The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael16 said:
1: What were the Roman prerogatives prior to Chalcedon canon 28?
Click to expand...
  1. Canon 3 from First Council of Constantinople:
“Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”
  1. Canon 36 of the Quinisext Council:
“Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.”
  1. The right to hear appeals, if invited, regarding disputes between clergy (Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council):
Canon 9:

“If any cleric has a case to bring against a cleric, let him not leave his own bishop and take himself off to the secular courts, but let him first air the problem before his own bishop, or at least, with the permission of the bishop himself, before those whom both parties are willing to see act as arbiters of their lawsuit. If anyone acts in a contrary fashion, let him be subject to canonical penalties. If a cleric has a case to bring either against his own or against another bishop, let him bring the case to the synod of the province. If a bishop or a cleric is in dispute with the metropolitan of the same province, let him engage either the exarch of the diocese or the see of imperial Constantinople, and let him bring his case before him.”

Canon 17:

“Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public regulations.”

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
When Chrysostom was deposed, by his fellow bishops, from Constantinople, who did he seek help from? The pope Innocent I
Click to expand...
Of course, and I assume you know this, Pope Innocent I was not the only bishop Chrysostom appealed to. He also appealed to Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquilea. Should we not take that into account?

There is a very well written, fair and balanced article by Very Rev John H Erickson, former Dean of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary here in the United States, on this subject being discussed. I would post it but I’m not sure you would look at it, which is funny because you are so adamant about people reading what you post.

ZP
Click to expand...
I’m not adamant about people reading my links. I might remind them. I give information, what anybody does with it is their business.
 
Ahh my friend, I suggest you spend time with more Eastern Catholics. Have you been to the http://byzcath.org/ forums? As one has noted on this forum, the schism is at “low” tide there and you will find discussions on Papal authority to be, how shall I put this, it so “Catholic” from your fellow Eastern Catholics.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
As will I:

https://www.svots.edu/content/chalcedon-canon-28-yesterday-and-today

ZP
Click to expand...
From that article

"the Church of the seven ecumenical councils, but they drew from the historical record very different conclusions. We still face the same problem today. Should more weight be given to Leo the Great’s legates at the Council of Chalcedon, who referred to him as universalis papa, or to Gregory the Great, who pointedly objected when Eulogius of Alexandria referred to him as universalis papa? Should we regard as particularly significant the fact that St. John Chrysostom appealed to Pope Innocent of Rome after his deposition from the see of Constantinople, or should we also take into account the fact that he appealed as well to Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquilea? In an interview given soon after the publication of Ut Unum Sint, Cardinal Cassidy of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gave a non-technical exposition of his understanding of the exercise of the Roman primacy in the early Church: “When one studies the first centuries to see what primacy was and how it was exercised, fundamentally it was to maintain communion.” Bishops nominated by their local churches would request communion with the bishop of Rome, “and when the bishop of Rome accepted that bishop into communion, all of the churches automatically accepted that bishop in communion.” …

BTW

The Church has 21 ecumenical councils, NOT just 7

AND

I have to ask,

Where’s the communion among all the Orthodox Churches in your system of govt, when In 2016, a Pan Orthodox council meeting, after 600+ yrs of existence, couldn’t take place because the Russians, the biggest Church (~60%+ of your numbers in one Church) boycotted the council meeting.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
BTW

The Church has 21 ecumenical councils, NOT just 7
Click to expand...
According to Rome. This is an interesting read:

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf
steve-b said:
what primacy was and how it was exercised, fundamentally it was to maintain communion.
Click to expand...
Again, it is supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church that is an issue with the Orthodox.
steve-b said:
Where’s the communion among all the Orthodox Churches in your system of govt, when In 2016, a Pan Orthodox council meeting, after 600+ yrs of existence, couldn’t take place because the Russians, the biggest Church (~60%+ of your numbers in one Church) boycotted the council meeting
Click to expand...
The Orthodox share the same faith. Break in Eucharistic communion has nothing to with dogma but purely political/jurisdictional.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
BTW

The Church has 21 ecumenical councils, NOT just 7
Click to expand...
According to Rome. This is an interesting read:

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf
Click to expand...
The Ravenna Doc was written in 2007 HERE

Your link was written in 2010

Excerpt from your link

Re:

THE RAVENNA DOCUMENT (All emphasis mine)​

“At Ravenna , the Orthodox theologians of the Joint Commission recognized for the first time the universal level of ecclesial communion beyond the local and regional levels. A month after the Ravenna meeting, Kasper said in an interview with Vatican Radio:The document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e. diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists; and at the universal level also there is conciliarity or synodality and a primate, [who is] according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop, the bishop of Rome:::. The next time we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium.”

SO

Fast forward to 2016. The Pan Orthodox meeting that didn’t happen, because the Russians boycotted the meeting.

AND

No Catholic representative was invited by the Orthodox, to that Orthodox conference. NONE. That’s NOT how the Catholic Church treats the Orthodox. All Orthodox Churches are invited to send representatives to an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Even though they aren’t allowed to participate they are invited.

The views in that link you gave, that I excerpted from, while nice ecumenical speak, had in effect no reality to it on the Orthodox side

So

the opening lines to the Ravenna Doc were in 2007

"JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH"

I hope you can NOW see WHY I don’t get excited arguing over ongoing dialogues. They are dialogues, NOT doctrine or dogma. When, key points that are agreed upon, in dialogue, aren’t observed when the opportunity avails itself, we know it’s just dialogue at the time that may or may not be followed in the future

[snip for space]
 
Last edited:
(continued)
steve-b said:
what primacy was and how it was exercised, fundamentally it was to maintain communion.
Click to expand...
40.png
ziapueblo:
Again, it is supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church that is an issue with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
steve-b said:
Again

Where’s the communion among all the Orthodox Churches in your system of govt, when In 2016, a Pan Orthodox council meeting, after 600+ yrs of existence, couldn’t take place because the Russians, the biggest Church (~60%+ of your numbers in one Church) boycotted the council meeting
Click to expand...
40.png
ziapueblo:
The Orthodox share the same faith. Break in Eucharistic communion has nothing to with dogma but purely political/jurisdictional.

ZP
Click to expand...
Does the following sound like a suggestion or a command

HERE

AND

Depending on one’s translation the actual English word might be dissension or factious etc in the following reading from Paul. The Greek word there is

Schism, αἱρετικὸν

AND IS

condemned in scripture, here Titus 3:10-11,

And

I’ll just say
People split from Peter but Peter can’t split from himself

SO

given the consequences for the sin of schism, One should avoid that sin of schism like the plague.
 
Last edited:
@ziapueblo,

We can agree that the Holy Father, as Bishop of Rome; has place of honor and the authority that’s implicit in that honor; as well as his being the Successor of Saint Peter is the Head of the college of bishops.

You’ve stated that the Orthodox have no problem with this and it reflects both the Ravenna and Chieti documents. Good.

The position of the Vatican in Unitatis Redintegratio is that the Eastern Churches are sui iuris sister Churches that are self governing according to their own discipline.

With these points in mind, do you think the Orthodox have any problems agreeing to them as a basis of restoring Communion?
 
Last edited:
@ziapueblo

I understand your point and I’m glad we have a good starting point with which to discuss.

What I’m trying to understand is how to harmonize Saint Cyprian’s two statements we’ve each quoted.

I’ve quoted: “ The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Saint Peter and the other bishops are heirs indirectly “ and “ The Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church “.

That in the Ravenna and Chieti documents, the Holy Father is recognized as the protos of the Patriarchs with primacy of honor.

I also remember you quoting that the Petrine Ministry is the maintenance of communion.

So, my question is: How do you harmonize all these points together?

From what I gather in reading the Ravenna and Chieti documents; the main issue that the Orthodox have in restoring communion would be hammering out what authority the Holy Father has in a restored Church.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
The position of the Vatican in Unitatis Redintegratio is that the Eastern Churches are sui iuris sister Churches that are self governing according to their own discipline.
Click to expand...
Just adding some history

At Vat II, 1964, Sister Churches appears once in that document Unitatis Redintegratio HERE

While that reference to “sister Churches” appears once in that document, it’s often misrepresented by all sorts of people

RE:

the term sister churches

AND

mother Church

Over time, there needed to be a further explanation in 2000. And because continuous misunderstandings took place, those terms needed further clarification, in 2013

As follows
  1. Re: sister Churches http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html. June 2000
  2. clarification https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/05/02/sister-churches-a-clarification/ May 2013
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
So, my question is: How do you harmonize all these points together?
Click to expand...
As the early Church did. The Pope of Rome being a sign of unity in the Church, one who “feeds his sheep . . .” All this can be done without supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Roman Catholic Vatican II ecclesiology, thanks to the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Bishops, is closer to the historical ecclesiology of the Church. The Bishops are the heads of their dioceses and are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Pope is the head of the Church in the setting of a Council. That’s much better than what Vatican I said.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
clarification https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/05/02/sister-churches-a-clarification/ May 2013
Click to expand...
@Michael16

I’ll stick with the late, great Fr Robert Taft of blessed memory on the subject of “Sister Churches”:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com...ges-between-orthodox-and-catholic-christians/ May 2013

ZP
Click to expand...
ziapueblo,

To your point,

I post this again to make point #3

From then Cardinal Ratzinger, June 9, 2000, he was prefect for the Doctrine of Faith, under Pope JPII and this doc was accepted by the pope.

Re:
  1. Pope is NOT 1st among equals
  2. The Pentarchy didn’t exist prior to the 5th century
***AND
  1. I will add this point to your point. As you can see, The Church of Rome is NOT considered by the Church as a sister Church but Mother Church*** And you can see, Ratzinger is making the point that no pope accepted the particular views listed, that the Orthodox had
"The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

The article I gave above, https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/05/02/sister-churches-a-clarification/ from 2013, validates that Rome is considered mother Church, NOT a sister Church, from then Card Ratzinger’s point in 2000.
 
Last edited:
The article I gave above:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com...ges-between-orthodox-and-catholic-christians/ May 2013

The good Cardinal Ratzinger can say what he likes. That’s the line I get all the time from you guys.

Here’s another classic line from you: “I see you haven’t read my link,” which I see you haven’t read mine either.

And I’ll end with another one of my favorites, “do with the link as you will. I’m just passing on information.”

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top