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

I don't think so. The Holy Father always acts in the Church, for the Church. The idea of him acting 'by himself' is a curious interpretation.

I am a pastor of a parish, because there is a parish which I can pastor. I am never a pastor "by myself". It is only in the context of the parish, and the parishioners, that the office of "pastor" has any meaning at all.

I am a teacher, because of the relationship I have with my students, who listen to me. Apart from students, can I be a teacher at all? "Teacher" is not an honorific title, but a real relationship.

So too, our Holy Father the Pope, is pastor and teacher. But to view him apart from the People of God, apart from the Church, apart from his office as Bishop and Shepherd, is to distort his office.

Dear Francisg,

Please permit me to respond later today, but I do want to say that we are but a hairs breadth away from agreement.

Forgive me for asking this and I hope I don't insult anyone in this forum:

Is it only me, or am I the only one viewing my posts NOT as a disparagement of the Eastern view, but merely as a presentation of ideas that could hopefully lead to rapprochement (with due consideration to the Western Christians on this forum). Is that so bad? Why is the possibility of rapprochement treated as something unacceptable?

Also, in another forum (regarding �Luther�) my intention was not to foist the Western understanding of indulgences to this audience so it will be accepted by the Eastern Church, but rather merely to discard any misinterpretations or misunderstandings of the Western doctrine. And I hope in that thread, I have been able to provide some sort of understanding that will lead to less tension regarding the doctrine of indulgences.

The same purpose in the �Luther� thread, I have also attempted to bring here. I just want to dispel myths about the Western tradition so there will be better relations with Eastern Christians.

Is that purpose, to eliminate misunderstanding of Western theological principles so unity and peace may be promoted, disagreeable to the purpose of this forum in general, or is the ONLY purpose of this forum to promote Eastern theology?

As always, in Christ.

By the way, I am also greatly interested in hearing Eastern views, especially the similarities and differences with respect to Western views. In the course of that pursuit of knowledge, I think one inevitably has to present the Western view, especially as a sounding board. I do not undersatnd how one can view this as an insistence that the East must defend or validate itself AGAINST the Western views. Please know right now that I do not intend to attack or disparage; I am only fishing about for knowledge.

In Christ

Dear Fr. Elias

Thank you for expressing that position. The situation is indeed �curious� as you say, if it is to be taken as you interpreted it. However, in my limited understanding, just because the Pope declares a dogma �by himself,� it does not mean that he has separated himself from his patrimony. From my admittedly limited studies of Councils and papal declarations, the Pope has never declared anything without due investigation and acquiescence to those who have gone before him. I can assert that the Pope, when he declares a dogma �by himself� is intimately joined to the Church triumphant. In that very real sense, he has not separated himself from the Church.

Now the aspect we are discussing here, I believe, is whether he has separated himself form the Church MILITANT if he declares something �by himself.� I don�t believe he is, and this is why: the Pope may declare something on his own authority, but he does not do that without consulting the Church. As mentioned before, the last three examples of dogmatic declarations (papal infallibility/jurisdiction; Immaculate conception; Assumption) had a very collegial element involved. As I have read from many Western Catholic apologists, papal infallibility is not the same charism as inspiration. With inspiration, a person has a DIRECT communication with God through the Holy Spirit. Infallibility, on the other hand, is NOT a direct communication. In order for a Pope to make an authoritative, dogmatic proclamation nowadays (�nowadays,� I mean in distinction from the apostolic era), he must investigate, investigate, investigate. He needs the help of many members of the Church, past and present. He needs the knowledge of many members of the Church, past and present. He will consult with his bishops, and if the process of an infallible declaration has any meaning, he MUST consult with his bishops. In the case of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption, one must note with favor the fact that the Pope first acquired the opinions of the lay Church throughout the world through their bishops. Thus, I can confidently assert that when he makes a declaration �by himself,� it is not made outside the context of the Church, analogous to the example you presented with your local congregation.

Now, the apostolic age was different. Inspiration was involved, and Peter could really and actually, because he had DIRECT communication with God, declare something �by himself� without recourse to any other source of knowledge or authority. The charism of inspiration is gone, but the apostolic prerogative to declare something �by himself� has been passed on. The only difference is that, without the benefit of inspiration, the Pope MUST now make such declarations by necessary recourse to sources of knowledge and authority materially adjacent to him. Thus, he CANNOT, by the very nature of the charism of infallibility � as distinct from inspiration � declare something �by himself� that is outside the knowledge, influence, or context of the Church that is his responsibility. The Pope has inherited in his office the authority to declare �by himself,� but he does not have the means, unlike Peter, to declare �by himself.�

Now, after due recourse to the knowledge of the Church militant, the Pope has the authority to declare �by himself� something to be believed by entire Church. However, by virtue of the biblical principles I have already presented with regards to peace and order, the Pope is bound, one can even say duty-bound, to make that declaration collegially. This view is perfectly in line with the doctrine of infallibility and primacy as promulgated by Vatican I, a view expressed by many German divines after the Vatican Council (I forget what the document was called, but it was warmly received by the Pope!).

By God�s grace, I hope this has clarified my position somewhat.

God bless, father, and pray for me.

Bless me a sinner, Father Elias,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

TRULY!

Alex

Dear LatinTrad,

Please see Fr. Elias' post above.

I'm not annoyed with Francis or his posts.

Your post is almost there, though.

As for the "Western forum" comment - please, I've been on Western forums -and other Western contexts - where I was consistently asked to keep my Eastern business to myself.

Alex

Then you and I have something in common, since a few RC friends have often asked ME to keep my Eastern spirituality and theological language (and chant!) to myself.

It's funny that I have a reputation as a Latin triumphalist on this board.

I guess the internet only allows one to see so much of a person.

Sorry if my post annoyed you.


LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

You know I love you and esteem you highly!

May God and His Blessed Mother keep you in their protection always.

Let's go away from this forum now and say a Rosary for the health of the Holy Father!

Alex

NO! NO! NO! I think we�re in different time zones. It�s not my prayer time yet! MORE THEOLOGY! MORE THEOLOGY! MORE THEOLOGY!!!

Dear Francis,

Bl. Pope John XXIII once asked an Ambassador to the Vatican if he was a theologian . . .

The fellow replied, "Why, no, Holy Father. . ."

And to this the Pope said, "Well, Deo Gratias! Neither am I!"

Alex

Dear Francisg,

I accept your first point, although I have some concern with how you have framed it, since myself and most here would not see the dichotomy that you expanded upon in your second point between biblical/apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. There is one Tradition, of which the Scriptures hold a place of pre-eminent importance, but which is inseparably part of a holistic life found within the Church.

I am glad to see though that this dichotomy is not maintained consistently by you in your other points, where you recognize the imperative that Scripture espouses of peace and unity in the Church, and that to violate this is to place oneself in discord with the tenets of the Bible.

It also seems unfortunate that you have continued to see the principle of collegiality in conflict with papal primacy. Both of these principles, as you yourself have recognized, are Scriptural realizations of the communal principles of peace, love, and unity. Papal primacy needs collegiality by its very definition, for how else does one define primacy, but within a college? There is no point to primacy in a class of one. The biblical model for the Church is one of primacy within collegiality, one of serving, and not dictating from on high.

I fear that you may invariably find something to object with whatever example I provide, but I thought I would try and offer a biblical realization of collegial revelation: Numbers 11:25 the seventy elders, 2 Kings 2:3-15 the prophets of Bethel and Jericho, Acts 2:4 the Apostles and other disciples in various languages, Acts 13:1,2 the prophets of Antioch, Acts 15:25-28 the council of Jerusalem qualifies their declaration as being “good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” giving the council prophetic (and collegiate) import, and Acts 21:3,4 the disciples of Tyre warn Paul by the Spirit about his trip to Jerusalem.

As for the filioque, I would be willing to at least consider the validity of the filioque, but I would start with it being an expression of Western piety until such time as it found acceptance throughout the Church. This relegation to local expression does not touch upon the divine truth of the matter, but simply the extent of its current acceptance.

Finally, your summation is excellent, and I would only qualify it by reuniting the disparate classes of Tradition or order by understanding that your ecclesiastical tradition is subsumed under the apostolic tradition and God's divine order. Thus, the Pope can, at least in theory, issue dogmatic ruling by virtue of his office, but that to do so would be contrary to the function of that office (which is the promotion of order and peace through love, also a biblical and apostolic tradition), and thus the Pope must issue such rulings collegially.

Ignoratio,

Wow. We ARE only a �hair�s breath� away from agreement. There are, admittedly, differences.

I must say that I have not seen in my exposition the �dichotomy� you seem to have applied to it between �primacy� and �collegiality,� and �apostolic/biblical tradition� and �ecclesiastical tradition.� Thus, I do not see that I have not �consistently maintained� my dichotomy, as I don�t see a dichotomy to begin with. But that�s just a difference of perspective, I think. It may be bourne, if you will forgive my presumption, of the EASTERN understanding that �primacy� and �collegiality� are mutually exclusive, whereas the WEST has always regarded �primacy� even according to purely Western standards, as compatible with �collegiality.�

I do not want to downplay the differences between the East and West, because I think it exists, and there is still much to work out. I think the difference can be concisely stated thus:

The West believes the Pope CAN make an authoritative proclamation singularly, but for the sake of the peace of the Church WILL NOT and MUST NOT make that proclamation singularly, but rather collegially.

The East believes the Pope CAN NOT make an authoritative proclamation singularly, and CAN ONLY make it collegially.

Fr. Elias reaction to the first clause of my statement is, I think, symptomatic of the Eastern (mis)understanding of the Western position. I pray my exposition has somewhat succeeded in resolving some of the issues. However, the two positions summarized above do seem to present an insurmountable barrier. I think both cases can be made from Tradition, and thus the only recourse we have is the example of the Bible. I believe the Bible is more in line with the Western understanding. To this end, I will be addressing the biblical examples you provided this weekend.

Until then. God bless, brother.

I could not sleep last night, so I decided to work on this now:

Numbers 11:25 the seventy elders,

Response: Moses. This one word should be enough, but two other things should be obviated. First, note that God took the spirit that was upon Moses and distributed it to the rest. The prophecy proceeded from one visible principle � namely Moses. Second, no prophecy that these seventy proclaimed could have ever contradicted anything that God had spoken through Moses FIRST and PRIMARILY. I do not see anything in this example from Numbers that does not PERFECTLY coincide with the Catholic vision of primacy with collegiality. However, it does CONTRADICT the Eastern ideal on all these points: that is, to repeat, the existence of Moses, the authoritative and God ordained head of the college (in this instance, one must also consider the importance of the event regarding the dispute between Korah and Moses, and the VERY BASIS of that dispute); the fact that God gave the gift of prophecy to these others FROM Moses; the fact that the prophecies of these men could not be anything different than what was already revealed through Moses singularly.

2 Kings 2:3-15 the prophets of Bethel and Jericho;

Response: What exactly did these prophets do? Were they the instrument of God�s voice to reveal knowledge to Elijah THAT HE DID NOT ALREADY KNOW? Of course not. Elijah was the chosen leader of the prophets, and look at the authority he wielded (in the previous chapter). And look what else he did: He handed down his authority and charism to another, and he did not need collegial permission or action to do such a thing.

Acts 2:4 the Apostles and other disciples in various languages,

Response: What exactly were the Apostles preaching and teaching that another visible head of the apostolic college did not INITIALLY hand down BY HIMSELF. Who was this visible head? Jesus Christ. As I had intimated before, once the teaching has been laid down, a teaching that God would dispense through a singular man, the college combined had the duty to preach it as a college united. Obviously, even this example does not support the Orthodox understanding of collegiality, because the doctrine was dispensed initially ONLY by one person � Jesus Christ. I find this example somewhat curious. It is as if you have not taken into account that the FIRST SINGULAR head of the apostolic college was not Peter, but Jesus.

Acts 13:1,2 the prophets of Antioch,

Response: This is a local setting, and does not adequately reflect the purpose of our discussion. Now, the use of this local situation is very interesting. Not only is it inappropriate for our discussion, but it actually dictates that there can be no visible head even on a LOCAL level. So if you are trying to use this example as an argument against universal primacy, it just as easily can be used against the principal of local or patriarchal primacy. Best not to use it altogether. Interestingly, this verse was often used by polemicists in my Protestant days to DISPROVE the Catholic/Orthodox ecclesiology. In any case, I think there is some silence in this verse that must be mitigated by the establishment of bishops evident in other places in the Bible. Can we really say that Antioch did not have a bishop? What does Sacred Tradition say, Ignoratio? In any case, the only collegiality evident in these verses is in the corporate act of �sending off� with a blessing. This has nothing to do with dogmatic declarations, which is the point of our discussion.

Acts 15:25-28 the council of Jerusalem qualifies their declaration as being �good to the Holy Spirit, and to us� giving the council prophetic (and collegiate) import,

Response: Yes, the example of Acts 15 is a collegiate act, but it is collegiality according to the CATHOLIC view I have been proposing, nothing at all like the �collegial only� view of the Orthodox. Let me explain (and I am really glad to in this instance because it demonstrates that the only example of a conciliar act in the New Testament validates the Catholic position 200%). Note that though the act of SENDING OUT THE LETTER, or informing the community outside the council, was a collegial act, the DECISION was done in the �by himself� fashion that I have consistently proposed. Looking at this from a local perspective, James was the head of the Jerusalem Church. Now, he ARRIVED at this decision in a COLLEGIAL manner, that is, by a genuine discussion among all the elders and apostles present at the council � that is, he did not make his decision without consulting other members of the Church (verse 6). HOWEVER, we ALSO see here that James made the decision for his local Church by HIS JUDGMENT ALONE (verse 19) � that is, he made it by virtue of his own singular authority for his church under his jurisdiction. AFTER that judgment, collegiality then once again came to bear � that is, in order to declare it to the rest of the Church concerned with the issue, this singular judgment was presented IN A COLLEGIAL MANNER (verse 25-28). This is the Catholic model I have been consistently presenting. It is NOT the Orthodox model. The Orthodox say that James could NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY ON HIS OWN to make this decision for his Church. But in fact, the language that he used (�It is MY JUDGMENT� - verse 19) indicates the exact opposite of the Orthodox position. This whole incident basically demonstrates exactly what I was explaining to Fr. Elias in response to his critique of the statement �BY HIMSELF.�

By the way, I know that the Orthodox are willing to admit a primacy in terms of honor, but, as I think Zoe wrote, it is a primacy without teeth, a primacy without any authority, an authority that, unfortunate for the Orthodox position, is rather all too evident in James� JUDGMENT at the Jerusalem council.

(Now, as I understand it, we are investigating Acts 15 for the MODEL of the Church � �primacy-collegial� according to the Catholic understanding, or �collegial alone� according to the Orthodox understanding. We are not concerned with whether or not Peter was the head of the Council. If you want to discuss this particular issue, perhaps it should be better discussed in the �Scripture� forum. I just want to stick to the issue, that�s all)

Acts 21:3,4 the disciples of Tyre warn Paul by the Spirit about his trip to Jerusalem.

Response: this is not an issue of a dogmatic declaration, so it does not belong in our discussion. As I originally specified, I thought we were discussing instances of �God�s teaching or commandments � public revelation for the sake of salvation,� not private prophecies, or the �sending out� of missionaries here and there. I think we are discussing apples and oranges if you keep bringing up such examples.

Thank you for the opportunity of this discussion. I hope it generates more intelligent discussion. As I have consistently stated, I look at this discussion not as a disparagement of the Orthodox view, but simply as a means to possible rapprochement. I pray others look at it as such. Also, forgive me if it is looked upon as insulting.

In Christ always

"You would have no authority whatsoever, were it not given from above." The authority exercised in the Church by its Bishops, is in them, but also "in God". The Pope of Rome, does not declare "by himself" after "consulting". The implication is that he might consult, yet disregard 'advice' and then proclaim on his own authority."

The authority he exercises on earth is God's, and what a Pope proclaims is God's truth and will, and it is also true that he is speaking for the whole Church, offering the obedience of the whole Church to the tradition revealed by God to the whole Church (rather than to him privately). He is speaking in a place of authority, which is in God, and for the Church. Speaking in the Church, his profession of faith honors God, to whom all obedience is due.