What's Your Authority?

[LionHeart777]

Per Crucem,

I have dug up those two books from my basement to take a fresh look as I didn’t feel comfortable giving a synopsis (nor do I). I will look for some info over the days to maybe give you a different perspective. For now I’ll point you to Cardinal Hergenröther’s (I think he wrote against “Janus” and is a contemporary of the First Vatican Council) citation in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article “The Pope”:

“‘The Pope…is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges…He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to ‘feed’ — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations’ (‘Cath. Church and Christian State’, tr., I, 197).”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 4 Mar. 2015 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

 

[Abu]

Per Crucem #571
Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Pope disagrees with the Council?

Show where Christ give anyone else, individual or group, the supreme powers which he specifically gave to St Peter and his successors in the papacy clearly teaching with the unrivalled institutional foundation of “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18).

With all it’s genuine powers of discussion and recommendation no Ecumenical Council with its supreme and full power has been authorized by Christ to teach anything apart from the Head Christ mandated – the Pope.

Show where any other group is even equal to Christ’s Church which is specifically sanctioned as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16), with that specific teaching authority from Christ.

#601
Can you name or cite an official magisterial source that points to those things which the Pope can not change?

As neither dogma nor doctrine can be changed to something else, or cancelled, there is no dogma nor doctrine which you can show has been so treated. Your continued attempts to deny Christ’s specific authority in teaching Truth, which He gave to His Church in His Chief Vicars through St Peter, indicates an abject failure to face reality.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I agree that “A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops.” We can both agree that the latrocinium in the 5th century preceding the Council of Chalcedon is not binding.

Sorry for the slow response, Lion. I don’t ever post at night.

Yes, we can both agree.

But who, according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology determines what is, “the witness of Tradition lived out in the lives of the saints”?

No one determines it, per se. It is Holy Tradition. You’re asking a question of certainty, I believe, and that simply isn’t something that’s part of Eastern thought (which, believe me, is frustrating for me as a rational westerner, but it is what it is). Incidentally, the Eastern Catholics will tell you the same thing, without reference to the epistemological certainty of the Latin magisterium. However, Holy Tradition judges our determinations; our judgments don’t determine Holy Tradition.

I think part of my point in asking “What happens if, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, a future (hypothetical) Ecumenical Council were to overturn Nicaea II and condemn iconophiles?”, is that you know that is something that is foreign to Orthodox ears. So why can’t you accept that such a though of a hypothetical Bishop of Rome overturning what St. John Paul II said is equally foreign to Catholic ears? Similarly, the question you asked above seems strange: “Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Pope disagrees with the Council?”

I have no doubt that the ordination of women will never happen in the Latin church. I don’t think the hypothetical is even possible BUT it could happen. There would be no mechanism preventing it. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said “By my authority, etc. women can be ordained,” there is nothing the laity or bishops could do to stop it. According to Vatican I his pronouncements are binding and irreformable.

I could say the same thing you did: “A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops.” Or, not every council that fancies itself ecumenical, is. True, the Catholic Church rejected Gallicanism/Conciliarism.

To its benefit and detriment. The conciliarists had their own agendas, for sure and much of their thought led to the Reformation. However, ultramontanism was no improvement. And still opposed to Holy Tradition.

Again, from what I have read of Bishops Gasser and Von Ketteler (who were at Vatican I), your understanding of what “Pastor Aeternus” teaches and theirs is not the same. There are some things you are missing, from what I have read. Those two books I recommended to you, I have read. Do you believe this is a possibility (that you may not have a complete understanding of what was being taught?)

Sure, I am as fallible as the next guy and there’s a benefit to continuing open speculation; especially in areas that involve a transcendant Triune deity.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I missed my window for the edit on my subsequent response but:

Just as, from my understanding of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, a hypothetical council that is claimed to be ecumenical but is not received by the Orthodox faithful as a whole spread throughout the earth, would not be considered ecumenical as it was not received by “the whole Church”, likewise, a hypothetical council that called itself ecumenical that reached a decision and enforced it, when the Pope disagreed with the council would not be deemed ecumenical by the Catholic Church.

I wouldn’t call that description accurate. In fact, it’s a pretty common misunderstanding even among Orthodox laity. What made a council ecumenical was that it was called by the emperor. Ecumenical never meant “the whole church,” it meant “the whole known world” as opposed to the barbarian lands. Since there is no more Roman empire, there will never be another ecumenical council. Any synod of bishops that meets is a council. True, though, that the councils that involve all of the bishops generally discuss weightier matters. Depending on the issue, if a particular Patriarch disagreed with the decisions of the council, it could hamper communal relations (such as when Rome broke communion with the Church of Antioch over the decision involving St. Meletius’ appointment as bishop).

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem,

I have dug up those two books from my basement to take a fresh look as I didn’t feel comfortable giving a synopsis (nor do I). I will look for some info over the days to maybe give you a different perspective. For now I’ll point you to Cardinal Hergenröther’s (I think he wrote against “Janus” and is a contemporary of the First Vatican Council) citation in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article “The Pope”:

“‘The Pope…is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges…He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to ‘feed’ — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations’ (‘Cath. Church and Christian State’, tr., I, 197).”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 4 Mar. 2015 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

It may be an accurate sentiment, Lion; the fact remains though, is that we are discussing canonical law. On this matter, that is, the ex cathedra decisions of the Pope…or even the regular normative decisions of the papacy…are not bound by any law save its own. Is there anything, outside of tradition, custom and antiquity, that binds what a Pope can and cannot decide?

 

[LionHeart777]

I wouldn’t call that description accurate. In fact, it’s a pretty common misunderstanding even among Orthodox laity. What made a council ecumenical was that it was called by the emperor. Ecumenical never meant “the whole church,” it meant “the whole known world” as opposed to the barbarian lands. Since there is no more Roman empire, there will never be another ecumenical council. Any synod of bishops that meets is a council. True, though, that the councils that involve all of the bishops generally discuss weightier matters. Depending on the issue, if a particular Patriarch disagreed with the decisions of the council, it could hamper communal relations (such as when Rome broke communion with the Church of Antioch over the decision involving St. Meletius’ appointment as bishop).

Per Crucem,

I’m short of time, but I wanted to ask because I think we are “arguing” (for lack of a better word) semantics over the term “Ecumenical”. If memory serves, the term “General Council” is an equivalent term in Catholic terminology. Could there be another council, according to the Eastern Orthodox view, that is of equal authority to an Ecumenical Council?

Also, (when I was using the phrase “accepted by the whole Church”, I was looking for an answer according to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of a reception of a council. I didn’t literally mean every individual Bishop or layman. We both agree that the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Church even though it is rejected by non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. It is just a phrase that I have heard from Eastern Orthodox Christians that reception of a Council is based on its acceptance by “the whole Church”–whatever they mean by that phrase, it is not literally everybody.)

 

[eazyduzit]

So you still don’t know the whole truth, because everyone is guided to their own truth? I would like to know where I can find “not by their authority” in the Bible.

No where does it say “by their authority you will know them”, but but rather by their fruits. Neither does it say “by your authority you will rule them”. Rather, as St. Peter says, elders are to lead by example. Jesus clearly explained in Mt.23:8,9,10 that the apostles are not to set themselves up as “masters” and they are not to single out one person to be known as “father” which would be giving one a special position raised up above all. Rather, Jesus said in Mt.5:14 “ye are the light(truth) of the world,” meaning all believers.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem,

I’m short of time, but I wanted to ask because I think we are “arguing” (for lack of a better word) semantics over the term “Ecumenical”. If memory serves, the term “General Council” is an equivalent term in Catholic terminology. Could there be another council, according to the Eastern Orthodox view, that is of equal authority to an Ecumenical Council?

It is my understanding that all of them are, as far as authority goes. The question becomes who and what the rulings of the council apply to. Since ecumenical councils were imperial, they applied to the whole church throughout the empire (hence their increased importance) vs. a regional synod such as Carthage.

Also, (when I was using the phrase “accepted by the whole Church”, I was looking for an answer according to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of a reception of a council. I didn’t literally mean every individual Bishop or layman. We both agree that the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Church even though it is rejected by non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. It is just a phrase that I have heard from Eastern Orthodox Christians that reception of a Council is based on its acceptance by “the whole Church”–whatever they mean by that phrase, it is not literally everybody.)

Yes. The problem with these sorts of discussions is that Catholic and Orthodox understandings of authority and how they function and what they do, although externally similar, is not coterminus, so there tends to be a breakdown.

 

[LionHeart777]

It is my understanding that all of them are, as far as authority goes. The question becomes who and what the rulings of the council apply to. Since ecumenical councils were imperial, they applied to the whole church throughout the empire (hence their increased importance) vs. a regional synod such as Carthage…

Wait, are you saying that you believe that an Ecumenical Council was only binding on Christians within the Empire?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Wait, are you saying that you believe that an Ecumenical Council was only binding on Christians within the Empire?

It would be somewhat impossible to enforce them on Christians outside of the empire, no?

 

[LionHeart777]

It would be somewhat impossible to enforce them on Christians outside of the empire, no?

Civilly, yes. But I’m not talking about civil laws but Ecclesiastical Law. The way I’m understanding you is that you don’t seem to think, for example, that the Canons of the Second Nicene Council were binding on say, St. John of Damascus who was living under a Muslim Caliph at the time.

 

[SteveVH]

No where does it say “by their authority you will know them”, but but rather by their fruits. Neither does it say “by your authority you will rule them”. Rather, as St. Peter says, elders are to lead by example. Jesus clearly explained in Mt.23:8,9,10 that the apostles are not to set themselves up as “masters” and they are not to single out one person to be known as “father” which would be giving one a special position raised up above all. Rather, Jesus said in Mt.5:14 “ye are the light(truth) of the world,” meaning all believers.

I don’t think you realize what is meant by authority in this case. When one is a shepherd of a flock of sheep, he is in a position of authority over the flock. This “authority” is in the form of protecting them, feeding them, and keeping them from harm. He is to lead them to green pastures and keep the wolves away. And those that run away from the shepherd with the attitude that “you’re not the boss of me” are in great danger. Christ made Peter the earthly shepherd over his Church. What he does for us is out of love and a sense of responsibility for our souls. It is not a position of ordering us around, but rather feeding us with good food and protecting us from the enemy. That is why we call him Papa.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Civilly, yes. But I’m not talking about civil laws but Ecclesiastical Law. The way I’m understanding you is that you don’t seem to think, for example, that the Canons of the Second Nicene Council were binding on say, St. John of Damascus who was living under a Muslim Caliph at the time.

Ah, well, no. That’s not how it would have been defined. If the area was Christianized, it would have been under ecclesiastical law in that respect. That is to say, if the particular churches in that area were under the oversight of a bishop. I don’t think there was much of a difference between that and civil law, however, from an enforceable perspective. If a Christian lived under a Muslim caliphate, there would have been little that the Church could have done ecclesiastically other than impose an interdict that would have been ignored by heretics in the area anyway.

 

[LionHeart777]

Ah, well, no. That’s not how it would have been defined. If the area was Christianized, it would have been under ecclesiastical law in that respect. That is to say, if the particular churches in that area were under the oversight of a bishop. I don’t think there was much of a difference between that and civil law, however, from an enforceable perspective. If a Christian lived under a Muslim caliphate, there would have been little that the Church could have done ecclesiastically other than impose an interdict that would have been ignored by heretics in the area anyway.

My understanding of an Ecumenical Council would be, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.”

I believe that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are binding on all Christians, wherever they may be. The matter of the civil authority (whether the Byzantine Emperor or the King of Castile) enforcing the decrees of an Ecumenical Council on the population is a matter of civil authority.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I believe that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are binding on all Christians, wherever they may be. The matter of the civil authority (whether the Byzantine Emperor or the King of Castile) enforcing the decrees of an Ecumenical Council on the population is a matter of civil authority.

They are, in as much as doctrine/dogma is concerned. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity from Nicea and Constantinople, or the appropriateness of venerating icons, or Chalcedon, etc. All of these truths are part of Holy Tradition and always have been, from the time of the apostles. They can be enforced ecclesiastically or civilly, depending on the circumstances (for example, the Assyrian Churches of the East are considered heretical for their Nestorianism. However, that doesn’t mean we can off their bishops to prison).

 

[Abu]

Per Crucem #614
There would be no mechanism preventing it. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said “By my authority, etc. women can be ordained,” there is nothing the laity or bishops could do to stop it. According to Vatican I his pronouncements are binding and irreformable.

The reality is that the Christ has clearly and unequivocally given His Vicars, the Popes, His authority and has sent the Holy Spirit, as He so carefully explained, to guide them specifically when teaching the whole Church in dogma and doctrine on faith or morals, so the “mechanism” is, in fact the Holy Spirit which has never allowed in 2000 years, and will never allow, false dogma or doctrine to be taught to the whole Church by His Chief Vicar by sending the Holy Spirit as He promised:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

That was the first Pentecost.

So, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16), for that very reason – the creation, the foundation and the Truth through the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

#616
Is there anything, outside of tradition, custom and antiquity, that binds what a Pope can and cannot decide?

As historically founded and protected by the Christ, every Pope is bound as shown above and his consultation with the bishops, at its highest level in Ecumenical Councils, is a practical demonstration of the process in action.

eazyduzit #618
No where does it say “by their authority you will know them”, but but rather by their fruits. Neither does it say “by your authority you will rule them”.

Four promises to St Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve Apostles].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus is Christ’s Church taught, sanctified and ruled by His authority through His expressly created Chief Vicars, the Popes, which authority has been given to no one else. The fruits are the wonderful protection in knowing truth from error and how to be holy through the Sacrifice of the Mass, the seven sacraments and the teaching on faith and morals, which no other sect or Church has or can have.

 

[eazyduzit]

I don’t think you realize what is meant by authority in this case. When one is a shepherd of a flock of sheep, he is in a position of authority over the flock. This “authority” is in the form of protecting them, feeding them, and keeping them from harm. He is to lead them to green pastures and keep the wolves away. And those that run away from the shepherd with the attitude that “you’re not the boss of me” are in great danger. Christ made Peter the earthly shepherd over his Church. What he does for us is out of love and a sense of responsibility for our souls. It is not a position of ordering us around, but rather feeding us with good food and protecting us from the enemy. That is why we call him Papa.

I think you are trying to soften the meaning of “authority” to “responsibility”. I think the OP was referring to the authority of infallibility and its uses. This is what makes Rome supreme. This is why the Pope is not Just the big fuzzy Papa. At one time the Pope had his own private army and he used it to persecute suspected heretics such as the Albigensiens in France and war against the Hussites in Prague, and having failed, then lure John Hus to a conference only to intersept him in Switzerland and there burn him to death.
I think of my pastor as “papa” too. He has authority over all things in the church, but the last word belongs to God, thru the bible and the conviction of the individual by the HS in him.

Now, I presented the example from Rev. 2and 3. Do you see that they did not all have sound doctrines and practices? Why not? Was it a lack of authority? Is it not a picture of the churches today? How would you explain it Steve?

 

[Magdalena59]

I don’t think you realize what is meant by authority in this case. When one is a shepherd of a flock of sheep, he is in a position of authority over the flock. This “authority” is in the form of protecting them, feeding them, and keeping them from harm. He is to lead them to green pastures and keep the wolves away. And those that run away from the shepherd with the attitude that “you’re not the boss of me” are in great danger. Christ made Peter the earthly shepherd over his Church. What he does for us is out of love and a sense of responsibility for our souls. It is not a position of ordering us around, but rather feeding us with good food and protecting us from the enemy. That is why we call him Papa.

This is an awesome example of servant leadership.

I think you are trying to soften the meaning of “authority” to “responsibility”. I think the OP was referring to the authority of infallibility and its uses. This is what makes Rome supreme. This is why the Pope is not Just the big fuzzy Papa. At one time the Pope had his own private army and he used it to persecute suspected heretics such as the Albigensiens in France and war against the Hussites in Prague, and having failed, then lure John Hus to a conference only to intersept him in Switzerland and there burn him to death.

There is plenty of blame and plenty of stories to go around on both sides of the persecutions.

I
I think of my pastor as “papa” too. He has authority over all things in the church, but the last word belongs to God, thru the bible and the conviction of the individual by the HS in him.

How do you know it is the Holy Spirit you are hearing and not your own thoughts?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

It’s been my observation that people have issues with Apostolic Authority because people regardless of faith, creed, background etc have abused their position of authority and influence in the lives of others, especially those most vulnerable.

I think too that’s also why many have a misleading concept of what biblical authority is and how that applies within the context of the Church.

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Now, I presented the example from Rev. 2and 3. Do you see that they did not all have sound doctrines and practices? Why not? Was it a lack of authority? Is it not a picture of the churches today? How would you explain it Steve?

**All seven churches of Revelation were Catholic Churches, under the authority of John, their bishop.

At the time it was written, there was one Church, the Catholic Church. The seven Churches listed were all part of the same universal, apostolic Church. John’s job as bishop, was to ensure that the seven Churches listed in Revelation were united in doctrine.

The idea that the churches were different as today (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is just not historically factual. All seven were part of one, universal, apostolic Church - the Catholic Church.**