Universal Jursidiction

[benjohnson]

Speaking only for myself:

I’ve noticed that very intelligent Catholics have what seems a legal approach to some debates - they understand a framework of concrete ideas that allows for some ideas to have definite meaning in one context and a different meaning in a differing context. That by combining this framework and ideas they can come up with very clever ‘escapes’ to questioning, or conversely, by demanding precise definitions and adherence to those definitions (that are by they nature an approximation) can stymie those that can accept ambiguity especially when it comes to accepting God’s mysteries.

I prime example for us Lutherans is when we say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ because Jesus told us so.

When Catholic counter with definitions of various approximations, it drives us miserable Lutherans even more crazy when we’re forced to defend and counter approximations that we don’t even espouse.

This ‘legalistic’ (I’m sure there’s a better name for it) approach can come across a being abrasive to those of us that don’t share the same framework.

…

A second point… when we have debates, to declare for your opponent the predicates that you think they espouse is especially bad for debates about religions. Quite often it can be wrong, and comes across as being crass.

Those of us in the Western tradition should take care with our Eastern friends - even if we understand the words of what we think they profess, they very well may have a different meaning that we need to understand (or for me, admit that I don’t understand) before moving forward.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Speaking only for myself:

I’ve noticed that very intelligent Catholics have what seems a legal approach to some debates - they understand a framework of concrete ideas that allows for some ideas to have definite meaning in one context and a different meaning in a differing context. That by combining this framework and ideas they can come up with very clever ‘escapes’ to questioning, or conversely, by demanding precise definitions and adherence to those definitions (that are by they nature an approximation) can stymie those that can accept ambiguity especially when it comes to accepting God’s mysteries.

I prime example for us Lutherans is when we say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ because Jesus told us so.

When Catholic counter with definitions of various approximations, it drives us miserable Lutherans even more crazy when we’re forced to defend and counter approximations that we don’t even espouse.

This ‘legalistic’ (I’m sure there’s a better name for it) approach can come across a being abrasive to those of us that don’t share the same framework.

…

I think we sometimes misuse the term legalistic. Being legalistic is having a strict adherence to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Having definitions for spiritual things is not being legalistic.

Holding everything to Scripture alone, on the other hand, is legalistic. As you are holding all practices to the letter of the law. Ignoring traditions and other spiritual revelations.

Just my dos centavos

 

[benjohnson]

I think we sometimes misuse the term legalistic. Being legalistic is having a strict adherence to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

You’re most certainly correct - perhaps even viewing things in terms of frameworks is the root of the problem.

You’re quite correct - we Lutherans do love the letter of the Law as it condemns us all and drives us to the Gospel.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re most certainly correct - perhaps even viewing things in terms of frameworks is the root of the problem.

You’re quite correct - we Lutherans do love the letter of the Law as it condemns us all and drives us to the Gospel.

And to the Church

 

[Randy_Carson]

“I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.”

Is what you posted or the quote I just posted (or your post #368) an example of Christian Charity?

First, I changed my signature just this morning to reflect some thoughts I have been having about interactions with non-Catholics. I think you can see why.

That said, I stand by post #368 without reservation.

Second, I’m not 100% sure that my statement is incorrect. But see my signature for future reference.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I definitely don’t presume to speak for Cavaradossi, but you are approaching this from the premise that Papal claims are valid. We Orthodox reject the very idea of a special “Petrine Ministry” as it relates to Rome. Rome is special because the blood of St. Peter and Paul consecrated that ground (and a much lesser reason is that it was the imperial capital)…for Orthodox, that is enough…but Rome took it further.

What Canon Law says or doesn’t say is irrelevant because there is no special “Petrine Ministry” to argue about. For Orthodox, the very idea of the “Papal Office” is a Western Innovation. You dismiss the problem of the doctrine coming later as a relative matter but the Church Fathers did not view the Papacy the same way Pope Pius IX viewed it. This is no small thing. Your point in #5 hinges on the Latin interpretation…again, not an ironclad position.

I apologize if you feel my reply was intrusive, and I hope that Cavaradossi can give you a much heftier response than I have given.

Gee, I’m not sure the Church Fathers would have viewed the trinity or the dormition or the hypostatic union or the canon of scripture or…well, you get the idea…in EXACTLY the same manner as Pius IX. I guess it depends on which ECF’s and how far back you go.

However, development of doctrine is just as natural as the development of an oak tree from an acorn. The latter does not necessarily look like the former but they are one just the same.

 

[Fevronia]

I definitely don’t presume to speak for Cavaradossi, but you are approaching this from the premise that Papal claims are valid. We Orthodox reject the very idea of a special “Petrine Ministry” as it relates to Rome. Rome is special because the blood of St. Peter and Paul consecrated that ground (and a much lesser reason is that it was the imperial capital)…for Orthodox, that is enough…but Rome took it further.

What Canon Law says or doesn’t say is irrelevant because there is no special “Petrine Ministry” to argue about. For Orthodox, the very idea of the “Papal Office” is a Western Innovation. You dismiss the problem of the doctrine coming later as a relative matter but the Church Fathers did not view the Papacy the same way Pope Pius IX viewed it. This is no small thing. Your point in #5 hinges on the Latin interpretation…again, not an ironclad position.

I apologize if you feel my reply was intrusive, and I hope that Cavaradossi can give you a much heftier response than I have given.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying to Cavardossi.

My point is that when Rome was about to declare the Papacy, there has to be a basis for the Orthodox to reject it.

The usual ones I have heard, including on this thread are

1. It violated existing Canon law : That is irrelevant because Canon Law cannot put limits on defining Doctrine later
2. There is an absence of such a defined office: Obviously because it has not been defined yet
3. Examples X,Y,Z show cases where Rome did not seem to show any special power: Absence is not evidence that it does not exist. Absence =/= contradiction.

Then from the Catholic side, one can say the following to say there was an implicit office in operation

1C) Orthodox patriarchates fell in to heresy and Rome had to bail them out

2C) There are examples where Orthodox patriarchs had to appeal to Rome to settle their disputes

3C) There is no record where Rome had to appeal to the Orthodox to settle a matter of doctrine, Orthodox settles it and the entire Church accepted it

So it seems logical to conclude that Orthodox are in error (or at least guilty of being illogical) in rejecting the declaration. They simply do not have a logical basis from which to reject the declaration. This argument did not assume the Papal doctrine to be true. It only considered the logical reasoning for rejecting. Right now as it stands, it seems like Orthodox rejected the Papacy for an invalid reason.

Hopefully you or Cavardossi can clarify and show that is not the case. That is why I presented the argument to him and now to you.

 

[LionHeart777]

…None of these objections matter for two reasons. The first is that the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in its first canon orders that the sacred canons are to be followed in all matters, and the ancient epitome of this canon interprets this to mean the canons of the Holy Fathers, of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and of local councils, which implicitly includes Trullo (either as a local council or as the Fifth-Sixth Council). The second is that I supply Trullo not as an absolute authority, but as a notable example to demonstrate that the idea that nobody in the East thought Canon 28 of Chalcedon to be lawful is a wishful thinking, for the Council of Trullo clearly thought the canon to be of legal force, otherwise it would not have reaffirmed it…

I wanted to respond to this, sorry for the delay. This goes all the way back to this post of yours.

Regarding Trullo and Canon 1 of Nicaea II, I’ll quote the late Catholic historian and Bishop Hefele, from his known “History of the Councils”

“That, however, the Pope [Hadrian I]
would not approve of all the Trullan canons, we read in his
words quoted above : He approved those ‘quae jure ac divinitus
promulgate sunt.’ Hadrian I. seems here to have done as
subsequently Martin V. and Eugenius IV. did in the confirma-
tion of the decrees of Constance and Basle. They selected
such expressions as did not expressly embrace the confirmation
of all the canons, but — properly explained — excluded a certain
number of the decrees in question from the papal ratification
(see vol. i. pp. 51, 60).

That the seventh (Ecumenical Synod at Nicsea ascribed
the Trullan canons to the sixth (Ecumenical Synod, and spoke
of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it
was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pro-
nounced the recognition of the canons in question in their
own first canon ; but their canons have never received the
ratification of the holy see. 1 “

Source: archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft_djvu.txt (Emphasis mine.)

For a better view of the text in question, see here:

archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/242/mode/1up/search/Trullan (note: I also used this to correct the Latin text & numbers in the above text)

So, while canon 28 of Chalcedon II was not forgotten among some Byzantines, and they would keep pushing for Constantinople to be raised in the ranking as the Trullan canon 36 shows, it remains, as Bonocore said, that: “…for the next 6 centuries [after Chalcedon II], all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s ‘line item veto’. This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.” If you want to prove Bonocore is engaging in wishful thinking here, you are going to have to show that his ancient sources aren’t saying what he says they are saying.

(Source: catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Articles/CouncilOfChalcedonAndThePapacy.aspx)

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Pope Hadrian himself had written a letter (to Constantine and Irene I believe) which has been included in the acts of Nicaea II where he states that the Roman Primacy is by Divine Right. I will quote it in its entirety as found in session II of the acts of Nicaea II:

“If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the** head of all Churches**, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.”

Source: From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14.” Via newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm (emphasis mine)

Now, a Greek translation of this with alterations of the text was actually read at the Council (see same link). Also, part of the Latin original which mentioned Patriarch Tarasius was not read and this by the approval of the Papal Legates. Hefele gives info about this, some of which I’ll cite here:

“Pope Hadrian, on October 27, 785, answered the two [Byzantine] rulers in a very extensive Latin letter. A Greek translation of this was read in the second session of the Nicene Council, and is still extant. But in this reading…with the consent of the legate, they cut off nearly the last quarter, because in it…Tarasius was blamed by the Pope, and this might have been abused by opponents and those of the Council so as to do an injury to the good cause itself. When Anastasius, on undertaking the translation of the Acts of Nicaea, remarked this, he inserted in his collection the Latin original of the letter of Hadrian, which he naturally found in Rome, and we see from this that, in other places also, the Greek translation contains arbitrary alterations. In the collections of the Councils, it is found side by side with the original Latin text communicated by Anastasius; 3 in the same way as elsewhere, there the translation of Anastasius is given along with the original Greek text.” (“History of the Councils”, pg. 349)

Source: archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/348/mode/2up

There is a citation, in the work from Scott I have been citing often in this thread, of Patriarch Tarasius, who wrote in a letter to Pope Hadrian:

“Your Holiness has inherited the see of the divine Apostle Peter. Wherefore lawfully and by the Will of God, You preside over all the hierarchy of the Church.”

“The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 299.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Back to Hefele’s work again; he tells of Pope Hadrian’s letter to the Emperor and Empress and expresses concern over the term ‘universalis patriarcha’ which was used in the letter the emperor sent to pope Hadrian requesting confirmation of the Patriarch Tarasius (pg. 352.) Pope Hadrian wrote that (quoting Hefele not Pope Hadrian, but I believe Hefele is paraphrasing Hadrian), “…the Emperors should no longer use this expression, for it was in opposition to the traditions of the Fathers, and if it should be meant by this, that this universalis stood even above the Roman Church, then would he be a rebel against the sacred Synods an an evident heretic. If he were universalis, then he must necessarily also possess the primacy which was left by Christ to Peter, and by him to the Roman Church. If any one should call Tarasius an universalis patriarcha in this sense, which, however, he did not believe, he would be a heretic and a rebel against the Roman Church.” (Pgs. 352-353)

Source: archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/352/mode/2up (emphasis mine.)

 

[Fevronia]

Here is another question to **Cavaradossi **& Misplaced_Book

We know that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not an infallible office. We know that he did take the side of the Iconoclasts as an example. Orthodox themselves do not confer infallibility on any of the individual Patriarchs.

So what would be the basis to condemn the Papal doctrine? If it is uttered by any of the Patriarchs, would it not just be a fallible judgement? Why should any Orthodox believer assent to a fallible belief put forth by their Patriarch knowing full well that they have been wrong before in cases like the Iconoclasm? How can they do so knowing fully well that Rome had to bail them out when they were in heresy?

Like it seems to me that at least the Orthodox must accept the claim that they have no certainty that the declaration of the Papal office is in error. It seems logically impossible for the Orthodox to say otherwise.

So can either on of you two present a case for the Orthodox condemnation of the Papacy? It would be appreciated if you can lay it out as a deductive argument so that all the premises are transparent and we can engage in a logical discussion.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11209950:

Rather tragic given an apparent inability to provide clear demonstrations of any alleged “discourteous

” remarks throughout these exchanges? As your personal claims remain unable to be conclusively substantiated with any explicit statements regarding the specific canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs, this would evidently indicate a tacit concession [of failure] from your end? Notwithstanding the disappointing conclusion to our interactions, your attempted efforts and time expenditure are still sincerely appreciated Cavaradossi. Perhaps there are less exasperated posters from the Orthodox Faith who can offer irrefutably conclusive answers to these honest questions?
“irrefutably conclusive answers?” What evidence would you accept? Cavaradossi provided a wealth of information. Your posts have a hint of passive-aggressiveness that is off putting, which you couch in academic language. “your attempted efforts” is one example of this: Attempted? How about just effort? He/She put in a lot of time to answer you, and while you claim that the effort is “appreciated” it is followed by your closing statement which is a backhanded swipe at Cavaradossi.

Like Cavaradossi, most perplexed how your reply also mistakenly perceives some baseless “hint of passive-aggressiveness that is off putting…” from valid inquiry? Seems erroneously ascribing such negative intent would not be very conducive for prospective evangelization? If this is the general reception awaiting those dispassionately and exhaustively pondering Orthodox Christianity (or any other religious denomination), why bother?

Again, I ask…What evidence would you accept? Obviously you doubt the solidity of Cavaradossi’s sources…perhaps there is no “Magic Bullet” argument or Primary Source out there. I have been lurking on this thread for a long time, and I think many people can draw their own conclusions.

Seems your response indicates a cursory examination of these exchanges, e.g., where was the authenticity of the primary sources ever disputed? Possibly it may be Cavardossi’s subjective interpretations (derived from deductive inference) which have been reasonably called into question?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

If you will notice, I already protested his rudeness twice before. Since he left it a third time unamended, without even ever affirming to the contrary that he intended to be civil, I have nothing left to say to him. This remark itself is quite uncivil, and if you too will treat me uncivilly, I suppose that I shall have nothing remaining to say to you either.

Is civility and discourtesy not very much in the eye of the beholder? Seems if one possessed such credible certainty on matters of their faith, taking personal offense over some perceived slight [via another’s form of written expression] may not be putting their best foot forward?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Gee, I’m not sure the Church Fathers would have viewed the trinity or the dormition or the hypostatic union or the canon of scripture or…well, you get the idea…in EXACTLY the same manner as Pius IX. I guess it depends on which ECF’s and how far back you go.

However, development of doctrine is just as natural as the development of an oak tree from an acorn. The latter does not necessarily look like the former but they are one just the same.

It is one thing to delve deeper into things which have been revealed and shared in the Faith…it is something else to have one See venture beyond its traditional role and assume a power for itself that was unknown to the Church at large, and undercut its Brother Sees and Bishops.

Universal Jurisdiction as formulated in the Middle Ages and Post Schism is utterly alien to the Church Catholic in the first Millenium. To Orthodox, it is an innovation, and an ecumenical deal breaker in any dialogue and circumstance.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Like Cavaradossi, most perplexed how your reply also mistakenly perceives some baseless “hint of passive-aggressiveness that is off putting…” from valid inquiry? Seems erroneously ascribing such negative intent would not be very conducive for prospective evangelization? If this is the general reception awaiting those dispassionately and exhaustively pondering Orthodox Christianity (or any other religious denomination), why bother?

Seems your response indicates a cursory examination of these exchanges, e.g., where was the authenticity of the primary sources ever disputed? Possibly it may be Cavardossi’s subjective interpretations (derived from deductive inference) which have been reasonably called into question?

And one could say “I know you are but what am I?” to your responses…your points are also “subjective” in that you defend your own Point of View.

My general point is that there is no “Magic Bullet” argument…no “irrefutable evidence” for one side or the other. I myself am a convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism…I found the Orthodox argument more convincing and compelling. Again, you could say that is “subjective”…but what evidence would meet your criteria?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Here is another question to **Cavaradossi **& Misplaced_Book

We know that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not an infallible office. We know that he did take the side of the Iconoclasts as an example. Orthodox themselves do not confer infallibility on any of the individual Patriarchs.

So what would be the basis to condemn the Papal doctrine? If it is uttered by any of the Patriarchs, would it not just be a fallible judgement? Why should any Orthodox believer assent to a fallible belief put forth by their Patriarch knowing full well that they have been wrong before in cases like the Iconoclasm? How can they do so knowing fully well that Rome had to bail them out when they were in heresy?

Like it seems to me that at least the Orthodox must accept the claim that they have no certainty that the declaration of the Papal office is in error. It seems logically impossible for the Orthodox to say otherwise.

So can either on of you two present a case for the Orthodox condemnation of the Papacy? It would be appreciated if you can lay it out as a deductive argument so that all the premises are transparent and we can engage in a logical discussion.

You concede that Universal Jurisdiction was not found in the First Millenium, but believe it to be irrelevant…this right here is the sticking point. Orthodox cannot and will not dismiss the Apostolic Tradition…Universal Jurisdiction was foreign to the first Millenium Church. Some Latin Apologists will concede this point, but argue that it was a necessary innovation to protect the Church and guide it because the Collegial model became “unworkable” going into the second Millenium. We obviously do not believe this.

I would counter with another question: What basis do you accept Papal Doctrine?

 

[Novocastrian]

Is civility and discourtesy not very much in the eye of the beholder? Seems if one possessed such credible certainty on matters of their faith, taking personal offense over some perceived slight [via another’s form of written expression] may not be putting their best foot forward?

Ok, I don’t believe you’re doing it on purpose, but now you are being rude. When someone feels like you’ve spoken to them harshly, even if you feel that you haven’t, the correct response is to say, "Gee, sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. I’ll do my best to make this a friendly discussion. " It’s downright uncharitable to respond by suggesting that his reaction betrays some kind of weak conviction or personal faith.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11212110:

Like Cavaradossi, most perplexed how your reply also mistakenly perceives some baseless “hint of passive-aggressiveness that is off putting…” from valid inquiry? Seems erroneously ascribing such negative intent would not be very conducive for prospective evangelization? If this is the general reception awaiting those dispassionately and exhaustively pondering Orthodox Christianity (or any other religious denomination), why bother?

And one could say “I know you are but what am I?” to your responses…your points are also “subjective” in that you defend your own Point of View.

Odd that . . . wasn’t aware faithfully abiding by the established norms and conventions of critical reasoning was now deemed a “subjective” event? If one were to hypothetically adopt this line of reasoning, would not the professional contestants adhering to the rules of their particular sport be considered “subjective” also?

SanctusPeccator;11212110:

Seems your response indicates a cursory examination of these exchanges, e.g., where was the authenticity of the primary sources ever disputed? Possibly it may be Cavardossi’s subjective interpretations (derived from deductive inference) which have been reasonably called into question?

My general point is that there is no “Magic Bullet” argument…no “irrefutable evidence” for one side or the other. I myself am a convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism…I found the Orthodox argument more convincing and compelling. Again, you could say that is “subjective”…but what evidence would meet your criteria?

As has been amply demonstrated [with Cavardossi], any personal claims can only be universally accepted if they are conclusively substantiated by an objectively verifiable body of evidence, e.g., categorical statements unequivocally presenting the precise meaning in a theological point of contention. Looks hardly unreasonable given legal advocates regularly present their cases along similar procedures in a court of law?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Odd that . . . wasn’t aware faithfully abiding by the established norms and conventions of critical reasoning was now deemed a “subjective” event? If one were to hypothetically adopt this line of reasoning, would not the professional contestants adhering to the rules of their particular sport be considered “subjective” also?

As has been amply demonstrated [with Cavardossi], any personal claims can only be universally accepted if they are conclusively substantiated by an objectively verifiable body of evidence, e.g., categorical statements unequivocally presenting the precise meaning in a theological point of contention. Looks hardly unreasonable given legal advocates regularly present their cases along similar procedures in a court of law?

What evidence would convince you?

Secondly: Do you honestly think the East approaches the Faith this way?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11212148:

Is civility and discourtesy not very much in the eye of the beholder? Seems if one possessed such credible certainty on matters of their faith, taking personal offense over some perceived slight [via another’s form of written expression] may not be putting their best foot forward?

Ok, I don’t believe you’re doing it on purpose, but now you are being rude. When someone feels like you’ve spoken to them harshly, even if you feel that you haven’t, the correct response is to say, "Gee, sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. I’ll do my best to make this a friendly discussion. " It’s downright uncharitable to respond by suggesting that his reaction betrays some kind of weak conviction or personal faith.

Appears this would be valid only if one were to unintentionally read their own presuppositions into another’s unbiased remarks? So, why would one unnecessarily apologize when they are not at fault then?