The Pontificator points us to a lengthy excerpt from Vladimir Soloviev’s Russia and the Universal Church by Vladimir Soloviev (originally published in 1889).
As a member of the true and venerable Eastern or Greco-Russian Orthodox Church which does not speak through anti-canonical synod nor through the employees of the secular power, but through the utterance of her great Fathers and Doctors, I recognise as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by St Irenaeus, St Dionysius the Great, St Athansius the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril, St Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St Maximus the Confessor, St Theodore of Studium, St Ignatius, etc. etc.–namely, the Apostle Peter, who lives in his successors and who has not heard in vain our Lord’s words: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church’, ‘Strengthen thy brethren’, ‘Feed My sheep, feed My lambs’.
One may not care for the style of Soloviev’s rhetoric here, but can the historical and patristic data which he references here be accounted for in Orthodox ecclesiology as it has developed?
“…but can the historical and patristic data which he references here be accounted for in Orthodox ecclesiology as it has developed?”
Be more specific, please. A few questions which may help clarify are 1) what do you think is Orthodox ecclesiology, 2) which historical and patristic data does he reference – all I see are names – and 3) how is the data incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology such that it must “be accounted for” by the Orthodox?
I would be especially interested in seeing how the data supports the actual claims of Vatican I and is incompatible with an Orthodox interpretation.
David, thanks for the comment.
Here’s my thinking. Please let me know where I’m going wrong.
(1) In Orthodox ecclesiology, as I understand it, there is no real need for a universal primate. Regional primacies, yes. And some sort of way of keeping these regional primacies together – whether this is the Emperor, Ecumenical Councils, the ancient patriarchates, or simply a sense of common belief and practice. And some theologians may admit that a universal primacy, such as that of Rome, is of the bene esse, but obviously there is no real way that an Orthodox theologian could admit that a universal primacy is of the esse of the Church, without admitting that the Orthodox Church is somehow lacking an essential element of the Church’s structure, as willed by Christ himself. Even if there was at one time a useful role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church, this role was certainly not intended as an essential feature of the Church’s life. It was a product of pure expediency, a primacy created by the Church and very easily done away with by the Church, if need be. Do you think that this a fair estimate?
(2) You would have to read the entire Soloviev excerpt, not just the tiny quote I posted, to find the historical and patristic data that he references. My impression of this data is that, according to these Fathers, the Bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter, and that as such they bear a certain responsibility for the universal Church (a responsibility that the other bishops of the Church do not hold).
(3) There seems, at least to me, to be a pretty clear patristic consensus on the existence of a universal Petrine primacy within the Church. Orthodox ecclesiology (again, as I understand it) does not come to the same conclusions about the necessity of a universal Petrine primacy within the Church. I don’t see how Orthodox ecclesiology can honestly account for these testimonies.
Obviously, the problem is that we would have to take great pains to go through each of these pieces of evidence, to see if they are really saying what Catholic apologists think they are saying. It might be interesting to post individual quotes and have both Orthodox and Catholics offer their interpretations.
As to the chasm between the aforementioned data and the “actual claims of Vatican I,” that would also be an excellent issue to explore. I am working on transcribing an interesting passage on this very topic.
That’s my thinking. Perhaps I’m way off-track.
I’ve been meaning to read Soloviev for a while now, but have had him a bit further down on the priority list than some others (Balthasar, de Lubac, etc.) I guess I’ll have to move him closer to the top.
I found some helpful information on an Orthodox perspective on ecclesiology also adressing the issue of primacy:
Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev “The Church which presides in Love”
http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
Gregorios
Excellent, Gregorios! Many thanks.
How were the promises of Christ in Matthew 16 traditionally understood by the Fathers and the Church, were they understood as applying to the Church as a whole defined as the communion of bishops holding to the Orthodox confession or the Bishop of Rome (and those communion of Bishops in communion with the him)?
Here is the basic form of most RC argument:
1) Certain promises were made to and special powers/perogatives given to Apostle Peter.
2) The Bishop of Rome, as the exclusive successor of Peter, possesses these special powers and perogatives.
3) His possession of these special perogatives/powers and submission to his authority are both *unconditional.*
It is important to note that Petrine primacy an papal *supremacy* are not interchangeable concepts. The latter is a narrow definition of the former which can be understood in several different ways. The RC papal claims cannot be divorced from its theological presuppositions and the truth is that the subject is more complex than many would like to admit. Some quotations and documents are forgies and many patristic statements have been doctored and revised by their respective Catholic and Protestant translators; others constantly confuse necessary conditions with the sufficient condition. Numerous RC apologists attempt to score polemical points with theologically loaded, historically reductionist questions. That is all I have to say as I do not wish to participate in the debate which will probably ensue. I wish you well!
CU, you may find of interest this booklist on the papacy I pulled together a while back. The two books by Thomas Allies are especially interesting, because they bring together the scholarship that eventually converted him to Catholicism.
Oops. Here’s the link for the papacy booklist.
On a personal note, I finally decided that “neutral” historical scholarship could not ultimately validate or invalidate the papal claims. See my “Bad Reason #1 for Not Becoming Catholic.”
Primacy in any form is not a part of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology. The only theological unit of Church governance in Orthodoxy is the diocese—a particular bishop leading a particular flock. Every bishop sits in the seat of Peter and his is successor.
Primacy is a canonical construct which, being established by canonical tradition, may also be altered by it. All supra-diocesan structures are simply a matter of useful administration. Comparisons of the current patriarchal system of Orthodoxy to the papacy are not really apt, because the former is simply a matter of canonical discipline, while the latter has been made by RCism into theology.
The fundamental disconnection between RC ecclesiology and that of traditional Christianity is that RCism has made supra-diocesan structures (or, rather, just one) into ecclesiology. It’s essentially the introduction of a “bishop of bishops” into ecclesiology, something firmly resisted in Orthodoxy.
Father Andrew, thanks for this summary.
I was a bit taken aback, however, by the statement that “Primacy in any form is not a part of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.” This seems to be a little extreme. Granted, obviously Orthodoxy does not accept Rome’s conception of primacy within the Church. But is it really possible that there is absolutely no place for primacy within Orthodox ecclesiology?
For instance, what about the concept of supra-diocesan primacy in the form of regional metropolitan primacies? What are we to make of Apostolic Canon 34, which very clearly likens the ideal structure of primacy in the Church to the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Is there really no connection whatsoever between the model of primacy and collegiality within the Most Holy Trinity and the primacy and collegiality of the Church?
It seems to me that, in Orthodoxy as well as in Roman Catholicism, primacy cannot be divorced from theology, and treated as a matter of pure expediency. If that were the case, perhaps it is arguable that it really is best for the Emperor to run the Church. Perhaps Peter the Great had a point in abolishing the Patriarchate in Moscow and relegating the government of the Church to a department of state.
CU, there are (at least) two books that should be read cocnerning the Orthodox understanding of the Petrine primacy: the essays in *the Primacy of Peter*, edited by Meyendorff, and *You Are Peter* by Olivier Clement. At least some of these patristic statements are addressed in these books.
With regard to St. Irenaeus, I assume what Soloviev was referring to was the quote which ran something to the effect that every church was required to agree with Rome. First, this is a Latin translation of the non-extant Greek original, and the exact meaning is a matter of scholarly dispute. Second, the context of the statement is that Irenaeus is trying to vindicate the idea of apostolic succession against the gnostics, and he uses Rome as the most convenient example of this succession; there is no dispute that Rome was considered the most important of the Sees for the reasons Irenaeus gives: founding by Peter and Paul and it was the center of the empire.
It is also remarkable to me that, as opposed to offhand allusions to Rome’s authority, in St. Vincent of Lerin’s *Commentary* in the fifth century, where he specifically considers, at length and in detail, the question of how doctrinal disputes are to be resolved, he gives the criteria of antiquity, ubiquity, and unamimity (“always, everywhere, by all”), but does not refer to any unique authority in doctrinal matters on the part of the Bishop of Rome. Joe
Exactly how would you characterize the position of the patriarchs (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.) in Orthodoxy. Are they, besides being bishops of their own “dioceses” (or whatever term is appropriate in the East), merely persons of great influence? Do they have any real sway over other, lesser, bishops in their region? I was under the impression that they did, so Fr. Andrew’s remarks surprised me.
“The Apostolic Canons are a canonical collection, included in Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions, circulated in Syria probably toward 380, the author of which is unknown. They codify the ecclesiastical discipline that was already in force before the Council of Nicea (325), and that was to be confirmed also by later ecumenical councils. Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, fundamental to an understanding of the patriarchal and synodal institution in the Churches of the East, states: «The bishops of each nation [ethnos] must know [who is] the first [protos] amongst them and take him as head and do nothing of importance without his opinion, and each is to operate only on things regarding his own area and the territories that depend on it; but neither shall he [the first or head] do anything, without the opinion of all: so there will be harmony and God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit will be glorified».”
I am wary of Zizoulian “trinitarian” ecclesiology, which I do not think this Canon stands for. Read some of Behr on this. There is a certain taxis to the Church. She is the Body of the Father’s begotten Word manifest in His Spirit.
Primacy is a firmly established (and one might even say, inevitable) canonical tradition in the Orthodox Church. However, it is not a part of the deposit of dogma. If it were, then we would see it from the very beginning, and it is clear that no such thing existed at the beginning of the Church’s history. If all bishops are theologically equal (an axiom of Orthodox ecclesiology), then primacy has no theological significance. Its significance is only canonical and administrative.
Primates in the Orthodox Church certainly do have administrative authority over other bishops, but it is not a theological/sacramental authority. This is why primacies come and go. Where, after all, was Rome’s primacy at Pentecost? And of course there is no Pope when the current Pope dies, which is the meaning of the term sede vacantes, meaning not that there is a Pope who has not been revealed, but that the chair is empty. Even Rome’s acknowledged history is punctuated with periods of no primacy.
Primacy is not something given to us in the deposit of the faith, but it is something that may be applied by the Church in the expression of that deposit.
Certainly, canonical discipline is based on theology (theology must, after all, be applied), but it is not identical with it. Applications of theology vary in a number of ways throughout Church history.
This is one of the fundamental chasms between Orthodox Christianity and RCism, because for the latter what is a canonical construct has been absolutized as dogma (and really only quite recently, at that). Any time canons become dogma, legalism is triumphant, because their proper relationship has been inverted.
Joe – I am very familiar with both of the titles you mention. They are very helpful, balanced Orthodox takes on the topic of primacy.
Jack – I didn’t mention the name of Zizioulas specifically, though I do find his writings on the topic of primacy to be very interesting. I can’t imagine that the mention of the Trinity in Apostolic Canon 34 is accidental, or unrelated to the subject of the canon, which is the balance of primacy and conciliarity in the Church.
Fr. Andrew,
Thank you for your elaboration. I was trying to form a follow up question, but realized I have to do some thinking about your comment. Thank you again.
Father Andrew, I appreciate the fact that you are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the issue. Allow me to ask a couple of initial questions so that I can organize my thought a little better.
But this is precisely what papal apologists have set out to demonstrate: that indeed there was a universal primacy in the Church “from the very beginning”. Peter’s primacy can be seen in the New Testament, and immediately in the sub-apostolic period we begin to see a very special, unique focus on the Church of Rome: her founding by Peter and Paul, her antiquity, her orthodoxy, her doctrinal authority, her universality, and her unifying role amongst the Churches. And so, as Orthodox, we would have to explain this early data adequately.
Rome would not disagree here, as far as I know. The Bishop of Rome is sacramentally a bishop like every other bishop. The episcopal grace is the same, from the Bishop of Rome on down to the lowliest bishop of Podunk City. His Eucharist is no more “valid” than that of the lowliest parish priest. He just has a very different responsibility vis-a-vis the universal Church, and Catholics believe that this is by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, the Roman primacy has nothing to do with sacramental grace. The Bishop of Rome does not have more sacramental grace, or a different sacramental grace, from any other bishop out there.
Well, Catholics would say that there was no “Roman primacy” as such at Pentecost, because no Christian had ever set foot in Rome. But, of course, the Apostle Peter was there, the one whom Jesus established as the “Rock” of his Church, gave the Keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose, and commanded to “feed his sheep”. Catholics merely believe that this primacy of Peter was willed by the Lord to continue, and it was definitively established in Rome.
Agreed, but Catholics believe that the Petrine primacy was not established by a canon. It was established by the Lord himself, and it came to reside in the Church of Rome.
Yes, I agree with you that that is what Roman Catholics say, but I do not agree with them. I do not believe that Peter was ever the Pope, however. He also was not exclusively given the keys to Heaven or the power to bind and loose (the “you” in that passage is plural), and the “Rock” is Christ’s identity as the Son of God, expressed in the confession of Peter. The triple command by Christ is a restoration of Peter from apostasy, not a building up of his supremacy above the others. Even if it had been, Peter’s succession begins not in Rome, but in Antioch and to Alexandria through Mark. The Roman papacy, especially in its current state of heterodoxy, does not have exclusive possession of Peter.
Roman primacy was not established by Jesus Christ, but rather by the canonical tradition of the Church as the imperial city. And when Rome left the Church, it forfeited its primacy.
We cannot fool ourselves that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are really the same thing. Orthodoxy is incompatible with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. To believe in Roman Catholic ecclesiology is to cease to be Orthodox.
Ecclesiology is eternal and theological. If primacy were in itself part of that apostolic deposit, it would also be eternal. It clearly is not. It is simply one way which helps us to live out that ecclesiology. The only way one can accept that primacy may be a part of ecclesiology is to believe in the RC notion of dogmatic development, namely, that the truth itself may be revealed to contradict that which came before. (And of course in the case of the sede vacante, the truth must be temporarily suspended!) Rome’s error is in conflating temporal government with ecclesiology.
But is there truly *balance* in the Latin Church? A decree from the Vatican overrules any bishop or bishops conference. The fathers of Vatican II were forbidden by Pope Paul VI from even discussing the issues of priestly celibacy or contraception, for example, which he reserved solely for his own judgment. Likewise, a liturgy translation must be approved and corrected by Rome before it may be used in any land. In spite of attempts at balance by Vatican II, the pope still has the last word. Someone mentioned above the idea of retaining the Vatican I decrees but politely ignoring them…that is interesting but symptomatic of greater and deeper problems, including a juridical mindset chained to past papal decrees that, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, cannot be changed.
Peter is not “Rock” alone and by himself. The Church is built on the foundation of *apostles* and *prophets* with Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, according to Ephesians; the holy city New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse is built on *twelve* foundations; the apostles will sit on *twelve* thrones judging the tribes of Israel; according to Chrysostom not only Peter but also John was given the Keys of the Kingdom; and Paul did not see himself as inferior to Peter, was certainly not ordained by him, and felt free to rebuke him to the face; Peter and John were *sent* by the other apostles to Samaria; James had the last word at the Council of Jerusalem, not Peter. Plus as someone mentioned above, the celebrated passage in Irenaeus about Rome is a questionable translation. All of this suggests to me that Peter — in spite of great importance and being an embodiment of unity — was not a monarch or even absolutist prime minister, but left open the doors that the Holy Spirit would bring consensus and agreement to the whole body, as at the Council of Jerusalem….”It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to *us*…they were of one accord.”
“And when Rome left the Church, it forfeited its primacy.”
We Catholics see the Orthodox as “having left the Church”, or gone into schism, in 1054, though everyone admits that there were problems before and occasional attempts at unity later on.
When do the Orthodox consider Rome as having left the Church? And what were the acts or changes in belief that you think caused this to happen?
Michael identifies one of the principal defects in RC ecclesiology, namely, that bishops other than the pope are not really bishops, since they do not have ultimate authority within their own dioceses. In Orthodox ecclesiology, a bishop’s authority within his own diocese may only be circumvented by his deposition.
Michael mentions the indications even from Vatican II that bishops who are not the pope are not permitted by him to function as bishops. The clear history of the Church in Council is rather that the body of the whole Orthodox episcopacy may examine any matter before it whatsoever (often going against the wishes of the emperor).
A primate who may hire and fire any bishop throughout the whole world and who may automatically bypass any bishop and give direct instruction to clergy is not functioning according to Orthodox ecclesiology. Indeed, he is essentially the only bishop. The rest are all just auxiliaries.
This is completely off-topic (sorry!), but I wanted to wish everyone a happy Feast Day of Our Lady of the Miracle. (That’s today, January 20.) It’s a day especially dear to Hebrew Catholics and their friends and godparents. (I’m godmother to a Jewish Catholic.)
Here’s my account of the miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne, which became the basis for the feast:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/BVM/ratisbonne.html
I wrote it several years ago, and it’s a tad purple-prosey…please bear with me.
God bless!
Our Lady of the Miracle, pray for us….
Diane
“[The Pope] is essentially the only bishop. The rest are all just auxiliaries.” Well said, Fr. Andrew. I’ve never heard the issue stated so clearly.
Fr. Andrew wrote,
“Peter’s succession begins not in Rome, but in Antioch and to Alexandria through Mark.”
This hits on something I have been wondering for awhile: why the Papal Chrism is reserved for Rome when the Apostle Peter was in Antioch first, which means that the special grace should have passed from Evodius to Ignatius and on down the line? Thus far I have seen no satisfactory answer to this.
A primate who may hire and fire any bishop throughout the whole world and who may automatically bypass any bishop and give direct instruction to clergy is not functioning according to Orthodox ecclesiology. Indeed, he is essentially the only bishop. The rest are all just auxiliaries.
That’s pretty much the standard caricature of Catholic ecclesiology, and it’s not limited to Orthodox. The problem centers on the imprecise use of that little word ‘may’.
Although, on Catholic doctrine, popes can always perform the actions described above, and sometimes may do so for the good of the local or universal Church, it does not follow that it would be a legitimate use of the office for popes to bypass or depose bishops regularly. That is not, in fact, what popes have done, and that’s because the purpose of papal primacy is not to supplant the rest of the episcopate but to facilitate it. Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that bishops have “ordinary” jurisdiction within their dioceses; the pope’s authority as universal primate is not usually exercised instead of but in addition to that, and only when either he or a local church deem it necessary. Early Church history was rife with cases when Rome intervened in the affairs of other churches, often by invitation; but nobody imagined that that meant bishops had no authority within their dioceses beyond that of agents or delegates of the pope. No Catholic theologian today, including the one who now occupies the See of Rome, imagines that today either.
If only for practical reasons, no pope could run the Church by eviscerating episcopal authority as charged even if he wanted to. But in fact, the reasons are more than practical: Rome recognizes that once a bishop always a bishop, so that even one bishop can get a schism going by validly consecrating other bishops. Such a schismatic church would have true apostolic succession, the sacraments, and other marks of the Church. How could that be if there were only one bishop? Rome’s recognition of Orthodoxy as a communion of “true, particular churches,” albeit in schism, alone suffices refutes the charge in question.
CU,
I quoted the Canon because I wanted us to see that it clearly does not invision eccelesial admistration to be an image of the Trinity with the Pope as the Father and his Bishops as Sons and Spirits. If this is the direction that Zizoulas is heading in with “communio” ecclesiology then he is wrong. Rather, it is clearly meant not to “glorify” the Trinity by manifesting intra-church collegiality at the ethnos level. An international protos who rules by collegiality would seem to follow, as it did in the ecumenical canons. Whether contemporary Orthodoxy fully manifests this reality today is another question.
The unity of the Body of the Word is the Spirit as is manifest in Acts. The Spirit is “traditioned” by the Apostles. In other words, the Spirit’s primary activity is apostolic tradition. Apostolic tradition is the right interpretation of the Word. A hierarch’s authority is not magic but depends entirely on his keeping the unchangeable apostolic faith.
I agree with Fr. Andrew’s wording (with one small variation). In fact, the Anabaptist argument of the independence of local congregations is based directly on the Scriptural and Apostolic Fathers witness to the truth that the basic unit of the Church is the bishop with his local Church. Moreover, that basic unit is a full expression of the Church here on earth, needing nothing additional in order to be the Body of Christ. “Where the bishop is, there is the Church.” In this sense, the Anabaptist mistake is to equate the local elder in a particular congregation with the bishop and his Church.
But, one may not ignore that the Scriptures and the Fathers are also quite clear that no local Church is independent of another, nor may a local Church so decree a doctrine as to make it repugnant to another local Church, nor may the self-sufficiency of a local Church be used as a reason to isolate oneself from the other local Churches. Here is where we find the careful constructions of St. Paul in 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Colossians most useful. As well, St. Luke’s record of the actions of the Council of Jerusalem give insight into how the fullness of the local Church is interfaced with the totality of the Body of Christ. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .”
In fact, it is precisely the fullness of the Body of Christ in the local Church that permits economia. That one bishop may do things somewhat different than another and may allow variations that another bishop does not allow is licit precisely because the fullness of the Church is found in the bishop with his people.
Having said that, because of the supralocal dimension of the Body of Christ, and because of the expanding Church, mechanisms had to be worked out in practice to maintain that supralocal unity that the Fathers also give witness to. You catch the beginning of this when St. Paul writes to Ss. Timothy and Titus. Regional authority with boundaries begins to appear. And by St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius, this is taken as a given. These mechanisms can indeed be altered as needed, provided that the basic witness of the bishop and his Church are preserved.
In fact, as Orthodox we believe both that the Holy Spirit faithfully guided us in the formation of these structures that we call Patriarchates, with the development of our version of primacy, and that the Holy Spirit can guide us in altering these structures so that the Church can continue to function in holy unity. I would tend to call this practical ecclesiology while I would call some of what Fr. Andrew said as theoretical ecclesiology. But, those are small differences.
Our theoretical ecclesiology expresses perfection while our practical ecclesiology expresses wheat and tares.
“In Orthodox ecclesiology, a bishop’s authority within his own diocese may only be circumvented by his deposition.”
Who may depose him?
“Again, the Roman primacy has nothing to do with sacramental grace. The Bishop of Rome does not have more sacramental grace, or a different sacramental grace, from any other bishop out there.”
Then how is this special Petrine charism transimItted to his successors? If it is NOT conferred through Holy Orders or connected to the sacramental life of the Church, but *immediately* by Christ, then *how* and *when* are they conferred on that individual? Episcopal equality is grounded in a Eucharistic ecclesiology which rules out the RC papal theory, which claims that a special charism was given to the Apostle Peter and is transmitted to his successors apart from the sacramental life of the Church.
Jack – I didn’t cite Apostolic Canon 34 as a proof of papal primacy. Clearly, it has to do with primacy and order within a local synod of bishops. I cited it in response to Father Andrew’s claim that primacy of any kind (even regional primacy) is not a category in Orthodox ecclesiology, and has nothing to do with theology. I didn’t specifically mention Zizioulas (you made that connection yourself), although incidentally I do find his work fascinating.
It’s been some time since I read it, but Fr. Schmemann’s essay in *The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church* on “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology” is, among other things, a sustained critique of, on the one hand, the idea that “primacy in any form is not a part of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology,” and, on the other, the ascription of a kind of pseudo-papal juristic primacy to synods of particular churches. My impression is that the idea that primacy in any form is unOrthodox stems in large part from the earlier writings of Fr. Nicholas Afanassiev (1893-1966), one of Fr. Schmemann’s teachers in Paris, on whom see: *Theology in the Russian Diaspora* by Aidan Nichols (Cambridge University Press, 1989).
If you have access to an academic (or seminary) library and wish to see a scholarly account of how one pope, long before the schism, conceived of his office, its nature and its uniqueness, you might wish to search out “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy” by Walter Ullmann, *Journal of Theological Studies,* new series, XI (1960), pp. 25-51. Much more polemical, but not without some merit, is “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy” by A. St. Leger Westall, *The Dublin Review,* CXXXII (January-April 1903), pp. 100-114. The Ullmann article shows, at the very least, that the Roman See itself never believed, even when it was, so to speak, Orthodox, in what the Orthodox commentators in this thread assert to be Orthodox ecclesiology. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the words and deeds of such Roman bishops as Victor, Damasus, Leo or Gelasius would easily discern that the view of “primacy” which they embraced was not “Orthodox” and thus that the “Orthodox view” has no more claim to aggrandize the “Early Church” for itself than the Roman one.
I’m sorry, Father, but this is an extreme distortion of the RC notion of dogmatic development. There is absolutely no way in Catholic thought that the truth could be shown to contradict itself. A doctrinal development which contracts what came before is called an error or a heresy.
CU,
My apologies. You seemed to me to be implying that Canon 34 could be read as theologizing inter-church administration as an image of the Trinity with the Pope as Father and his fellow Bishops as Sons and Spirits. Sorry if I misread you. I find that Zizoulas loses touch with the economy much too quickly as he soars into the divine persons in communion. Father Behr has some pointed things to say about this:
Fr. Ernesto,
Yes! Thank you so very much. You just stated it. A primacy of some sort is pratically necessary for expressing and maintaining communion between churches, which has always been a somewhat messy business. This is what Canon 34, the ecumenical canons, and the diptychs stood for.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Rome. As Michael pointed out, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all have identical claims to any allegedly unique “Petrine” charism or succession. James at Jerusalem was the pragmatic primate in Acts 15. That pragmatic primacy moved to Rome when the Jerusalem Church was scattered. The Spirit moves where it will.
Fr. Andrew,
Now I see that Rome took its practical primacy after the fall of Jerusalem, plus the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, plus a decent history of orthodoxy (but see Origen and Tertullian’s comments), and theologized it, reading it back into scripture. It is all so completely obvious now. The Bishop of Rome was the Petrine primate until the disagreement over the filioque. This adequately accounts for all the scriptural-patristic-historical evidence, no?
Am I missing anything?
If all of this is true, then how does Orthodoxy manifest this inter-Church communion? Doesn’t this place things like “toll-boths” into the category of a merely an interesting local opinion? What about Palamas (with whom I agree)?
Dr Tighe, thanks for these recommendations. I do find it to be a problem that the Orthodox Popes of Rome (not to mention a number of Fathers, both Greek and Latin) had an understanding of their office that would be unthinkable in what is being presented today as “Orthodox ecclesiology”.
Jack, no problem. I should have made myself clearer.
I don’t think that Rome has ever denied that Antioch and Alexandria are likewise “Petrine” sees. Gregory the Great himself said as much. In the old Roman Rite, there was a feast called “The Chair of Peter at Antioch” (Feb. 22).
1. I believe Pope Gregory the Great also wrote that “Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one see of Peter”. But if they are one see of Peter, why should Rome alone be recognized?
2. Yes, many of the early popes of Rome had very high ideas about their primacy. But two questions remain — first, how should that primacy be exercised in raw power and dominion over other bishops and sees?; and second, were the more exalted claims of authority correct developments or going onto the wrong track of the spirit of Diotrophes, who according to the Johannine epistles “loved to have the preeminence”. Didn’t Christ say that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, but “it shall not be so among you”?
In this early Roman understanding of its see’s unique authority, the fact the Peter was its founder and that he died there was important but not decisive. Rome held that Antioch was a “Petrine See,” and also Alexandria (since the latter was held to have been founded by Peter’s disciple, Mark) — and that is why Leo the Great so firmly rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon, he holding that neither Constantinople nor Jerusalem possessed such “Petrinity” (as well as holding the canon as derogatory to Alexandria and Antioch). What Leo and Damasus (at least) held was that Peter and Paul had been the joint founders of the Roman Church, and that Peter himself, before his death, had bestowed his (in their view) unique, but transmissible, apostolic preeminence on a successor, usually held to be St. Clement, who eventually became Bishop of Rome (but who might not have been such ar first, cf. Linus and (Ana)cletus. The same Walter Ullmann discussed some of the tangled threads, going back at least as far as Irenaeus, in his “The Significance of the Epistola Clementis in the Pseudo-clementines,” *Journal of Theological Studies,* new series, XI (1960), pp. 295-317.
Some historians (like George Edmundson, in his *The Church of Rome in the First Century* [1913]) have made use certain obscure passages in the fourth-century “Liber Pontificalis” to suggest that Linus and Cletus were Peter’s vicars in Rome during his absences from the city, and may one or the other have continued to exercise presidency and oversight over the Roman Church after his martyrdom, but that Clement may have been his designated apostolic “successor” — and that it was only after the deaths of Linus and Cletus that Clement became “the bishop” of Rome.
Yet again, how would Petrine primacy rightly be exercised?
For example: Eusebius says that Victor of Rome in the middle second century “attempted” to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor because they celebrated Pascha on a different date than Rome! This is interesting to me because (A) the fact that Victor attempted but did not succeed implies he did not have the universal powers a present pope of Rome would claim; and (B) there is definitely a spirit of bossiness and domination involved here, that what his successor in the Roman chair found acceptable in Polycarp, Victor found intolerable and wanted to stamp out…note also that the controversy was not definitively settled until the Council of Nicea, indicating that a Council had the last word.
The theory of ecclesial oneness flowing from the plenitude of Roman power sounds nice in theory, but it can look less beautiful in the application, as St. Cyprian of Carthage found out to his chagrin.
And…I still wonder what Gregory Dialogist meant by Rome, Alexandria and Antioch being “one see” of Peter. If they are truly one, Rome should be honoring the patriarchs in a way that it hasn’t for some time. Even at Vatican II, Pope John XXIII wanted distinguished seating for the patriarchs, but the Cardinals of the Curia wouldn’t let that happen.
Rome since the 11th century has become a centralized bureaucracy, even tossing out all the ancient canon law and making its own instead, not to mention Popes “giving” England to William the Conqueror, and “giving” Ireland to England! Papal development has not been always a beautiful thing.
Oops, that should have read, “what his predecessor in the Roman chair found acceptable”.
Dr Liccione,
It seems to me that in your comment of 7:55 PM, you rather delicately avoid the purported “universal ordinary jurisdiction” of the Pope. You write as if the Pope’s jurisdiction were only an appelate jurisdiction, but you are careful not to say so outright. But that, of course, is not true. In the Roman system, the Pope may exercise ordinary jurisdiction as, and when, he chooses, with or without the consent of the local bishop. The local bishop, on the other hand, exercises his ordinary jurisdiction at the pleasure of the Pope and under the Pope’s explicit supervision.
That, coupled with the fact that the Pope (in almost all cases) appoints the bishops and (in all cases) may depose them at will and on his sole authority, and with the fact that their authority and the catholicity of the Churches over which they preside are predicated on their communion with the Pope, makes the notion that they are in fact mere auxiliaries quite plausible. The Pope, and the Pope alone, holds his episcopate in his own right and apart from the sufferance of another. All other bishops hold their office at the Pope’s pleasure. Why should we regard them as anything other than auxiliaries?
Michael: The date-of-Easter controversy (I can never remember that word that begins with “quad”) was immensely complicated. And, in point of fact, er, the popes won. It was their view that prevailed. Therefore the entire episode can be seen as a pretty strong piece of evidence for the early exercise of papal jurisdictional primacy.
I believe Dr. Tighe knows quite a bit about the episode in question. And Father Luke Rivington covers it in some depth in his book, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, which is available online. (The Pontificator has a link.)
God bless!
Diane
P.S. CU–I am praying for you. Posting on the papacy and trying to counter silly caricatures of development of doctrine–whew, you’ve got your work cut out for you. 🙂
P.P.S. Happy week of prayer for Christian unity, y’all!
cathedraunitatis,
It has been argued that early in the life of the Church, and even down further through Her history, one see’s many “experiments” which for various reasons wind up at a dead end, often in ugly ways, or trends which had healthy aspects but were prone to certain excesses which made them in need of reigning in. The ascetical traditions of the Church are filled with examples of this (ex. the rules which came to form around monasticism.)
I would say the same thing happens with ideologies as well, which when closely examined, are really just private theologies which eventually try to push themselves as “the” Catholic faith. Sadly, often these have their origins amongst men who lived and died within the bosom of the Church, often times even as those numbered as amongst Her Saints.
Rome’s schism from the Eastern Patriarchs did not happen over night, but were the result of a series of pressures and circumstances, one of the most significant being the increasing isolation (culturally and geographically) of Western Christendom (and obviously Rome itself) from other Christians. This created an environment where an ecclessiastical arrangement which had developed for very practical reasons (very centralized around Rome, as had happened in Alexandria – interestingly each had it’s own “Pope”) began to take upon themselves a dogmatic significance. This much was never a part of the universal ecclessial consciousness, which is what makes the East’s “touch and go” relationship with the Papacy (basically, we’ll hail you when we can use your help) can be so perplexing to honest Roman Catholic patrologists, to the point of seeming duplicitous. That negative conclusion is of course not necessary, when one realizes the universal mind of the ancient Church simply never took Rome or what she had to say nearly as seriously as she herself did, and the gulf between the two appraisals only grew with time, in both directions (esp. after it became clear Roman Popes were starting to behave a little odd, and having one of them condemned at an Ecumenical Council by name as a heretic certainly didn’t help either.)
Chris Jones,
Your last comment is correct – ultimately whatever rights Bishops (and those in arch-episcopal offices) have in Roman Catholic ecclessiology, they remain in tact solely by the clemency of the Pope. Just as the priest receives his jurisdiction from his bishop to function in his diocese, a bishop (in RC ecclessiology) receives his own jurisdiction over the diocese by the Pope. As such, the Papacy really does constitute the horror described by St.Gregory the Great as the “precursor to the antichrist.”
It probably should be noted that the same protest against the alleged tyranny of the Pope can also be levelled against patriarchs and bishops. How many tyrannical bishops have their been in the life of the Church? How many parish priests and congregations have been victims of the abuse of episcopal authority? Prelacy has a long history, both in the East and West.
Presumably the abuse of episcopal power does not argue against the divine institution of the episcopal office. Equally presumably the abuse of papal powr does not argue against the divine institution of the papal office.
I would suggest that the papal office, with its universal ordinary jurisdiction, is a much needed protection against episcopal tyrants.
Father Schmemann:
“The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church must necessarily exist in the world as an orderly and visibly-united Church Universal, and it is the function and charism of the primacies to serve as centers of communion, unity, and coordination. There exist local and regional primacies (metropolitans, patriarchs) and a universal primacy. Orthodox ecclesiology has never denied that traditionally the latter belonged to the Church of Rome. It is, however, the interpretation of this primacy in terms of a personal infallibility of the Roman pontiff and of his universal jurisdiction power that led to its rejection by the Orthodox East.”
We could add “and rejection by large segments of the West.” I also think Fr. Schmemann would not be opposed to replacing the word “traditionally” with “historically,” which has a different connotation. If this is acceptable, I don’t see this statement as radically different than Fr. Ernesto’s.
In my view, magCaths spend too much time reading Soloviev and Newman. These authors wrote in the 19th century, when the Roman Catholic Church was at its triumphalist best. Indeed, in the days of the great Piuses, the Roman Catholic Church probably held the best title, showing in her worldwide glory all the marks of the True Church. With VatII and the invention of the NO, everything has changed. The fruits are in. With the New Mass Order and its ethos of syncretic humanism, the Roman Catholic Church is able to blend into the New World Order, cooperating with all men of good will for peace and brotherhood among men in the City of Man. In our day and age, the Orthodox Church seems to be the only apostolic church left standing.
Indeed, some words of Pope Leo the Great regarding his prerogatives should make Orthodox uncomfortable. On the other hand, Pope Gregory the Great’s bitter polemic against the use of the title Universal Patriarch should make Roman Catholics uncomfortable. With the adoption of this title, it seems that Gregory sensed a clear and present danger, because it could lead to the adoption of the monarchical system, which would be unstable and vulnerable, because “if the Universal One is fallen, then the whole Church is fallen”. In our day and age, is this not what has come to pass? With VatII and the NO, has not Gregory’s fears come true?
Chris:
Mostly for the benefit of anybody here who doesn’t already know it, I note that you and I have had more or less this same discussion several times before at Pontifications. Since all that is, alas, buried in comments I can no longer find, its content won’t do any good here. But I am encouraged that the past has apparently led you to be more circumspect.
You do not assert outright that Catholics bishops are mere “auxiliaries” of the pope rather than “ordinaries” with real jurisdiction. Citing certain things we both agree are facts, you say it’s “quite plausible” to so regard them and ask “why shouldn’t” one so regard them. In a spirit of reciprocation, I grant you that such a view is plausible to many people who have either never been Catholic or have not lived long as a serious, practicing Catholics. But it doesn’t follow as a matter of logic; and if one has lived long enough as such a Catholic, it isn’t even plausible.
Let’s start with the logic. I grant that “the Pope may exercise ordinary jurisdiction as, and when, he chooses, with or without the consent of the local bishop. The local bishop, on the other hand, exercises his ordinary jurisdiction at the pleasure of the Pope,” although true ultramontanes can only wish that such were always or even usually “under the Pope’s explicit supervision.” I also grant that “the Pope (in almost all cases) appoints the bishops and (in all cases) may depose them at will and on his sole authority.” And I must as a Catholic grant that the “authority and the catholicity of the Churches over which they preside are predicated on their communion with the Pope.” All the above unpacks what it means to say that the pope has “ordinary jurisdiction” over the Church universal. But it does not follow that bishops thereby lack ordinary jurisdiction within their several dioceses? No.
For one thing, even though popes now appoint all bishops in the Latin Church and the majority in the Eastern-Catholic churches, in Catholic doctrine that is only considered bene esse, not of the esse of the Church. Until well past the turn of the first millennium, popes of Rome appointed few bishops outside Italy, and it wasn’t until after Napoleon that popes got to appoint all bishops even in the Latin Church. Yet Rome has always recognized the legitimacy and apostolic succession of bishops it does not appoint, so long as certain other conditions are met, which they typically are even in the Orthodox churches. So, even though the increased power of appointment is good as a way of maintaining the Church’s integrity and her independence of secular powers—witness the Vatican’s current struggle with the Chinese Government—it is not essential for the Church’s constitution even as understood by Vatican I and II. It could evaporate at some point in the future without posing any question of dogmatic significance.
Second, popes depose bishops no more often, and arguably less as a matter of history, than Orthodox synods depose wayward bishops who come under their jurisdiction. For good reason, of course, the Orthodox maintain that the power of deposition as they conceive it doesn’t detract from the ordinary jurisdiction of individual bishops. Catholic doctrine conceives the relation of local and regional authority to the universal somewhat differently, to be sure; but the Orthodox example shows all the same that power of deposition does not, merely by itself, derogate from ordinary jurisdiction, just as the Roman example shows that the power of appointment is neither necessary for such jurisdiction nor sufficient to eliminate it.
Third, the degree of Roman supervision that one sees now in the Catholic Church did not always exist, and many good Catholics have argued that it’s undesirable even now. I don’t agree with those Catholics because this is one of those damned-if-we-do-and-damned-if-we-don’t situations in which it will never be possible to please Rome’s critics. And since it is such a situation, I don’t find it even plausible to argue that, on Catholic doctrine, bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction within their dioceses.
Non-Catholics sometimes complain that the pope is an absolute monarch, a dictator. Yet one of the most common complaints about contemporary Catholicism that I hear from non-Catholic Christians whom I take seriously as Christians is that there’s so much de facto disunity in the Catholic Church that papal authority to maintain orthodoxy and orthopraxis is merely de jure and thus operatively hypocritical. My concern here is not to discuss how plausible that criticism is in itself, but to note that the criticism motivates what is, logically, a non-sequitur. The conclusion the critics seem to want drawn is that if Roman jurisdiction is what Rome says it is, then we shouldn’t expect to see the situation they see today, one that I grant is a problem. That conclusion is meant in turn as a premise in a much bigger argument to the effect that, as a matter of the divine constitution of the Church of Christ, Roman jurisdiction is not what she says it is and was never meant to be. But neither the subsidiary nor the ultimate conclusion is justified. The de facto disunity we see today is by no means historically unprecedented and is in part the result of the papacy’s default posture of restraint in exercising its ordinary jurisdiction over the Church universal. Even though popes can, in theory, do the kind of radical housecleaning that would purify the Church for a time, they can rarely do so without generating real schisms, led by real bishops, as side effects. Popes have often judged, correctly, that such a cure would be worse than the disease. Thus, what they can do as a matter of principle, they often may not do as a matter of prudence. (My argument does not depend on which particular cases of such judgment are correct and which are not.) And that is just what one would expect if, as Catholic doctrine affirms, papal jurisdiction does not exist to supplant but to facilitate episcopal jurisdiction. So, even though one saw several depositions and one excommunication of bishops under John Paul II—the latter resulting in the SSPX schism—we didn’t see the kind of mass purging that some would like to see. In fact, we rarely see such housecleanings, though they have occurred before; the first was how the Marcionite heresy was handled in the 2nd century. But even in the best of times popes cannot, as a purely practical matter, micromanage dioceses other than Rome. That’s one reason why so many Catholic bishops can and do get away with ignoring Roman directives. That in turn is a source of considerable frustration for orthodox Catholics who have lived long as such. But we neither want nor expect Roman micromanagement. Such a thing is no more desirable than possible.
Finally, and as I said in my previous comment, Rome’s official view of the ecclesiastical status of the Orthodox churches indicates that a bishop is a bishop, on criteria accepted by both sides, whether or not he is in communion with Rome. That all bishops ought to be in full communion with Rome, because they may licitly exercise their ordinary jurisdiction only in conjunction with the pope’s, does not alter the fact that they do have authority and power as bishops whether or not Rome approves how they exercise the same or even whether they are in full communion with Rome. That is why the SSPX, and now Emmanuel Milingo and his buddies, are real problems that Rome cannot eliminate by decree.
I sometimes tire of repeating, and having to show, that papal jurisdiction as conceived by Catholic doctrine does not exist instead of but in addition to episcopal jurisdiction. I understand why the opposite impression is so widespread. I just wish the motives for the correlative conclusion were not always so evident in the poverty of the arguments for it.
Best,
Mike
I have been following this discussion with some interest because I have also seen the difference in thinking about primacy in Rome especially that seems to go right back to at least the third century. This appears to be different to modern Orthodox opinions on the matter. Is this the beginning of a development of thought that would eventually lead to the schism and was a wrong opinion in western thinking that was not yet developed to a heretical level, or was it something “Orthodox” that has been a little lost in the East because of the consequences of the Roman development of the doctrine?
I think that there is an importance of primacy in Orthodox(Catholic) thought. This primacy is properly referred to as Petrine Primacy and Rome is certainly a centre of this primacy. I also believe that the structures of the Church as regulated in the Canons are not merely practical implementations but reflect and maintain important theological understandings of the Church.
This is that there is one Bishop, who is Christ. All Bishops are in a Mystery the concrete presence of Christ in the Church in His capacity as “high priest”, “teacher” and “master”. There is no Christ of Christ and rightly no Bishop of Bishops. The Roman Catholic system gives the impression, whether or not it is formally taught, that the Pope has an exclusive, or greater, manifestation of Christ compared to the other Bishops; he is set apart as “The” Vicar of Christ and somehow a “Christ of Christs” or Bishop of Bishops.
Having said the above, it may be asked how do we have a multitude of Bishops if there is only one Bishop? The answer, I believe, comes from primacy. All Bishops are the same being from the same Christ. However, Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom alone (initially but later to all the Apostles) to show that gift is one and given wholly to one. It is not given in parts to a team of Apostles but it is given whole to one. This signifies that there is one Bishopric not many different Bishoprics. However, it would be impractical for one man to physically oversee the whole Church in the world so there are appointed many Bishops to do this, all sharing the whole gift as did Peter and succeeding him in holding the keys.
To ensure that the oneness of the Bishopric is maintained Bishops are organised into groups with a definite head so that they speak and act as one. The head gives this focus, although he is not above the others and acts not alone but with their unanimous consent (majority voting is a system of economy for the weaknesses of man but not the true modus operandi of the group, which is to act all as one). These groups are then structured to one which is at the head of the world, i.e. the Bishop of Rome as the centre and voice of Church unity. He is located where the whole world looks, the capital of the Empire, (although this wasn’t practically true; it carried this sense for the Roman people and the symbolism of the position is what is important) and he reflects to the world the Bishopric of Christ. When the Empire gains another capital the Church follows this and appoints another centre of Church unity equal to Rome, although Rome is respected in age. Constantinople does not replace Alexandria as second but rather shares first place with Rome as the New Rome. It shares the same place as Rome but reflects the unity of the Church to the Eastern Empire as Rome does to the West. This models Peter and Paul. Paul who joins the Apostles later shares the place with Peter as the chief Apostles the centre of unity of the Apostles. Peter displays this to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Both share the same headship although Peter maintains the honour of time and the Primacy is named from him. This division into two does not negate the primacy of one but helps to remind us that the unity is Christ and not the human establishment in itself.
This primacy is not about internal jurisdiction within Dioceses but about the witness and action of the Church beyond these boundaries. It is right for Rome and Constantinople to supervise missions outside the territories defined for other Bishops, regions, or Patriarchates. Their jurisdiction is universal but only as a point of appeal and supervision of matters pertaining to the witness of the Church in general when the Church needs to speak as with one voice and mouth. It does not mean jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of other Bishops, groups or Patriarchates but only on matters of world wide concern with the consent of all other Bishops (through the tiered structure).
It is natural for other churches to model themselves on these universal witnesses of the Church. This witness is of the whole See and not only the Bishop. The primacy is found in the See and not the Bishop himself, although the Bishop being the head of his See is the focus of the witness. So, other churches soon model their liturgies and church practices on these central Sees. The Liturgy becomes uniform as do forms of music and art. Uniformity is not necessary in these matters but the oneness of the Church tends to bring this about and part of the maturity of the Church. (I believe it is wrong to diversify what is now uniform in the Church because there was variety in the early Church; variety is not wrong but I believe that it is not the mature way of the Church.)
Although, the political reasons of the granting of Primacy have gone the structure, decided by the Fathers under inspiration of the Spirit to structure the Church as Christ would have it, remains until the return of Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever and who doesn’t change His mind ordering one thing and then another, although He allows for concessions due to human weaknesses. Free-will is always paramount and Bishops and even entire Sees can fall into heresy, so there is no guarantee that one of the Sees of Primacy will always be in the Church, although I think there is some special grace in this and somehow one or the other of the Sees of Rome or New Rome has remained faithful to Christ most of the time.
So, each Bishop contains the fullness of Christ in the Mystery of the Bishop and yet one Bishop is shown forth to the world to demonstrate that the Church is one with one Bishopric. This Bishop does so because he is a Bishop just like the others but because he is (was) at the centre of the world (Empire) and he carries the primacy demonstrating the oneness of the Bishopric and the Church. The Church is not an amalgamation of many parts neither is it reduced to one concrete See but it is one and the same throughout the world. This means that all local churches are equal but also that one can be chosen from the rest and shown to the world as the “ideal and complete” church, truly representative of all the churches and of the Church.
Well, this is my opinion on the matter of primacy. I am not sure if the ideas are fully coherent but it is a solution that I have been working on to understand and incorporate all the Fathers western and eastern without having to discard any of the opinions. The system has been abuse over the centuries and misunderstood for the sake of power etc but I believe it remains, at least in the books, as a testimony of the true nature of the Church which is One and yet manifested in many.
Mike L–a brilliant and cogent response as always!
There are so many golden nuggets there that I would have to take more time than I have at my disposal to do justice to them all. But one things particularly struck me: …if one has lived long enough as such a Catholic, it isn’t even plausible.
Exactly. I can’t argue on the lofty plane that most here occupy, but I can speak to the experience of the average Catholic in the pew, because I am one.
As I’ve said before, we lay Catholics do not experience the pope as an overbearing dishpot who directly intervenes, at every opportunity, both in diocesan affairs and in our individual lives. Such a caricature may fit some people’s fantasies of the Great Papal Bogeyman, but it simply does not fit the reality of grassroots Catholic experience. I doubt it ever did, even during Gregory VII’s day. 🙂
As Mike L. intimated, some of us rather wish the pope would intervene a tad more, e.g., in troublesome dioceses such as L.A. But he doesn’t, and that’s because he prudentially has decided that a crackdown could lead to the greater evil of schism.
But getting back to our lived experience as lay Catholics: As I’ve said before, most of us experience “church” first and foremost as the local church, our parish. It’s our own priest who serves as the focal point (on the human level, I mean). Our priest and our fellow parishioners. After that, we experience “church” as the bishop. The bishop sets the tone (as well as the policies) for the diocese. What he decrees directly affects each one of us, in a myriad of ways. And when we have a beef, and we’ve taken it to Father to no avail, our next recourse is to take it to the bishop. I don’t know any fellow Catholics who appeal to the papal nuncio as a first resort. Heck, I’ve never met any who appeal to the papal nuncio as a last resort. (Such redress is possible, thank God; but AFAIK it is rarely used.)
In short, the notion that the pope is a micro-managing control freak who meddles in the internal affairs of every diocese, runs things instead of the bishop, and reduces the bishop to a mere yes-man–this simply does not accord with the lived experience of any Catholic I know. It is a caricature…one that most lay Catholics would find laughable.
And when you think of it…how could the pope be a micro-managing control freak even if he wanted to be? The Catholic Church has 1.1 billion members (and counting). Ever try to micro-manage 1.1 billion people? Herding cats would be a lot easier.
God bless,
Diane
The fruits are in. With the New Mass Order and its ethos of syncretic humanism, the Roman Catholic Church is able to blend into the New World Order, cooperating with all men of good will for peace and brotherhood among men in the City of Man. (emphasis added)
LOL–how can one respond to that? No offense, but it sounds like something out of those little Chick tracts sold at our local fundamentalist bookstore.
Gotta run. I’m late for my secret meeting of the Jesuit-Vatican-World Bank-Jewish-Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world. 🙂
God bless,
Diane
Father Patrick,
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the whole subject of primacy and Rome, etc.
Your thoughts of Rome being the capital and hence the focal head is interesting to me because I note that in the Old Testament, the Lord tended to send His prophets to the rulers of the empires to convert or otherwise influence them. Think of the Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Persia in the book of Esther, etc. It strikes me as likely that Peter and Paul would have been sent to Rome precisely to influence those who had lordship in the world…much like the “little stone carved without hands” mentioned in the Book of Daniel that knocked down the gold-silver-brass-iron statue (world empires/rulers) and which stone became “a great mountain filling the whole earth”.
As far as practical working out of such primacy, I do sometimes get a sense, however, that Pope Gelasius et al wanted to impose Roman liturgical forms on other churches within their region at least, because Rome was thought to possess the tradition of Peter and so they deemed it superior. At times I wonder if it was just a control issue.
I also wonder if the RCC would accept your analysis, since it doesn’t sound quite like Vatican I.
In so many ways I find myself so close to so much of what Fr. Patrick said. So let me just make a couple of quick comments about what he and Diane said.
Fr. Patrick is quite correct. We Orthodox have probably reacted against some expressions of centralized authority because of the schism. Meanwhile the Roman Catholic Church has reacted against conciliarity with equal strength. Primates, as focus and examples of Christian unity and witness are indeed valuable people. They also need sufficient authority to be able to speak confidently as icons of that unity. However, I think we Orthodox would tend to be conciliar.
The Ecumenical Council with all its bishops (even if not all attend) is the ultimate symbol of Christian Unity. That is, precisely because each local Church with its bishop is a full expression of the Body of Christ, it is when those full expressions come together that a sense of the Oneness of the Church is fully expressed. In passing, note that this is akin to saying that each Person of the Trinity is fully God and yet saying, that there is but One God. Each diocese is fully the Body of Christ, but the Ecumenical Council indeed is a true icon of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In passing, provincial, patriarchal, and other councils echo that Oneness which is expressed in the Ecumenical Council.
Diane, the issue is not whether the Pope does or does not micromanage. It is the very claim to the possibility of replacing or appointing bishops in his own right that is negated by the Orthodox. Church Tradition and canon, until the post-schism Roman Catholic Church, never allowed one bishop to depose another bishop. The deposition of bishops was always handled in a mini-conciliar fashion, with the bishops of the area being invoved in said discipline. There were even provisions for what to do if it became necessary for a neighboring Province to be involved. It is true that often Metropolitans were given right of approval of the election of bishops, but extremely rarely of appointment of bishops. Bishops were always elected and approved in a conciliar fashion.
Having said that, the East had the Emperor for nearly 700 years longer than the West. Thus, some of the decisions taken by the Roman pontiff were sometimes taken by the Emperor. We do not believe in Caesaro-Papism, as we are sometimes accused of believing. Nevertheless, it is true that we sometimes do not respond to a crisis quickly enough because there used to be a Christian Emperor who used to do that. In the West, the Holy Roman Emperor had a more equivocal position, although note that during the times of the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire that both kings had the right to appoint bishops who were merely confirmed by the Roman pontiff.
But, I think that Fr. Patrick and I are not that far apart. There may yet be something to that nice two lungs analogy. GRIN.
Well, I’ve been a regular Catholic-in-the-pews now for 22 years, and my expereince runs a little differently than Mike’s and Diane’s. Of course the pope doesn’t micromanage the affairs of the local parish- neither, for that matter, does the bishop- that’s a straw man. But the minor changes to the liturgy which have come down have come directly from Rome.
And a little anecdote- I recently had an appointment with my archbishop (Chaput) at the Archdiocesan Center in Denver, the cathedras, the center of power, of a very influential archbishop. Over the front desk in the central hall is a huge portrait- of Benedict XVI. Archbishop Chaput’s much smaller portrait is in an adjacent hall, at the head of his predecessors.
And a quote from the abbot of a Byzantine Catholic monastery (Holy Resurrection in California) which I visited last summer: (with a note of disapproval) “We really only have one bishop in the western church- the Pope.” Joe
The issue is not so much whether the Pope actually exercises his extraordinary ordinary power but the very fact of such plenitude and the image of the Church that this conveys. The board of cardinals and the appointment and transfer of hierarchs up and down the ladders of management also looks a little strange.
Dear Mike,
Despite Diane’s assessment of your response as “brilliant and cogent”, I found it less brilliant than you usually are, and certainly not cogent. The fact that the Pope’s exercise of his “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is a matter of his prudential judgement, and the consideration of how often and in what way he exercises it, do not affect in any way the points that I was making. I am concerned with the principle of “universal ordinary jurisdiction”. If it is false (as I believe), no claim that its purpose is to “support” the local bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction, nor any mitigation of its force based on how rarely it is purported to be invoked, will make it true.
I appreciate your approval of my “circumspection” but I must admit that the circumspection is merely rhetorical. My opinions are unchanged.
If the apostolicity and catholicity of the local Church is conditional upon her communion with Rome, then the authority of her bishop is also conditional. It follows from this that his authority, and the catholicity of the Church over which he presides, are not his directly by divine right, but are derivative from the catholicity of Rome and the authority of the Pope. If so, then the local Church under the presidency of her bishop is not, in and of herself, the Catholic Church in her fulness — and St Ignatius of Antioch taught us wrongly.
The principles of the Roman system are that communion with Rome is the basis on which a local Church is Catholic and Apostolic; and the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope. The clear implication of these principles is that the local Churches are derivative of Rome, and the local bishops are his auxiliaries — because their authority is derivative of his authority.
Nothing in your post addresses these two principles, nor demonstrates that the conclusions I have drawn from them do not follow.
Sorry to be less circumspect.
Mike,
You wrote:
All the above unpacks what it means to say that the pope has “ordinary jurisdiction” over the Church universal. But it does not follow that bishops thereby lack ordinary jurisdiction within their several dioceses? No.
In response to this specific point, let me try to be more precise as to what I am asserting.
I recognize that in Roman Catholic canon law, local bishops do exercise ordinary jurisdiction. But the principles of Roman Catholic ecclesiology (which you stipulated that I had stated accurately) empty this “ordinary jurisdiction” of its meaning, because the local bishops hold their jurisdiction, not immediately from Christ, but mediately through the Pope; and further, they hold it at the Pope’s pleasure. That is why I believe that even though they are called ordinaries, and they may be ordinaries canonically, from the standpoint of ecclesiology their position is indistinguishable from that of auxiliaries.
This is contrary to the teaching of SS Ignatius and Cyprian, and is unknown to the ecumenical canons. That is why I don’t buy it.
And a quote from the abbot of a Byzantine Catholic monastery (Holy Resurrection in California) which I visited last summer: (with a note of disapproval) “We really only have one bishop in the western church- the Pope.”
Monks say the silliest things. 😉
Over the front desk in the central hall is a huge portrait- of Benedict XVI.
Well, er, we kind of honor, revere, and love the guy. I mean, it is remotely possible that Abp. Chaput–a very holy bishop, as you know–was showing the Pope deference and honor. Why not? St. Maximos did.
It might be interesting to compare the practical authority of the pope within the Latin Church today to that of the patriarchs in some of the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches in the past and today, for in most of these churches the patriarchs have been far less limited than in the Orthodox churches by their patriarchal synods. The Coptic Patriarch for many centuries had nearly unbounded authority to appoint and remove bishops, and although (I gather) his powers were limited by “lay committees” erected by the Egyptian authorities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; and the “Assyrian” patriarch’s powers were, and perhaps are, greater still.
Interesting idea about New Rome sharing in the primacy of Old Rome. Is this perhaps what Benedict and Bartholomew have set their sights on? A dual papacy, a double eagle, East and West…
However, there seems to be one important piece left out of the equation. The Russian Church, soon to be united, strong and reemerging, being 80 percent of the Orthodox, would never go with it. So in order for it to fly, it will be necessary to co-opt Third Rome into the scheme.
Well Joe, I know a bishop who has introduced “minor” changes in the liturgy of his own. Most of them are bad. But that’s OK: at least they’re more minor and less bad than those of some of his priests. And hey, he’s proven he’s not a lackey of Rome. 😉
I think highly of Chaput, a stronger and theologically sharper bishop than many. I know you’re not going to tell us what he said; but I have little doubt he would be surprised to hear that he has no ordinary jurisdiction in his diocese, if he hasn’t heard it already. 😉
As for that abbot—well, I know some well-educated Eastern Catholics, including priests, who would disagree with him. But some ECs are well-known for thinking, even when they don’t say, they’re Orthodox who happen to be in communion with Rome. He sounds like one of them. I also know some RCs who think there are too many chiefs and too few Indians in the episcopate. As they say, it takes all kinds.
Best,
Mike
Jack:
It was more than thirty years ago that I discussed with Schmemann, if not the very passage of his you quote, a statement of his to precisely the same effect that he made to me. As a matter of history, what you quote him as saying is perfectly true. It was not the idea of primacy per se, but the specific interpretation of Roman primacy that you get with Leo the Great and beyond, that was eventually rejected by the East. (And, in the case of Protestantism, the West too; but then, Protestantism threw out much of the baby with that bathwater.) I stress “eventually” because certain events, such as how the Acacian Schism was resolved, indicate that the rejection was not immediate.
But of course, what is the case concerning beliefs about primacy, which is a matter of history, does not show what ought to be the case, which is a matter of theology. Hence, no amount of historical evidence, just by itself, is capable of settling the theological issue between the two communions about Roman primacy. I was not persuaded then by Schmemann’s theological arguments against the Catholic doctrine thereof any more than I am persuaded by Zizioulas’ arguments now.
Still, I am intrigued by the Orthodox perspective offered by Fr. Patrick. It supplies a theological lens with which to view the historical facts. Hence its conclusions are worth discussing as a kind of “inference to the best explanation” of the facts. That invites the kind of discussion that could be fruitful, regardless of which explanation one ends up embracing.
Best,
Mike
“When the Empire gains another capital the Church follows this and appoints another centre of Church unity equal to Rome, although Rome is respected in age. Constantinople does not replace Alexandria as second but rather shares first place with Rome as the New Rome. It shares the same place as Rome but reflects the unity of the Church to the Eastern Empire as Rome does to the West. This models Peter and Paul. Paul who joins the Apostles later shares the place with Peter as the chief Apostles the centre of unity of the Apostles. Peter displays this to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Both share the same headship although Peter maintains the honour of time and the Primacy is named from him. This division into two does not negate the primacy of one but helps to remind us that the unity is Christ and not the human establishment in itself.”
It is a witness to the subtlety and erienicism of Fr. Patrick’s posting that it is impossible from it to discern whether he is Orthodox, Latin Catholic or Eastern Catholic!
It was, perhaps, among the saddest of “paths not taken” in the then incipient division between the East and the West that in 1024 (after 1009, when it appears the Bishops of Rome were no longer added to the diptychs in Constantinople) when a proposal somewhat along the lines of what is set forth in the first two sentences of the above excerpt was broached from Constantinople — that Old Rome should enjoy a primacy throughout the world but that New Rome should exercise the same primacy within the Empire — Rome, after initially welcoming the proposal, drew back from it in response to the hostility it generated among leaders of the “Cluniac Refrom” in France and Germany.
Diane:
>>Over the front desk in the central hall is a huge portrait- of Benedict XVI.
>Well, er, we kind of honor, revere, and love the guy. I mean, it is remotely possible that Abp. Chaput–a very holy bishop, as you know–was showing the Pope deference and honor.
Should he do that by denigrating his own jurisidiction?
Mike:
>I think highly of Chaput, a stronger and theologically sharper bishop than many. I know you’re not going to tell us what he said; but I have little doubt he would be surprised to hear that he has no ordinary jurisdiction in his diocese, if he hasn’t heard it already.
Well, I didn’t tell him that. But my point wasn’t to denigrate Chaput, it was to illustrate the atmosphere that still prevails today.
>But some ECs are well-known for thinking, even when they don’t say, they’re Orthodox who happen to be in communion with Rome. He sounds like one of them.
He is. Joe
“Rome, after initially welcoming the proposal, drew back from it in response to the hostility it generated among leaders of the “Cluniac Refrom” in France and Germany.”
Perhaps Romaneides was correct about those awful Franks!
Here is a quote which I think exemplifies the concerns I have with the Roman view of primacy. From the bull Satis Cognitum, Leo XIII, 1896:
Since the divine founder of the Church decreed that it was to be one in faith, in government, and in social organization, he chose Peter and his successors to be the source and center of this unity… [So far, so good, IMO, at least as regards unity in faith] The episcopal order is considered to be in proper union with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it is subordinate to Peter and obeys him.
This doesn’t seem a unity gained by true consensus in the Spirit. It’s a kind of positivism: there’s unity if there’s no outward dissent. Joe
Perhaps Romaneides was correct about those awful Franks!
Good Lord, I hope not.
Dr. Tighe,
What’s your take on the book “Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present” by Klaus Schatz?
‘Fraid I haven’t read it.
Should he do that by denigrating his own jurisidiction?
How was he denigating his own jurisdiction? Simply by having a large picture of the pope on display? I think you’re inferring an awful lot from that poor picture!
Joe, when you had concerns you wanted to discuss, whom did you take them to? To the pope? To the papal nuncio? No, to the archbishop. And he graciously met with you and discussed them. Isn’t that an example of episcopal jurisdiction in action?
Actions speak louder than words. They even speak louder than portraits hung over front desks. 🙂
Chris Jones,
Given what you have said, are you of the opinion that ‘a return to unity’ was at least possible before Vatican I, but due to the present RC view of the Pope it is no longer feasible?
Rob,
A ‘return to unity’ is always possible, but given the distance between the two sides it will require repentance for false doctrine and practice by one side or the other. Obviously it is my belief that the false doctrine is on the Roman side.
I don’t actually think Vatican I made much difference, if any at all. The decrees of Vatican I are but the logical consequence of the doctrine of Papal supremacy articulated by Rome throughout the second millenium (and earlier), but never accepted by the East. There’s nothing in Vatican I that is not adumbrated and in fact implied by Unam Sanctam (1302).
I hate to get involved but I must respond to Chris Jones’ statement saying
“The decrees of Vatican I are but the logical consequence of the doctrine of Papal supremacy articulated by Rome throughout the second millenium (and earlier), but never accepted by the East.”
This is just patently false.
Lets begin with St Maximus. There is no way to get around these Eastern fathers quotes. You either say
1. They are using flowery language. If that is the case is there in existence flowery language that points to lest say the Bishop of Constantinople as succesor of Peter, the rock and so on???
2. They don’t mean what they say…If these quotes that will be cited do not clearly mean what they say, than we cannot trust any patristic pedigree.
3. They mean what they actually clearly say
So lets start with St. Maximus
I will not comment on these since these plainly speak for themselves
+ St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662),
“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:137-144)
“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate… even as in all these things all are equally subject to her [the Church of Rome] according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.”
(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
“I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws, if I were to do this [write this letter to Peter – EBB] without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law. … If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who… does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also [from] all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
(Maximus, letter to the patrician Peter, ca. AD 642, in Mansi x, 692)
Next Eastern Father is Theodore the Studite
Writing to Emperor Michael…
“Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'”
(Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts – EBB] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
61.
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
“…a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
(Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).
+ St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 638):
“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his [the pope’s] letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.”
(Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)
+ Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (c. AD 645):
“…fly away and announce these things to the Chair [of Peter at Rome] which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority … And Sophronius [Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638) — EBB]… hastened to send my nothingness to this Apostolic and great See…. Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. … Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation… the new heresy.”
(Mansi, x, 893)
49.
+ Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (c. AD 649), writing to Pope Theodore:
“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”
(Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)
+ St. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople:
“Without whom [i.e., the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.
(Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
The Formula of Hormisdas signed by over 2000 Eastern Bishops
Hormisdas
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome
Even Ecumenical councils adhered to the teaching of papal primacy.
Just a few quotes that we all know from Papal Legate Philip
+ Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD):
“Philip… the legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known from all ages, that the most holy and most blessed Peter… received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord… and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.'”[4]
No one complained about this, in fact this is what they said about the Pope
+ Council of Chalcedon (451 AD):
“1….You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth. … For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, he has said that he is in the midst of them, must he not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests who preferred to their country and their ease the spread of knowledge about him? Of all these you were the chief, as head to members, showing your goodwill in matters of organization. …
And How can Pope Agatho speak these words at the 6th council to the Emperor with no rebuff if this doctrine was NOT accepted
….because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his [i.e. Rome] has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.
Before I was received into the Catholic Church I used to do gymnastics to get around these quotes.
Grace and Peace
May we all be one
John
Again, what did St. Gregory the Great mean when he wrote that “Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one see of Peter”? Likewise, when the patriarch of Constantinople signed the Formula of Hormisdas, he added to his signature, “We define that Old Rome and New Rome are one see of Peter”.
Thank God, the light of Peter’s true confession did so often shine in Rome…except with poor Honorius…but Rome is *not* the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”…only a part of it.
>Before I was received into the Catholic Church I used to do gymnastics to get around these quotes.
And what do you do now about the condemnation for heresy of Honorius I? Joe
John,
This is just patently false.
I think this is a bit strong. If something is “patently” false, then those of us who hold to it stand accused not just of being mistaken, but of a certain lack of good faith.
It is certainly true that the See of Rome was held in high esteem in the first millenium, in both East and West. And the primacy of the See of Rome was certainly acknowledged in the whole Church. The ecumenical canons bear witness to that. But the nature of that primacy is what is in question. Primacy as understood in the first millenium and supremacy as understood in the second millenium are two different things. Speaking for myself, I affirm the one even as I deny the other. That was, at length, the considered judgement of the Eastern Church as well. That is why there is a schism; and that is what I was referring to when I said “never accepted by the East”.
You act as if “never accepted by the East” means “no Christian in any of the Eastern patriarchates ever believed in Papal primacy”. But that is a most tendentious reading of what I wrote. What I meant (which ought to have been clear from the context) is that the Eastern Churches as a whole never accepted Papal supremacy, and in fact saw it as a Church-dividing issue. And that, far from being “patently false”, is a simple fact of history.
Of course I am aware of the quotes in your catena. I have read them before, but I have not found them persuasive before and I do not find them persuasive now. However persuasive you find them to be, in the grand scheme of historical, canonical, and patristic evidence, they are not in and of themselves dispositive.
LOL, Joe. How often has that one been answered? Can’t you come up with anything new? 😉
John, the quotes that you provided from the Eastern Fathers are excellent quotes, and none later than about 650AD. The Orthodox have no problem with the See of Peter being first in honor, love, and respect, and an example for all to follow. The very quotes that you gave show that.
Sadly, we also say that the estimable and most honored See of Peter began a process that changed its excellent theology and led, in part, to the Great Schism. The theology that the See of Peter held, even as late as 650, about its exercise of primacy and first of the sees was still within what the other four patriarchates could agree with. Once the Great Schism happened, the second of the sees, Constantinople, took the place of the See of Peter.
May I point out that the Orthodox have never chosen a patriarch to replace the one on the See of Peter, not even a patriarch in exile? There is yet that among us which causes us to behave cautiously. In practice, if not always in writing or speech, we still behave with the hope that the ancient and honorable patriarchates will one day be reunited.
Hello Michael and Joe
The Gregory quote and the issue of Honorius are the type of “gymnastics” required to validate schism with the Church of Rome, that I too once excercised.
No one will deal with the actual interpretations of the Holy Fathers themselves.
YOUR interpretation of one quote from Gregory is that since he states three sees are one this invalidates the hundreds of statements and church teaching on the papacy up until St Gregory?
Here is St. Maximus’ interpretation of the See of Peter at the same era as St Gregory. Nowhere do we find St Maximus make any of these same claims to the other Petrine sees
+ St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662),
“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:137-144)
“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate… even as in all these things all are equally subject to her [the Church of Rome] according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.”
(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
“I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws, if I were to do this [write this letter to Peter – EBB] without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law. … If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who… does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also [from] all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
(Maximus, letter to the patrician Peter, ca. AD 642, in Mansi x, 692)
So evidently St. maximus has a different take than you do.
Secondly the Petrine Sees were always recognized as Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, but Rome was the church which the gates of Hades would not prevail against. Can you cite any church fathers claiming unequivocably, as they do with the Bishop of Rome, that the see of Antioch is the rock of the church and that the bishop of Antioch has the final say on decisions and that that see cannot be judged by anyone??
Joe to your question about the case of Honorius. Again YOUR interpretation pits papal primacy and the promise of Christ to Peter and his successors against what happened with Honorius.
The proper interpretation is given by the Church itself. St Maximus claimed that Honorius was orthodox and Pope St Agatho at the 6th council which condemned Honorius said the following with NO REBUFF
1. ….because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his [i.e. Rome] has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
And St. Theodore the Studite AFTER the 6th council said this about the Church of Rome
1. Writing to Emperor Michael…
“Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”
(Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts – EBB] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
“…a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
(Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).
So again you have the bishop of Rome 40 yrs after the death of Honorius and at the council that condemns him state that the gates of hades shall not prevail against Rome and there is no taint of heresy, you have st Maximus defending Honorius and you have St Theodore the Studite AFTER the council still make those claims.
That does not include all the other Popes coming after these Fathers.
Now whose interpretation should we accept?
Grace and Peace
John
Chris Jones
I apologize and please forgive my tone about saying patently false.
You said that certain fathers accepted it but not on the whole. The Formula of Hormisdas was signed by over 2000 Eastern Bishops and the comments by Pope Agatho and Pope Nicholas AT a council cannot be reconciled with what you say. What St Maximus states and what St Theodore the Studite state and what Pope Agatho, and Nicholas state are the same things said in the 2nd millenium.
Chris, how can Pope Agatho and Pope Nicholas make the statements they make AT an Ecumenical council and you say the church as a whole did not accept this teaching.
They must have becuase
A. What they say is nothing different in essence than what is said in 2nd millenium
B. The council accepts these statements and none of the bishops object to these statements.
Please explain to me how the Eastern church as a whole found this teaching as church dividing when Popes since the 300’s made unequivocal claims to Papal Primacy, papal primacy was proclaimed at the councils with no dividing of the church, the Formulaof Hormisdas being signed by over 2000 Eastern bishops agreeing with the statement and not finding church dividing…rather they signed the agreement which actually made union with the See of Rome causing Church unity not division.
YOu have the councils accept all these statements without oncestating that these proclamations were church dividing.
My question than is, since the claims of Papal primacy by
Popes
Western fathers
Eastern Fathers
Acceptance of these claims by Councils
Was not church dividing back than, why is it so now??
Grace and Peace
John,
My question than is, since the claims of Papal primacy by Popes, Western fathers, Eastern Fathers, [and] acceptance of these claims by Councils was not church dividing back than, why is it so now??
Again, primacy is not the same thing as supremacy. Primacy has always been accorded to Rome. But to honor Rome because of the patrimony of St Peter and because Rome was largely (though not unfailingly) orthodox during the first millenium is not the same thing as saying that her place of honor is, in and of itself, a guarantee of orthodoxy under all circumstances.
What was not Church-dividing then — a primacy based (in part) on a well-earned reputation for orthodoxy, but contingent on continued orthodoxy — would not be Church-dividing now. But what is Church-dividing now is a claim to supremacy which makes Rome not “renowned for orthodoxy” but “the a priori definition of orthodoxy”. And what is Church-dividing now would have been Church-dividing then if Rome had attempted to enforce those claims on the whole Church. When she did attempt it, she provoked the schism.
I beg to differ with your statement that the Roman claim of supremacy was “accepted by the Councils”. The ecumenical councils certainly recognized Rome’s primacy of honor. But no council ever gave to Rome the sort of supremacy that she now claims. You will search the canonical decrees of the ecumenical councils in vain for any definition of Roman jurisdiction (even appelate jurisdiction) over the whole Church.
Dear John,
1. I have to agree with Chris Jones; there is a huge difference between primacy (on one hand) and absolute and total jurisdiction (on the other). He is also correct that the ancient councils did not define Rome to be the sole bulwark of Orthodoxy. In fact, if you peruse the Acta of the Seventh Council (Nicea II), you will find the criterion rather of agreement among the patriarchs and bishops as a whole, and worldwide reception, reminiscent of the Vincentian Canon.
2. There is also a difference between the pious opinions of fathers…even prominent fathers…based on their experience up to that point (on one hand), and the solemn definitions of a council (on the other hand). The very fact that, in signing the Formula of Hormisdas, the Patriarch of Constantinople added the phrase “we define the sees of Old and New Rome to be one see of Peter”, indicates that Roman hegemony was *not* accepted “by all, in every place, at all times”. Yes, holy Rome has been oft a beacon of Light, but not (I would say) always and in every case.
I don’t know if this is appropriate at this point, but could someone in the know provide the outline of a “plan for reunion”, since the schism seems to be the hot topic at the moment. By “plan”, I mean, a hypothetical series of events that would have to take place in order for reunion to occur. Obviously, there would neeed to be a few such “plans”, because obviously some Orthodox don’t need Rome to do anything at all in order to ally with the Pope (I am speaking of Eastern Catholics). Others may never even consider the possibility because they believe we RC’s are heretics (I am now speaking of the Mt. Athos monks, possibly). BUt, as an ignorant RC, it would be nice to see just what it is that has us separate and what it would take to heal that breach. What would basically be necessary for the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople to say that what was broken has been repaired? Is it even remotely possible?
Sigh. All of these “gymnastics” (appropriate word ;)) still leave the great question unanswered: How does the patristic record square with contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology?
I don’t see any way around the short answer: It doesn’t.
I believe that the theological perspective that I offered answers Micheal’s question below and also some of the issues raised by John.
‘Again, what did St. Gregory the Great mean when he wrote that “Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one see of Peter”? Likewise, when the patriarch of Constantinople signed the Formula of Hormisdas, he added to his signature, “We define that Old Rome and New Rome are one see of Peter”.’
The Patriarchates of Alexandra and Antioch are the centres of unity for the churches in Africa and the East respectively. They therefore manifest the Petrine principle in the context of their jurisdictional regions. So they can rightly be considered Sees of Peter in the sense of their role within their regions and also due to their history with the presence of St Peter in Antioch and of St Mark, St Peter’s disciple, in Alexandra. From the principle that the Church is one and the unity is one then both the Sees of Alexandra and Antioch are one as they are also one with Rome. There are not three centres of unity in the Church but one that is manifested completely in each of the three Sees with Rome, as the Imperial capital being the principal of these. (There is a strong parallel with Trinitarian Theology here. I believe that without a correct understanding of the Trinity it is impossible to understand the structure of the Church correctly because the same understanding of One God in three Persons is needed to understand One Church in many churches, one See of Peter in a number of Sees of Peter. The divergence of Roman Catholic and Orthodox thoughts on Church structure I believe parallel their divergence in Trinitarian theology.)
The Sees of Rome and New Rome are both the See of Rome in principle. The See of Old Rome comes first in time and New Rome is in a sense an “image” of Old Rome, like her in all aspects, although honouring her as the source. They are one very closely paralleling that the Father and the Son are one. When honour is given to the See of Rome it equally applies to New Rome. The See of Rome prevailing against the gates of Hades has continued to be true (from an Orthodox perspective) in New Rome, which after some troubles in its relatively early years has remained steadfastly orthodox, excepting a couple of short lived moments such as was suffered by Old Rome with Pope Honorius. (It is the See that is to prevail, not necessarily any particular Bishop of that See. It appears to me that the Fathers also considered that the Roman would prevail to the end of time. This hasn’t happened with the Roman Empire with Rome as its capital but it can be argued that the principle of the Empire, especially Pax Romana, has continued to this day. I think that the same defence of the Fathers could also be used in the case of the Roman See prevailing.)
On the issue of remaining in communion with the See of the Old Rome, it is true that one is required to do so, if Old Rome remains true to the Faith. She is the principle of unity for the Church, she wholly the Church and so to break communion with her is to break communion with the Church. On the latter part this can be said of any and all of the Sees, which are all equally the whole Church, if they remain within the Faith. Breaking communion with any church in Christ is to break communion with Christ, Who is wholly present in each church. Rome, as the centre of unity for the world, carries a special significance in the issue of unity and rightly the Saints make their comments about unity with Rome. However, this assumes that Rome remains a church and in Christ, which can be broken with heresy (I believe that free-will is never overridden and any person or group of people can fall into heresy; no-one is above this.) Also, this unity is equally manifest with unity to the church of New Rome. (Note: I believe that the Patriarchs of Constantinople speak in deference to the Popes of Rome in humility similarly as the Son speaks as such of the Father without diminishing His essential equality with the Father. Nevertheless, the Patriarchs of New Rome take boldly the title “Ecumenical” even with the protestations of old Rome.)
Father Patrick,
Your words are thoughtful and beautiful, and touch my spirit. I sense their theology is correct on an ideal level. Yet in our broken reality, in fact, the Churches of Old and New Rome (and the Third Rome) seem to view each other as being heretical, schismatic or both.
How do we live out your vision in light of our present tragic separation?
As I reflect more upon your words, Fr. Patrick, it is clear to me that you are not a Roman Catholic, and so probably would admit that Old Rome has fallen into some errors, but yet would see the promise to Peter living on in New Rome and the other Orthodox sees. Am I correct?
Your insight about the patriarchs of New Rome speaking with deference and humility to the popes of Old Rome as paralleling the humility of the co-equal Son to the Father is brilliant and quite helpful. It also makes sense of the language used by many of the fathers toward the Church of Old Rome.
Thank you for having instructed me and for moving my heart and spirit toward Christ.
>LOL, Joe. How often has that one been answered? Can’t you come up with anything new?
It’s never been answered without, to use John’s term, “gymnastics”. And of course, all the quotes by John were brand new, right? Joe
I believe Fr. Patrick’s example of the co-equal Son’s humility to the Father…example, “The Father is greater than I”…helps me put the sayings of the fathers about Old Rome into the context of a Community of Love, which after all is what Christ founded.
Tell you waht, Joe. you deal with all the quotes John provided (explaining how they square with contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology), and we’ll deal with Honorius for the 800 thousandth time. Hokay?
(For the record: No “gymnastics” involved. There is nothing in Catholic ecclesiology that says a pope cannot say something that sounds heretical or that may even be heretical. Catholic ecclesiology merely maintains that the pope cannot utter error when he is speaking formally ex cathedra re faith and morals for the benefit of the entire Church. And no one maintains that Honorius was doing that. No one speaking with a straight face, that is. But I won’t let this discussion get derailed onto Honorius. That’s not what the thread is about. Instead, I would simply reiterate: You deal with John’s quotes–honestly and not dismissively–and then I’ll throw a few Honorius links at you. ISTM John’s copious quotes warrant some response beyond facile dismissiveness or a desperate attempt to change the subject.)
Michael,
Yes, I do see things in the way you mentioned and I am indeed Orthodox, with a love for the Saints of the West as well as those of the East.
Thanks Diane
Joe the case of Honorius is rather simple as I stated earlier…..
St Maximus defended him
Pope St Agatho at the same council that condemned him, stated that the Papal See had never erred and would never err based upon the divine promise of Christ.
St Theodore of Studite knowing full well the situation of Honorius could still state the following re: Papal primacy
I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts – EBB] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
“…a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
(Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).
And Pope St Agatho at teh same council that condemned Honrius said the following
1. ….because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his [i.e. Rome] has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
So as I stated your interpretaion Joe is that somehow the situtaion of Honorius negates the fact of papal primacy as meant by the Church of Rome being the rock and the church which the gates of hades will not prevail against.
Yet the church did not and does not see it that way
So again in love I ask, whose interpretation of the situation of Honorius should we accept???
John
Joe
I will try to answer your other comments as time permits
Grace and Peace
John
1. The writings of Ss. Maximos and Theodore Studite are the personal writings of great saints, but I have never heard that even great saints were necesarily inerrant.
2. Ss. Maximos and Theodore wrote these things based on past experience, but before the Church of Rome *unilaterally* both changed the Creed *and* threw out all the ancient Canons, making her own canon law instead. Just as the views of St. Cyprian changed when he collided with Roman power, their views may have changed had they foreseen dumping the Canons and unilaterally changing the Creed.
3. A minor point: Other quotes mentioned on this and other threads have included, for example, the words of Phillip at the Council of Ephesus. But note that A. He was a Roman priest, not an Easterner as implied; B. Even as it stands, his statement does not exclude Peter’s ministry in other sees as well; C. In any case this is not a decree of Ephesus, just something which a papal legate spoke at the council.
4. The whole tone of the Fifth Ecumencial Council is of freedom to judge even the Pope of Rome and to remove his name from the diptychs (sacred liturgy); that surely is inconceivable to post-1870 Catholics. Yet (last I heard) the Fifth Council is still judged ecumencial by Rome.
5. The criteria of authenticity used at the Seventh Council (Nicea II) were of agreement by the patriarchs and bishops, reminiscent of the Vincentian Canon. The criterion was not simply, “whatever Rome teaches”.
Michael: No one has ascribed “inerrancy” to Maximos or Theodore. What we do say, though, is that both of these great Fathers (and others) give witness to the historical fact that a much higher view of papal primacy existed in the East before the Schism than contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology concedes. Again, it is difficult to reconcile modern EO thought with the statements of numerous Fathers, including Maximos and Theodore. Such statements cannot all be conveniently explained away.
I will let others, far more learned than I, deal with the question of the papal role in II Nicaea.
Olivier Clement touches on your insights, Diane. Have you read his fine book “You Are Peter”?
Diane,
and most if not all of the quotes John tossed out have been dealt with 100 thousand times.
If you can’t see the inconsistency between a pope being condemned for heresy and the statement that Rome has never erred, then I can’t help you. Is it dispositive of the issue of papal authority? Of course not.
The ex cathedra thing is a dodge. Sergius asked Honorius for an official ruling on a theological issue, the orthodoxy of a partuclar formulation. Honorius gave it. In what capacity did he give this ruling? As a private individual? As the local Bishop of Rome? No? Then it must have been in his capacity as successor of Peter. And how was it not intended to bind the whole Church?
Now maybe it fails the rather artificial VI criteria of a “solemn definition”. OTOH, there weren’t many “solemn definitions” by Rome in the first millenium. Perhaps the tomes of Leo and Agatho. Rulings such as the one made by Honorius I were the usual way of attempting to govern. At the very least, the episode of Honorius I is an instance of a failure of the “ordinary magisterium”. But that an Ecumenical Council would deem it important enough to condemn Honorius is noteworthy. Joe
Joe
Grace and Peace
You made the comment to Diane
If you can’t see the inconsistency between a pope being condemned for heresy and the statement that Rome has never erred, then I can’t help you. Is it dispositive of the issue of papal authority? Of course not.
Joe I have posted twice this response. St Maximus, Pope Agatho writing to the council that condemned Honorius, St Theodore of Studite said THAT EXACT THING…and they found no inconsistency…so why do you??
So these Fathers of the church DID NOT See (pun intended) any inconsistency…..so rather than look at it through your interpretation and your eyes why not accept what they say and go from there.
Here is what I have said twice with no responce…I assume you saw these, but if you have not here it is again.
St Theodore of Studite knowing full well the situation of Honorius could still state the following re: Papal primacy
I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts – EBB] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
“…a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
(Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).
And Pope St Agatho at teh same council that condemned Honrius said the following
1. ….because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his [i.e. Rome] has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
So as I stated your interpretaion Joe is that somehow the situtaion of Honorius negates the fact of papal primacy as meant by the Church of Rome being the rock and the church which the gates of hades will not prevail against.
Yet the church did not and does not see it that way
So again in love I ask, whose interpretation of the situation of Honorius should we accept???
Michael
You mentioned Olivier Clements book.
Do you agree with Clements assesment that by the time of pope Leo in the 400’s the doctrine of the papacy was full blown???
Thanks
Michael
I was paraphrasing Olivier Clement…that is not what he specifiaclly said but he did say everything that Leo states in in the modern Papacy.
Can you find that quote for us if you have the book??
Thanks
John
John,
Alas, I had the book only a short time via interlibrary loan! I loved reading it, but did not make copious notes. Perhaps I will try obtaining it again.
Michael
Good grief, Joe. How is the “ex cathedra” thing a dodge? It is at the very heart of Catholic Teaching on papal infallibility. In effect, you are saying that our doctrine cannot be what it is–that it must be what you say it is. Surely you can see how absurd that is? The Catholic Church has every right to define for herself what her Teaching is. Your distortions and caricatures are irrelevant. Church Teaching is what it is–not what you misrepresent it as. Sorry for bluntness, but surely you can see the point here?
Catholics have never maintained that the pope is infallible every time he burps or says “Boo.” This is a grossly distortive and profoundly false caricature of Catholic Teaching. It is worthy of a Jack Chick or of an Eric Svendsen–but not of a Catholic who should know better.
Honorius expressed his views (which were pretty ambiguous, actually) in private letters. No one — no serious scholar — would argue that this even remotely constitutes the conditions for papal infallibility.
Can the pope err when he is NOT teaching formally, ex cathedra, re faith and morals for the benefit of the entire Church? Yes, he can. No Catholic disputes this. It is precisely why we say that the dogma of papal infallibility defined at VCI is in fact amazingly modest–strictly limited and operative only under certain narrowly defined circumstances. It is an essentially negative protection: It does not say that the pope will speak infallibly every time he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper; it merely says that, when he teaches the entire Church Universal re faith and morals–formally, ex cathedra–he will be protected by the Holy Spirit from uttering error. If he is in the mood to utter error, the Holy Spirit will simply keep him from saying anything at all. That is because papal infallibility is a protection for the faithful. It serves the People of God–not some self-aggrandizing pope.
Over at Mike L’s blog, Steve Golay made an interesting point. He said that Orthodox may perhaps harbor such inordinate fear of the Great Papal Bogeyman precisely because they themselves accord excessive honor and overly submissive obedience to their own priests and hierarchs…so they assume Catholics do the same WRT the pope. But in fact Catholics do not kowtow to the pope in a craven, supine way. Yes, we honor, respect, and obey him. But do we believe he is infallible whenever he burps or that his lightest word in a Wednesday audience must be obeyed to the letter and then some on pain of sin? Of course not.
Perhaps, if you can get past this caricature–inherited from your Protestant past, maybe??–you can see what the papacy and papal infallibility really mean. Rather than what you think they mean.
God bless,
Diane
According to the letter of Pope Leo II to Emperor Constantine IV, Honorius “consented that the spotless tradition of Rome should be soiled.”
The spotless tradition of Rome…spoiled. I find that sentence very compelling.
Leo II also writes to the bishops of Spain that Honorius “by his negligence blew up the flames of heresy”.
And even though the Sixth Council will praise Pope Agatho and the Roman Church, it will still condemn Honorius, saying, “We decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of the Older Rome, be with them [Sergius, Cyrus of Alexandria et al] cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked teaching.”
Please note a couple things.
First, this was not merely a private letter, but an answer to the theological inquiry of another patriarch. Pope Leo II certainly labeled it as spoiling Rome’s spotless tradition and spreading heresy: strong words indeed.
Second, it was not what post-1870 Catholics would call “ex cathedra” because that exceedingly narrow definition demands that the pope address the whole Church in a matter of faith and intend to bind their consciences.
It was, however, certainly an exercise of ordainary magisterium, even in modern Catholic eyes, and shows that a successor of Peter must always be judged by the Tradition we have received. Unlike some who treat every word in a papal encyclical as though it were written on gold plates from heaven, the experience of Honorius (and later John XXII) demonstrates that popes can be heretics.
I have to say, though, it really shows the extreme limitations of the dogma of papal infallibility. “Ex cathedra” statements as they are defined are the rare and extreme limits of papal reach, possibly putting into doubt lots of papal pronouncements. Everything from “Cum Nimis Absurdum” of Pope Paul IV in 1555 (which declared Jews subjected to eternal slavery by God, banished them to live in ghettos and wear yellow hats, and forbade them to own land, practice medicine, etc.) to who knows what, maybe even “Humanae vitae” which doesn’t seem to have been “ex cathedra”. Mind you I love papal encyclicals (“Evangelium vitae” is wonderful), but it reminds me that everything must be *tested* by the Tradition we have received from the apostles.
Ironically, the way the decree of 1870 is written, it almost sounds like it is saying God will not let the Pope ruin the entire Church…but perhaps just part of it!
The use made of “ex cathedra” statements doesn’t inspire confidence in me, I must admit. “Unam sanctam” is one uppity Bulla, and I’ll never understand the necessity of either of the 1854 or 1950 pronouncements.
At any rate, it seems to me that Honorius was a heretic, and a pope who taught heresy and stained Rome’s record (as Leo II says), but thankfully he didn’t run the entire Church off the rails.
Diane,
With some trepidation (since I have tried and failed to convey this more than once before), I will try this one more time:
When we talk about the Honorius affair, Papal infallibility is not the point. Papal infallibility is a minor detail — the cherry on top of the sundae of Papal supremacy.
If I accepted everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught about the Papacy before Vatican I, I would have absolutely no problem accepting Papal infallibility. Vatican I didn’t really add anything to Catholic teaching about the Papacy; it just worked out the implications of what was already taught.
No, my difficulty is not with Papal infallibility; my difficulty is with the foundations that were already laid for Papal infallibility 500 years before (Unam Sanctam). If the Pope is supreme to the extent that he is accountable to no one, and all are subject to him, then it makes no sense for an ecumenical council to condemn and anathematize a Pope. But that is exactly what Constantinople III did.
So you see, my problem is not with Vatican I; it is with trying to make Constantinople III and Unam Sanctam both valid and true at the same time. The only way to reconcile them is to pretend that the Fathers at Constantinople did not do what they clearly did with respect to Honorius.
The fact that Honorius did not speak ex cathedra (a fact which I freely stipulate) does not mitigate the tension between Constantinople III and Unam Sanctam even a little bit.
Hello Chris!
Fancy us both writing posts to Diane at the same time! Guess that’s the Holy Spirit at work.
He said that Orthodox may perhaps harbor such inordinate fear of the Great Papal Bogeyman precisely because they themselves accord excessive honor and overly submissive obedience to their own priests and hierarchs…
Now that’s perhaps one of the most amusing things I’ve read in a long time! If anything, we Orthodox should perhaps be accused of granting not enough respect to our hierarchs and clergy. Anyone who’s ever attended a parish council meeting or heard one of his fellow seminarians (as I did when in seminary) refer to one of our patriarchs as a “devil-worshiper” could scarcely believe that we “kowtow to [our clergy] in a craven, supine way”!
In any event, it’s all about the official beliefs and published doctrine. Unam sanctam blows quite enough of the top off all of this without insinuations about how one or the other side has a “craven” approach to their clergy. Unam sanctam essentially tells me that I’m destined for the Inferno for not being subject to the Roman pope. Maybe I ought to start getting craven after all!
John, I don’t know the reasoning of Maximus and Theodore the Studite, Since Rome had had a good track record up to Honorius, maybe they were inclined to overlook the latter, and leave it up to the Council to condemn him. Maybe they didn’t understand the extent of Honorius’s involvement as the Council did. Your point has some force, but not the conclusivity you want to give it. As to Pope Agatho, it would not be surpirsing if he wanted to try to preserve Rome’s reputation in spite of Honorius. No mystery there. But another Pope, Leo said just the opposite, as quoted in Michael’s post.
Maximus, Theodore the Studite, and Pope Agatho are not “the Church”. The Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople is. It condemned Honorius as teaching heresy. Joe
Diane:
>Catholics have never maintained that the pope is infallible every time he burps or says “Boo.” This is a grossly distortive and profoundly false caricature of Catholic Teaching. It is worthy of a Jack Chick or of an Eric Svendsen–but not of a Catholic who should know better.
I didn’t say anything remotely like that. Your post is so glib and non-responsive it merits no further reply. Joe
John-
Sorry. To answer the question at the end of your post, I think we should go with the words of the Council. It is, more than any individual saint or non-infallible statement of a pope, the voice of the Church. That Maximus and Tehodore saw no conflict between Honorius’s teaching of heresy and Rome being untainted by error, I can’t explain. Like I said, it’s certainly noteworthy, but not conclusive. Saints are not infallible. Joe
Joe, William and Chris
Grace and Peace to you.
You have all made comments about Honorius.
Your beginning point is…. I don’t understand how this can be reconciled.
The issue comes down to authority as it always does. Based upon what criteria do you believe something to be true.
Protestants will say the bible alone and so on. As Orthodox (correct me if I am wrong) you are the church of the fathers and the church of the 7 councils and that whatever was held to be true the first 1000 yrs when there was unity is true.
Taking that position means we submit our will and mind to accept the premise that Christ DID establish a Church and this Church was “copiusly given into her hands the scriptures and tradition” (Irenaues). We accept the Church as guardian of the apostolic deposit and trust that God will guide his Church in the Holy Spirit.
That Holy Tradition is the Holy Spirits guidance of this apostolic tradition passed on through teh succession of bishops.
What all this means is that we do not use our private interpretation.
As an example (sorry to bore you with this but i think it pertainent) when i was Lutheran I believed in imputed righteousness and the Lutheran teaching on justification.
I was staunchly “Catholic”. I read the fathers and so on. I would read all the beautiful “gospel” interpretations of the fathers on justification.
But when I came to their interpretations on the good works passages I (emphasis on I) could NOT reconcile in my mind how they could speak about works and salvation as they did. When I read the volumes of the Philokalia I obviusly saw a disconnect, but I could not understand this seeming contradiction.(bear with me)
it was NOT until I stopped trying to understand MYSELF why they taught what they did and stopped using my starting point as Justification as imputation is correct so I must reconcile imputation with the fathers…..that by Gods grace stepped back and changed my starting premise….
I now started with, if they all seemed to teach the same thing, than perhaps I should ACCEPT what they said and understand what THEY were saying and if THEY did not see a conflict with faith and works why should I.
All that being said I liken this to the discussion of the papacy. I submit to you that William, Joe and Chris BEGIN with the premise that Papal primacy is wrong and when you see hundreds of quotes from
Popes
Western Fathers
Eastern Fathers before and after Honorius
And they see no contradiction with primacy and collegiality and say the thinsg they so clearly say…you must try to reconcile them and you cannot.
An example is Honorius. Shall we try to interpret this with our own eyes or must we trust in how teh church recived this, accpted it and interpreted it.
So even if YOU do not understand how this cannot be reconciled…IF the church saw no conflict than we must trust the church knowing better than we do.
Would you agree that
A. Honorius was condemened
B. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and what the church as a whole believes is true
Than again my question is IF the fathers AFTER Honorius STILL spoke about Rome as being the Rock, pillar and foundation, that it would and will never err…than if this is what Holy Tradition records, than who are WE to think we know better…does that make sense…please tell me where the logic is incorrect.
Assuming you agree with this…..
Pope Agatho to the Emporere specifically states that Rome will remains “undefiled to the end” and so on. HOW can he say this if there is what you say a contradiction.
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
+ St. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople:
“Without whom [i.e., the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.
(Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
+ St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):
>> Writing to Pope Leo III…
“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.”
(Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
>> Writing to Pope Paschal…
“Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all.”
(Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)
>> Writing to Emperor Michael…
“Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'”
(Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts – EBB] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
61.
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
“…a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
(Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).
62.
+ Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 21 (869-870 A.D.):
Pope Nicholas in the late 800’s spoke the same and the council in 869 against Photius has as a condition of its assembling the fact that the Eastern bishops woudl sign the Formula of Hormisdas
How on earth cann all these fathers say these things IF there was a contradiction.
Point being, we must submit to what the church taught belived and practiced.
A. Honorius was condemned
B. Fathers and Church see no contradition with Papal Primacy and Honorius
C. Neither should we
???Make sense
John
The Holy Spirit at work…or perhaps another spirit. 😉 😉 After all, y’all are simply re-hashing the same old arguments that have been refuted a kajillion times…arguments that come straight from the anti-Catholic playbook employed by folks like James White, Eric Svendsen, and Lorraine Boettner.
According to the letter of Pope Leo II to Emperor Constantine IV, Honorius “consented that the spotless tradition of Rome should be soiled.”
The spotless tradition of Rome…spoiled. I find that sentence very compelling.
I would not make too much of it. Rhetorical flourish…’member?
Is there the slightest indication that Pope Leo II meant thereby that his own jurisdictional primacy was undermined or belied? Did he cease to claim for himself the papal prerogatives which all the popes from Damasus on so clearly claimed?
Is there the slightest indication that Pope Leo II meant thereby that the Roman See did or could formally teach error?
“consented that” implies passivity–permission or acquiescence, not action.
Leo II also writes to the bishops of Spain that Honorius “by his negligence blew up the flames of heresy”.
“By his negligence.” This simply makes the Catholic case. Honorius did not personally promulgate heresy. He certainly did not do so solemnly and formally, much less ex cathedra. Rather, he failed to curb the heresy…in a word, he was negligent. There is nothing in Catholic Teaching that says a pope cannot negligently allow a heresy to spread unchecked for a short while. It is exceedingly rare–which is why anti-Catholic polemicists have to stretch so hard to dig up examples–but it does happen. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the dogma of papal infallibility.
But this has been canvassed a million times. And it also completely derails this thread, which is about EO ecclesiology’s incompatibility with the early patristic record. (Nice attempt to get the Catholics on the defensive, BTW. ;)) So, I will provide links to some of the many online articles about Honorius…and then I will drop Honorius, if you don;t mind. You can read the articles–they say it much better than I could.
Links to come later.
God bless,
Diane
John,
There was a major change in the papal office in the 11th century. Have you read the “Dictatus Papae” of Gregory VII and its outlandish claims? And, before the 11th century, can you honestly imagine a bishop of Rome giving England to the Normans, or Ireland to the English? And can you imagine the Church of Rome simply tossing out all the ancient and revered canons, and replacing them with her own code of canon law?
The bishop of Rome before the 11th century seems like a very different entity from the one which arose later. I’m not sure what that means, but I am troubled by it. Perhaps the glowing testimonies you quote refer to that earlier papacy, before it abandoned the pure voice of Peter and the Kingdom of Christ in favor of wielding worldly, temporal power and pretending to be ruler of the kings of the earth….
Diane,
A wink and a smile are an odd response to someone you appear to think is under the influence of an unclean spirit.
>I would not make too much of it. Rhetorical flourish…’member?
Was Leo II given to rhetorical flourishes? Just asking.
>Is there the slightest indication that Pope Leo II meant thereby that the Roman See did or could formally teach error?
Yup. The statement.
>“consented that” implies passivity–permission or acquiescence, not action.
Not necessarily. All it implies is that the impetus for the heretical teaching came from Sergius. No one denies that. It was still Honorius’s duty to resist Sergius.
>>Leo II also writes to the bishops of Spain that Honorius “by his negligence blew up the flames of heresy”.
>“By his negligence.” This simply makes the Catholic case. Honorius did not personally promulgate heresy.
That’s *exactly* what he did in ordering that the correct teaching not be taught. “Negligence” does not necessarily mean non-action. You can be “negligent” in hitting a car.
>There is nothing in Catholic Teaching that says a pope cannot negligently allow a heresy to spread unchecked for a short while.
Here, he cooperated in the spreading of heresy- did he not?
>It is exceedingly rare–which is why anti-Catholic polemicists have to stretch so hard to dig up examples–but it does happen.
It is rare, but the claims made by Soloviev above are rather categorical.
>It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the dogma of papal infallibility.
The topic of this thread is broader than infallibility. Joe
Okay, just a thought-
Is it possible there are “rhetorical flourishes” on both sides?
Look, Rome had a great track record on Orthodoxy in the early centuries- no doubt about that. Out of that developed this idea that Rome could never err. Then there came an instance where a pope did contribute toward the temporary spreading of an error. Maximus, Theodore and others, in honor of Rome’s previous track record, kept up the rhetoric. Constantinople III, OTOH, shocked that a pope would lapse in judgment like that, felt compelled to condemn him in the strongest possible terms. Joe
Joe: I was joking about the rhetorical flourish thing. But it’s just plain silly (IMHO) to insist that Leo II was making a statement affirming the defectibility of the Roman See. If you know anything about the popes’ conception of their office from (c) Stephen / Damasus on, you know that.
But I will let Dr. Tighe and Mile L. and others weigh in here with the historical stuff. 🙂
Michael,
Guess that’s the Holy Spirit at work.
As strongly as I feel that you and I are correct on this matter, and Diane et al. are mistaken, I should hesitate to attribute either the timing or the excellence of our arguments to the Holy Spirit. I, at least, have not been called to the teaching office and have no personal claim on the Holy Spirit’s promise of indefectibility.
Thus I have only my own meagre scholarship and my fallen reason to back up what I have been saying. If that is not enough to convince Diane and company, that is hardly surprising.
To:
“The fruits are in. With the New Mass Order and its ethos of syncretic humanism, the Roman Catholic Church is able to blend into the New World Order, cooperating with all men of good will for peace and brotherhood among men in the City of Man. ”
Diane responds:
“LOL–how can one respond to that? No offense, but it sounds like something out of those little Chick tracts sold at our local fundamentalist bookstore.
Gotta run. I’m late for my secret meeting of the Jesuit-Vatican-World Bank-Jewish-Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world. :)”
Easy enough to condescend but why did JP2 spend his whole papacy banging on about human dignity rather than the sanctity of human life?
Yes Joe; the council fathers said loudly, “Anathama to Honorius!” Sounds clear to me.
Easy enough to condescend but why did JP2 spend his whole papacy banging on about human dignity rather than the sanctity of human life?
Huh? Are we talking about the same JP2?
I am frankly stunned. What on earth are you talking about? Tell you what: Google “John Paul II” and “pro-life” and tell me how many entries you come up with. OK? (Hint: “Human dignity” and “sanctity of life” are related concepts. :))
Michael: Yes, and I say “anathema” to some of the Renaissance popes. In the immortal words of my kids’ Monkey Island computer games: “Big Whoop.” No one ever said the pope couldn’t be a stinker or that he couldn’t negligently or inadvertently or imprudently allow the (brief) spread of doctrinal confusion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic doctrine of the papacy.
Now, nice diversionary tactic…but could we please get back to the thread topic? (See original post. :))
I would like to see more exploration of Chris Jones’ earlier statement:
“No, my difficulty is not with Papal infallibility; my difficulty is with the foundations that were already laid for Papal infallibility 500 years before (Unam Sanctam). If the Pope is supreme to the extent that he is accountable to no one, and all are subject to him, then it makes no sense for an ecumenical council to condemn and anathematize a Pope. But that is exactly what Constantinople III did.”
To Chris’ thought I would add, as I said earlier, “Dictatus Papae” shows what absolutism has been assumed by popes in the past, and the papal office certainly morphed in the 11th century, giving England to the Normans, Ireland to the English, throwing out the ancient canons and writing a new code.
It looks like this is a dead thread but in the January posts I read the following assertion several times: that the keys given to Peter in Matthew were later given to all the apostle. Would someone provide that cite I find the keys given to no other apostle. All the apostles are given the authority to bind and loose but only Peter is given the Keys.
These keys point us back to Isaiah, I believe chapter 22, where the keys are given to the prime minister who acts in the king absence with the kings authority. Further they symbolize an office that is past on as these are the keys of the Davidic kingdom but David has been dead for 200+ years at this point. The king had many ministers but only one prime minister who acted in place of the king in his absence. How did we know the prime minister? He’s the one with keys.
Matthews audience would have been familar with this and would have grasped the significance of what Jesus was doing in giving Peter the keys. We 2000 years later ofter don’t know these things and miss the significance. Further we bring our own 20th century independence and democratic ideas which tint our ability to see and accept authority.
So when Peter and Peter alone is given the keys it symbolizes primacy and an office that is to be passed on.
MarkInOregon is correct, see Mt 16:19, where Our Lord says “I give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. The indirect object of “give” is second person singular.
I find the charity exhibited in this thread, for the most part, to be remarkable. The comments are, also erudite and worth reading. Thank God.