) The Primate of the American Catholic Church is traditionally the Abp of Boston.
(2) I thought we had the same understanding of “auxiliary bishops” as being distinct from “suffragans?” I’m confused now by your definition of “auxiliary bishop.” In Catholic ecclesiology, “auxiliary bishops” have no ordinary or proper jurisdiction. Any authority which they might have in a particular diocese is derived from and under the direction of the ordinary of that diocese, who is the proper bishop of the diocese.

CONT’d

Brother Marduk,
I believe you mean the Archbishop of Baltimore is traditionally accorded a special honor in the United States - but he is not Primate in any canonical sense. Canada has a Primate (the Archbishop of Quebec), but the United States technically does not. But as I explained in my earlier post (#66), there are still metropolitan archbishops over each province (the United States is comprised of a number of provinces of the Latin Church) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops itself which acts as a soft synod of sorts at the national level, making decisions for all the dioceses of the US.

That being said, the Latin national primates lost their prerogatives in centuries past…they enjoy a primacy of honor within the national churches, but the administrative role they once played is now effectively carried out by the national conferences and their elected presidents. The Latin metropolitans over each province (which for a smaller nation would correspond to the entire country) do still enjoy certain actual prerogatives.

 

[twf]

Thank you for clarifying that point for me. We Eastern Orthodox have similar organization to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America. What is the difference between a Catholic Metropolitan and a Catholic Archbishop?
Each autocephalous Church of Eastern Orthodoxy administers their own affairs. As a result there are different titles with different meanings. Our Antiochian organization in North America is like the Archdiocese of Toronto. Our Metropolitan is the primate and the regional Bishops are his auxiliaries. Archbishop is an honorific title within the Antiochian Patriarchte. The Archbishop of Los Angeles is still an aux. of the Metropolitan. In the Greek Archdiocese, the diocesan Bishops are all Metropolitans and their Primate is an Archbishop.

Fr. John

“Archbishop” is an honorific in the Catholic Church as well. All metropolitans (as far as I know) are also archbishops, but not all archbishops are metropolitans. The Archbishop of Winnipeg, for example, enjoys the title as an honor but does not preside over an ecclesiastical province - his archdiocese is directly under Rome. The heads of various departments of the Roman Curia often are styled archbishops but don’t preside over dioceses at all. The Archbishop of Toronto or the Archbishop of Vancouver, on the other hand, are metropolitans of their respective provinces and enjoy certain prerogatives under canon law:
-Right to celebrate the holy mass and sacraments anywhere in the province
-Right to convene a provincial synod (though this is rarely done today with the national conferences of bishops taking on such key administrative roles)
-Right to hear appeals to the rulings of other bishops in the province (though in Canada the bishops all have agreed to delegate this appellate authority to a national tribunal in Ottawa)
-Right to act as administrator of another diocese in the province if the Ordinary becomes incapacitated
-Responsibility to report issues in the Province to Rome
-Responsibility to maintain a list of suitable local candidates for the episcopate which forms the first step in the election of new bishops

The metropolitan archbishop rules his own archdiocese and presides over the wider province. The suffragan bishops of each diocese within the province, however, are autonomous within the confines of the law (as per my previous example with the Bishop of Prince George, a suffragan of the Archbishop of Vancouver). Large archdioceses, however, may have multiple aux. bishops who are dependent upon the Ordinary, such as my earlier example of the Archdiocese of Toronto. The Archbishop of Toronto can mandate kneeling in the liturgy for all parishes under his aux. bishops, but not within the dioceses of his suffragan bishops as metropolitan.
As mentioned in a previous post, between Rome and the national conferences, the traditional power of Latin national primates, and to a lesser degree, provincial metropolitans, has been eroded, but it is not meaningless by any means. When the Archdiocese of Vancouver celebrated its centennial several years ago, the Archbishop of Quebec, as Primate of Canada, presided at the mass (attended by 13 000 people…).

 

[twf]

That is interesting because canon XX of Nicaea I in 325 forbids kneeling on Sundays.

Fr. John

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider the disciplinary canons of ecumenical councils perpetually binding - only the dogmatic decrees. Many disciplinary canons of previous councils, including post-schism ones, have been changed over time. I realize that the Eastern Orthodox Church may disagree on this point. In the Roman Rite, kneeling during the consecration / canon has been the norm for many centuries. In Latin spirituality, kneeling is first and foremost a expression of adoration, not of penance.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe you mean the Archbishop of Baltimore is traditionally accorded a special honor in the United States

I was just going to say that.

• but he is not Primate in any canonical sense. Canada has a Primate (the Archbishop of Quebec), but the United States technically does not.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that difference.