The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

[Nine_Two]

About the council of Nicea:

"One thing is certain: the early Latin version of the canons,
called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the Greek wording and made
the Canon read thus: “It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city
of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so that he should
govern with care the suburban places, AND ALL HIS OWN
PROVINCE.”(1) Another interesting reading is that found in several
MSS. which begins, “The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy
(primatum),” and as a matter of fact the early date of this addition is
evinced by the fact that the canon was actually quoted in this shape by
Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon.

Also, how about the Arabic Canon 39 of Nicea?

CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

IS this not an indication of The mentality of the church of the first millenium?

Well Nicea only had 20 canons, and at the time of the council Arabic was still an obscure language spoken by tribesmen on the South-Eastern flank of the Roman Empire, so I’m going to have to go ahead and say the 39th Canon of Nicea in Arabic is a later invention.
The Latin version seems to say that the Roman Patriarch shall have primacy within his Patriarchy. I have no objection to this.

 

[Gregory_I]

But is it not an indication of the thought of those in the early vhurch? namely That the Pope has universal Jurisdiction?

Whether it is authoritative or not, it is a witness to the thought of those at the time or only a couple centuries later, is it not?

And if one person, or many went out of their way to contrive this, it was to Bolster a presupposition already had AT THE TIME, which proves the Notion was not unheard of in the early Church, and was subscribed to by numerous of the Oriental peoples.

Yes or no?

 

[Hesychios]

Whether it is authoritative or not, it is a witness to the thought of those at the time or only a couple centuries later, is it not?

I would say a counterfeit dollar bill is a witness to the thought of the one who made it, so yes you are on to something there.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Since you’re starting with the polemics, why must we put aside our pride and submit to you, rather than you put aside your pride and come down to our level? We don’t even ask for submission. Seems one who would refuse equality has far greater pride than one who would refuse submission.

God’s never creates equality but hierarchy. Least to greatest. The Father is the head of the Son just as the husband is the head of the wife. In this way the Pope is the visible head of the Church. The Orthodox must abandon pride and accept their place in God’s creation.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Orthodox must abandon pride and accept their place in God’s creation.

Oh man, seriously that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen on this forum in a while!!!

A little melodramatic don’t you think?

 

[dvdjs]

The same primacy the Patriarch of Constantinople has. Nothing more and nothing less. Is that a total let down?

Not a let down at all - just what I’ve come to expect. But this response - together with the rest of the posts from EOs on this thread make it clear that you all haven’t any real interest in understanding what the Primacy of Honor accorded to Rome in the first millenium actually meant. That is were the Ratzinger proposal goes immediately aground - at least in discussions in this venue.

You may like to reconstruct that ancient primacy in terms of the primacy presently accorded the EP, but there is no basis for that projection. Nor, btw was it ever - even in post VI west, anything like the authoritarian rule of the EP over the Rum millet. Things have changed in your sense of primacy since the first millenium, and since the Ottomans. Your perspective on Primacy is an innovative one, since it tacks with these changes. But it is not a surprising one, and not a let down.

 

[dvdjs]

Which is not to say that these were all universally believed from early times.
It would be hard to argue that anything was not believed by at least *somebody *somewhere at one time or another as an opinion or speculation. They are mostly local/regional theologeumena that later were enshrined into de fide pronouncements and imposed upon everyone else, but do not satisfy the Vincentian canon.

I am afraid that this is another in a long series of your misrespentations and/or misapplications of the Vincentian canon.

Please: B->A does not validly follow immediately from A->B.

 

[Gregory_I]

*I would say a counterfeit dollar bill is a witness to the thought of the one who made it, so yes you are on to something there. *

But the point the Orthodox so artfully seem to dodge is that this thought was present in the early church and was subscribed to by significant numbers of the faithful, and the Popes understood themselves this way. I mean, one reason the Non-Chalcedonians condemn Pope St. Leo is that they say he assumed a Universal primacy that did not belong to him, but the Orthodox consider him a saint.

A little more complex though:
**
If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?**

For example, we see strong Papal figures Like Clement, Victor, Stephen, Leo, Gregory, etc. But we also see Quartodecimans, St. Cyprian, Much of Augustine, John of Antioch, etc. Who maintain eastern independence. So from the church’s founding, we see two ideas of ecclesiology that are held, not always in contradiction, but almost always in tension. We see almost a 1 : 1 ratio for the east asserting independence viz Roman Jurisdiction, from the earliest days!

So, do we simply accept a dual Tradition, Like Victor did, equally Orthodox on both parts. Is only one side correct? Why? There is plenty of tradition to be passed around, and often from the same source, to back up BOTH these positions. Or at least for either to be tenable.

SO to whom do we appeal to resolve this age old tension?

Cannot the Roman and Orthodox Church’s exist as two distinct entities that are one?

If Israel is a type of the Church, what do we Make of the “Israel” that was composed of two kingdoms of People that were equally Jews in both kingdoms? The post Solomonic Israel: We have the Ten tribes of Israel in the North forming “The House of Israel,” which was the majority, and we have the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and portions of Levi) in the South Forming “The House of Judah.” God does not discriminate the authenticity of either. Should we approach the Church this way? Can we not assert, one to the other, that God has raised up the Other for “Such a time as this?” Assuredly he had special Plans for Judah, but he gave particular blessings to all the tribes, and they were **all **his beloved children, even when they argued and disagreed amongst each other. They were all Israel.

I want with all my Heart to be Orthodox. I want with All my Heart to be Catholic. I want with all my heart to be faithful to the Full tradition of the Church, east and west.

But like I said, this particular issue seems to have roots reaching back to the Apostles…or at least the 2nd century.

What do we do? Really?

 

[Nine_Two]

But is it not an indication of the thought of those in the early vhurch? namely That the Pope has universal Jurisdiction?

Whether it is authoritative or not, it is a witness to the thought of those at the time or only a couple centuries later, is it not?

And if one person, or many went out of their way to contrive this, it was to Bolster a presupposition already had AT THE TIME, which proves the Notion was not unheard of in the early Church, and was subscribed to by numerous of the Oriental peoples.

Yes or no?

It indicates what someone thought at some point in the past, but again this isn’t news.

I wonder if it is contemporary with the Donation of Constantine?

 

[Nine_Two]

God’s never creates equality but hierarchy. Least to greatest. The Father is the head of the Son just as the husband is the head of the wife. In this way the Pope is the visible head of the Church. The Orthodox must abandon pride and accept their place in God’s creation.

So why doesn’t the Catholic Church insist on a caste system?

 

[Hesychios]

It indicates what someone thought at some point in the past, but again this isn’t news.

I wonder if it is contemporary with the Donation of Constantine?

Or the pseudo-Isadorean Decretals?

 

[JohnVIII]

…Use this as a model for unity!!

You quoted my signiture, which I change often, so your post that quotes it will change after I change it and then it will make no sense.

But, it reply to your post, I do not disagree with your model for unity. I ‘predict’ however that unity will not happen as you or I wish that it will. I wish to be on record that I said that Russian will submit to the authority of Rome and that they will do this even though the pope will not require it of them. It will be the synodal decision of Moscow to submit to the universal jurisdiction claimed by Rome. Not what I wish to happen, just saying that that is the way it will happen.

The universal jurisdiction of Rome did develop in the church, alot further than many Orthodox are willing to admit. I believe this development was a mistake. I DO believe in the Keys of St Peter to the Bishops of Rome, but those Keys don’t come with universal jurisdiction. There still must be ‘concord’, not ‘submission’ by other churches for outward unity to happen the way it was intended by the Apostles. Proving that Rome did enjoy a degree of jurisdiction over other churches in earlier times does not mean that we should return to that failed system upon re-union of East & West. And I’m not ‘predicting’ that all Orthodox Churches will ‘submit’ as Moscow will. The pope will surely be very open to union without submission to all the Orthodox and I’m sure that many will unite retaining there self-rule. Just put me down on record that Moscow will choose to unite in a submission form to Rome by their own choosing.

 

[Hesychios]

Just put me down on record that Moscow will choose to unite in a submission form to Rome by their own choosing.

You have posted this opinion before, a number of times, so I know you really believe it.

I didn’t agree with it then, and I don’t now, nevertheless I respect your right to form your own opinion. Let’s agree to meet and talk about it five years from now, should God bless us with so much time in this life.

May God grant you many years.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Oh man, seriously that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen on this forum in a while!!!

A little melodramatic don’t you think?

Perhaps, though not intentionally. However, If you can show where my error is I will gladly recant. God’s creation is always hierarchical. The Church is no different. Even in heaven their will be the least and the greatest. By clamouring for some kind of modernist idea of equality you are at odds with everything God has revealed about himself to us.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps, though not intentionally. However, If you can show where my error is I will gladly recant. God’s creation is always hierarchical. The Church is no different. Even in heaven their will be the least and the greatest. By clamouring for some kind of modernist idea of equality you are at odds with everything God has revealed about himself to us.

So answer my question. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church advocate for a caste system?

 

[JDZwiers19]

So why doesn’t the Catholic Church insist on a caste system?

It does in a way. Everyone has their place in God’s plan. We are called to accept our place in Gods plan with humility. We are supposed to reach our potential but also recognise our limitations. I don’t mean to be overly dramatic but the idea of a first among equals is contrary to God’s mind.

 

[Gregory_I]

If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?

 

[Nine_Two]

It does in a way. Everyone has their place in God’s plan. We are called to accept our place in Gods plan with humility. We are supposed to reach our potential but also recognise our limitations. I don’t mean to be overly dramatic but the idea of a first among equals is contrary to God’s mind.

No, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

 

[Nine_Two]

If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?

Apparently you just make stuff up and say it existed from the onset of the Apostolic age.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Apparently you just make stuff up and say it existed from the onset of the Apostolic age.

Can you honestly read the Bible and come to the conclusion that Peter’s office of primacy was honorary? Because it was an office as scripture clearly teaches. Can you really believe that God intended for something that pointless in his design? We can sit here and throw proof texts around until Hell freezes over but I have no illusions about that solving anything. The reason I am not and Orthodox Christian is by reason alone. The Universe has no equality within it except in the imaginations of some men.

As my seperated brother I hope can see this one day.