www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Universal Jurisdiction

Lance,

Though related, I was not really concerned about infallibility, only universal jurisdiction.

It is clear that Chrysostom believed St. Peter had universal jurisdiction. To say that Peter had the ability to do singularly what all the Apostles could do collectively goes beyond a mere statement of primacy. Nor was it, according to Chrysostom, a mere power of representation; otherwise, Chrysostom would not have implied that it had the potential to cause unrest among the apostles. I am really interested in why Orthodox believe this apostolic prerogative could not be passed on.

In my view, as a believer in the doctrine of apostolic succession, if it was an apostolic prerogative (of Peter's) then it HAD to be passed on. The only rationale for it NOT to have been passed on is to believe that such a prerogative NEVER existed (I mean, every charism given to the Apostles was given for the building up of the Church. Unless the Church no longer needs to be built up, then every charism given to the Apostles must, of necessity for the formation and good order of the Church, have been passed down).

Now, if the belief that such a prerogative NEVER existed is the orthodox view, then a beleif otherwise must be heterodox, which would put Chrysostom and a multitude of Fathers outside the pale of orthodoxy, as the Orthodox define it.

In Christ always.

I believe that the Orthodox are capable of granting more on the issue of Universal Jurisdiction than might be understood at first blush. What is needed is merely some creativity grounded in the historical datum of the Church in composing some of the functional constraints for the papacy (this is in essence what JPII is requesting), that would balance the Catholic need for universal jurisdiction while addressing Orthodox ecclesiastical concerns and maintain the dynamics of the two parties ecclesiologies.

Certainly the bishop of Rome should be understood as the locus of unity among the episcopate, for this is the very function of his charism, but he must not operate with insolence or arrogantly assume authority for himself over his fellow bishops. To operate in resistance to this partnership of bishops is to cut himself off from the unity of love and estrange himself from his brethren, thus contradicting the very operating principle that gives his office purpose, making him a rebel against the sacrament and the faith of the Church. Instead, the bishop of Rome must operate in conjunction with the college of bishops and not in resistance to the councillar authority of the episcopate. Wisdom is found in the consent of the universal Church, whose voice is found started in regional councils and established in plenary councils of the Catholic Church under the direction of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thus, one can say that, in principle, the papacy does have universal jurisdiction (one wonders how you could have a locus for universal unity and not retain some degree of universal jurisdiction), but that to exercise it alone or outside the college of bishops and conciliarity would be to contradict the locus of unity role, and thus invalidate the action, since the authority upon which it is taken is functionally based upon that role.

I only have a moment...

The quote from Fr Schmemann, of blessed memory, cited at the beginning of this thread is sometimes cited by some Catholics but is misunderstood. Fr Schmemann actually ends up arguing against this position. At this point in his presentation he is dealing with the logical implications of the Roman position. He then argues for an eucharistic ecclesiology. One Catholic critique of this position can be found at:

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3488.htm

Certainly the interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16 as applying to Christ and the Apostles and the faith of Peter is valid:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/communion/eng/library/qb/54.shtml

but so is the application to Peter himself:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

In the link above there are references to Fathers who apply the "rock" passage to St Peter and the "Roman bishops as Peter's successors" which shows the falsity of Ignaz von Dollinger's position quoted by OrthoMan:

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Orthoman,
I JUST saw your reply. Your quote from Chrysostom does not really address my concern. I am not actually referring to the interpretation of the "rock," so your quotation from JChrys does not refute anything.

It really seems that the Orthodox either do not have a good grasp of sacramental theology, or the Orthodox have a different view of sacramental theology than Catholics do. It is strange that Orthodox, if they believe or understand the nature of the Sacraments, constantly dichotomize Peter's faith or Confession/Jesus from Peter's person. Catholics understand that Peter is the Rock BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE of Jesus and his GOd-given confession of Jesus. The Catholic position is fully sacramental. In contrast, Orthodox, as demonstrated by you, consistently present patristic definitions of the rock as Jesus, faith, or confession as somehow a REFUTATION of the the position that the rock is Peter's person. In fact, according to the sacramental principle, all those positions are completely complementary. Orthoman, do you see why the Orthodox position is inconsistent and inconceivable to one such as myself, not as a Catholic, but merely as one who believes in sacramental theology, at least on this point?

Also, if you want, and if it will do any good, I can give you not only many patristic quotes from individual western and eastern Fathers, but also from several ecumenical COUNCILS signifying the intimate connection between Peter and the papal Petrine office in Rome (to demonstrate the lie in Dollinger's position).

Ignoratio,
That was a very well-balanced reply. It brings up some questions. You wrote:
Is the Pope operating BY HIMSELF automatically regarded as being "in resistance" to the partnership of bishops? Suppose, for instance, that the Pope by himself proclaims something to be believed de fide by the entire Church, something completely in line with orthodox, patristic Sacred Tradition. Who in this instance would be opposed to the principle of unity? The ones who agree with the Pope, or the ones who refuse the papal teaching simply because the Pope declared it unilaterally? Let me give a several examples:

1) Peter declared to the entire Church that the Gentiles should be received into the Church. PETER MADE THIS PROCLAMATION MONARCHIALLY, NOT COLLEGIALLY. If the overriding principle is collegial proclamation, instead of faithfullness to God, Peter was heterodox. He should have, according to Orthodox and Gallican principles, confided with the rest of the Apostles first AND THEN made a COLLEGIAL proclamation. But he did not do that. He made his proclamation not on the basis that the college of the Apostles agreed collectively, but because God used him SINGULARLY according to Jesus' promise in Mt 16 and Luke 22. He had the God-given right to make this proclamation authoritatively ON HIS OWN, and did not require the permission of the other Apostles.
Who would in that instance be faithful to the principle of unity? Would it be the ones who agreed with Peter's monarchial proclamation, or those who would break communion with him simply because his proclamation was not collegial?

2) The doctrine of Transubstantiation was a formal expression of the Mystery of the Eucharist. Many Orthodox theologians and bishops have used this term to express that Mystery. Again, there are others who deny it not only because they want to preserve the incomprehensibility of the Mystery, but also simply on the principle that the Pope made a unilateral declaration. It does not seem the latter two reasons are enough to break communion on this issue, but there are those Orthodox who use those very reasons to break unity. The theological orthodoxy of the term cannot be questioned. So who in this instance has broken from the principle of unity?

3) Many have already resolved the issue of the Filioque as a matter of semantics. The statement "and the Son" is agreed to be equivalent to "through the Son." Thus, THEOLOGICALLY, there is no impediment to unity. HOWEVER, there are Orthodox who refuse unity SIMPLY because the addition, though orthodox, was performed unilaterally. In this instance, again, who has broken from the principle of unity?

I do not deny that the Catholic Church has not contributed to the unfortunate schism, but it seems Orthodox are being Pharisaical on many issues and in those issues, they must bear the burden of guilt in tearing the seamless robe of Christ.

In Him always.

Oops, please disregard the second "not" in my last sentence.

Allow me to address your points as presented. First, your questions. No, I do not believe that the Pope operating by himself automatically constitutes rebellion, for if this was so, then he could not operate at all unless gathered council, and this would interfere with his pastoral prerogative. What I do intend by this is that in cases where universal jurisdiction (at least, although I believe the general principles I set forth are wisely applied even in a more local setting as well) is under consideration, at some point in the process, and not necessarily in the beginning, councillar cooperation should come into play. There is no question that the papacy has a responsibility to proclaim the truth, even against a majority, but this can be done without violence to collegiality, so in a sense, I see the potential dichotomy you were implying to be a false one. Collegiality isn�t opposed to autonomy, just autocracy.

Now to address your three points of counterexample:

1. The example offered in Acts 10 is a good one, and I am glad you brought it up, for it illustrates perfectly what I was trying to detail. Peter does indeed make a �monarchial� declaration in a sense (monarchial carries with it connotations that I am not sure of, hence the parenthesis), but we note that afterwards, in Acts 11, Peter�s declaration was not above challenge. Peter explains himself to the apostles and brethren in Jerusalem and it was through their consensual agreement with Peter�s original declaration that the cause was authoritatively determined for the Church. Thus, autonomy and collegiality were both preserved. I believe the misunderstanding you were operating under was that collegiality had to proceed any declaration, and this is a notion for which I do not contend, nor do I find it necessitated by historical precedence. Perhaps a better model would be one that allows for papal declarations, but which at some point requires councillar affirmation.

2. The second point seems confusing to me. The Orthodox definitely did not break communion over the issue of transubstantiation. If I recall correctly, authoritative declarations on the matter did not occur until after the Schism. Nevertheless, I would say that the Orthodox would only have grounds for objection if the papacy did not seek councillar confirmation of his unilateralism for universal acceptance and implementation (of course, the very act of seeking such confirmation would render the act multilateral, and so we wouldn�t be concerned with unilateral decrees anyway).

3. Leaving aside the highly debatable issue of how the filioque might be resolved, let us grant that it is semantic. If unity is to be preserved, consent must be sought, not imposed, for then it would be coercion. The alteration of a universal symbol should logically require the assent of the Church universal (or more practically, her representatives and spokesmen, the bishops in council). The problem then is that the action was not undertaken in a fashion that brought the church together, but which pitted brother against brother. If the function of the papacy is unity, then its actions must be in consonance with that purpose, and unilaterally altering a shared symbol (and one that had achieved a universal consensus) does not fit that description. Unity was broken the moment action was taken outside of this unifying context. It appears much too simplistic to simply lay the blame at the �obstinacy� of our Orthodox friends, when there are much larger concerns that have only now begun to be addressed by the papacy in his recent requests for dialogue.

Finally, I agree that no party is unsullied in this tragedy. For my part, however, I find it totally counterproductive, and inherently useless to even consider the question of blame. Let us accept that there is fault for all parties and move beyond this to how we might find a common solution.

I don't want to distract from the above, but already we can see papal infallibility peeking in through the window of our talk about unilateral declarations. Hence, I want to offer a sort of starter for that subject as well, as long as it is understood that the real matter at hand, universal jurisdiction, is handled above.

There are two basic principles that I think should be incorporated into the functioning of that charism. First, Papal infallibility shouldn't operate outside of councillar activity. Second, infallibility shouldn't be understood as something one has declared, but recognized in something already declared, i.e., infallible doctrine doesn't proceed from the Pope, but should be something that the Pope points to in recognition of its truth. (Perhaps a better way of expressing that would be to say that papal declarations do not make something infallible, they are simply the recognition that the quality of infallibility pertains to the subject in question)

Here is how I see something like this occurring. I differentiate between a general or plenary council and an ecumenical council. The first legitimately governs the church but is not guaranteed infallible and can be corrected. The second is infallible and its definition of faith is true to the apostolic deposit. In order to have a legitimate general council, it should have the consent or confirmation of the Pope. In order to be ecumenical, it has to first be general, and then be recognized ecumenical in a later general council.

So the process would run something like this:

1. Theologian makes statement (naturally founded in divine revelation)
2. Bishop evaluates and approves statement (as being properly found in divine revelation. Of course step one and two were often the same)
3. Local council...
4. Regional council...
5. General council...
6. Subsequent General council recognizes previous council as being ecumenical in nature.

This order of operation thus makes use of the various principles of primacy found within the Church in succession, building up to the crescendo of the papacy and universal acclaim within the Church.

This is an idealized scenario and I realize that it is way to short to offer a comprehensive answer to any questions that might arise, but hopefully further dialogue will help flesh it out.

Excellent point! May I quote you in other fora (with proper attribution)?

Blessings,

ZT

Nah. Reunion will come about by a sovereign miraculous Act of God through the intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos.

God's attitude in a nutshell: "If you want a job done right, do it yourself."

ZT, follower of recent approved Marian apparitions which promise an Era of Peace with a united Catholic Christendom preaching the Gospel to the Nations (New Evangelization)

To further this discussion I would like to ask the following question.
1. Why does the idea of Universal Jurisdiction have to be diametrically opposed to an idea of collegiality?
2. The doctring of infalibility and the universal jurisdiction have not been fully advanced, is there not room for development of how these could be acceptable to both East and West?

Stephanos I

Vatican I in 1870 was actually a limitation on Papal Infallibility (Yes, believe it or not)
They clarified the situation as to what was necessary for a teaching to be considered infallible.
Vatican II Expanded the idea of collegiality.

Could not a new Council in which Orthodox and Catholic participate, further clarify things?

ZT.
I am curious: what apparition are you referring to here? (I know it's off your main subject, but I couldn't help noticing, and realizing I had no idea what you were talking about!)
Communion of Saints

As for example the CCC 895.

"The Power which they exercise (Bishops) personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church. But the Bishops should not be thought of as vicars fo the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the wholde Church DOES NOT ANNUL, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

Is this not an understanding which declairs the necessity of collegiality and brotherly love, in a spirit of unity?

Stephanos I

As far as I can tell, what I have so far presented is in fact a harmonization of universal jurisdicition and collegiality.

As for how much room is left for development of UJ and PI, I don't know. Sometimes I think there is and other times I don't. For me, the problem is that while the Catholics seem to have a greater will to accomodate, the Orthodox have more dogmatic latitude because their ecclesiology is not as highly defined and dogmatized. What I see needed is a redefinition of the two papal dogmas in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology that will retain their primary functions while transforming the underlying theological framework into something harmonious with Orthodoxy. This is in fact what my above posts have attempted.

As for VI and VII, I can't touch those yet, although you have a tough row to hoe if you want to convince the Orthodox (or any other Christian tradition for that matter) that it was actually a constraining council. (I suppose one could argue that the very act of defining has an inherently restraining quality, but that isn't much comfort, since that restraint also prevents it from moving to a more conservative position as well as preventing greater extravagancies.)

Regardless, a new council would be most welcome. I think that the Orthodox are just afraid that it will come to nothing. That is where we need people of imagination to find a way and show that there are legitimate grounds for agreement upon which to have a council.

I'm afraid you could have picked a better example, and I statements such as this making a compelling case for the need to redefine in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology. Please forgive me, but language like "ultimately controlled by the supreme authority" and "under the guidance of the Pope" are just going to make the case for the Orthodox that the Pope isn't speaking of Papal Primacy, but Papal Supremacy, and that just isn't going to go down very well within an Orthodox ecclesiastical paradigm. What is needed is something similar to what has been going on with the filioque, where the Papacy has been developing a reinterpretation that preserves the original intent while bringing it into harmony with Eastern spirituality. We need the same thing for the papal dogmas. The Orthodox won't see the phrase you highlighted since to them it would seem to be rendered vacuous by statements declaring their authority controlled by and under the governance of the pope.

Zoe:
You can certainly use what I wrote. In addition, however, you should include quotes from other Fathers, East and West, who understood Peter to have universal jurisdiction, like Chrysostom, which should be easy to find (I have a sense that I did not need to even proffer this last bit of advice to you )

Ignoratio:
You provide a lot of good food for thought. Please allow the following replies:

This is a loaded statement. First, the fact that Peter's declaration was not above challenge does not affect my point at all. The ones who challenged him were HETERODOX - those who believed one had to be circumcised to be saved. To give weight to this challenge is to submit that the Arians in the first ecumenical Council, or the Sabellians in the second ecumenical Council had a valid voting status in those Councils to determine the orthodoxy of the Church. What we have in Acts 11 is analogous to what occurred in those Councils - an orthodox authority who establishes correct teaching in the face of heterodox teaching. In Acts 11, the only orthodox authority at that time was Peter.

Second, I do not agree with your conclusion at all that it was "through consensual agreement" that Peter's declaration was "authoritatively determined." There was no consensual agreement demonstrated here, at least in the sense that there was some sort of debate which had to be resolved. Verse 18 makes this obvious. There was no debate to be had. After Peter related what God had done through him, lo and behold, "When they heard this, they were silenced." There is no record here (and it would be improper to add such a record) of a back and forth discussion that would culminate in a resolution that all parties agreed upon. No. Peter spoke. They were silenced (the same thing that occurred, by the way, at the COuncil of Jerusalem - after Peter spoke, the debate stopped). Their subsequent praise also revealed that NO ONE EXCEPT PETER HELD THE ORTHODOX VIEW ("Then to the Gentiles ALSO God has granted repentance"). I humbly submit that if Peter went to a different crowd of Christians, without any of the other Apostles there, the result would have been the same. Peter would not have needed any consensual agreement from the other Apostles for his authority to have been accepted on this issue. I think everyone would have by this time understood Peter's unique universal jurisdiction and authority, especially as it occurred after the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira.

Perhaps it is my Protestant background, but I cannot accept this model simply because this is not the model that the Bible gives to us. This is evident (to me anyway) not only because of (1) the example of Acts 11, but also and MOST importantly because (2) JESUS HIMSELF proclaimed that it was not the Apostles who would confirm Peter; it was just the opposite - it would be Peter who would confirm the Apostles. If the Orthodox cannot accept the Biblical model, may I suggest that it would be downright horrendous for them to expect the Catholic Church to join them in that rebellion against the Word of God (truly, truly, truly forgive me for using such strong language, but it seems that is the only for it to be viewed).

I guess my statement seems ambiguous. I did not mean to imply at all that transubstantiation was an original cause of the breach in communion. I meant that it cannot NOW be used as a means to justifiy continued separation.

If this is the grounds for objection, in my admittedly myopic view, it is no justifiable grounds at all because, as noted, it is not the BIBLICAL model.

Agreed. I would like to propose an additional consideration. The efforts at unity must not only be realized by a papal attitude of humility and service, but an accompanying and complementary agreement by the Orthodox that the Pope indeed has the power (as Chrysostom and a host of other Fathers believed regarding Peter) to do singularly what all the bishops of the world could do collectively. If there is disagreement, in the spirit of humility and service already proposed, the Pope must seek our unity not by coercion or by appealing to his unique authority, but by peaceful, brotherly dialogue with his brother bishops as equals.

I have read in many places that this particular issue can be mitigated by asserting that the addition of the Filioque was ONLY intended for the Western Patriarchate, not to be imposed upon the Eastern Patriarchate. In fact, this is already a reality as far as the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are concerned, which is indeed food for thought!


Agreed. I believe for the most part, this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. I appeal to the most recent dogmatic declarations of the Catholic Church - papal infallibility and univeral jurisdiction; Immaculate Conception; Assumption of Mary. All these were pronounced in a collegial manner. Many naysayers have complained that the Marian dogmas were examples of the Pope flexing his muscles, but if these characthers even bothered to investigate the circumstances surrounding these domatic proclamations, they would discover that, contrary to their sensationalist rantings, all the bishops (in the Catholic Church) were consulted before the dogmas were proclaimed, the Pope obviously concerned that there would be as much agreement as possible before making his infallible declarations. In fact, the promulgation of the Assumption was instigated by first seeking the collective opinions of the LAY CHURCH!

HOwever, there is one area in which I believe the Pope has a special and unique authority and duty to proclaim unilaterally if he so chooses - the area of moral doctrine. Infallibility has been invested in many papal encylicals regarding moral doctrine, and this is wholly justified not only from a practical perspective as a bulwark against the modernist laissez-faire tendenices with regard to morals that infects not only the world, but also the Churches of God, but also because I believe that it is in such an area that God wants his Church to have a truly solid foundation. DOctrine is a much more intellectual endeavor than morality. It is much easier comparatively to convince a person of a doctrine which primarily appeals to the mind, than to convince a person of a moral position which primarily appeals to the heart. In whatever area it is that humanity is more likely to be a reed in the wind, it is that area that God would want his Church to have a more authoritative stance.

Once again, though it may be my own ognorance speaking, but I believe this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. Every infallible papal proclamation in history has been declared only after due acqueisence to Sacred Tradition, which itself is agreed to be infallible.

I agree so far, especially with this final line BECAUSE it accurately reflects the BIBLICAL model.

I do not understand this. It is tantamount to saying that a general council can simply declare itself ecumenical without the benefit of participation by any other congregation of bishops.

I agree in principle EXCEPT, as noted, in cases of moral doctrine.

I do not think the Orthodox would reject the first statement since all it says is that any singular bishop is subservient to the ENTIRE Church.

It seems that the second statement would be more amenable than the traditionally polemical view of the papacy as "lording it over." In my view, a "guide" carries with it connotations of tenderness, love, and service. Can you at all imagine in your own experience (perhaps) acquiring a guide who did not have anything BUT your own welfare constantly on his mind? A guide must practice constant solicitude for the one being guided.

In Christ always

Zoe:
You can certainly use what I wrote. In addition, however, you should include quotes from other Fathers, East and West, who understood Peter to have universal jurisdiction, like Chrysostom, which should be easy to find (I have a sense that I did not need to even proffer this last bit of advice to you )

Ignoratio:
You provide a lot of good food for thought. Please allow the following replies:

This is a loaded statement. First, the fact that Peter's declaration was not above challenge does not affect my point at all. The ones who challenged him were HETERODOX - those who believed one had to be circumcised to be saved. To give weight to this challenge is to submit that the Arians in the first ecumenical Council, or the Sabellians in the second ecumenical Council had a valid voting status in those Councils to determine the orthodoxy of the Church. What we have in Acts 11 is analogous to what occurred in those Councils - an orthodox authority who establishes correct teaching in the face of heterodox teaching. In Acts 11, the only orthodox authority at that time was Peter.

Second, I do not agree with your conclusion at all that it was "through consensual agreement" that Peter's declaration was "authoritatively determined." There was no consensual agreement demonstrated here, at least in the sense that there was some sort of debate which had to be resolved. Verse 18 makes this obvious. There was no debate to be had. After Peter related what God had done through him, lo and behold, "When they heard this, they were silenced." There is no record here (and it would be improper to add such a record) of a back and forth discussion that would culminate in a resolution that all parties agreed upon. No. Peter spoke. They were silenced (the same thing that occurred, by the way, at the COuncil of Jerusalem - after Peter spoke, the debate stopped). Their subsequent praise also revealed that NO ONE EXCEPT PETER HELD THE ORTHODOX VIEW ("Then to the Gentiles ALSO God has granted repentance"). I humbly submit that if Peter went to a different crowd of Christians, without any of the other Apostles there, the result would have been the same. Peter would not have needed any consensual agreement from the other Apostles for his authority to have been accepted on this issue. I think everyone would have by this time understood Peter's unique universal jurisdiction and authority, especially as it occurred after the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira.

Perhaps it is my Protestant background, but I cannot accept this model simply because this is not the model that the Bible gives to us. This is evident (to me anyway) not only because of (1) the example of Acts 11, but also and MOST importantly because (2) JESUS HIMSELF proclaimed that it was not the Apostles who would confirm Peter; it was just the opposite - it would be Peter who would confirm the Apostles. If the Orthodox cannot accept the Biblical model, may I suggest that it would be downright horrendous for them to expect the Catholic Church to join them in that rebellion against the Word of God (truly, truly, truly forgive me for using such strong language, but it seems that is the only for it to be viewed).

I guess my statement seems ambiguous. I did not mean to imply at all that transubstantiation was an original cause of the breach in communion. I meant that it cannot NOW be used as a means to justifiy continued separation.

If this is the grounds for objection, in my admittedly myopic view, it is no justifiable grounds at all because, as noted, it is not the BIBLICAL model.

Agreed. I would like to propose an additional consideration. The efforts at unity must not only be realized by a papal attitude of humility and service, but an accompanying and complementary agreement by the Orthodox that the Pope indeed has the power (as Chrysostom and a host of other Fathers believed regarding Peter) to do singularly what all the bishops of the world could do collectively. If there is disagreement, in the spirit of humility and service already proposed, the Pope must seek our unity not by coercion or by appealing to his unique authority, but by peaceful, brotherly dialogue with his brother bishops as equals.

I have read in many places that this particular issue can be mitigated by asserting that the addition of the Filioque was ONLY intended for the Western Patriarchate, not to be imposed upon the Eastern Patriarchate. In fact, this is already a reality as far as the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are concerned, which is indeed food for thought!


Agreed. I believe for the most part, this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. I appeal to the most recent dogmatic declarations of the Catholic Church - papal infallibility and univeral jurisdiction; Immaculate Conception; Assumption of Mary. All these were pronounced in a collegial manner. Many naysayers have complained that the Marian dogmas were examples of the Pope flexing his muscles, but if these characthers even bothered to investigate the circumstances surrounding these domatic proclamations, they would discover that, contrary to their sensationalist rantings, all the bishops (in the Catholic Church) were consulted before the dogmas were proclaimed, the Pope obviously concerned that there would be as much agreement as possible before making his infallible declarations. In fact, the promulgation of the Assumption was instigated by first seeking the collective opinions of the LAY CHURCH!

HOwever, there is one area in which I believe the Pope has a special and unique authority and duty to proclaim unilaterally if he so chooses - the area of moral doctrine. Infallibility has been invested in many papal encylicals regarding moral doctrine, and this is wholly justified not only from a practical perspective as a bulwark against the modernist laissez-faire tendenices with regard to morals that infects not only the world, but also the Churches of God, but also because I believe that it is in such an area that God wants his Church to have a truly solid foundation. DOctrine is a much more intellectual endeavor than morality. It is much easier comparatively to convince a person of a doctrine which primarily appeals to the mind, than to convince a person of a moral position which primarily appeals to the heart. In whatever area it is that humanity is more likely to be a reed in the wind, it is that area that God would want his Church to have a more authoritative stance.

Once again, though it may be my own ognorance speaking, but I believe this is already the reality in the Catholic Church. Every infallible papal proclamation in history has been declared only after due acqueisence to Sacred Tradition, which itself is agreed to be infallible.

I agree so far, especially with this final line BECAUSE it accurately reflects the BIBLICAL model.

I do not understand this. It is tantamount to saying that a general council can simply declare itself ecumenical without the benefit of participation by any other congregation of bishops.

I agree in principle EXCEPT, as noted, in cases of moral doctrine.

I do not think the Orthodox would reject the first statement since all it says is that any singular bishop is subservient to the ENTIRE Church.

It seems that the second statement would be more amenable than the traditionally polemical view of the papacy as "lording it over." In my view, a "guide" carries with it connotations of tenderness, love, and service. Can you at all imagine in your own experience (perhaps) acquiring a guide who did not have anything BUT your own welfare constantly on his mind? A guide must practice constant solicitude for the one being guided.

In Christ always