www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Petrine Views

I see all the bishops throughout history as this one servant. Multiplicity does not destroy unity.

The Orthodox East and Catholic West have approached this differently since at least the 5th century, which is when the West began to evolve its modern concept of papal supremacy.

Thanks! And subsequently everything else you wrote after this post I am in agreement with.

I agree. I believe the Eastern Orthodox accept the idea that St. Peter is the Coryphaeus within the Apostolic Choir. Nevertheless, this biblical notion among the Orthodox is not confused with the later Western theory that transfers St. Peter's authority to the bishop of Rome in a singular fashion.

You're welcome.

By the way, it is always a joyful day when an Eastern Catholic Christian and an Eastern Orthodox Christian agree on matters related to ecclesiology.

P.S. - I hope all is well with you and your family. Say hello to Tiffany and Aidan for me.

Agreed.

Interesting. There are many Roman apologists who cite Pope St. Victor as proof for an early papal authority. They, of course, see that as part of the "divine prerogative" of the Roman See. They would also quote canon 45 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches [intratext.com]:


For them, even if the authority is misused, it must be obeyed.


So, Rome isn't to be blamed for the restrictions (not just
Cum Data Fuerit -- but there were others earlier) because it was "forced" to do so?

If this is true, then the papacy singularly failed in its Petrine ministry.

Shouldn't the role of such a Petrine ministry be such that it should have stepped in and said to the Latin Bishops: "What you want is wrong"? Shouldn't the Pope have used his moral authority to insist on the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches?

A comparison from American history:

One could say that President Andrew Jackson was only "forced" to accede to the wishes of Congress and the white residents of Georgia when he signed the Indian Removal Act [en.wikipedia.org], but could he not have vetoed that legislation? Jackson could have stopped the removal of Native Americans from Georgia to the Western part of the US. But, he didn't.

I would say that even if Rome "caved in" (which I would dispute) to the wishes of the American Latin hierarchy to restrict the Eastern tradition of a married clergy, it was an improper use of such an authority.

If there is such a Petrine ministry for the Church, this is one of those situations where it needs to speak courageously for what is right and not give in to the wishes of a majority who are trampling on the rights of others.

But, this functioning of the Patriarch and Catholicos is within their Patriarchate, right?

Wouldn't the most we could extrapolate from such a tradition is that the Pope of Rome might have such authority within his Patriarchate?

The Assyrians, at least, considered the Pope of Rome to have the same relationship to Patriarchs as Patriarchs to bishops, back in the 600's.

Dear brother Stuart,

I consider the Oriental Congregation as a most useful and even necessary means for the Pope to carry on his biblical, apostolic and patristic duty of helping other Churches in financial need.

Apart from that, the Petrine ministry itself is meant to confirm the brethren in the Faith, which cannot be doubted is a ministry of service.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry, I had missed this earlier.

Some recent examples:

From 1998 [news.google.com]

From 1999 (where the previous appro...ried ordinands must be approved by Rome) [post-gazette.com]

Historical background on the problem [orthocath.wordpress.com]

Might be useful in some situations but could easily cause a lot of problems if misused.

Dear brother Aramis,

Thank you for bringing that up. I'd push it back to the 5th century, when the Fourth Ecum Council sought to assign to Pope St. Leo the appellation of "universal bishop." I'd even push it back to the 4th century, with the Council of Sardica's attribution of universal appellate authority to the bishop of Rome. In the 3rd century, we have St. Cyprian himself appealing to the bishop of Rome to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain (the normal non-Catholic rejoinder that Spain and Gaul were in the Western Patriarchate is irrelevant, because the notion that there is a separation of jurisdiction between East and West did not even exist yet - and they say that Catholics are anachronistic! ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

Yes, we've often argued this point at CAF. You think the High Petrine view is a purely Western phenomenon, when it is actually the patristic model (not your Low Petrine view). It is the Absolutist Petrine view that is a purely Western development. And I oppose that just as much as I oppose the development of the Low Petrine view in the East. I certainly don't see your idea that head bishops have no different authority in the Church than other bishops anywhere among the early Church Fathers.

I think the problem is that the Low Petrine view really has a problem reconciling itself to the patristic evidence. This is reflected in the vacillating rhetoric wherein in one place, those of the Low Petrine view will adamantly assert "all bishops are equal, and there are no episcopal grades," and then backtrack a bit when faced with the evidence, saying, "Oh, well, there is a head bishop, but it is only a position of honor, with no authority or jurisdiction over other bishops." Then the Low Petrine view literally falls apart when faced with the Canons of the early Church which granted certain bishops jurisdiction over other bishops, with these certain bishops having the authority to discipline the bishops under him, even with deposition, and to regulate the practices of their territory.

Blessings

P.S. Thanks for splitting up the topics!

As I said before I reject your threefold categorization of views in connection with primacy.

All bishops possess petrine authority because all bishops have the faith of St. Peter. I see no incontrovertible patristic evidence in support of the ultramontane views of the West.

Clearly we disagree on this issue, and in all our prior conversations you have failed to provide any evidence that would make me reconsider my position. The burden of proof - in the final analysis - lies with those who assert the idea that the bishop of Rome has always possessed universal jurisdiction.