The Petrine views

[spina1953]

The closest thing I have seen is from HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, VOL. 5 by Charles Hefele.

With greater precision than the Synod, however, Pope Leo II pointed out
the fault of Honorius, when, in his letter to the Emperor, confirming the
decrees of the sixth OEcumenical Council, he says: “Pariter
anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est Theodorum Pharanitanum
episcopum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum
Constantinopolitanze Ecclesia subsessores magis quam praesules, necnon
et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apstolicae traditionis
doctrina lustravit, sed profunda proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere
conatus est (in the Greek, subvevti permisit, parecw>rhse), et omnes qui
in suo errore defuncti; sunt” (see p. 180). From this it is clear that Pope
Leo II also anathematized Honorius, because he did not bring the apostolic
doctrine to light, i.e., did not speak out as a teacher, and so, by the
violation of his sacred duties, allowed the falsification of the faith (the
Greek, th~| bebh>lw| prodosi>a| mianqh~nai parecw>rhse, etc., is not only
milder, but also more accurate, and consistent with the expression of Leo160
in his letter to King Ervig, whilst the Latin text (a mere translation from the
Greek) plainly does wrong to Pope Honorius).
In like sense, Pope Leo II expressed himself in his letter to the Spanish
bishops: “Qui veto adversum apostolicae traditionis puritatem
perduelliones exstiterant…aeterna condemnatione mulctati sunt, i.e.
Theodorus Pharanitanus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus,
Petrus Constantinopolitani, cum Honorio qui flammam haeretici dogmatis
non, ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed
negligendo confovit.” (See p. 182.) And so, in fact, it was. Honorius
ought; to have suppressed the heresy at its beginning by a clear exhibition
of the orthodox doctrine, but he fostered it by his negligence, by his
unhappy words to Sergius (in his first letter especially).
Once more Leo n. speaks of the anathematizing of Honorius, in his letter to
the Spanish King Ervig, thus: “Omnesque haereticae assertionis auctores
venerando censente concilio condemnati, de catholicae ecclesiae
adunatione projecti sunt, i.e. Theodorus Pharanitanus episcopus, Cyrus
Alexandrinus, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus, et Petrus, quondam
Constantinopolitani praesules; et una cure eis Honorius Romanus, qui
immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus
suis accepit, maculavi consensit” (i. e. he allowed the maculari, (a) from
negligence, since he did not come forward against it, and (b) since he used
an expression which the heresy turned to its own use). Whether this letter
proceeded from Pope Leo himself, or from his successor Benedict II, is
here indifferent

Section 324.

This would have been nice had it been in english. I don’t know how many posters speak eith Latin or Spainish or both, or Greek but I rather think that had it been in English it would have made a better argument for those of us that don’t speak Latin or Spainish or Greek. the commentary is ok but not enough to know just what was said.

 

[tdgesq]

Opuscula Theologica et Polemica 20, in Patrologia Graeca volume 91, 244B-245B

Uh, I don’t see anything about Honorius in that portion of PG Minge. St. Maximus is talking about Nestorius and Severus.

Here’s the link: books.google.com/books?id=lk_GcK0lXLIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Nestorius&f=false

 

[Cavaradossi]

Uh, I don’t see anything about Honorius in that portion of PG Minge. St. Maximus is talking about Nestorius and Severus.

Here’s the link: books.google.com/books?id=lk_GcK0lXLIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Nestorius&f=false

Perhaps we are reading two very different documents then, because at the bottom of page 244 in the link above (the clause beginning with, “ὡς οὐδαμῶς…”), St. Maximus makes the claim that Honorius’ epistle did not actually have the number “one,” but that this was an interpolation added by the Greeks according to their own interpretation of the epistle. In fact, I’m not sure that I see St. Maximus mention Severus or Nestorius anywhere between 244B and 245B

 

[josie_L]

It wasn’t Ecumenical until Pope Vigilius gave his confirmation (like every other Council that has come to be regarded as Ecumenical). Did Western Christendom consider it as “Ecumenical” before Pope VIgilius gave its confirmation? If not (an historical fact), how can you justify your claim? Please respond. IOW, if it was not Ecumenical until Pope Vigilius gave his confirmation, how can you say that “the Pope must obey an Ecumenical Council?” Isn’t it rather the case that the Pope as head bishop can be corrected by his brother bishops?

I also brought this point up with Father John when referring to Vigilius, i.e., how is an ecumenical council ecumenical if the Western portion of the Church did not as yet affirm it, being that Pope Vigilius was the only Western patriarch (as well as head of the Church)? In light of this argument I also brought up Trullo because it lacked papal confirmation,and thus acceptance by the West, yet is considered ecumenical, part of the 5th and 6th council (Quinisext) by the Orthodox.

p.s. Anyone acquainted with Vigilius and Justinian’s treatment of him should realize that his confirmation was needed in order to substantiate the conciliar decisions of that synod so that they acquired ecumenical status.

p.p.s Is IOW short-hand for “in other words”?

 

[jinc1019]

CONT’d

(7) AP view: The keys belong to St. Peter and his unique successors alone; other bishops do not share the keys with the successor of St. Peter, but rather share the power of the keys;
HP views: The keys belong to St. Peter/his unique successors, who share both the keys and the power of the keys with his brrethren (fellow Apostles/ bishops).
Tradition: This was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great (sorry I do not have the quote off-hand). Further, the Rite of consecration of new bishops Traditionally included a request for God to grant the bishop the keys. The Rite was changed in the 1960’s.

(8) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with the Church of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with every Church in the Catholic communion.
As the bishop is intimately and irrevocably tied to his local Church, this is the natural and logical conclusion from (9) below.
*Vatican 2: * collegial union is apparent also in the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. (Lumen Gentium, 23)

(9) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with the bishop of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with every orthodox Catholic bishop in the Church.
*Vatican 2: * one is constituted a member of the episcopal bodyby virtue of sacramental consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body. (Lumen Gentium, 22

V2 Theological Commission: A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.

(10) AP view: The whole Church can fall into error, but the Pope cannot. As long as there is one orthodox member of the Church left standing (who is the Pope), then the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church remains.
HP view: Christ taught us that where two or three are gathered, there He is in our midst. So it is impossible that there will ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox member of the Church left remaining.
I don’t think one can find a greater Magisterial source than Scripture.

(11) AP view: Since the Pope is a member of the episcopate, and it is impossible for the Pope to fall into public heresy, even if all the rest of the episcopal Magisterium were to fall into public heresy, the existence of the Pope would preserve the Church’s dogma in the infallibility of the universal Magisterium;
HP view: The office of bishop is of divine origin, just as the role of a head bishop is of divine origin. Since Christ’s exhortation regarding “two or three” were spoken to the Apostles specifically, then it has greater application to the episcopate (who are the successors of the Apostles) than the Church in general. Hence, it is impossible that there can ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. And whereever there is an orthodox bishop, the Pope is bound by divine law to work with them and in communion with them in anything that affects the entire Church.
I don’t think there is a greater Magisterial source than Scripture on this matter. The question would be if you agree with the interpretation above that Jesus’ principle of “two or three” applies to the episcopate in a special way.

Brother Anthony, I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask

Blessings,
Marduk

Brilliantly stated if true.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think you are mistaken. There is not quote where he says because of his negligence that Honorius was a heretic. The quote provided was from Pope Leo II’s commentary on the condemnation of Honorius ans the events surrounding the council ans why he was condemned. Now he was condemned as a heretic, this is a fact. Leo’s Commentary explains why he was condemned as such:shrug:

Read the actual documents from the 6th Ecumenical Council, which clearly condemn Pope Honorius as an heretic.
For example the Sentence against the Monothelites states:
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we
had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this
royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some
time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that
343 these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holyCouncils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul…And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…
At Session XVI the council declared, “To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

Thus, there is no doubt from the actual words of the III Council of Constantinople, the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680 that the Church speaking in an Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius I as an heretic.
You can download the acts,records of the sessions and decrees of the 7 Ecumenical Councils as well as the local Councils recognized as having ecumenical authority at ccel.org/fathers.html Download the last vol. titled The Seven Ecumenical Councils Then you can read the decisions of the 6th Ecumenical condemning Pope Honorius for yourself.
No serious historian, Catholics included, does not recognize that the modern papacy is the result of a long and complex development that reached its climax only at the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. No recognized modern historian argues that the ancient Church during the first 1,000 years recognized anything universal papal jurisdiction or papal infallibility. No historian maintains that the Eastern Patriarchs ever recognized the papal claims. Catholics believe in the development of doctrine, while Eastern Orthodox believe that although the Church must sometimes clarify its doctrine in response to heresy, it never changes its doctrine or adopts new doctrine that contradicts what the Church has always believed. Instead, we hold to the Vincentian Canon, “Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” The modern Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy cannot meet this test.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I also brought this point up with Father John when referring to Vigilius, i.e., how is an ecumenical council ecumenical if the Western portion of the Church did not as yet affirm it, being that Pope Vigilius was the only Western patriarch (as well as head of the Church)? In light of this argument I also brought up Trullo because it lacked papal confirmation,and thus acceptance by the West, yet is considered ecumenical, part of the 5th and 6th council (Quinisext) by the Orthodox.

p.s. Anyone acquainted with Vigilius and Justinian’s treatment of him should realize that his confirmation was needed in order to substantiate the conciliar decisions of that synod so that they acquired ecumenical status.

p.p.s Is IOW short-hand for “in other words”?

Your are really twisting history to fit your belief in the papacy. Trullo was recognized at the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787 as a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council. Since Rome recognized Nicaea II, it has also recognized Trullo. During the first 1,000 years of Church history, an Ecumenical Council did not need papal confirmation. The opposite was true, a Pope needed the confirmation of an Ecumenical Council. In the case of Pope Viligius, the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553 met despite the objections of Pope Viligius who happened to be in Constantinople where he had fled to escape the Visigoths who had invaded Italy. The Pope forbade the council to meet. The council met anyway, showing that it did not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome over an Ecumenical Council. When he refused to attend, the council removed him from office by removing his name from the dyptichs, the official list of Patriarchs. Only after the council threatened to excommunicate him did Vigilius send a letter accepting the decisions of the council. The council then reinstated him to office. Thus the record of the 5th Ecumenical Council shows that the ancient Church did not recognize papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council.
Although Pope St. Leo I the Great objected to the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449, which exonerated Eutyches for the heresy of Monophysitism, he lacked the authority to override the council. Instead, it took the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to repudiate the Robber Council. Significantly, the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome of Leo as an official statement of the doctrine of the Church until after a committee examined it and declared it Orthodox. This shows that the ancient Popes lacked the authority to overrule an Ecumenical Council, which the Robber Council claimed to be, but that only another Ecumenical Council can declare the decrees of a council that called itself an Ecumenical Council invalid not the Pope. The submission of the Tome of Leo for study and approval before it was accepted by Chalcedon also shows that the Pope had no authority to unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church.
Even later when Pope Nicholas I called for the removal of St. Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople he could not do it himself, but had to appeal to an international council, the Council of Constantinople of 869 which removed St. Photius. Significantly at the council of 869, the papal legates claimed that the Pope had the authority to unilaterally issue declarations on the doctrine of the Church. However, Patriarch Ignatius, who owed his reinstatement to the intervention of Pope Nicholas I, and the Eastern delegates rejected the demand of the papal legates and stated that the agreement of all 5 Patriarchs was necessary to issue an official doctrinal decision binding on the Church.
However, the Council of Constantinople of 879 revoked the decrees of the council of 869. Significantly even before the council of 879 opened, Pope John VIII acknowledged St. Photius as the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople, sending his legates bearing a pallium from the Pope to signify his recognition of St. Photius as the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope John VIII recognized the Council of Constantinople of 879 and therefore renounced the council of 869.
I think that some of the confusion is caused because whenever a new man assumed one of the 5 ancient Patriarchates, he sent an official letter to Rome announcing his election. Some supporters of the papal claims take that as proof that acknowledgement of Rome was required for the recognition of a new Patriarch. However, the ancient Patriarchs also sent an official letter to the other 4 Patriarchs announcing their ascension of the Patriarchal throne, as did a new Pope who also sent a letter to the other 4 Patriarchs announcing his election to the papacy. In Eastern Orthodoxy, we still follow the same custom. However, with modern transportation a new Patriarch usually follows his letter with an official visit to the other Patriarchs, as His Beatitude John X who was elected to replace the deceased Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch last year has done. Last week, His Beatitude was in Moscow, for example.
It is not possible to reconcile the modern papal claims with the history of the Church during the first 1,000 years or the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

I don’t have much desire to debate these topics, but I will cite St. Vincent of Lerins regarding the development of doctrine:

"‘But perhaps someone will say, do we have no progress in religion in the Church of Christ? In any case, there should be such progress and, in fact, great progress. Who would want to go so far in the disservice of mankind and in displeasing God, as to prevent that? Yes, but in such a way that we are talking about true progress in the Faith, and not alteration. It is a part of progress that everything develops in itself; but it is an alteration to change something into something else.’ …

…‘Thus, what the Faith of our Fathers always sowed on this acre of the Church of God, the diligence of its children must develop and preserve intact; it is the same that should blossom and ripen and thrive, and come to full fruition. Thus, it is right that those ancient statements of the Faith of this heavenly philosophy are perfected, smoothed, and rounded off over the course of time. However, it would be wrong to alter them, wrong to cut them apart and mutilate them. Actually, they ought to take on increasing clarity, light, and transparency, while at the same time maintaining their fullness, their integrity, and their identity.’" (pg. 279)

These citations are found in the Bishop of Mainz, Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler’s (1871) “The Infallible Teaching Authority of the Pope According to the Definition of the Vatican Council”. This is reprinted in the book “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy”, by James Likoudis, published by (?) St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope, KY: 2002. (pg. 279)

As Vatican 1 explained:

“‘Therefore, one must always hold fast to the representation of the doctrine of salvation which our Holy Mother, the Church, has presented; and we may never deviate from this presentation under the deceptive pretext of arriving at a deeper understanding of it. Thus, there may be widespread and significant progress in individual matters as well as overall, in each person as well as in the entire Church in insight, in science and in wisdom as time and the centuries progress; but this may nevertheless take place only within the same mode, namely in such a way that neither the dogma itself nor its meaning and importance can be altered.’” (Ibid. , pgs. 277-278)

 

[LionHeart777]

Here are 2 excerpts from the chapter/letter entitled: “Non-Catholic historians on the Papacy in the Early Church” , from Likoudis’ aforementioned work:

Dr. Trevor Gervais Jalland, Anglican

"‘The evidence…will show, we believe, that the Roman see was recognized by other churches as possessing from very early times, if not in fact from the beginning, an undoubted primacy in the sphere of doctrine, at least in the sense of a right to be heard in the preference to others. Even those who would favour an ambiguous or a negative verdict cannot forget the fragmentary nature of the evidence at our disposal, nor the extent to which, in this case as with many other historical problems, particularly of the first and second centuries, we are dependent on inference and reasonable conjecture. Equally, as we venture to believe, it will emerge that the primacy of jurisdiction… namely, the right to act as supreme judge in matters of discipline, if not traceable so far back as the doctrinal primacy, is at least contemporary in respect of its development with the evolution of episcopal jurisdiction.’ …

…[Likoudis introducing another citation] As is evident, modern scholars have only confirmed the testimony of the Russian Orthodox church historian V.V. Bolotov who wrote in 1913 concerning Petrine Primacy in the writings of Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461):

‘This primatus, this principatus, of the apostle Peter is not a temporary but permanent institution. He governs the Church visibly through his successor. The relation borne by Roman bishops to St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, is a close reproduction, in its depths and in all it involves, of the consortium potentiae of St. Peter with Christ… In the same way the whole construction of the Church reproduces, according to Leo the Great, the diversity of the relations that existed between the Apostles. Though all were chosen equally, there was not equality of authority amongst them; so in the same way the Bishops, equal amongst themselves in sacerdotal dignity, are not so in canonical rights, nor are they equal in their participation in the Government of the Church. This administration over all the Churches is incumbent upon the Bishop of Rome [principally, by divine right]… The episcopatus universalis [universal bishopric] of the sovereign pontiff of Rome, as taught by St. Leo the Great, does not exclude the equality of hierarchy, that is to say, the sacramental equality of all bishops but only the plenitudo potestatis [the fullness of power]…It could never become neccessary to condemn a Bishop of Rome; he might have his shortcomings but they are compensated for and rectified by the merits of Peter. A Roman Pontiff can never really fail in any serious degree.’"

Source: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy”, by James Likoudis, published by (?) St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope, KY: 2002. Pgs. 67-70.

 

[LionHeart777]

Fr. John,

Like I said, I don’t have much interest in debating these topics anymore at this time. A lot of your claims regarding history were debated (in multiple threads I think) a lot already. I’ll make this my last post.

For anyone reading, the rebuttals to most of what Fr. John is claiming are on various threads.

I’ll have to content myself with catching up on reading some books I need to catch up on.

Take care,

Nick

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John,

Like I said, I don’t have much interest in debating these topics anymore at this time. A lot of your claims regarding history were debated (in multiple threads I think) a lot already. I’ll make this my last post.

For anyone reading, the rebuttals to most of what Fr. John is claiming are on various threads.

I’ll have to content myself with catching up on reading some books I need to catch up on.

Take care,

Nick

I am sorry that my response offended you. However, if you look you will find that I responded to a posting that mentioned my name directly, otherwise I would not have responded. As far as your post is concerned. All that you have done is quote interpretations. You have cited no historical facts to show me why my interpretations are lacking. You have to do better than that. You have to show that you are right using actual facts from the history of the Church citing primary sources as I have done. Frankly, I have stopped looking at this site, because I am not interested in exchanging polemics. I am interested in serious historical discussions with someone who can challenge me to think by showing historically why my interpretations are lacking, so that I can correct or adjust them if I have missed something.

With Blessings

Archpriest John W. Morris PhD

 

[LionHeart777]

I am sorry that my response offended you. However, if you look you will find that I responded to a posting that mentioned my name directly, otherwise I would not have responded. As far as your post is concerned. All that you have done is quote interpretations. You have cited no historical facts to show me why my interpretations are lacking. You have to do better than that. You have to show that you are right using actual facts from the history of the Church citing primary sources as I have done. Frankly, I have stopped looking at this site, because I am not interested in exchanging polemics. I am interested in serious historical discussions with someone who can challenge me to think by showing historically why my interpretations are lacking, so that I can correct or adjust them if I have missed something.

With Blessings

Archpriest John W. Morris PhD

Hi Father John,

No apology to me necessary, I don’t think I took personal offense (it was late though, who knows )

But to rebut everything you claim would be a process and I think there are rebuttals on various threads here already because yourself and others have addressed most of the historical arguments you make (and myself included to some extent.) I guess I was, without directly rebutting everything you said, not content with leaving it unchallenged nevertheless.

I did give those citations from Likoudis’ book in regards to a comment you had made about St. Vincent of Lerins, and about the Catholic view of the development of doctrine, as well as citations from non-Catholics historians/scholars in regards to a comment that you made: “No recognized modern historian argues that the ancient Church during the first 1,000 years recognized anything universal papal jurisdiction or papal infallibility.”

Although if I have taken this out of context, please forgive me.

Anyway, I have been avoiding posting myself as I said; I gave that as kind of a disclaimer perhaps in that I wasn’t in this thread for the long haul. You must’ve got the e-mail too that this thread had been “resurrected”

Take care Father John.

–Nick

I apologize if I was overly defensive or argumentative, or wronged you in any way. May God Bless you and your family!

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi Father John,

No apology to me necessary, I don’t think I took personal offense (it was late though, who knows )

But to rebut everything you claim would be a process and I think there are rebuttals on various threads here already because yourself and others have addressed most of the historical arguments you make (and myself included to some extent.) I guess I was, without directly rebutting everything you said, not content with leaving it unchallenged nevertheless.

I did give those citations from Likoudis’ book in regards to a comment you had made about St. Vincent of Lerins, and about the Catholic view of the development of doctrine, as well as citations from non-Catholics historians/scholars in regards to a comment that you made: “No recognized modern historian argues that the ancient Church during the first 1,000 years recognized anything universal papal jurisdiction or papal infallibility.”

Although if I have taken this out of context, please forgive me.

Anyway, I have been avoiding posting myself as I said; I gave that as kind of a disclaimer perhaps in that I wasn’t in this thread for the long haul. You must’ve got the e-mail too that this thread had been “resurrected”

Take care Father John.

–Nick

I apologize if I was overly defensive or argumentative, or wronged you in any way. May God Bless you and your family!

I honestly believe that the historical record shows that the modern papacy is the result of a long and complex development and that the Popes did not exercise universal jurisdiction or supremacy over an Ecumenical Council during the first 1,000 years of Church History. The ancient Popes had what we Orthodox call presvia, which means seniority as the highest ranking Bishop of the Church, but had no actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate of the West and like all other Bishops was subject to the common voice of the Church speaking in an Ecumenical Council. In other words, he held a position like that of the Ecumenical Patriarch does in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.
If the East had recognized the papal claims, why was there a schism in 1054? If the East had recognized the papal claims, Patriarch Michael would have not questioned Pope Leo IX, but would have given him the obedience that he demanded. Instead, the Pope and his legate Cardinal Humbert made unprecedented claims to authority that the Patriarch refused to recognize because they were so radically different than any authority exercised by the Popes in the past. In fact, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I was so extreme that he thought that it was a forgery. In any case, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I based the papal claims on the Donation of Constantine that all historians recognize as a forgery. Finally after the death of Pope Leo IX, Cardinal Humbert’s authority as a papal legate ceased. Thus, he had no authority to excommunicate anyone in the name of the Pope, especially one of the 5 Patriarchs of the Church. What I am interested in is direct answers to my questions. I thought that this would be a place where I could interact with Roman Catholics and get some answers and also constructive criticism of my interpretations of history so that I can see the other side of the issues that divide us. If my statements seem repetitious, it is because I have not received adequate answers to my questions.
In terms of administration and organization, there is no question that Rome has a much more efficient system than we Eastern Orthodox. Our system can be quite chaotic at times and can even be called dysfunctional and anarchistic. However, I believe that Rome goes too far in the opposite direction and gives too much power to one man. Then there are theological and disciplinary issues such as mandatory celibacy for clergy. As a married Priest, I believe that celibacy is a monastic calling and that a parish Priest living in the world should be married so that he can relate to his people and how they live their lives. Besides, I see nothing in marriage that should prevent a man from being ordained to the Priesthood. There are other issues such as the doctrine of temporal punishment and purgatory that I also find bothersome.

With Blessings

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

I honestly believe that the historical record shows that the modern papacy is the result of a long and complex development and that the Popes did not exercise universal jurisdiction or supremacy over an Ecumenical Council during the first 1,000 years of Church History. The ancient Popes had what we Orthodox call presvia, which means seniority as the highest ranking Bishop of the Church, but had no actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate of the West and like all other Bishops was subject to the common voice of the Church speaking in an Ecumenical Council. In other words, he held a position like that of the Ecumenical Patriarch does in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.
If the East had recognized the papal claims, why was there a schism in 1054? If the East had recognized the papal claims, Patriarch Michael would have not questioned Pope Leo IX, but would have given him the obedience that he demanded. Instead, the Pope and his legate Cardinal Humbert made unprecedented claims to authority that the Patriarch refused to recognize because they were so radically different than any authority exercised by the Popes in the past. In fact, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I was so extreme that he thought that it was a forgery. In any case, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I based the papal claims on the Donation of Constantine that all historians recognize as a forgery. Finally after the death of Pope Leo IX, Cardinal Humbert’s authority as a papal legate ceased. Thus, he had no authority to excommunicate anyone in the name of the Pope, especially one of the 5 Patriarchs of the Church. What I am interested in is direct answers to my questions. I thought that this would be a place where I could interact with Roman Catholics and get some answers and also constructive criticism of my interpretations of history so that I can see the other side of the issues that divide us. If my statements seem repetitious, it is because I have not received adequate answers to my questions.
In terms of administration and organization, there is no question that Rome has a much more efficient system than we Eastern Orthodox. Our system can be quite chaotic at times and can even be called dysfunctional and anarchistic. However, I believe that Rome goes too far in the opposite direction and gives too much power to one man. Then there are theological and disciplinary issues such as mandatory celibacy for clergy. As a married Priest, I believe that celibacy is a monastic calling and that a parish Priest living in the world should be married so that he can relate to his people and how they live their lives. Besides, I see nothing in marriage that should prevent a man from being ordained to the Priesthood. There are other issues such as the doctrine of temporal punishment and purgatory that I also find bothersome.

With Blessings

Fr. John W. Morris

Hi Fr. John,

I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want my thoughts I will give you a few:

I see the ancient Popes attributing much more than the Patriarch of Constantinople claims of his office today, and I see it recognized either implicitly or explicitly by others, including Eastern Patriarchs, and including Ecumenical Councils. I see a Roman Primacy based on Christ’s promises to St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-19, Lk. 22:31, Jn 21:15-17), in other words, by Divine Right, rather than one bestowed on Rome by the Church which could be taken away by the Church. As Pope St. Nicholas stated, “These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .”

(Scott, Herbert S., “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.)

As to the East-West schism, I believe it is complicated (politics played a role, lengthy and growing estrangement between East/West, politically & culturally, etc. --Acacian schism, Photian schism, as it’s referred to, however one views Pat. Photius) and not as simple as a rejection of Roman Primacy as it was termed by the Pope then. I don’t see how anything Pope Leo IX claimed regarding the privelages of the Rome that is fundamentally different from that which Popes Sts. Damasus, Gelasius, Leo, Gregory, Hormisdras, Hadrian II, and Nicholas claimed for themselves.

Schisms happened in the Catholic Church even post Vatican I, and it is a non sequitor to say that because of a schism, one rejects the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Whatever Pat. Michael’s reasons were in 1054, I am not sure.

My contention is that if the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ, something I believe is well demonstrated among the Fathers both East & West, then it is going to be the Pope and Bishops in communion with him who are going to clarify that office and the related Dogmas.

Regarding Priestly celibacy, that, to my understanding is a Latin discipline (not a Catholic on per se), and even within the Latin Rite exceptions are made for married converts, for example, (Anglican or Episcopelian clergy). St. Paul saw the advantage of celibacy (he was not a Monk), and there are many reasons that can be given in favor of the discipline.

Regarding temporal punishments, Purgatory, etc. perhaps you could dialogue about those. I finished reading Joesph Gill’s “The Council of Florence”, and it was the Latins who wanted to debate Purgatory. If I remember, the Greeks, including Mark of Ephesus, saw it not as a dividing issue before so were content to remain silent on it if memory serves.

 

[LionHeart777]

Also Fr. John,

I know that you seemed to have a more or less positive view of the Byzantine scholar, Fr. Dvornik. Based on the thread and your mention of his study of Pat. Photius, I bought that book and it’s in my lined up. I am hoping to get his book “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy” soon too. Anyway, although he does not go into much detail Pat. Michael and the incident in 1054 (he stops his survey there), you might be interested in reading a brief survey of East-West relations from more or less the 1st century - 1054 he wrote, also by that name. It is kinder towards the Byzantines than any other article or book I have skimmed or read on the topic of the Papacy. It can be found here:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Regards,

Nick

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father John, bless

I honestly believe that the historical record shows that the modern papacy is the result of a long and complex development and that the Popes did not exercise universal jurisdiction or supremacy over an Ecumenical Council during the first 1,000 years of Church History.

I would agree with this entire section if the following qualification was added: “…according to the aberrations of the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists.”

The ancient Popes had what we Orthodox call presvia, which means seniority as the highest ranking Bishop of the Church,

I’m not sure how you understand the word in the context of ecclesiology. I only understand it in the context of prayer as intercession.

but had no actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate of the West

It’s evident from Church history the Pope of Rome had at the very least an appellate authority in the Church universal. Canonically (i.e., according to our Canons), the Primacy is only used in response to the needs of the Church; doctrinally, Catholic teaching states that the Primacy can only be used to build up the Church. Historically, some very influential Latin Catholic saints (e.g. St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.) affirm that if the Pope is found to be doing otherwise, the laity and bishops are morally bound to resist him.

and like all other Bishops was subject to the common voice of the Church speaking in an Ecumenical Council.

I actually agree with this – that is, so long as it does not mean that the Ecumenical Council is above the Pope. The Pope as head bishop of the Ecumenical Council is the single indispensable member of the Council (like every head bishop in their local synod or council)… So Catholics (High Petrine advocates, anyway) would agree that his brother bishops within the Council can correct the Pope, but we could not admit that the Council is above the Pope thereby (which is a heresy according to Catholic Tradition, so I hope you understand why we could not admit that).

In other words, he held a position like that of the Ecumenical Patriarch does in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.

The EP held greater authority (both auctoritas and potestas) during the time of the undivided Church than he does today. He gained this authority by a deliberate ssignation that likened it to the authority of him who held the primacy in the Church universal - the Pope of Rome. It is more appropriate to analogize the Pope’s authority to what the EP had in the ancient days.

If the East had recognized the papal claims, why was there a schism in 1054? If the East had recognized the papal claims, Patriarch Michael would have not questioned Pope Leo IX, but would have given him the obedience that he demanded.

That’s a non-sequitur. Historically, many schismed from the Church, but that was no indication that the Church did not possess actual authority did it? Are we to look on the schism of the Judaizers as an indication that the Apostles held no actual authority?

Instead, the Pope and his legate Cardinal Humbert made unprecedented claims to authority that the Patriarch refused to recognize because they were so radically different than any authority exercised by the Popes in the past. In fact, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I was so extreme that he thought that it was a forgery. In any case, Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael I based the papal claims on the Donation of Constantine that all historians recognize as a forgery.

The Donation was a myth, just as the idea that Pope St. Leo based the papal claims on the forgery is a myth. If you could, please pull up a copy of the Pope’s letter. There you will find that while he stated that the Donation affirmed the papal prerogatives, he specifically called it as nothing more than an ornament (or some such term), since the papal prerogatives actually came from Christ.

If my statements seem repetitious, it is because I have not received adequate answers to my questions.

I haven’t been on this thread in a while. Which questions? If they are not about the Petrine views, please discuss them in other existing threads or in new threads.

There are other issues such as the doctrine of temporal punishment

I think the CCC clarifies that “temporal punishment” is not “punishment” in the Traditional sense, but more of a natural consequence of our own actions for our nature, not something imposed from without. But this thread is not the place to discuss it.

and purgatory that I also find bothersome.

If you are speaking of the dogma itself, I don’t understand your statement. If you are speaking of the Latin theologoumena, I can understand, but I don’t know why their local theologoumena should be any sort of impediment (as long as they don’t try to impose it on us non-Latins). Again, this thread is not the place to discuss it.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[LionHeart777]

I shoud’ve proofread:

I wrote:

“I see the ancient Popes attributing much more than the Patriarch of Constantinople claims of his office today, and I see it recognized either implicitly or explicitly by others, including Eastern Patriarchs, and including Ecumenical Councils.”

I meant that the Popes claimed more for themselves in regards to privileges than the Ecumenical Patriarchs claim for themselves, and based them ultimately upon Christ’s words…

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Father John, bless

I would agree with this entire section if the following qualification was added: “…according to the aberrations of the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists.”

I’m not sure how you understand the word in the context of ecclesiology. I only understand it in the context of prayer as intercession.

It’s evident from Church history the Pope of Rome had at the very least an appellate authority in the Church universal. Canonically (i.e., according to our Canons), the Primacy is only used in response to the needs of the Church; doctrinally, Catholic teaching states that the Primacy can only be used to build up the Church. Historically, some very influential Latin Catholic saints (e.g. St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.) affirm that if the Pope is found to be doing otherwise, the laity and bishops are morally bound to resist him.

Canon V of the Council of Sardica gave the power to the Pope to appoint nearby Bishops to judge a dispute among the Bishops of a province. The canon did not give the Pope the authority to make the decision himself. However, Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon replaced Canon V of Sardica giving appellate authority to the Patriarch of Constantinople who had the authority to make the decision, unlike Sardica which only gave the Pope the authority to appoint Bishops to hear the case and resolve a dispute.

is above the Pope thereby (which is a heresy according to Catholic Tradition, so I hope you understand why we could not admit that).

No Pope ever presided over any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Regardless of what is considered heresy according to Catholic Tradition, the Council themselves did not hesitate to assume authority over the Popes, to demand obedience from the Popes, or to even declare a Pope an heretic. It was not even necessary for papal legates to participate in an Ecumenical Council. There were no papal legates at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381 which ended once and for all the Arian controversy and condemned the heresy that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Yet Rome recognized the council as an Ecumenical Council.
The Emperor Constantine and Alexander of Alexandria presided over the 1st Council in 325, Nicaea I.
Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople presided over the 2nd Council, in 381, Constantinople I.
Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria presided over the 3 Council, in 431, Ephesus.
Officials of the Emperor Marcian presided over the 4th Council in 451, Chalcedon.
Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople presided over the 5th Council in 553, Constantinople II.
Patriarch George of Constantinople presided over the 6th Council in 680, Constantinople III.
Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople and the papal legates presided over the 7 Council in 787, Nicaea II.

The EP held greater authority (both auctoritas

and potestas) during the time of the undivided Church than he does today. He gained this authority by a deliberate ssignation that likened it to the authority of him who held the primacy in the Church universal - the Pope of Rome. It is more appropriate to analogize the Pope’s authority to what the EP had in the ancient days.

The Ecumenical Patriarch had no authority over the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates during the period of the ancient undivided Church and has no such authority today. Canon 28 of Chalcedon granted the Patriarch of Constantinople equal rank with the Pope. The Ecumenical Patriarchate had more authority under the Turks who governed their Orthodox population through him. As the Balkan nations gained their independence during the 19th century, the Ecumenical Patriarch lost his authority over them and had to recognize their autocephalous status. In the case of Antioch, the people demanded the resignation of the Greek Patriarch and the Turks allowed them to elect an Arab Patriarch.

That’s a non-sequitur. Historically, many schismed from the Church, but that was no indication that the Church did not possess actual authority did it? Are we to look on the schism of the Judaizers as an indication that the Apostles held no actual authority?

I disagree, the ancient Church was led by 5 Patriarchs. 4 of the 5 refused to submit to papal domination. Rome was only able to gain control over the Church in the West, because Rome was the only Apostolic see in the West. The East had many Apostolic sees. There is a story that some Protestant missionaries came to a village in Lebanon. They told them, “we have come to bring you the Gospel.” The people replied,“we already have the Gospel.” The Protestants asked them who bought them the Gospel. They asked their Priest and came back and told the Protestants that a man named Paul brought them the Gospel 2,000 years ago.

CONTINUED

[/QUOTE]

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUE OF ABOVE

The Donation was a myth, just as the idea that Pope St. Leo based the papal claims on the forgery is a myth. If you could, please pull up a copy of the Pope’s letter. There you will find that while he stated that the Donation affirmed the papal prerogatives, he specifically called it as nothing more than an ornament (or some such term), since the papal prerogatives actually came from Christ.

The Donation of Constantine is not a myth. A copy in Latin and English can be found at history.hanover.edu/texts/vallapart1.html

Pope Leo IX did quote extensively from the document in his letter to Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople. It cannot be denied that most of the papal claims originated in this forged document. If the papal prerogatives came from Christ, why is there no evidence that the Bishops of Rome exercised them during the first 1,000 years of church history and why did the Eastern Patriarchs reject them when the Popes began to try to exercise jurisdiction over the East? Once again, the canons mandate local self-government by councils of Bishops presided over by the Metropolitan, later Patriarch, not papal jurisdiction. Each Patriarchate elected its own Bishops and Patriarch. There was no requirement for papal approval of the elections and certainly no right of the Pope to appoint Patriarchs or Bishops. Read the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and you will see that there is no place for papal supremacy or universal jurisdiction in any one of them. The canons only give Rome a primacy of honor as the senior Bishop of the Church. Only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to issue doctrinal declarations or canons that applied to the whole Church. No ancient Pope ever exercised the authority to infallibly issue doctrine speaking “ex cathedra.” The first example of a Pope issuing doctrine “ex cathedra” was the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The canon and dogmatic declarations of the 7 Ecumenical Councils are available for download at ccel.org/fathers.html Download the last vol. It contains all of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the local councils recognized as having ecumenical authority. Read the accounts of the councils and their canons carefully. It is clear that they speak as if they have authority over the entire Church including Rome. None of them give the Pope universal jurisdiction or infallibility.

I haven’t been on this thread in a while. Which questions? If they are not about the Petrine views, please discuss them in other existing threads or in new threads.

I think the CCC clarifies that “temporal punishment” is not “punishment” in the Traditional sense, but more of a natural consequence of our own actions for our nature, not something imposed from without. But this thread is not the place to discuss it.

If you are speaking of the dogma itself, I don’t understand your statement. If you are speaking of the Latin theologoumena, I can understand, but I don’t know why their local theologoumena should be any sort of impediment (as long as they don’t try to impose it on us non-Latins). Again, this thread is not the place to discuss it.

Humbly,
Marduk

You are right. This is not the place to discuss purgatory or temporal punishment. I am not sure that with some tweaking we can reconcile the idea of purgatory with the Eastern Orthodox teaching that our spiritual growth continues after we die.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

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

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