The Petrine views

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

These five arguments – drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients – seem to me an overwhelmingly abundant confirmation of our understanding of the canon before us. True, a very formidable array of mighty names can be marshalled against us; but the number of these will be decimated by considering how few of the eminent authors who have interpreted the canon in a different sense from ours had consulted the original text. We are not inquiring in this paper whether our interpretation be the most obvious one on the basis of the Dionysian version.

We started out with asserting the right of investigating the document for ourselves, which, surely, is the most direct method of ascertaining the truth. With Dionysius we are not concerned. His version may have represented to himself the idea which we have extracted from the Greek; in fact, Bellarmine and Baronius have interpreted his translation as we have interpreted the original. But at the outset, not every translator who has seized the true sense of his text embodies that sense clearly in the words he selects. This has probably been the misfortune of Dionysius in the present instance.

As an appendix to our discussion, I beg leave to suggest to those who still cling to the idea that in the clause, “Since this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom,” the Council meant, “Since it is also the Roman Bishop’s custom to be a Patriarch,” that there is a grave difficulty inherent in this interpretation. To be frank, I do not believe that, in the age of the Nicene Council, the Pope was a Patriarch. When was his patriarchate founded? What were its boundaries? What special prerogatives did the Pope claim or exercise in virtue of this adventitious dignity? The chief office of the ancient patriarchs was to ordain, judge, and depose bishops and metropolitans, and to convoke and preside over synods.

The Bishop of Alexandria had been, from time immemorial, every inch a patriarch throughout his vast domain. The Bishop of Antioch enjoyed a similar authority throughout the great diocese of Oriens. Their jurisdiction was immediate and ordinary, and there no difficulty in defining its nature and the limits within which it was exercised. If, therefore, the Council had “illustrated the sort of power,” which it accorded to the Bishop of Alexandria, "by referring to a similar power exercised by the "Bishop of Antioch, then the term of comparison would be clearly intelligible; because both were patriarchs, with pretty much the same sort of power and the same extent of territory. But who has ever defined satisfactorily the limits and nature of Rome’s patriarchal sway?

Protestant writers have circumscribed this “Roman Patriarchate,” some with the radius of a hundred miles, others within the confines of the urban vicariate. [32] Catholic writers are more generous, and make the “Patriarch of Rome” a donation of the entire Western World. But, on both sides, there is difficulty; for the Protestants have to explain how it is we find the Pope exercising great authority beyond the boundaries in which they have hemmed him; whilst the Catholics have to explain how it is that the Roman Pontiffs are not found to have ordained Bishops in Milan, or presided over synods in Carthage. In both cases the patriarchal roes they have made for the Pope do not fit him; the first is entirely too small, the second too large. And as neither party will abandon its unproved assumption, that the Pope was, in the technical sense of the word, a patriarch, the Protestants have to fall back upon the easy doctrine of Papal aggression, and the Catholic controversialists are obliged to contend that “the Pope had authority over the whole West, but did not exercise it equally in all places.” Surely the Pope had authority over East and West, as Head of the Church; but when we ask what particular part of the Church he exercised that authority, in immediately performing in person the routine work, it will not do to make distinctions between the having, and the exercising, of authority.

The Egyptian Bishops at Chalcedon protested that “nothing could be done by a Bishop of their country without the consent of the Patriarch of Alexandria.” Can anything similar to this be said of the early Western Church ? Not by any means. The various provinces of Europe and Africa were governed by their bishops and metropolitans, and whenever the Pope stepped in it was as the successor of St. Peter, “to whom the care of the whole vineyard had been intrusted.”

The notion, then, that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, like Jupiter and his two brothers, had divided the world among them, was not conceived at that early day, but was the offspring of schismatical brains in Constantinople. The Patriarchates did not enter into the original constitution of the Church, which existed before them, and has survived them. That interpretation of our canon, therefore, which is adopted generally by Protestants and admitted by several Catholic writers, is founded in error. The Council cannot have illustrated the powers confirmed to the Patriarch of Alexandria by referring to a similar exercise of power by the “Roman Patriarch,” because this latter personage had no existence. Whatever powers the Bishop of Rome exercised beyond the narrow boundaries of his little province – which certainly did not constitute a patriarchate – he exercised in virtue of his “primacy over all.” It ought not to be overlooked, moreover, that the Popes intervened more frequently in the East than they did in the West,

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

because in that turbulent quarter of the globe it more frequently happened that knots were to be cut worthy of the Vicar of Christ. But whenever the emergency called for Papal intervention, the Roman Pontiffs did not pause to consider in what patriarchate their authority was needed. A fuller elucidation of this point is foreign to our present purpose.

I hope that my readers will not consider that my investigation of this subject has been excessively minute. Should they be inclined to think so, let them take up any of the heterodox historians who have treated of Papal supremacy, and see how prominently this Nicene Canon figures in their pet theory of the gradual aggrandizement of the Bishop of Rome. To that theory it is essential to assume that at the epoch of the Council of Nicaea the authority of the Roman Pontiff was circumscribed by very narrow limits. Unless Protestants make good this assertion, no force of rhetoric can avail to establish their system.

Never mind, then, their voluminous rhetoric; shake this one column and their oratorical edifice will tumble upon their heads. When the Bishop of Rome first met the assembled Universal Church, was he considered a “Bishop like any other?” Was he a metropolitan “enjoined to take care of suburban churches?” or a patriarch with “proper limits assigned” him by an unsuspecting council? If I have been even moderately successful in my efforts I have demonstrated that the Vicar of Christ at his first emerging from the gloomy atmosphere of the Catacombs into the free open sunlight, had already attained the full measure of his greatness.

THE SIXTH NICENE CANON AND THE PAPACY by Fr. James F. Loughlin, from the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880), pages 220-239 – copyright

My apology for the excessive cut and paste.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That article has to be the most convoluted misinterpretation of history that I have ever read. The Latin translation is irrelevant because the canon was written in Greek. Therefore the meaning of the original Greek is authoritative not the Latin translation.

Forgive me for asking, but did you read the article carefully? The argument of the author is based on the original Greek text, not the Latin.

The official summary of every canon is contained in its ancient Epitome.

Do you know how old the ancient epitomes are? Are you aware that even medieval Greek commentators have criticized some epitomes as not being very faithful to the actual canon?

Father, can you answer this question: Does even St. Photius’ Nomocanon contain the epitomes? If not, then we cannot blithely assume an epitome (especially of such an ancient canon) immediately reflects the actual intentions of the early Fathers, but rather reflects an opinion motivated by a much later atmostphere rife with jurisdictonal polemics between East and West.

The phrase “over those subject to Rome” limits the authority of the Pope to the West.

One shouldn’t mistake the ancient epitome as coming from the Fathers of the NIcene Council.

It is a total misreading of this canon to interpret it as giving Rome universal jurisdiction.

That really depends on what you mean by “universal jurisdiction.” If you mean it in the way Absolutist Petrine advocates understand it, we would probably be in agreement. I have my own response to the article given by brother Gary (which I have yet to formulate).

The canon affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch, which despite the article that you cited are alive and well.

I only somewhat agree with you here, because I’m not sure what you mean by “independence.” For example, the Church of Carthage certainly was very protective of its prerogatives on displinary matters, but it certainly did not consider itself “independent” of Rome. Case in point, when it drew up its Canon of Scripture, it sent it to Rome for confirmation. Likewise, though the Church of Antioch was in the throes of the Meletian schism, that did not prevent an Antiochene Council from sending representatives to Rome to obtain its judgment on the matter of the Pneumatomachi, and use Rome’s very decision as a basis for the deliberations of the 2nd Ecum. There are numerous examples in the history of the Church where the Eastern Patriarchates on matters of both doctrine and discpline appealed to Rome, and did not consider itself “independent” in the way you make it seem.

Although the number of believers in Egypt under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria is fairly small, there are hundreds of thousands of believers under Alexandria in Sub-Sahara Africa. Antioch not only has jurisdiction over the Churches in Syria, Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East outside of the areas of Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Jordan which belong to Jerusalem, but also all over the world.

Can you please explain the relevance of this information?

The Rudder, the official book of Eastern Orthodox canon law contains the following commentary on this canon: So. inasmuch as this is the truth of the matter, and the diocese of Rome is limited like
that of Alexandria. it is in vain that the Romans imagine that this Canon entitles them
to unlimited authority over the whole world.

That’s fine, but how do you expect Latins (or Orientals) to accept as a standard something that was produced in the 18th century by the EOC?

We also know that the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Canon VI of Nicea I is correct, because that is the interpretation recognized by the Ecumenical Councils that followed Nicaea I. Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that the East never recognized universal papal jurisdiction.

How so, when even you have argued that Canon 28 grants to Constantinople “equal privileges” with Old Rome? Have you studied, as an historian, exactly how the Patriarch of Constantinople conducted itself in relation to the rest of the Eastern Churches? He certainly acted with an authority that was much more than a primacy of mere honor. Far from it, he acted among the Eastern Churches as one with true and proper jurisdiction. If Constantinople, having been granted the same privileges as Old Rome, acted with true jurisdiction among the Eastern Churches, what does that say about the privileges of Old Rome, who, with respect to ecclesiastical matters, was regarded by the Fathers of Nicea and Chalcedon to rank even higher than Constantinople?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[twf]

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Our system is not that much different. The Primate of our Archdiocese is the Metropolitan, who is also Archbishop of New York. He is also a member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. The diocesan Bishops are not Ordinaries in the Roman Catholic sense, but in order to prevent disunity are auxililiary Bishops assigned to various Dioceses under the Metropolitan. Together with him, they make up the local Synod that makes all major decisions concerning the spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese. Because we have autonomy, auxiliary Bishops are elected here in the United States.
What role to the laity play in the decision making process of the Catholic Church? I spoke with a Catholic Priest last week, who told me that he has a parish council, but that it is only advisory, and that he writes the checks and controls the finances of the parish. Is it that way in every parish. What about the Dioceses?

Fr. John

Yes, the laity have an advisory role. Lay persons may be appointed to formal positions of authority within parishes and dioceses (you could have a lay finance director for a diocese for example), but ultimately the buck stops with the parish pastor and the Diocesan Ordinary. The bishop is the vicar of Christ in his diocese and as St Ignatius of Antioch taught nothing should be done in the Church without his consent. Of course a good priest or bishop carefully listens to his lay and clerical advisors especially regarding temporal matters.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Thank you so much for posting the article. It is very good and compelling. The article answers two very important questions that the Orthodox interpretation does not:
(1) Why is Rome mentioned at all as a cause for accepting the jurisdiction of the Church of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis?
(2) What is the “custom” to which the Canon refers?

I completely agree with the author that it is silly to suppose, “Alexandria has jurisdiction over Libya because Rome has jurisdiction over its districts.” The whole idea is an invalid non sequitur.

And I also agree with the author that the “custom” has something to do with jurisdiction.

However, I find the following statement from the author indefensible from the text of the Canon:
“Alexandria, Antioch, and the other eparchies," were exercising prerogatives which belonged, natively, to the chair of Peter, and we are forced to the conclusion that they and the Council were as sensible of this as we are ourselves. Therefore, the clause in question can bear no other interpretation than this: "Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.”

I affirm that the plenary geographical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria was an ancient custom, older than the Council of Nicea. And I agree that the Canon intends to strengthen this by noting that this is also Rome’s custom. But I disagree with “the Roman Pontiff wishes it” part. I think the latter idea is reading too much into the Canon.

IMO, what the Canon is affirming is merely the idea of primacy itself. The “custom” to which the Canon refers is the very notion of primatial jurisdiction, not particularly the custom of “Alexandria having jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.” What I believe the Canon is doing is justifying the primacy (i.e., the privelege) of Alexandria - and the primatial “privileges” of other Sees - by appealing to the very existence of primacy itself as exemplified in the primordial primacy of the bishop of Rome (that was established by Christ). My interpetation does not need to impose any notions of jurisdictional extent on the bishop of Rome (same as the Canon itself), unlike the interpretation of non-Catholics and the author you cite. The Canon indicates that Rome has the primordial primacy on which the very notion of primacy for other head bishops is based.

Well, that’s my understanding, anyway. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

Father,
I ask you to carefully consider brother Marduk’s thoughts on Apostolic Canon 34 in the Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite thread. I do not believe the Orthodox are faithfully following this canon at all. Both the, to use Marduk’s phrases, “Low Petrine” advocates in Eastern Orthodoxy and the “Absolutist Petrine” advocates in certain Latin circles distort this canon to serve their own purposes. The Orthodox narrow in on the command that the head do nothing without the consent of the bishops, while some Latins narrow in on the command that the bishops do nothing without the consent of the head…while we High Petrine advocates take the canon as it is written: the head and the body must work together. The bishops do not have the authority to do anything without the consent of their head, but nor should the head act without the consent of the bishops. The Pope, even in those rare, rare, rare cases when he does use his authority to speak “ex cathedra”, always does so in consultation with his brother bishops. Pope Francis recently said:

This is the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Why do you think the Second Vatican Council was called after the decrees of the First Vatican Council? Why have a couple dozen Synods of Catholic Bishops been called since Vatican II? Why does Rome typically ratify any decisions made by the local episcopal conferences? The answer is simple: the authentic tradition of Apostolic Canon 34 is still at play. Is the Pope subject to Ecumenical Councils? No. Is the Pope above Ecumenical Councils? No. Both questions are silly - for there cannot be an ecumenical council without the pope nor can there be without the bishops - head and body are one and it is only together that the Council has its authority. As Apostolic Canon 34 makes clear, the bishops are forbidden from doing anything without the consent of the head, and the head is not to do anything without the consent of the bishops.

Needless to say, I agree with your statement! I wonder after reading all the posts concerning the Pope and authority and the Ecum. council having authority, who gave the Council authority? and also by whose authority was the council called? It almost seems to me that before there were any councils of any kind, that all the Bishops had the same authority and if that was the case each could do as they pleased and determine what doctrine they wanted to preach or teach without interference of any other Bishop. That in of itself does not make any sense, yet, I can not see how the Church as a whole can function without a head. If all have equal authority to determine doctrine, or if only a council has the authority to determine doctrine how did the council get this absolute authority to override any other bishop let alone the Pope. Who gave the council authority as I have been reading in these posts? it seems to me that there must be someone in charge to do that, the council can’t do it by itse;lf or call itself into being as a council, so I think the Church needs a visible head along with a body, which speaks of holding the Church Universal together as one. Or am I wong in that or misunderstanding the whole topic being dicussed?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
I ask you to carefully consider brother Marduk’s thoughts on Apostolic Canon 34 in the Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite thread. I do not believe the Orthodox are faithfully following this canon at all. Both the, to use Marduk’s phrases, “Low Petrine” advocates in Eastern Orthodoxy and the “Absolutist Petrine” advocates in certain Latin circles distort this canon to serve their own purposes. The Orthodox narrow in on the command that the head do nothing without the consent of the bishops, while some Latins narrow in on the command that the bishops do nothing without the consent of the head…while we High Petrine advocates take the canon as it is written: the head and the body must work together. The bishops do not have the authority to do anything without the consent of their head, but nor should the head act without the consent of the bishops. The Pope, even in those rare, rare, rare cases when he does use his authority to speak “ex cathedra”, always does so in consultation with his brother bishops. Pope Francis recently said:

This is the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Why do you think the Second Vatican Council was called after the decrees of the First Vatican Council? Why have a couple dozen Synods of Catholic Bishops been called since Vatican II? Why does Rome typically ratify any decisions made by the local episcopal conferences? The answer is simple: the authentic tradition of Apostolic Canon 34 is still at play. Is the Pope subject to Ecumenical Councils? No. Is the Pope above Ecumenical Councils? No. Both questions are silly - for there cannot be an ecumenical council without the pope nor can there be without the bishops - head and body are one and it is only together that the Council has its authority. As Apostolic Canon 34 makes clear, the bishops are forbidden from doing anything without the consent of the head, and the head is not to do anything without the consent of the bishops.

As I have written elsewhere Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles, applies to the local Patriarchates, not the papacy. We know this by the way that it was applied during the age of the ancient undivided Church and from the wording of the Canon itself. It means that the Bishops of each nation must recognize the authority of their provincial primate. You are reading a view of papal authority that did not exist at that time and never existed as far as the Eastern Patriarchs are concerned. You are reading Vatican I back into the canon, not letting the canon speak for itself. The ancient Popes never exercised universal jurisdiction, but only had a primacy of honor like that held by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church today. Each Patriarchate administered its own affairs without interference from the Pope. The ancient Popes were certainly under the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and had to obey its decrees. If find it somewhat ironic that you make so much of one canon of the Apostolic Canons, but do not recognize that the Roman Catholic Church has violated other canons of the Apostolic Canons, by its practice of mandatory clerical celibacy. Your idea of collegiality is not real collegiality because it reduces the Holy Synod of Rome to merely an advisory capacity. It is merely a facade because all power and authority still resides in the Pope. Therefore, even if Canon 34 of the Apostles had international implications, Rome does not follow it, because the Pope does not have to follow the decisions of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. I am not sure that Rome even has a Holy Synod.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

That doesn’t explain why the Metropolitan/archbishop level in the West does not have proper/ordinary authority.

Btw, thank you so much for giving that detailed account of the Patriarchates in the EOC. It was very informative.

Humbly,
Marduk

The Bishop of Rome does have authority over his own Patriarchate, but has no authority over an Ecumenical Council or over the other Patriarchates. Had Rome followed the example set by the Council of Ephesus when it reconized the autocephaly of Cyprus, there would be many Patriarchs in the West, just as there are in the East. Instead, the Bishops of Rome kept all power for themselves instead of recognizing new autocephalous Churches as the East did.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

The latin translation is irrelevant to the Father also except in the polemics used by those assaulting the Primacy.

The translation is Greek-English.

Let us approach this famous document, and translate it as we should a passage from Thucydides:

ENGLISH: “Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges.” (Canon 6)

GREEK: Ta archaia ethe krateito ta en Aigupto kai Liboe kai Pentapolei, hoste ton Alexandreias episopon panton touton echein ten exousian, epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin. Homoios de kai kata Antiocheian kai en tais allais eparchias ta presbeia sozesthai tais ekklesiais…

Confining our attention to the clause (epeide…touto sunethes), let us at the outset assure ourselves that our translation faithfully represents the original. The term (sunethes), according to Hedricus, denotes consuetus, familiaris, and is translated by Liddell and Scott, habitual, customary. The phrase (sunethes tini estin) is equivalent to the well known Latin expression familiare orconsuetum est mihi: it is my custom. It cannot be rendered, “It is the custom of others regarding me.” Hence Hefele’s rendering, “There is a similar custom for the Roman Bishop,” is evidently incorrect. (Da auch fnr den r-mischen Bischof em gleiches VerhSltniss besteht, Conciliengeschichte, volume i, page 389, new edition).

In fact, Hefele was influenced by the old version of Dionysius the Less, who has rendered the clause thus: Quia et Urbis Romm Episcopo parlis mos est. This is unsatisfactory; for there is no equivalent for parilis in the Greek text, and there is no equivalent in the Dionysian version for the Greek (touto). The earliest Latin version – that which was read in the Council of Chalcedon – is more to the point: Quoniam et Romano Episcopo hmc est consuetudo; which coincides with our own. Protestant writers have also rendered the text as we have done, though naturally they strive afterwards to blunt the edge of it. Thus Sheppherd [8] translates it: “Since this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom.” Neander: [9] “Since this is the custom also with the Roman Bishop.” Schaff: [10]“Since this also is customary with the Bishop of Rome.” We are justified, then, in assuming that our translation is a faithful reproduction of the text; [11] and may safely make it the basis of our further remarks.

the Synod made no enactment of any kind in regard to the Roman Pontiff. This canon neither grants new privileges to the Apostolic See, nor confirms any existing ones. For some reason or other, the Council did not think it necessary to legislate upon the Bishop of Rome. It strengthened the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of the Exarchs of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. In Canon VII. it conceded a Patriarchate of Honor to the Bishop of the Holy City; but it did not DARE exercise, in any way, a legislative authority over the city of St. Peter.

I agree that the Greek version of Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council is the authoritative one. That being the case, it is only reasonable to assume that the Greek speaking Church would understand its meaning. Every Greek commentator on the canon states that the canon limited the authority of the Pope to the West and recognized the independence of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. Once again you are reading Vatican I back into the canon, instead of letting the canon speak for itself. You assume incorrectly that Rome always exercised universal jurisdiction. However, the historical record shows that this is not the case. Rome only held a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church. Rome certainly did not have veto authority over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Your ignore the historical record. When Pope St. Leo I objected to the Robber Council of Ephesus, he lacked the authority to override it. He had to appeal to the emperor and other Patriarchs to hold a new Ecumenical Council which did have the authority to overrule the Robber Council, not St. Leo.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

"In the Catholic system, then, “Alexandria, Antioch, and the other eparchies,” were exercising prerogatives which belonged, natively, to the chair of Peter, and we are forced to the conclusion that they and the Council were as sensible of this as we are ourselves. Therefore, the clause in question can bear no other interpretation than this: “Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.”

Alexandria and Antioch exercise their authority by their own right as Apostolic sees, not because they were given the right to exercise authority by Rome. We know that the ancient see of Antioch predates the foundation of the Church of Rome. The canon means that the Roman Pontiff had no jurisdiction outside of the West. That is the real meaning of Canon VI of Nicaea. It is a total misinterpretation of the intent of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council to twist the words of Canon VI to make the statement “Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.” The ancient Popes had no such authority and never exercised it over the East. The ancient Popes certainly did not have the authority to veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council, which is the highest authority in the Church, not the Bishop of Rome. Therein lies the basic disagreement between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

As I have written elsewhere Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles, applies to the local Patriarchates, not the papacy.

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

We know this by the way that it was applied during the age of the ancient undivided Church and from the wording of the Canon itself. It means that the Bishops of each nation must recognize the authority of their provincial primate. You are reading a view of papal authority that did not exist at that time and never existed as far as the Eastern Patriarchs are concerned.

This is an acceptable understanding from the High Petrine perspective, because we understand AC34 to be applicable to ALL levels of the hierarchy.

You are reading Vatican I back into the canon, not letting the canon speak for itself.

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.

If find it somewhat ironic that you make so much of one canon of the Apostolic Canons, but do not recognize that the Roman Catholic Church has violated other canons of the Apostolic Canons, by its practice of mandatory clerical celibacy.

AFAIK, every priest in the Latin CC chooses their calling freely. What Apostolic Canon forces a priest to be in the married state?

Your idea of collegiality is not real collegiality because it reduces the Holy Synod of Rome to merely an advisory capacity. It is merely a facade because all power and authority still resides in the Pope.

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.

Therefore, even if Canon 34 of the Apostles had international implications, Rome does not follow it, because the Pope does not have to follow the decisions of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. I am not sure that Rome even has a Holy Synod.

Notwithstanding the prior two considerations, which refute your claim, the College of Cardinals historically replaced the Roman Synod. In any case, the Pope as Patriarch of the Latins has never acted unilaterally. He has, I’m sure, promulgated things on his own personal authority, but I bet it was always done with the agreement of his fellow bishops. The High Petrine advocates in the LCC might have more to say on the matter if they are willing.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Bishop of Rome does have authority over his own Patriarchate, but has no authority over an Ecumenical Council

He doesn’t have an authority over the Ecumenical Council as if he is above and part from it. His authority within the Ecum Council, however, stems from his being a member of it as its head bishop.

or over the other Patriarchates.

Not in its every day affairs. But he can intervene if:
(1) it is a matter of doctrine (i.e. there is heresy in the patriarchate), and the proper authorities in the Patriarchate have not done its job;
(2) there is an appeal;
(3) there is a violation of a universal canon, and the proper authorities in the Patriarchate have not done its job.
Same as in the early Church.

Had Rome followed the example set by the Council of Ephesus when it reconized the autocephaly of Cyprus, there would be many Patriarchs in the West, just as there are in the East. Instead, the Bishops of Rome kept all power for themselves instead of recognizing new autocephalous Churches as the East did.

Cyprus had to ask for it from the 3rd Ecum, the Supreme authority in the Church (i.e., the bishops of the Church universal in union with its head bishop). Cyprus did not have a natural right to set up itself up as an “autocephalous” entity.

Father, may I ask – as it was only an Ecum Council that could establish a territorial patriarchate, what ancient canonical justification is there for the rather extensive multiplication of territorial patriarchates in the EOC?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Alexandria and Antioch exercise their authority by their own right as Apostolic sees, not because they were given the right to exercise authority by Rome. We know that the ancient see of Antioch predates the foundation of the Church of Rome.

Agreed.

The canon means that the Roman Pontiff had no jurisdiction outside of the West.

Disagreed. If this was so, then bishops from the Eastern Churches would never have appealed to the bishop of Rome. The fact that they did demonstrates the statement above is false.

That is the real meaning of Canon VI of Nicaea.

No. That is the meaning of the not-too-ancient epitome. It’s a pretense to think the not-too-ancient epitome came from the Nicene Council.

It is a total misinterpretation of the intent of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council to twist the words of Canon VI to make the statement “Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.”

Agreed

The ancient Popes had no such authority and never exercised it over the East.

If by this you mean “unilateral authority,” I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise, no.

The ancient Popes certainly did not have the authority to veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council,

Father, would it be too much to ask for you to stop stating this? No Catholic here has made this claim in the past 2 weeks since I came back onto CAF. The only one who has ever mentioned it is you, and it is getting tedious. If you wish to vent your disagreement with the Absolutist Petrine excesses, you might want to visit the Apologetics section, I’m sure you can find plenty of Absolutist Petrine advocates there. But this is the Eastern Catholic Forum. NO ONE here has claimed “veto power” or “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council” or “the Pope has unilateral authority.” The only time these phrases have appeared is from your own posts.

which is the highest authority in the Church, not the Bishop of Rome.

If you mean “not the bishop of Rome alone,” agreed. If you mean that the Ecum Council is the highest authority WITHOUT the bishop of Rome, that would be a plainly false statement, so I would disagree.

Therein lies the basic disagreement between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.

To be frank, Father, the only disagreement I’ve seen so far is between your understanding of EO’xy and a certain caricature of the papacy.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[twf]

Marduk / Father,

It should be noted that the Latin Church does ordain married men to the priesthood - via the Anglican Ordinariates and in a few other rare cases. That being said, if Orthodoxy can refuse to ordain married men within monasteries, why can’t Latin bishops refuse to ordain marry men within their dioceses? No one is forced to give up marriage and pursue the priesthood.

 

[malphono]

Had Rome followed the example set by the Council of Ephesus when it reconized the autocephaly of Cyprus, there would be many Patriarchs in the West, just as there are in the East. Instead, the Bishops of Rome kept all power for themselves instead of recognizing new autocephalous Churches as the East did.

Yes, Cyprus was recognized as an autocephalus entity, but it certainly never assumed itself to be a Patriarchate. But two things: (a) it certainly does not follow that the Bishops of Rome “kept all power unto themselves” since at the time, the West also shared the synodal model. It wasn’t until later that it began to morph into the hierarchical behemoth that it unfortunately became. And (b) it also does not follow that there would have been multiple “patriarchates” in the West. Even in the Byzantine East, the existence of “National Patriarchates” is a Slavic innovation based on Moscow’s unilateral and precipitous declaration of itself as “Third Rome” (or whatever).

Father, may I ask – as it was only an Ecum Council that could establish a territorial patriarchate, what ancient canonical justification is there for the rather extensive multiplication of territorial patriarchates in the EOC?

Moscow’s unilateral and precipitous self-declaration of same comes to mind here.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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. 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. Like all presiding officers, the Metropolitan had to abide by the will of the majority of the Holy Synod of the province. He did not have veto power over the decisions of the Holy Synod. Each province was independent and subject only to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. There is no historical evidence to support the modern Roman Catholic position or your interpretation of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles.

This is an acceptable understanding from the High Petrine perspective, because we understand AC34 to be applicable to ALL levels of the hierarchy.

I RESPOND: There was no level of the hierarchy above the provincial Metropolitan except an Ecumenical Council. All that existed was a ranking of honor just as we have today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch has a primacy on honor but has no authority to overrule Pan-Orthodox Council, impose his will on the rest of the Church or interfere in the internal affairs of an autocephlous Eastern Orthodox Church.

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. 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. The Councils had authority over the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome did not have authority over the Ecumenical Councils. One example suffices. 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.

AFAIK, every priest in the Latin CC chooses their calling freely. What Apostolic Canon forces a priest to be in the married state?

I RESPOND: The point is that the Latin Church violated the Apostolic Canons by forbidding the ordination of married Priests. Later in 692, the Council in Trullo condemned the Western Church for forbidding married clergy to have sexual relations with their wives.

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. In any case, the Pope as Patriarch of the Latins has never acted unilaterally. He has, I’m sure, promulgated things on his own personal authority, but I bet it was always done with the agreement of his fellow bishops. The High Petrine advocates in the LCC might have more to say on the matter if they are willing.

I RESPOND: 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? I know that the Holy Synod can overrule the Patriarch of Antioch, because there have been times when he opposed the desires of the North American Antiochian Archdiocese for greater control over our local affairs and eventually autonomy and our Metropolitan took the matter to the Holy Synod which voted to overrule the Patriarch. Can the College of Cardinals overrule the Pope? If it cannot, Rome does not operate according to the practices of the ancient undivided Church which gave ultimate authority to councils, not to individual hierarchs.

Humbly,
Marduk

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

The High Petrine view is held by many Latins, most Oriental Catholics, most Eastern Catholics, and with the exception of the position of head bishop for the Church universal, by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, PNCC, Assyrian Churches, and many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view was the one proposed by V1 and reinforced by V2. One really has to read the behind-the-scenes goings on at the Council, the actual debates that went on at the Council (not the propaganda outside the Council, or the false exaggerations of men like Dollinger, Kung and others who were not even at the Council) to understand the truly collegial intent of V1. I suspect this is the view held by the Melkite hierarchy, and its concerns are really directed against the Absolutist Petrine view that most Latins wrongly perceive to have been the position of V1. This is the patristic model, as reflected in the practice and canons of the undivided Church of the first millenium.

I RESPOND: You have been misinformed. The ancient undivided Church of the first millennial recognized the Bishop of Rome as possessing a primacy of honor as first among equals. The Church did not recognize the Pope as having jurisdiction outside of his own patriarchate. Like all other Bishops the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. He had no veto authority over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, but was expected to obey them. Usually the Popes did. On the rare occasions when a Pope objected to a decree of an Ecumenical Council, it was followed despite his objections. The Pope also had no authority to interfere in the affairs of the other 4 Patriachs. When Pope St Leo had legitimate objections to the general council of Ephesus in 449, he lacked the authority to overrule the council. Instead, St. Leo was forced to appeal to the emperor and other Patriarchs to call another council to set things right. They agreed, after all, Dioscorus and his Egyptian monks had badgered the Council of Ephesus of 449 into exonerating the heretic Eutyches and so abused St. Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople that he died. The result was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which also passed Canon 28, recognizing the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope. Although Pope St. Leo I objected to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople equal rank with the Bishop of Rome, the canon remained in force and the Patriarchs of the East simply ignored St. Leo’s objections.
When St. Gregory the Great objected to the assumption of the title Ecumenical Patriarch by St. John the Faster, once again he was ignored and the usage of the title continued despite the Pope’s objections. I should note that the title merely meant Patriarch of the Imperial city and not universal Bishop as St. Gregory misinterpreted it to mean. Significantly, St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop, something that is forgotten or ignored by advocates of universal papal jurisdiction.
When Pope Nicholas I claimed the authority to depose and excommunicate St. Photius the Great and rejected the forced resignation of Ignatius. St. Photius and the emperor ignored him and St. Photius remained on the patriarchal throne. Only when a group hostile to St. Photius gained power in Constantinople they did not depose him because of Pope Nicholas’ decree. Instead, a council was called to depose St. Photius, because the no one in Constantinople recognized the authority of the Pope to depose a Patriarch of Constantinople because only a council had that right. Although the Council of Constantinople of 669, ratified the decision of Nicholas I that St. Photius had improperly assumed the patriarchal dignity, the council recognized no special authority of Rome over Constantinople or any other Patriarchate. Indeed the exact opposite is true, for the 17th canon of the council declared:
The first, holy and universal synod of Nicaea orders that the ancient custom should be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces subject to her, so that the bishop of Alexandria has them all under his authority; it declares, “Because such a custom has prevailed in the city of Rome”. Therefore this great and holy synod decrees that in old and new Rome and the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem the ancient custom must be preserved in all things, so that their prelates should have authority over all the metropolitans whom they promote or confirm in the episcopal dignity, either through the imposition of hands or the bestowal of the pallium; that is to say, the authority to summon them, in case of necessity, to a meeting in synod or even to reprimand and correct them, when a report about some wrongdoing leads to an accusation.
Notice that the canon gives no special prerogatives to Rome, but instead affirms local self-rule.
However, when Ignatius died and St. Photius reassued the patriarchal throne, another council was held Constantinople 879, which decreed the Council of Constantinople of 869 null and void. The Council also passed a canon that stated that those excommunicated by the Pope in the areas under his authority must be treated as excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople and that those excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople in those areas under his control must be treated as excommunicated by the Pope. At the Council, the West promised not to add the filioque to the Creed, a promise that the West did not keep.
Thus the historical record shows that Eastern Church never recognized the authority of the Pope as anything more than a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction. The historical record also shows that the ancient Popes had no authority to override the decisions of an Ecumencial Council.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

…
When St. Gregory the Great objected to the assumption of the title Ecumenical Patriarch by St. John the Faster, once again he was ignored and the usage of the title continued despite the Pope’s objections. I should note that the title merely meant Patriarch of the Imperial city and not universal Bishop as St. Gregory misinterpreted it to mean**. Significantly, St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop, something that is forgotten or ignored by advocates of universal papal jurisdiction… **

(emphasis mine)

I will just respond to this excerpt I quoted from you Father,

The Catholic Encyclopedia deals with the topic:

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

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Nov. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

I think it is dealt with also in this article, entitled, “Pope St. Gregory ‘the Great’,
Defender of the Papacy”, by James Likoudis:

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

 

[frjohnmorris]

(emphasis mine)

I will just respond to this excerpt I quoted from you Father,

The Catholic Encyclopedia deals with the topic:

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

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Nov. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

I think it is dealt with also in this article, entitled, “Pope St. Gregory ‘the Great’,
Defender of the Papacy”, by James Likoudis:

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

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

 

[frjohnmorris]

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. ; 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, and believe that the canon establishes local primacies and says nothing about the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Canon IX of the Council of Antioch in 341 only confirms my interpretation that Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles establishes provincial primacies and that in the ancient Church there were provincial primacies not universal papal jurisdiction.
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. Both canons give the local Bishop authority in his own diocese, but require him to receive the approval of the provincial Metropolitan for any action that they take that effects the whole province. Notice also that both canons do not give the Metropolitan unlimited authority for both require the Metropolitan to do nothing effecting the province without the approval of the Bishops under his authority as the provincial Primate. The Apostolic Canon ends with the words, “But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all.” The Canon of the Council of Antioch in 341 ends with the words, “But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.” Therefore, the most ancient and most authentic form of Church administration is conciliar with provincial Metropolitans not universal papal jurisdiction. This system was further endorsed by the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, none of which give the Bishop of Rome a primacy of jurisdiction. We know historically that these provincial primacies eventually became the Pentarchy of 5 Patriarchs each presiding over his own patriarchate subject not to Rome, but only to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John