The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

[Gregory_I]

…

"The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High. "

That should be enough Maximus to get the point across. Next:

Pope St. Gregory I:

The commonly-heard polemic of Gregory the Great allegedly eschewing the universal jurisdiction of the papacy is easily disposed of. One must examine context and the rest of the author’s works and actions, if possible (just as with biblical exegesis). When that is done in this particular instance, Gregory’s meaning becomes quite clear, and alas, it is not what the anti-Catholic endeavor would have hoped.

Gregory the Great condemned the title universal bishop in the sense of meaning that all other bishops are not really bishops, but mere agents of the one Bishop, a concept that is blatantly contrary to Catholic teaching, which holds that all bishops are by divine institution true successors of the Apostles. For he states:

  "For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

  {Epistle LXVIII}

Elsewhere, in the very same correspondence in which he condemns this term in the sense above, Gregory clearly upholds the universal authority and supremacy of the Roman bishop:

  "Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, **he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod**; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness."

“To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him . . . Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But . . . John would be called universal Bishop . . . [Popes had never assumed this title, though it had been given them], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.”

{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice, emphasis added}

Pope St. Leo I:

In a letter of about 446 to a successor Bishop of Thessalonica, Anastasius, Leo reproached him for the way he had treated one of the metropolitan bishops subject to him; after giving various instructions about the functions entrusted to Anastasius and stressing that certain powers were reserved to the Pope himself, Leo wrote: “The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.” newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm Letter XIV] ]

 

[Nine_Two]

You do realize that part of being “forgeries” is that they were written at a much later date than claimed.

An Arabic list of canons could not date before the 7th century, and you have given no reason to believe they existed before the 21st century. The Donation of Constantine dates from the later 8th century. The Pseudo-Isidore from much later, in the middle ages.

These do not show anything regarding what the early Church thought, they show only what Medieval frauds thought.

 

[Nine_Two]

By the way, Gregory, I notice you didn’t comment on the Orthodox doctrine that all are sinners, as compared to what you say is Catholic belief. Really if we have a deal-breaker like that, this whole thread is spurious since we can’t unite with those doctrinal divisions.

 

[Gregory_I]

9_2 first I wanna apologize, because I realize I may have been rude. Well, I mean I was. Sorry. This is not an inverse ad hominem BTW.

I admit not knowing alot about the pseudo isidorians, I thought they were early Middle ages, like 7th or 8th century.

But don’t you think that even a single document, even if spurious represents the beliefs of thousands?

I missed what you are talking about all being sinners? Obviously that is true.

I am not trying to really have my cake and eat it too, I really just want to hold My Roman brothers to a higher standard of apologetics, because I beliefe they scatter shot more often than not, and My Orthodox friends, I would like to see them acknowledge and take more seriously the implications of legitimate documents, like those given.

Perhaps if I plagiarize a really lively 5 part debate between a good Orthodox and a Good Catholic, lotsa documentation and compelling info from both sides. I am not gonna make you “see the light.” But maybe you might see the basis of my paradigm.

A few more examples: Pope Julius:

The Eusebians believed that since Rome reserved the right to depose Novation without the East the East should have the freedom to depose Athanasius without interference from the West. Julius responded to them in a letter which was preserved by Athanasius:

“It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this… O beloved!..For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus…And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, **first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? **If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you.” [Apol., 35. PG 25: 305-8]

The historian Sozomen wrote of Pope Julius:

The bishop of Rome, having examined the case of each one, and finding them all of one mind about the dogma of the Council of Nicea, received them into communion as being of the same faith [as himself]. And because **he had the care of all, owing to the dignity of his see, he restored each one to his church… **[HE III, 8]

Sozomen records that Julius criticized the Eusebians for failing to convoke him to the council at Antioch:
“…because it is a law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid.” [HE III, 10]

The historian Socrates said something along the same line as Sozomen:

Each one explained his case to Julius, bishop of Rome, and he, by virtue of the prerogative of the church of Rome, strengthened them with very firm letters and sent them back into the East, restoring to them their sees and reprimanding those who had temerariously deposed them. [HE II, 15]

Both Socrates and Sozomen’s testimony makes it clear that the Pope was acting across Jurisdictional lines.

Next…

 

[Gregory_I]

I will not quote Sardica, I know it doesn’t prove much other than an appelate jurisdiction which the Orthodox do not dispute.

One section is interesting though:

Canons 3-5 of Sardica deal with appeals made to the Bishop or Rome.

The canons of Sardica were included in collections of the Latin, Syriac, Armenian and Greek churches.

The council wrote to Pope Julius:
"… most beloved brother, although you were separated in the body, you were present by a like mind and will…For this will seem best and most exceedingly fitting if the bishops of the Lord, from each of the different provinces, refer to the head [caput], that is, the see of Peter the apostle"…[Mansi 3: 40]

The contrast of “Bishops” to “head” indicates the Belief that the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Bishops.

Or the Vicariate of Thessalonica is interesting:

The Vicariate under Pope St. Leo saw an incident of the abuse of this authority and in a reprimand to vicar Anastatius Leo wrote:

… I have delegated the place of my authority so that, in imitation of my meekness, you might assist in the care we owe to all the churches principally and by divine institution, and in a sense extend the presence of our visitation to provinces far distant from us… For we have entrusted our place to Your Charity in such a way that you are called to a share in our solicitude, not the fullness of authority. [PL 54: 668-671]

The last phrase is significant. If all Bishops have the same Authority over their own territory, to what greater authority is Leo referring to to which his Vicariate might not partake? And not only authority, but the FULLNESS of Authority? In other words, Leo is saying,

“Hey, you DO represent me, but you only REPRESENT me. I have the papal authority in actuality. You are merely a symbol of it.”

Or we can listen to Theodoret of Cyrus :

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus was being deposed and had appealed to Rome saying:

“To you, indeed, it is fitting that the primacy belong in every respect… Your(See) has received from God an affluence of goods: it is the greatest and most illustrious, it presides over the universe, it is teeming with inhabitants…I have been condemned without having been judged. But I await the sentence of your apostolic see… I beg and urge your holiness, to whose just tribunal I appeal to help me… I implore you to tell me whether or not I must accept this unjust deposition, because I await your sentence.” [PG 83: 1313-16]

Theodoret had also contacted the priest Renatus, a legate of Pope Leo saying:

I implore your holiness to convince the most holy archbishop to use his apostolic authority to order me to come to his synod, because this most holy see has authority (hegemonia) over the churches throughout the world for several reasons… [PG 83: 1324]

Last one for now, the Lateran Council of 649: Lateran Council of 649:

Called by Pope Martin the opening of the acts call it:

… the holy and apostolic synod, which occurred in the most celebrated Old Rome, according to the sacred command and canonical procurement of the most holy and thrice blessed Pope Martin, who presided over the entire divine hierarchy under the sun, for the establishment and defense of the dogmas of the fathers and synods of the Catholic and apostolic church according to the gospel. [Mansi X, 863-64]

Stephon of Dora, bishop under St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, addresses the council:

And for this cause, we sometimes asked for… the wings of a dove… that we might fly away and announce these things to that Chair which rules and presides over all, that is to yours, the head and highest… For this it has been accustomed to do from of old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or spiritual authority, because the truly great Peter, leader of the apostles, clearly was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted with the keys of heaven, alone [and] apart from the rest… [Mansi X, 893]

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m just about to go to bed, so I can’t promise this post will make sense, but there are a few things I want to comment on, I probably won’t if I leave it, if I make an incoherent response, at least you can ask for clarification.

9_2 first I wanna apologize, because I realize I may have been rude. Well, I mean I was. Sorry. This is not an inverse ad hominem BTW.

Fair enough, that is easy enough to do when arguing ones deeply held convictions, let us then make an effort to have the most civil of conversations, on both sides (ie. me as well)

I admit not knowing alot about the pseudo isidorians, I thought they were early Middle ages, like 7th or 8th century.

The problem is that is still quite late, relatively speaking.

But don’t you think that even a single document, even if spurious represents the beliefs of thousands?

No, in those days it represented the beliefs of those wealthy enough to have them made.

Perhaps if I plagiarize a really lively 5 part debate between a good Orthodox and a Good Catholic, lotsa documentation and compelling info from both sides. I am not gonna make you “see the light.” But maybe you might see the basis of my paradigm.

In my experience no one ever changes there mind from an argument, it is thinking about it after. I do understand the appeal of the Catholic position, the decentralization of the Orthodox Church makes it slow as molasses, however this can also be its greatest strength.

A few more examples: Pope Julius:

The Eusebians believed that since Rome reserved the right to depose Novation without the East the East should have the freedom to depose Athanasius without interference from the West. Julius responded to them in a letter which was preserved by Athanasius:

“It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this… O beloved!..For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus…And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, **first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? **If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you.” [Apol., 35. PG 25: 305-8]

There is a very similar case in the modern Orthodox Church, the Bishops of Cyprus deposed their Archbishop, Mekarios in turn appealed to Constantinople. The case of Novatian is a bit different though, as he was only appointed Bishop of Rome by three other Bishops, the minimum to appoint a new bishop.

 

[Hesychios]

There is a very similar case in the modern Orthodox Church, the Bishops of Cyprus deposed their Archbishop, Mekarios in turn appealed to Constantinople. The case of Novatian is a bit different though, as he was only appointed Bishop of Rome by three other Bishops, the minimum to appoint a new bishop.

And another not too many years ago in the Jerusalem church.

These old cases where the bishop of Rome was involved seem to impress Catholics so much, as if they imply some kind of super-power inherent in the chair (I suppose because they find it so odd that a local church, in it’s own housekeeping, would consider removing it’s Metropolitan, perhaps they should try it). But really, Holy Orthodoxy will still do this.

It does not imply that the chair of the committee which rules on the matter has actual ordinary jurisdiction over the neighboring church, or even some sort of infallibility . It means that he was asked to come in as an impartial but respected fellow churchman and help the local church reach a fair decision, and nothing more. Holy Orthodoxy has continued this practice up to the present day and it doesn’t awe anyone now any more than it did then.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Can’t prove a negative.

That would be like someone looking for a quote saying the bishop of Brooklyn has no primacy.

In fact, normally there is primacy exercised at every level of the church, so there are primates for synods and regions, and every bishop with a suffragen is a primate over the suffragens. There are latin Patriarchs, and they have a form of primacy, and the Archbishop of Baltimore is the primate of the USA. Try to find a quote somewhere that says any of the people are not primates, you just won’t find them.

The question is not that there was primacy, that’s a given. The question is “what does that entail?”, and of course, the concept of primacy as it was in the early church seems to be lost on modern Roman rite Catholics, most of whom only think of the bishop of Rome as having a primacy, and so confuse that with the exagerrations of power which have accumulated on that particular office over time.

so, if you dont accept what the Fathers affirm, and you say you cant prove a negative, what is left for you is your opinion. therefore the CC, has the Truth because she can presents proves and witnesses from the Fathers.

 

[Hesychios]

so, if you dont accept what the Fathers affirm…

We don’t accept what western revisionists are trying to assert primacy actually means. We don’t accept what western revisionists are trying to assert the concensus of the Fathers of the church was.

In other words, we don’t accept your spin doctoring.

 

[Nicea325]

Ahh, I am biased because I am not Catholic, while you are not biased because you have seen the truth of the Pope. And because of this you must make up arguments I have not made in this thread.

Of course I am fully biased, I will admit this, mostly because I have spent considerable time in academic study looking at the concept and understand everyone is biased (if you wish to counter this point I expect academic sources saying people can be non-biased, I’ve yet to see one.) Of course this means you are also biased, so don’t pretend that you see the full truth and everyone else is somehow delusional.

I’m curious what my “modern notion of the papacy” is - since I cannot recall ever telling you how I conceive of the papacy, and I certainly haven’t done it in this thread. So please, tell me what I think the papacy is. Without bias, if you wouldn’t mind.

I am biased? Ah no! I simply repeating to you what history has recorded,not my words.Again, you are biased because you have been bought by the modern Orthodox position about the papacy,whether you care to admit it or not. I am here to tell you are wrong about the first 1,000 years,hence history is not on your side. And I too have spent years studying the early church…and? As I stated,if the pope had NO jurisdiction,how odd that numerous writings state otherwise. Can you explain that mystery of history? Or are they actual facts that happened and an accepted belief by the early church?

As for the modern Orthodox belief? Come on! Go back and read what you wrote.You believe the first 1,000 years of early Christianity did not hold to Catholic belief of the papacy and held more to the belief of Orthodox today:The pope was only an equal with a special honor.

Again,if the pope had no jurisdiction outside of Rome or the west,then would ANY eastern bishop even bother taking or mentioning matters to Rome to settle it? If he is an equal,I find it strange he had to settle matters for far-away distant provinces.

 

[Nicea325]

We don’t accept what western revisionists are trying to assert primacy actually means. We don’t accept what western revisionists are trying to assert the concensus of the Fathers of the church was.

In other words, we don’t accept your spin doctoring.

Spin doctroring? Revisionist? LOL Oh but you accept what eastern revisionists are trying to CLAIM about the papacy,even the face of what many wrote about the Bishop of Rome?

Facts of history can hurt-eh?

St. Maximus the Confessor, the great defender of the two wills of Christ, a resident of Constantinople, and an interpreter of Dionysius the Areopagite. He provides an example of the Byzantine doctrine of Rome’s universal jurisdiction before the polemical debates of the 9th century. The quote below is from about AD 650:

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now **presides over all the churches **which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

 

[Nicea325]

Again equal BEFORE Christ.

Again equal before Christ WHO received the keys from Him…directly.

You can post those 50 NT verses if you’d like, I’m sure some other Catholic poster has posted them thinking they showed that Peter was head over the apostles, rather than leader among the apostles.

 

[Harpazo]

And another not too many years ago in the Jerusalem church.

These old cases where the bishop of Rome was involved seem to impress Catholics so much, as if they imply some kind of super-power inherent in the chair (I suppose because they find it so odd that a local church, in it’s own housekeeping, would consider removing it’s Metropolitan, perhaps they should try it). But really, Holy Orthodoxy will still do this.

It does not imply that the chair of the committee which rules on the matter has actual ordinary jurisdiction over the neighboring church, or even some sort of infallibility . It means that he was asked to come in as an impartial but respected fellow churchman and help the local church reach a fair decision, and nothing more. Holy Orthodoxy has continued this practice up to the present day and it doesn’t awe anyone now any more than it did then.

I’m reminded of what the OCA did a few years ago in deposing its Metropolitan. The people and clergy reacted and their Synod acted accordingly. It did not take an appeal to Moscow, Bucharest, or Constantinople. They just took care of it, elected a new one and they are moving forward. It seems to work.

I cannot remember the specific term, but the Patriarch of Constantinople has a certain prerogative to settle disputes, but only when asked. I don’t know if His All Holiness Bartholomew has used it, however.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Hesychios]

I’m reminded of what the OCA did a few years ago in deposing its Metropolitan. The people and clergy reacted and their Synod acted accordingly. It did not take an appeal to Moscow, Bucharest, or Constantinople. They just took care of it, elected a new one and they are moving forward. It seems to work.

I cannot remember the specific term, but the Patriarch of Constantinople has a certain prerogative to settle disputes, but only when asked. I don’t know if His All Holiness Bartholomew has used it, however.

In Christ,
Andrew

In the case of the Jerusalem church, His All Holiness Bartholomew was asked to chair by the Jerusalem synod, and representatives of other Orthodox churches participated in a few sessions. On May 24 2005AD they agreed to no longer recognize the patriarch, and eventually the he vacated the office (although the State of Israel objected).

The synod ordered him back to the monastery and elected a new man.

 

[StevieD]

Fair enough.

It’s paradoxical–on so many issues the Orthodox are more uniform than Catholics

Catholics believe in the contents of the Catechism - all of it, if not then they are not Catholics (though many such people do claim to be, they are mistaken). This is uniformity.

 

[MormonHero]

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

“We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other.”

 

[Contarini]

Catholics believe in the contents of the Catechism - all of it, if not then they are not Catholics (though many such people do claim to be, they are mistaken). This is uniformity.

Yes, and it exists in your head, not in reality. I’m interested in what I will find if I walk into the local parish, not in what some guy on the Internet tells me is “real” Catholicism.

Furthermore, the Catechism allows for a lot more doctrinal diversity than is common among the Orthodox–and that’s before we get to liturgy.

I don’t think uniformity is necessarily a good thing–I just find it funny that Catholics keep accusing the Orthodox of being so diverse that one can’t tell what they believe, when if anything their fault is in the opposite direction.

Edwin

 

[StevieD]

Yes, and it exists in your head, not in reality. I’m interested in what I will find if I walk into the local parish, not in what some guy on the Internet tells me is “real” Catholicism.

I am 63 years old and have worshipped in hundreds of churches in several countries (including your own). I have never been surprised or disturbed. Uniformity exists, I can assure you.

 

[MormonHero]

Ratzinger’s proposal is undoubtedly a response to this 1895 Orthodox response to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on re-union:

XX. In vain, therefore, does the Bishop of Rome send us to the sources that we may seek diligently for what our forefathers believed and what the first period of Christianity delivered to us. In these sources we, the orthodox, find the old and divinely-transmitted doctrines, to which we carefully hold fast to the present time, and nowhere do we find the innovations which later times of empty mindedness brought forth in the West, and which the Papal Church having adopted retains till this very day. The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the first nine centuries of Christianity, and therefore the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’; [25] but the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error. ‘For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace which separates from God,’ as Gregory of Nazianzus also says.

 

[MormonHero]