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

Of course, your own chosen name suggests a certain proud latin identity?

I am not sure it is fair to say I misundertand the Western position. As you articulate it here, I do not accept it. I do not understand how a Pope can make a statement singularly.

It is much like the Archbishop of Vienna apologizing for his medical statement about the Holy Father's health. He said, he was misunderstood, we was "only speaking philosophically". How can one only speak 'philosophically"? Does the Pope have two ways of teaching authoritatively, one in the Church, and one apart from the Church? No, there is only one way.

It is not a matter of misunderstanding. I do not see how the two statements above are really able to stand next to one another?

Perhaps both ecclesiologies (east and west) of which this is a test, are more complex, more sublte, and more nuanced than we have stated.

My main point, is that comparison and contrast (especially of the sort done in this thread) really does credit to neither theology, neither tradition.

"My Church says this, but yours says that" is a terrible way to "do" theology.

My suggestion is that everyone simply speak for your own tradition, and give everyone else the dignity and credit of speaking for their tradition.

Avoid summarizing another Church's tradition and theology. It is always a poor summary, and unfailingly upsets the people from that tradition.

It is very difficult to do "theology" by comparison, and even the greatest theologians stumble and fall on this unthanked task.

Fr. Elias,

Please forgive me for my impertinence. The following is not written out of a spirit of factiousness or disrespect, but a desire to achieve understanding and peace between East and West. By the way, my spirituality is �eastern�. I put it in quotes because I am from the Far East, and respect for my spiritual and physical elders is ingrained in my mind, heart and spirit. So I hope you view my different position as anything but disrespectful.

You wrote that you think what I have expressed has the possibility of being interpreted to mean that the Pope can simply and casually discard the collegial input of his peers and historical patrimony. The reason I do not and cannot believe you is because I have never seen an instance of it in history. And to reject the Western Catholic position simply because it �MIGHT� occur seems to be an unjustified and unfair judgment.

I can think of only two examples wherein it MIGHT be interpreted that the Pope tried to make a decision that was against the position of his peers. It was the case of Zosimus and Honorius who tried to reinstate some heretics out of false information given to them. In fact, these two examples were discussed at the Vatican Council (along with two others, but I forget what they were � these four were the only ones the Council discovered, a Council of both Western and Eastern bishops, that could POSSIBLY have any merit AGAINST a proclamation of the doctrines of infallibility and universal jurisdiction) and after due consideration, it was decided that these examples did not and could not infringe upon the Pope�s God-ordained prerogatives. It might be worthwhile to discuss the merits of these two cases and we probably should. For now, I can only give some summary comments regarding these two instances.

Zosimus � the issue was one of a disciplinary nature, not about doctrine or dogma. Some heretics were previously deposed and excommunicated by an African Council. The heretics went to the Pope and purposely fed him false information so the heretics could grant themselves the appearance of orthodoxy. Now, did the Pope relent after due consideration of the judgment of his peers in this instance, or did he completely disregard them, as you suggest that he could, and cause the Church to go into schism? The former scenario prevailed, so one cannot possibly use this as an instance wherein the Pope went against the counsel of his peers.

Honorius � this issue was of a doctrinal nature. A group of bishops and priests had been excommunicated. Once again, these heretics appealed to the Pope, but, again, the Pope was fed false information. The heretics explicitly told him that they would submit to his judgment, so there was a false appearance of orthodoxy. Now the Pope failed to recognize the true nature of the heresy of monothelitism, and failed to explicitly condemn it. Instead he explicitly stated that he would remain silent on the issue. Thus he was condemned, NOT for trying to impose a position contrary to the doctrine of his peers, since HE DID NO SUCH THING, but for FAILING in his God-appointed duty as pastor of the universal Church. Thus, neither can one validly use this instance to state that the Pope made a judgment against the existing counsel of his peers, because the Pope MADE NO SUCH JUDGMENT TO BEGIN WITH.

When all is considered, Father Elias, there is no warrant from history for you to assume that the Pope would casually reject the counsel of his peers in the process of making a dogmatic proclamation, in view of the peace and unity that he is duty bound by divine appointment to preserve and protect. Your position seems to based solely either on fear, which the Holy Spirit will burn away with prayer, or simple misunderstanding.

Finally, your statements regarding the origin of the Pope�s prerogatives and the purpose for it really does not need to be said. Surely, you cannot mean to interpret my interpretation of the example of St. James judging �by himself� to mean that he did not recognize that his authority was completely dependent on God, and not by a prideful, merely human authority.

But there seems to be another important consideration here lurking in the background. Are we to assume that divine Truth is to be judged merely on the basis of consensus? I mean, is consensus the litmus test for truth? Even more poignant, should majority opinion be the litmus test for truth? Father, with all due respect, there is absolutely no justification for either position from Scripture. Though God DOES effect peace and order through consensus, He has NEVER established His Truth by consensus, much less by mere majority. Rather, God ALWAYS INITIATED the establishment of His Truth through ONE individual. This is the example of the Bible � as I said before, don�t ask me why, perhaps it is to reflect the heavenly order, as we pray in the Lord�s prayer � but this is the example of the Bible, and it is this example which must pre-eminently rule our opinions on this case.

In Christ always, and please pray for me.

Posted by Fr. Elias:

"My main point, is that comparison and contrast (especially of the sort done in this thread) really does credit to neither theology, neither tradition.

'My Church says this, but yours says that' is a terrible way to 'do' theology.

My suggestion is that everyone simply speak for your own tradition, and give everyone else the dignity and credit of speaking for their tradition.

Avoid summarizing another Church's tradition and theology. It is always a poor summary, and unfailingly upsets the people from that tradition.

It is very difficult to do 'theology' by comparison, and even the greatest theologians stumble and fall on this unthanked task."


Dear Fr. Elias,

Point well made and well taken, I hope.

Thank you.

Steve

Fr. Elias,

I see your point about not attempting to explain another person�s position, but to let that person (or Tradition) explain it for themselves. I agree with it.

However, may I humbly suggest that you are perhaps doing the very same thing by saying that the position I am proposing is tantamount to saying that the Pope is separated from his patrimony when he makes a judgment �by himself?� All I am doing is stating that YOUR perception of MY position is a misunderstanding, because I understand YOUR understanding of MY position that a Pope makes an authoritative statement �by himself� as a practical and historical impossibility. It is PRACTICALLY impossible because the Pope MUST take into account the counsel of his peers, and it is HISTORICALLY impossible because there is no instance in history of the Pope simply disregarding the counsel of his peers by which you can make an assessment that it has the possibility of happening. You are judging my position based not on fact, but mere possibility.

I gather this may be a greater offense than stating �I don�t find the Orthodox position in the Bible.� At least in this case, the opposing view has a chance to mount a valid and real attempt to refute my position. But how can I even possibly begin to have a chance to refute a position based on something that has no basis in fact, but mere possibility? That is not fair. No matter what I say, all you have to say is, �well it MIGHT happen, therefore it MUST happen, so I reject it.� End of discussion.

In the end, all I am doing is saying that YOUR perception of MY position is a misunderstanding. I am not saying that YOUR POSITION is itself based on misunderstanding. I have expressed what I believe to be the Orthodox position, �The Pope CAN NOT make a judgment by himself, and CAN ONLY make a judgment collegially.� You did not reject that assessment of the Eastern position, but simply recognized its obvious incongruity with the Western position. As it stands, I think I have expressed the Eastern position correctly. All I have been saying, though, is that YOU have not been expressing MY position correctly.

Forgive me if I have come off as disrespectful in any way. The capital letters are used only for emphasis, not out of anger.

God bless you abundantly, and pray for me, a sinner.

Father,
Bless me, a sinner!


I do like being a Latin Trad, that's for sure. Latin among the Byzantines and Byzantine among the Latins (well, maybe not . . .).

LatinTrad

Dear Francisg,

Now I understand why I was perceiving a dichotomy in your thoughts. It was not in your own conception of ecclesiology, but in your conception of mine and Orthodoxy's.

Please consider what has been my operating principle throughout this discussion, that the "Orthodox are capable of granting more on the issue of Universal Jurisdiction than might be understood at first blush". To argue against this position merely by assuming the opposite as you have been doing would seem to be mistaken to say the least. I believe many of your contentions against me can be resolved merely by informing you that I am not arguing collegiality versus primacy, but collegiality and primacy. I have repeated multiple times that I do not see a conflict with primacy and collegiality.

Hopefully now I can clear up some of your complaints if it is understood that I am not arguing for collegiality in opposition to primacy, and that your request was simpler than your criticisms of my examples made out. Hopefully this statement will clear up some of the objections you mentioned in Numbers 11, Acts 2, 13, and 15.

Additionally, you had said, “if you can find one instance where God revealed His truth or judgments collegially”. The examples I provided did exhibit God revealing truth or judgments collegially. I was not aware that your request carried with it implied qualifications like the revelation had to contradict something revealed through an individual, or that the truth revealed had to be previously unknown, that the revelation had to take place in a universal setting, or that it had to be an issue of dogmatic declaration. Given the utter complexity of these and the other qualifications you seem to want to impose on the evidence, my fears are confirmed that it would be impossible for me to supply you with biblical evidence of collegially revealed truth or judgments.

This aside, let me now deal with your first post. First, I do not believe that eastern ecclesiology understands collegiality and primacy as exclusive, which has been the entire point of my participation in this topic. Second, I believe your problem with Fr. Elias was a misunderstanding and not indicative of any innate limitation on the part of the East. Please note my slight rewording of your proposition and how I avoided the criticism he placed.

Finally, I believe your address of my biblical examples falls short of disproving my point, since it seems evident that you had misinterpreted what my point was. Given my less ambitious goal as stated above, the examples I provided are more than adequate in establishing the scriptural precedence for my position. I would ask you to simply allow for the fact that we may not be in disagreement on points you have assumed to be areas of conflict.

Dear Francis,

I think we can sometimes get bogged down on hypothetical issues that are really not crucial or germane to the wider topic.

When was the last time the Pope made an infallible ruling on his ownsome? And WHY would he want to?

Yes, he could do it. But the idea of him doing it today without informing the Vatican officials, Cardinals and Bishops of the world . . . It would be an impossibility.

The Pope, it is said, wanted to canonize and beatify Mother Teresa on October 19th - he was told "don't do it" by the Vatican people - and that was that.

I don't know what kind of special powers we see the Pope having - in actual practice he relies heavily on the advice and bureaucratic workings of the Vatican.

The fact is also that a Pope can fall into heresy - and when that happens he is no longer Pope. That too is hypothetical, but it can happen.

Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's points regarding when Catholics are "duty bound" to oppose the Pope, especially if he tried to destroy the Church, were born out of a period of Church history when a number of Popes had nothing very good to be said about them. Popes then led armies etc. There was very little that was "spiritual" about them.

So your point on the Pope acting alone is hypothetically true. But in practice it would never happen, at least not under certain very extreme circumstances.

And even then the Pope would have to be defining something serious that is part of the Faith as enunciated by scripture and patristic tradition and that would be under attack or in serious doubt.

Both the Immaculate Conception and Assumption doctrines were proclaimed infallibly by Popes.

Both are matters of faith the East has always believed and so cannot understand why they had to be so defined.

As for papal authority on matters of faith and morals, the East believes that the best possible place for such an exercise of authority is within the context of an Ecumenical Council.

So the next time you are speaking with your friends in Rome, and they want to hold an Ecumenical Council, let me know and I"ll see what I can do about getting all the Eastern bishops together for it.

Do you think a nice Byzantine two-headed eagle should go on the invitations?

Alex

Greetings,

It seems to me that Francis' conception (or at least what he is proposing) is not different from the Eastern perspective as being talked about here. I think it just may be the terminology that is causing some issue. From what I have read, when Francis is saying "the Pope can make a judgment by himself," he is not saying that the Pope has the capability (given his definition of the process of an Infallible decree) of making such a judgment "by himself," only that he has the authority to do so "by himself" since the Pope gets his authority directly from God Almighty.

I am not certain how this would tie in to Oriental Orthodox ecclesiology. Unlike the Eastern Orthodox, the six Oriental Orthodox Churches do not even have any central focus of unity such as the Patriarch of Contantinople. However, I think we are making progress. We have admitted that some kind of unitive principle is necessary (I think that is an admission that has great promise for organic unity). The Oriental Orthodox has historically seen the role of a unifying principle ONLY as an exigency of historical/political/social circumstance. Oriental Orthodox do not see a special divine establishment either of the role of the Pope of Rome or the Pope of Constantinople.

I myself tend to see from Scripture a divine establishment of a principle of unity - not just one for the East (Constantinople), and one for the West (Rome), but for the entire Body of Christ on earth (the Church Militant), and the inheritance of this principle through apostolic succession. I agree with Francis insofar as that if Blessed Peter had a power to be a unifying principle (which I cannot deny in terms of Luke 22), it must be passed down in his successor.

I admit this is not the normal Oriental Orthodox view. I have entertained the idea of joining the Catholic Communion because of this belief I have. Anyone who has studied the differences between Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy will realize that ecclesiology is THE MAIN sticking point between the two --- and my own belief through study of Scripture leads me to believe that the Catholic position is true in this case. I am just nervous, that is all, since it might cause family tension. Other members have joined Catholicism in Egypt (with no great consequences), but since I am the first in my family to finish college in the U.S., my family might think that, instead of a genuine reason of conscience, I am just being infected with American liberalism, and thus insincere.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

I am a great enthusiast of the Coptic Church and I especially love the Agpeya!

The Pope of Rome (as opposed to the Pope of Alexandria ) can certainly make a pronouncement on his own, but the conditions under which that could possibly occur are so few and far between so as not to even be worth discussing too much.

From an Eastern point of view, one may argue that there are problems with the Pope making definitions without consulting with not only the Latin Church, but with the other Eastern Lung, separated from it though it is.

For example, the two Papal Marian definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption basically repeat what the East has always liturgically celebrated - the total holiness of the Mother of God from Her Conception and her bodily taking up into heaven.

While these two articles are items of faith for the Latin Church, they add nothing to the East's understanding of the life and person of the Mother of God.

In effect, the Pope of Rome can have a revitalized role as being the spokesperson of the entire Church, East and West, on doctrinal and moral issues of significance when they are under attack or otherwise threatened.

And the best possible context for this exercise of authority would be during an Ecumenical Council.

Apart from this, a universal, unifying role of the Roman See is something that has always been lauded.

I believe the Coptic Church has agreed to a Petrine Primacy situated in Rome, but some ecclesial issues still remain.

Certainly, the Pope of Rome is the successor of St Peter - and so is the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope of Alexandria in the person of St Mark, Peter's Disciple.

But rather than upset your family, situation etc. by becoming Coptic Catholic, perhaps God is calling you to work within your family and community to promote greater unity between Alexandria and Rome?

That is certainly up to you - and God!

Alex