Under Rome?

[Soler]

You tell them that NO we are NOT under the pope we are in communion with him. As history bears out, we easterners can and have in some instances break that communion if we so choose. You could’nt do that if you were" under " the pope with the pope calling all the shots.

Breaking communion with the Pope—for any reason—is schism and as such is seriously sinful.

EDIT: This quote is from the First Vatican Council:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

(emphases added)

Seems that all of us are under the Pope to me.

 

[malphono]

**I think it is rather unfair to characterize Latin traditionalists as typically adhering to the “Absolutist Petrine View” .

How is it unfair? Unfortunately, it’s often the case.

The “High Petrine View” however, seems rather like heresy.

Well, if it’s “heresy” then the Church was in “heresy” for at least the first millennium.

Making the “Absolutist” view less extremist

And how does this differ in fact (not semantics) from the original?

Making the “High” view less egalitarian

Seems to me what this “middle ground” does is supplant the “High Petrine view” with the “Absolte Petrine view.” If it walks like a duck …

 

[Soler]

How is it unfair? Unfortunately, it’s often the case.

Well, maybe so, but I have never heard anything about the authority of other bishops being an “extension” of papal authority.

Well, if it’s “heresy” then the Church was in “heresy” for at least the first millennium.

No, because the dogma had not been defined at that point. Take the concept of Mary Mediatrix that some are pushing to be defined as dogma. Suppose that from A.D. 2500 to A.D. 3000, no-one will believe it, but in A.D. 3500, it will be defined as dogma. Would that mean the Church will have been in heresy for 500 years? Was Origen a heretic because his ideas were later condemned?

And how does this differ in fact (not semantics) from the original?

Semantics are important… Councils and Bishops do not derive their authority from the Pope.

Seems to me what this “middle ground” does is supplant the “High Petrine view” with the “Absolte Petrine view.” If it walks like a duck …

As I said, semantics are important.

 

[malphono]

Well, maybe so, but I have never heard anything about the authority of other bishops being an “extension” of papal authority.

Really? Well, I (and others) have. It’s all in the implication, particularly as expressed (usually very strongly and vocally) by certain parts of the Roman Church.

No, because the dogma had not been defined at that point.

I presume by “dogma” you mean “Infallibility” which was only defined in 1870. The issues of “primacy” and “infallibility” are related, yes, but they are not identical.

Take the concept of Mary Mediatrix that some are pushing to be defined as dogma. Suppose that from A.D. 2500 to A.D. 3000, no-one will believe it, but in A.D. 3500, it will be defined as dogma. Would that mean the Church will have been in heresy for 500 years?

What does this analogy have to do with anything?

Was Origen a heretic because his ideas were later condemned?

When his “ideas” were further analyzed they were, apparently, found to be less-than-orthodox. Is the implication here that the Church was wrong? Was Origen actually orthodox in his ideas?

Councils and Bishops do not derive their authority from the Pope.

Yes, I know.

As I said, semantics are important.

So the differences between the “rewrite” and the original of the “High Petrine” view are merely semantics? Oh, please. As I said earlier, what that “rewrite” does is simply supplant the “High Petrine” view with a variant of the “Absolute Petrine” view.

 

[Soler]

Really? Well, I (and others) have. It’s all in the implication, particularly as expressed (usually very strongly and vocally) by certain parts of the Roman Church.

Well, all right then, but it may be that you are picking up on implications which aren’t there.

I presume by “dogma” you mean “Infallibility” which was only defined in 1870. The issues of “primacy” and “infallibility” are related, yes, but they are not identical.

No, I mean this anathema (which is from the First Vatican Council, but is not defining infallibility):

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

(emphases added)

What does this analogy have to do with anything?

If the faithful of the Early Church did not adhere to the ideas expressed in the quote from Vatican I above, does that mean they were heretics? No, because the dogma had not been defined.

The Pope has always possessed universal jurisdiction over the Church, but until Vatican I, to reject this was mere schism. Now that this has been defined as dogma, to reject it constitutes heresy.

When his “ideas” were further analyzed they were, apparently, found to be less-than-orthodox. Is the implication here that the Church was wrong? Was Origen actually orthodox in his ideas?

What I mean is, one cannot be a heretic until one’s ideas are condemned. Origen died before his ideas were condemned. Therefore, his ideas, though false, were not heretical when he wrote them.

So the differences between the “rewrite” and the original of the “High Petrine” view are merely semantics? Oh, please. As I said earlier, what that “rewrite” does is simply supplant the “High Petrine” view with a variant of the “Absolute Petrine” view.

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that I consider the distinction between the “Absolute Petrine” view and my variant of it to be an important one.

 

[josethomas2005]

The Pope has always possessed universal jurisdiction over the Church, but until Vatican I, to reject this was mere schism. Now that this has been defined as dogma, to reject it constitutes heresy.

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that I consider the distinction between the “Absolute Petrine” view and my variant of it to be an important one.

The head of the Syro Malabar Catholic church said, " What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior."

What will you say about the above statement from a catholic church head?

 

[malphono]

Well, all right then, but it may be that you are picking up on implications which aren’t there.

Maybe but I doubt it. The rants are usually loud and clear enough.

No, I mean this anathema (which is from the First Vatican Council, but is not defining infallibility):

Yes, of course. That particular item has always amazed me. For 1800+ years, things were fine. And then Pius IX had to “defined” it that way? Even so, there is still some room for interpretation. As there is with the 1870 definition of “infallibility.”

If the faithful of the Early Church did not adhere to the ideas expressed in the quote from Vatican I above, does that mean they were heretics? No, because the dogma had not been defined.

Yes, I got that part. I still don’t see the relevance, though. Traditionally, a dogma was defined in order to (a) dispel rampant heterodox beliefs on a matter (as was the case at Nicea and Chalcedon), or (b) reaffirm a teaching (as was the case with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption). In the case of (a), though, the teaching of those who had taught the heterodox beliefs were condemned. In the case of (b), both were done more to give a “lift” to the spirits of the faithful than for any theological reason.

The Pope has always possessed universal jurisdiction over the Church, but until Vatican I, to reject this was mere schism. Now that this has been defined as dogma, to reject it constitutes heresy.

That is a matter of opinion and interpretation. It cannot be said that what was once considered holy has become heresy. For at least the first millennium, the “High Petrine” view was accepted and followed by the Universal Church. No Pope or Council can declare such a thing to be heresy.

What I mean is, one cannot be a heretic until one’s ideas are condemned. Origen died before his ideas were condemned. Therefore, his ideas, though false, were not heretical when he wrote them.

And he is not considered “St Origen” either.

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that I consider the distinction between the “Absolute Petrine” view and my variant of it to be an important one.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the difference between the “rewrite” and the original is that the “rewrite” supplants the original.

 

[Soler]

Yes, of course. That particular item has always amazed me. For 1800+ years, things were fine. And then Pius IX had to “defined” it that way? Even so, there is still some room for interpretation. As there is with the 1870 definition of “infallibility.”

I don’t know, but perhaps it would have been possible for the Pope to reduce the power of his office before this definition. Now, of course, he cannot.

Yes, I got that part. I still don’t see the relevance, though. Traditionally, a dogma was defined in order to (a) dispel rampant heterodox beliefs on a matter (as was the case at Nicea and Chalcedon), or (b) reaffirm a teaching (as was the case with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption). In the case of (a), though, the teaching of those who had taught the heterodox beliefs were condemned. In the case of (b), both were done more to give a “lift” to the spirits of the faithful than for any theological reason.

Or to copper-fasten the teaching so that it could not ever be denied in future, so as to protect it.

That is a matter of opinion and interpretation. It cannot be said that what was once considered holy has become heresy. For at least the first millennium, the “High Petrine” view was accepted and followed by the Universal Church. No Pope or Council can declare such a thing to be heresy.

The bolded part is also a matter of opinion and interpretation. Besides, even if it was accepted—and I don’t know if that is even a possibility—it was never an infallible teaching of the Church.

And he is not considered “St Origen” either.

In part because declaring him so could be scandalous.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the difference between the “rewrite” and the original is that the “rewrite” supplants the original.

I meant my modification of the “Absolute” view.

 

[malphono]

I don’t know, but perhaps it would have been possible for the Pope to reduce the power of his office before this definition. Now, of course, he cannot.

Oh, but he most certainly can.

Or to copper-fasten the teaching so that it could not ever be denied in future, so as to protect it.

That’s merely hypothetical. I don’t recall every hearing of that having been done. It’s tantamount to the “anticipation of heresy” which is just silly.

The bolded part is also a matter of opinion and interpretation. Besides, even if it was accepted—and I don’t know if that is even a possibility—it was never an infallible teaching of the Church.

Whether it was “defined” in the Roman legal sense is immaterial. It was fact, and ergo, it was accepted, By Tradition.

I meant my modification of the “Absolute” view.

Yes, I know. That’s what I responded to.

 

[Soler]

Oh, but he most certainly can.

No he can’t.

That’s merely hypothetical. I don’t recall every hearing of that having been done. It’s tantamount to the “anticipation of heresy” which is just silly.

How is that silly? Taking steps to protect the Church of the future is silly?

Whether it was “defined” in the Roman legal sense is immaterial. It was fact, and ergo, it was accepted, By Tradition.

I see your point, but it is based on the assumption that it **was **fact. The less prominent role of the Papacy during the early Church could just signify that the Popes of that time were more cautious.

From Eusebius, regarding the second-century dispute over when Easter was to be celebrated:

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
2. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

This implies that Pope Victor’s actions were thought to be very ill-considered, but not that he was thought to be overstepping his authority. The situation can be likened to that of a monarch who exercises his constitutional right to veto any law even though none of his predecessors have done this for 500 years—it’s bad form, but he’s within his rights.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I don’t know, but perhaps it would have been possible for the Pope to reduce the power of his office before this definition. Now, of course, he cannot.

The whole idea was that the Pope received this power directly from Christ. It (according to VI) has always been there, they just recognized it in 1870. Therefore, no, he couldn’t have reduced his power before 1870 (under the reasoning of VI).

Now why it would take 1870 years before the supreme authority in the Church was defined, well, that’s the $64,000 question.

 

[malphono]

No he can’t.

Another matter of opinion.

How is that silly? Taking steps to protect the Church of the future is silly?

It just strikes me as being absurd. There’d be no reason for it. But, as I said earlier, it’s merely hypothetical, and I’m not going to fret about it at this point.

I see your point, but it is based on the assumption that it **was **fact. The less prominent role of the Papacy during the early Church could just signify that the Popes of that time were more cautious. …

This implies that Pope Victor’s actions were thought to be very ill-considered, but not that he was thought to be overstepping his authority.

I don’t see it as implying anything of the sort. What I see could be implied, though, is that the bishops, particularly those in the West (including, as I recall, S Iraneus) who were critical of him, were reticent to voice their disagreement.

In any case, Victor, by virtue of his office as Bishop of Rome (and ex-officio Patriarch of the West, regardless of whether that title is currently in use or not) was free to call the Roman Synod and impose its decision within his own territory. In the end, he appears to have recanted his action of trying to impose it beyond his own territory, and like magic, within a century or so, the Roman custom of celebrating Easter was adopted by the “rebel provinces” and ultimately did, in fact, become universal. But it was by agreement and adoption, not because it was imposed from without.

The situation can be likened to that of a monarch who exercises his constitutional right to veto any law even though none of his predecessors have done this for 500 years—it’s bad form, but he’s within his rights.

No, not quite so. Taking that position, a Pope could, e.g., dissolve the Union of Brest. Something like that would shake the tenuous unity of the Church to its very foundations. A Pope would not be “within his rights” to do such a thing, any more than he would be “within his rights” to declare that the Missal of 1962 was no longer holy. Such acts would be in direct contradiction of Tradition.

 

[Hesychios]

This quote is from the First Vatican Council:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over

Yes, it does.

I am always amazed that people can interpret this statement in any other way. Nevertheless, some do (for reasons known only to themselves).

The Canons approved by Pope John Paul II (1990AD) for the Eastern churches simply reiterate what you have quoted above. (As far as I can tell, every Eastern Catholic church is bound to this code, was not asked to voluntarily adopt it and has never had an option to ignore it, although they may ask Rome to approve additional canons for their own Particular churches.)

What follows are some of the highlights …

Canon 43 CCEO

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45 CCEO

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 1008 CCEO

1. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods. 2. Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of temporal goods of the Church belongs to that juridic person which has lawfully acquired them.

 

[Seamus_L]

He is referred to as the Universal Pontiff in the Divine Liturgy.

 

[marlo]

i just showed you the political and historical background, that we are all Roman Catholics,
as its tied with identity.

I know that many in the East still think of themselves as Romans and that until modern times all the hellenic people of the middle east and Greece called themselves Romans.

The poster I quoted , though, was implying that the political reality of the Roman Empire still existed and had legal force. I have no problem with anyone calling themselves Roman at all, whether they mean Romanus or Rhomanos : )

 

[John_Lazarus]

I am sorry to tell you, but the Roman empire collapsed and ended in 1453 and no longer exists (whether one may want it to or not ).

Edit also that doesn’t really account for Assyrian Christians who lived beyond the borders of the Empire( I suppose unless you count the few odd decades that Rome controlled mesopotamia but that was far before citizenship became universal throughout the empire).

Or the Armenians.

 

[Formosus]

Or the Armenians.

Oh yes I forgot about them. Also while I am thinking of it, Ethiopians and the various Thomas Christians in India were beyond the Empire’s bounds.

EDIT* Also the Irish/Scots were as well.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I am a Maronite. Our tradition has a rather obscure history. The Maronites have claimed to be always in Communion with Rome while others say that we fell away to Monophysitism, while I take a middle position. But,the East has an extraordinary traiditon and patrimony which is indeed quite independent of Rome although my rite is recovering from heavy Latinization. I see it that the Pope of Rome is the last court of appeal in disputes on doctorine and discipline if it must go to him, but each rite can deal with its own problems. I have a view similar to Pope Gregory the Great who said something along the lines of," All are equal when it comes to humility, but when a problem arises I know not one church that is not subject to the Roman See". God Bless

 

[mark_a]

What does Rome actually say?

I don’t have any actual quotes for you, but my reading on the subject has led me to believe that Rome has some regrets about de-Easternizing some of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t have any actual quotes for you, but my reading on the subject has led me to believe that Rome has some regrets about de-Easternizing some of the Eastern Churches.

Thing is, Rome itself, and the Popes, really didn’t do that much Latinizing. Local pressures often did, as did unhappy local Roman bishops. (Many of whom generated the pressure mentioned.)