Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy? - Page 26

Peter J · #**376** Jun 30, '12, 4:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I think it is not a stable place to be.

But, to put a positive spin on it, less risk of being trampled.

Hesychios · #**377** Jun 30, '12, 6:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

But, to put a positive spin on it, less risk of being trampled.

For some it can be a bit like being on the median of a superhighway. The traffic is going two ways, not three, and sooner or later there has to be movement. Staying put is not necessarily an option ...

GaryTaylor · #**378** Jul 1, '12, 6:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

And here's how it could be viewed differently.

Critical historical evidence is lacking on the part of the EO. You become reduced to an opinion not factual historical evidence. Assumption's abound on what we do not know. The First Council is a perfect example.

GaryTaylor · #**379** Jul 1, '12, 6:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

If we, especially Eastern Catholics, believe the Papal position to be wrong, then we are the ones who are wrong and we are the ones who are creating this imagination in our minds that the Papacy could be anything else than what the Pope himself defined it to be. If we cannot accept that, then Catholicism is not for us.

Your seeing this in a illusive way. Whats clear is what is known as "fact" historically. To believe something is wrong and to prove something is wrong seems to be where your issue lies IMHO.

I'm willing to listen objectively to the arguements of this non existing Papal Authority in History.

In other words, in not false because you say so. It can only be false if..........

a] Can be factual and proven Historically. Here I see very much the opposite.

b] Is equally supported by Scripture. Not only its interpretation of today but also Historically. Again I fail to see this.

Perhaps a valid agrument can be provided to counter Romes. I've yet to see it.

Here is Romes claim................

"There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22

Course I stated this on the other thread by distraction of thought. Rome's case is compelling and could be seen with very little effort. What can't be seen without assumption is the EO side of the debate.

DadDave · #**380** Jul 1, '12, 6:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Your seeing this in a illusive way. Whats clear is what is known as "fact" historically. To believe something is wrong and to prove something is wrong seems to be where your issue lies IMHO.

I'm willing to listen objectively to the arguements of this non existing Papal Authority in History.

In other words, in not false because you say so. It can only be false if..........

a] Can be factual and proven Historically. Here I see very much the opposite.

b] Is equally supported by Scripture. Not only its interpretation of today but also Historically. Again I fail to see this.

Perhaps a valid agrument can be provided to counter Romes. I've yet to see it.

Here is Romes claim................

"There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22

Course I stated this on the other thread by distraction of thought. Rome's case is compelling and could be seen with very little effort. What can't be seen without assumption is the EO side of the debate.

Gary could you clarify what are the historical facts? (or lack there of?) I'm not quite following your posts

GaryTaylor · #**381** Jul 1, '12, 7:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DadDave

Gary could you clarify what are the historical facts? (or lack there of?) I'm not quite following your posts

I am speaking of the History of the Papacy in relation to what we do know. There is no reason to believe the Primacy and teaching authority isn't today, exactly as it was with the Councils and most definate by the 5th century.

ConstantineTG · #**382** Jul 1, '12, 7:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Your seeing this in a illusive way. Whats clear is what is known as "fact" historically. To believe something is wrong and to prove something is wrong seems to be where your issue lies IMHO.

I'm willing to listen objectively to the arguements of this non existing Papal Authority in History.

In other words, in not false because you say so. It can only be false if..........

a] Can be factual and proven Historically. Here I see very much the opposite.

b] Is equally supported by Scripture. Not only its interpretation of today but also Historically. Again I fail to see this.

Perhaps a valid agrument can be provided to counter Romes. I've yet to see it.

Here is Romes claim................

"There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22

Course I stated this on the other thread by distraction of thought. Rome's case is compelling and could be seen with very little effort. What can't be seen without assumption is the EO side of the debate.

Do you think there is no disconnect about what Eastern Catholics believe and what the Vatican teaches about the Papacy? Where do you think these things Fr. Tom Loya is talking about is coming from? It's pretty apparent that how the Vatican treats the ECs is different from how the ECs view themselves to be in matters of Church Ecclesiology.

ConstantineTG · #**383** Jul 1, '12, 7:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

I am speaking of the History of the Papacy in relation to what we do know. There is no reason to believe the Primacy and teaching authority isn't today, exactly as it was with the Councils and most definate by the 5th century.

Well, the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics say otherwise. And Rome agrees with this. And this has been my point all along. If you believe in what Rome teaches, that this is the Papal authority since Jesus handed Peter the keys, then go and be a good Catholic. If not, then you are in the wrong Church.

Fone Bone 2001 · #**384** Jul 1, '12, 9:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I don't see how that differs from what I said.

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't necessarily trying to argue with you, just pointing out that people are wrong not to look at something like Pastor Aeternus in its full context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Pope anyway.

I don't disagree, but I don't think that particular paragraph makes any such claim. It just says that it's the pope's job to ensure that revelation is handed on and interpreted correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

And this happened around 1054

Not really. Some ornery papal legates who weren't aware that Pope St. Leo IX had died attempted to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople. On what topic was any pope trying to force his will on Constantinople?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

But again there is no historical precedence to this. The Coptic Pope didn't accept the canons of Chalcedon. Why didn't the Pope depose him and replace him when he acted "heretically"?

The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated in 1054. Why wasn't he deposed and replaced by the Pope?

Easier said than done. If a given group goes into schism from Rome and repudiates claims to universal papal authority, as Constantinople did in 1054, what exactly is the pope supposed to do? He can't force anyone to do anything. If a given church wants to say, "Nope, we'll break communion instead," then the pope has no way of carrying out further consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

It is not a rude question but an honest one. Something that I am asking myself.

Here's the thing, how many of us really accept this position about the Pope because we are thoroughly convinced that it is the correct position? I lived my life as a Roman Catholic and accepted it without question. I was brought up with it. I became Eastern Catholic 2 years ago. People then floated this idea that the Pope was not as authoritative as the RCs say he is. So I accepted that idea as well. Then I was asked by an Orthodox priest about what do I believe about the Pope. So I told him this Eastern point of view which seems to disagree with the RC point of view. He told me to be honest about it. If the Pope teaches that he is such, and Eastern Catholics believe him to be something else, then why and how are we in communion with him? We are not being honest to the Pope, we are not being honest to ourselves. So thus this thread. I want to know what people think and what we should think about it. And perhaps in the end I accept the Pope's universal jurisdiction and be a happy and stronger Catholic. Or I don't and I leave for the Orthodox Church. But there is no in-between. We as Eastern Catholics shouldn't pretend there is such a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position. We are either one or the other.

To be honest, I think the nuances of how universal papal authority functions and what it means are not understood very well by the average Latin Catholic.

I also agree, Constantine, that some of the generic comments made by eastern Catholics don't really do justice to those nuances, either.

What I'm convinced of is that the so-called High Petrine view is that of the Vatican Councils, and that it alone does full justice to the ecclesiology of the first millennium Church. Too many monkey wrenches exist that can so easily be thrown into the absolutist and low petrine views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

I'd like to ask what this middle-of-the-road position looks like, and whether MardukM would be a proponent of the view on CAF.

I don't think Mardukm holds the "middle-of-the-road" position, if by "middle-of-the-road position" you mean something in between authentic Catholic teaching and low Petrine ecclesiology. His view, however, is a middle ground between absolutist distortions of Catholic teaching on papal authority, and the aforementioned low petrine view.

Here is a good summary from another forum by Marduk himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

I am speaking of the History of the Papacy in relation to what we do know. There is no reason to believe the Primacy and teaching authority isn't today, exactly as it was with the Councils and most definate by the 5th century.

To be honest, I think universal papal authority is far clearer in the very early Church. I think the evidence for it decreases sharply after the Roman legalization of Christianity, due to the complexities of how the state began to be factored into the way the Church functioned.

Think about it:

1 Clement? First century.

St. Irenaeus, who spoke explicitly of the necessity of communion with the Church of Rome? Second century.

Pope St. Victor attempting to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches of Asia Minor? Second century.

St. Cyprian, who explicitly said that the Church of Rome could not err? Third century.

etc.

Once the state gets involved, things get more complicated, inconsistent, and indecipherable, not less. Concerning papal authority I personally find the witness of the pre-fourth century Church to be far clearer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Do you think there is no disconnect about what Eastern Catholics believe and what the Vatican teaches about the Papacy?

I do think there is a disconnect, Constantine; I agree. But we can't all be theologians. These comments from some eastern Catholics that indicate a disconnect don't reflect dissent, just inarticulate, imprecise thinking about the matter, just the same as when some Latin Catholics say things that suggest the Absolutist view.

I am confident that the so-called High Petrine view, classical Ultramontanism, is the position of the First and Second Vatican Councils, and the belief of most of our church's bishops - including the pope of Rome, and including eastern Catholic bishops.

Vico · #**385** Jul 1, '12, 10:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

... classical Ultramontanism, is the position of the First and Second Vatican Councils, and the belief of most of our church's bishops - including the pope of Rome, and including eastern Catholic bishops.

I think you will change you mind on this issue after reading any one of these books:

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I, Translated and with commentary by Rev. James T. O'Connor The Gift of Infallibility

Triumph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops by Margaret O'Gara, 1988.

The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility A Study in the Background of Vatican I by Richard F. Costigan, 2005.

The amplification given at Vatican II is close to the Gallican view (opposition to the ideas called ultramontane) from the time of Vatican I.

ConstantineTG · #**386** Jul 1, '12, 10:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't necessarily trying to argue with you, just pointing out that people are wrong not to look at something like Pastor Aeternus in its full context.

I try to look at it based on what the reality is, how the Pope has acted as recorded in history. Though I will admit what I know is very limited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I don't disagree, but I don't think that particular paragraph makes any such claim. It just says that it's the pope's job to ensure that revelation is handed on and interpreted correctly.

Yes, as Catholics we are to believe that when the Pope speaks infallibly, its the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church through the Pope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Not really. Some ornery papal legates who weren't aware that Pope St. Leo IX had died attempted to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople. On what topic was any pope trying to force his will on Constantinople?

That the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize the supremacy of the Pope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Easier said than done. If a given group goes into schism from Rome and repudiates claims to universal papal authority, as Constantinople did in 1054, what exactly is the pope supposed to do? He can't force anyone to do anything. If a given church wants to say, "Nope, we'll break communion instead," then the pope has no way of carrying out further consequences.

If he had universal ordinary jurisdiction then, he could have just appointed a new Patriarch of Constantinople. I mean, can you imagine one diocese in the US right now having a bishop who would break from Rome? Do you think Rome won't replace that bishop?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

To be honest, I think the nuances of how universal papal authority functions and what it means are not understood very well by the average Latin Catholic.

This is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I also agree, Constantine, that some of the generic comments made by eastern Catholics don't really do justice to those nuances, either.

What I'm convinced of is that the so-called High Petrine view is that of the Vatican Councils, and that it alone does full justice to the ecclesiology of the first millennium Church. Too many monkey wrenches exist that can so easily be thrown into the absolutist and low petrine views.

But High Petrine doesn't include universal ordinary jurisdiction, if I am not mistaken. And that is clearly what the Church teaches today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I don't think Mardukm holds the "middle-of-the-road" position, if by "middle-of-the-road position" you mean something in between authentic Catholic teaching and low Petrine ecclesiology. His view, however, is a middle ground between absolutist distortions of Catholic teaching on papal authority, and the aforementioned low petrine view.

Here is a good summary from another forum by Marduk himself.

But again, it doesn't matter what we think is best, but what the Vatican actually teaches. The middle point of an absolutist and low petrine view is just that, a middle point of view. If that is not what the Vatican teaches, then its just fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

To be honest, I think universal papal authority is far clearer in the very early Church. I think the evidence for it decreases sharply after the Roman legalization of Christianity, due to the complexities of how the state began to be factored into the way the Church functioned.

Think about it:

1 Clement? First century.

St. Irenaeus, who spoke explicitly of the necessity of communion with the Church of Rome? Second century.

Pope St. Victor attempting to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches of Asia Minor? Second century.

St. Cyprian, who explicitly said that the Church of Rome could not err? Third century.

etc.

Once the state gets involved, things get more complicated, inconsistent, and indecipherable, not less. Concerning papal authority I personally find the witness of the pre-fourth century Church to be far clearer.

I think this is where the problem lies. We instantly equate communion with universal ordinary jurisdiction. Communion with Rome is important, yes we all agree with that. Even the Orthodox agree with that. But from their point of view, by asserting authority that was not there in the beginning, Rome excommunicated herself from the other Churches. And the other Churches (ie. Orthodox) cannot resume communion until Rome cleanses herself of this heterodox belief which is Papal Infallibility and Supremacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I do think there is a disconnect, Constantine; I agree. But we can't all be theologians.

Eastern praxis says we all can be and should be. Those who pray are theologians. And the theologians are those who pray

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

These comments from some eastern Catholics that indicate a disconnect don't reflect dissent, just inarticulate, imprecise thinking about the matter, just the same as when some Latin Catholics say things that suggest the Absolutist view.

But even without digging all the facts or becoming aware of them, just the fact that some in the East always complain about something, then something has to be there. If we believe the Papacy to be the same as Rome teaches it and exercising it, what are we complaining about? That is the disconnect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I am confident that the so-called High Petrine view, classical Ultramontanism, is the position of the First and Second Vatican Councils, and the belief of most of our church's bishops - including the pope of Rome, and including eastern Catholic bishops.

I am not sure though. Some swear by allegiance to Rome yet say that the Pope is not in his proper place.

Paul theApostle · #**387** Jul 2, '12, 3:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

, Rome excommunicated herself from the other Churches. And the other Churches (ie. Orthodox) cannot resume communion until Rome cleanses herself of this heterodox belief which is Papal Infallibility and Supremacy.
.

is this what you believe?

Fone Bone 2001 · #**388** Jul 2, '12, 6:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vico

I think you will change you mind on this issue after reading any one of these books:

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I, Translated and with commentary by Rev. James T. O'Connor The Gift of Infallibility

Triumph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops by Margaret O'Gara, 1988.

The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility A Study in the Background of Vatican I by Richard F. Costigan, 2005.

The amplification given at Vatican II is close to the Gallican view (opposition to the ideas called ultramontane) from the time of Vatican I.

I would love to read those; thanks, Vico. I don't own the one by Bishop Gasser, but I nonetheless have been able to read some large chunks from it.

I think I agree with what you're saying (if I understand you correctly), and I think that our seeming disagreement is a matter of pure semantics. I was using "classical Ultramontanism" to refer to Gasser's interpretation and that of the Vatican II Council Fathers, in spite of the fact that "Ultramontanism" has connotations of neo-Ultramontanism.

I fully acknowledge that the neo-Ultramontanist, absolutist interpretation of papal supremacy is not what Vatican II - or Bishop Gasser - taught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I try to look at it based on what the reality is, how the Pope has acted as recorded in history. Though I will admit what I know is very limited.

Likewise, on both counts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

That the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize the supremacy of the Pope.

That's not an attempt to impose his will, though; just recognize his authority in theory. He wasn't trying to unilaterally alter or affect anything about the way the Church functioned in Constantinople.

I know, I know, saying that he just wanted the patriarch to recognize what was already there is the Catholic view, and I don't mean to beg the question. I'm not presenting an argument, just saying that that is the belief to which I adhere, so of course I'm not going to see it as an attempt by the pope to impose or even change anything...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

If he had universal ordinary jurisdiction then, he could have just appointed a new Patriarch of Constantinople. I mean, can you imagine one diocese in the US right now having a bishop who would break from Rome? Do you think Rome won't replace that bishop?

I didn't answer that to your satisfaction? Whether we like it or not, such things come down to the practical ability to enforce one's decrees. When a powerful patriarchate like Constantinople broke from Rome, the pope had no practical way of enforcing his appointment of a replacement.

Besides, would he necessarily want to? The pope today could theoretically establish a rival Catholic patriarchate of Constantinople, just as his predecessors established a Catholic patriarchate of Alexandria. He rightfully doesn't do so for practical, ecumenical reasons, out of respect for the Orthodox churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

But High Petrine doesn't include universal ordinary jurisdiction, if I am not mistaken. And that is clearly what the Church teaches today.

I too could be mistaken, but I think the High Petrine view - again, by Marduk's definition, and since we're using his terminology I think it fitting to use his definitions - does acknowledge universal ordinary jurisdiction.

"The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church)" - Marduk in this thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I think this is where the problem lies. We instantly equate communion with universal ordinary jurisdiction. Communion with Rome is important, yes we all agree with that. Even the Orthodox agree with that. But from their point of view, by asserting authority that was not there in the beginning, Rome excommunicated herself from the other Churches. And the other Churches (ie. Orthodox) cannot resume communion until Rome cleanses herself of this heterodox belief which is Papal Infallibility and Supremacy.

Well, St. Cyprian said that "no perfidy" could enter the Church of Rome, which probably explains why St. Irenaeus said it is always necessary to be in communion with her. "No perfidy" obviously doesn't mean "no sin" - that'd be a ridiculous claim - so what else could it mean but "no error" or no heterodoxy, as it is often translated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Eastern praxis says we all can be and should be. Those who pray are theologians. And the theologians are those who pray

Yes, those who pray are theologians, but at the same time, theoria is not necessary for salvation. So I don't see how it's true that eastern praxis says everyone should be a theologian... but I could easily be missing something here.

GaryTaylor · #**389** Jul 2, '12, 6:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul theApostle

is this what you believe?

Good question? I'll be waiting for the step by step journey through History to prove this statement.

Makes you wonder whats thought of all other Christians

ConstantineTG · #**390** Jul 2, '12, 9:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul theApostle

is this what you believe?

It is what I am trying to figure out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Likewise, on both counts.

That's not an attempt to impose his will, though; just recognize his authority in theory. He wasn't trying to unilaterally alter or affect anything about the way the Church functioned in Constantinople.

But that is the same thing. Do we allow other nations to possess nuclear weapons even though they promise never to use it? If it is just "in theory", why waste everybody's time then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I know, I know, saying that he just wanted the patriarch to recognize what was already there is the Catholic view, and I don't mean to beg the question. I'm not presenting an argument, just saying that that is the belief to which I adhere, so of course I'm not going to see it as an attempt by the pope to impose or even change anything...

Well, of course the two side to the store. Catholic side says the Patriarch of Constantinople was already under the Pope and is starting to believe he is equal to the Pope or wanted to change it so that he is no longer under the Pope. Orthodox side says they were never under the Pope for the last 1000 years. This is why coming up with the truth on this matter is so difficult. Every side has their own interpretation to everything, from Scripture to Church Fathers teachings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I didn't answer that to your satisfaction? Whether we like it or not, such things come down to the practical ability to enforce one's decrees. When a powerful patriarchate like Constantinople broke from Rome, the pope had no practical way of enforcing his appointment of a replacement.

Besides, would he necessarily want to? The pope today could theoretically establish a rival Catholic patriarchate of Constantinople, just as his predecessors established a Catholic patriarchate of Alexandria. He rightfully doesn't do so for practical, ecumenical reasons, out of respect for the Orthodox churches.

We are talking about today. But back then it would have been the correct course of action. And if he did indeed have that authority, the other bishops wouldn't have questioned the move because they know he was acting within his right.

By the way, the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria is a fairly recent innovation, if I may call it that. We can easily dismiss it as another "second millennium machination".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I too could be mistaken, but I think the High Petrine view - again, by Marduk's definition, and since we're using his terminology I think it fitting to use his definitions - does acknowledge universal ordinary jurisdiction.

"The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church)" - Marduk in this thread

I've always understand it that the Pope has authority over the Church as a whole, but not ordinary jurisdiction within the non-Roman Churches. At least that is what I think most Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, would accept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Well, St. Cyprian said that "no perfidy" could enter the Church of Rome, which probably explains why St. Irenaeus said it is always necessary to be in communion with her. "No perfidy" obviously doesn't mean "no sin" - that'd be a ridiculous claim - so what else could it mean but "no error" or no heterodoxy, as it is often translated?

Yet we have had anti-Popes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Yes, those who pray are theologians, but at the same time, theoria is not necessary for salvation. So I don't see how it's true that eastern praxis says everyone should be a theologian... but I could easily be missing something here.

Prayer enables one to learn more and more about God.