www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

Dear Utroque,

Well, I can't stand the Latin style either . . .

In my family, we were taught to run every time we heard the Gregorian chant (I kid you not). Any exposure to the Latin style might introduce the "seeds of Latinization" at an unconscious level . . . and after that, the floodgates will have been opened!

That's nonsense, of course. But it isn't just the Orthodox who have an aversion for the Latins - lots of EC's do as well, Latinizations notwithstanding!

(It's like the Anglican who wondered about why his parish prayed for the souls in Purgatory when the 39 Articles of Religion condemned Purgatory as a "fond Romish" invention etc. He was told by the parish priest that they believed in the "Anglican version of Purgatory . . .").

Alex

Dear Utroque,

I agree with you that Todd is a "Closet Orthodox" with one foot out the door!

But what would be wrong if Rome agreed that its pre-schism faith consensus with the East were to be the standard for unity while later theological developments/doctrines could be maintained as local Church theological perspectives, not to be imposed on anyone else outside the Latin Church?

Alex

Dear Utroque,

There certainly is a good deal of cultural resistance to unity. There is cultural resistance to unity between Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox, for example.

The problem is that, for years, to be an "Armenian" in Greek and in Ukrainian/Russian was to be an heretic!

In the Patericon of the Kyiv Caves Lavra, for instance, there is the story of a fellow coming to visit a Father in the Lavra and who reveals he is an Armenian.

The Father is angry and tells him to leave, saying "How could you have come into my kellion and desecrate it by your presence- and during Great Lent!" He then re-blesses his cell with Holy Water. And there was a time when Russian Orthodox bishops would visit Old Rite communities for theological talks, only to have Holy Water aspersed on the floor they walked upon as they were leaving . . . Then there is the tale of how an Orthodox monastery was taken over by RC Poles, who took it down, stone by stone, and went to wash each in the river before re-assembling it . . .

See, we are all in perfect harmony when it comes to fanaticism!

At the same time, I don't believe Rome takes the theological issues with Orthodoxy seriously enough.

We should remember that St Mark of Ephesus went to Florence in FAVOUR of union with Rome. He believed that if only Rome would remove the Filioque, God would heal the rest.

Rome would not and he spent the rest of his life ever after fighting the union, even to the point of requesting in his last will and testament that no Greek bishops who signed that ill-fated union be present at his funeral . . .

This is all serious stuff for the East and Rome has to show some good will at the ecclesial level (if RC theologians ran the Church, we would have unity already).

What unites us is greater than what divides us. But union must be perfect and complete. At the end of the day, the Orthodox see us Catholics as being outside of the Church where there is no salvation - very sobering.

Alex

Todd,

I think it's a fair enough point that de Regnon might not justly be blamed for the subsequent mileage of the paradigm that Barnes labeled with his name. As I understand it, however, Hennessy's point isn't to vindicate the paradigm that Barnes describes, but rather, to show that de Regnon was himself misused. At any rate, I grant that your presentation doesn't hinge on this particular contrast.

Caleb

Dear brother Apotheoun,


You have accused Roman Catholics of making an interpretative leap (I assume you refer to the Absolutist Petrine mindset). Yet you make one here as well. There is absolutely no patristic evidence for your claim that "all bishops are successors of St. Peter." The closest thing you will find is St. Cyprian's statements that all the Apostles were as St. Peter was, or that all bishops are what St. Peter was. It's a leap in logic to claim thereby that all bishops are successors of St. Peter.

Aside from the utter lack of patristic support for your claim, there is also the fact that your claim does not even reflect Orthodox Catholic ecclesiology. The true statement is that all bishops are the successors of the APOSTLES, not that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. That all bishops are successors of St. Peter is a Low Petrine myth, just as incorrect as the other extreme - that the bishops of Rome are the ONLY successors of St. Peter.

Actually, it's Tradition that defined the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Lest you forget, a dogma is only an authoritative restatement of Tradition.

I agree somewhat. I believe that primacy in the Church universal is a divinely revealed dogma. Christ himself said so when he predicted that He would set one servant over his household, both over the members of the household as well as the other servants.

That it is identified with the Roman Church per se seems to be more a matter of divine providence (or an "accident of history" - same thing to one who believes in God), rather than divine revelation. I think this needs to be clarified in a future Catholic/Orthodox colloquy.

Primacy per se is considered a fundamental theological doctrine to the "non-"Catholic Syriac Churches (ACOE, Syrian Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox), not merely the Catholic Churches.

Yes it is. Christ Himself said he would set one servant over the other servants and HIS household.

Yes, he does. But the answer really primarily (no pun intended) depends on what you mean by "jurisdiction." If it is taken to mean "control," then I would agree with your statement. If it is taken to mean "service," then I disagree.

There is only ONE infallibility - the infallibility of God. The infallibility of the Pope is no different in degree from the infallibility of the universal Magisterium. If you think the Catholic Church teaches differently, then you have been sorely misinformed. The only difference is in how they are practically exercised. In "papal" infallibility, the Pope has the personal authority to make a dogmatic pronouncement, whereas in "collegial" infallibility, a dogmatic pronouncement is made with collegial authority. EVERY exercise of infallibility (whether by the Pope or by the body of bishops) requires the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium.

Yes, they are. How can teaching that has the consensus of the universal Magisterium be reformible? You don't seem to understand what the statement "not by the consent of the Church" in the Dogma on Infallibility means. "Consent" can be taken in two senses - (1) agreement, or (2) permission. The line "not by the consent of the Churches" in the dogmatic statement was added to combat the Gallican principle that the Pope needs the PERMISSION of the bishops to make a dogmatic pronouncement. So, that line from the dogma must be read as "not by the PERMISSION of the Church." However, the official Relatio is quite ezplicitly clear, on the other hand, that even papal definitions require the AGREEMENT of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

So your definition of primacy is that the primate is always right and can never be corrected?

No that would be the Roman Catholic position, for in the Roman Church it is held that the first see can be judged by no one (see the CIC, canons 331, 333 § 1-3, 1404). In opposition to that position I hold that the bishop of Rome is not beyond the judgment of the universal episcopate and of the Church as a whole.

Marduk,

It is clear to me that we will never agree on the papacy. You - from my perspective - hold to a Roman Catholic view of the papacy, but I gave that viewpoint up many years ago when I became Melkite. Moreover, I do not subscribe to your threefold artificial construct in connection with the ministry of St. Peter. That said, when the two of us post with each other in threads here at the Byzantine Forum (and elsewhere) we merely reiterate our divergent positions over and over ad nauseum, but if you want to go through that cycle yet again, I am game for it.

God grant you many years,
Apotheoun

Incorrect, because I do not believe that there is such a thing as an "absolutist petrine" mindset in the manner that you describe it. That idea, like the rest of your artificial petrine outline is a figment of your own imagination. Now that being said, are there ultramontane Catholics? Yes. In fact, I believe that the decree issued at Vatican I is a form of ultramontane authoritarianism. And I also have read - I probably read it years before you did - Bishop Gasser's Relatio, so there is no need to quote from it. Besides we interpret that document, like so many others, differently.

Thanks for the frank admission that St. Cyprian taught it. In addition to him, as was pointed out some time ago to you in a thread dealing with St. John Chrysostom's text on the priesthood, he also taught it, and many Fathers as well. Interestingly, not a single Father ever taught that the bishop of Rome was the sole successor of St. Peter. Heck, even St. Gregory the Great when speaking about the historic succesion admitted that the see of Peter was one see in three places. St. Ignatios of Antioch also teaches the Orthodox perspective, when he speaks of the Bishop as in the place of God and the presbyters as standing in the place of the council of the Apostles. You see the Roman Catholic view, which can be roughly schematized as:

Pope = Peter, bishops = Apostles

is not found in St. Ignatios, while the Orthodox viewpoint is found there:

Bishop = Peter (although Ignatios prefers "God"), presbyters = Apostles (n.b., the diaconate corresponds to the ministry of service offered by Jesus Christ in St. Ignatios' letters)

The Orthodox view of Episcopacy has the advantage of not turning all the worlds bishops into priests in relation to the only universal bishop, i.e., the Pope, which is the end result of the Vatican I (and by extension the Vatican II) teaching.

Who else, in your fantasy world schema, is a successor of St. Peter? Perhaps just the bishops of Antioch (or maybe Alexandria as the See of St. Mark)? If you admit that the Bishop of Antioch is a successor of St. Peter, then I will choose to follow that bishop as the head of the Church instead of the Pope of Rome, because he was the first successor of St. Peter. Either way the authority of Rome crumbles if other sees are truly petrine in the sense meant by Roman Catholics.

Now let us move on to the nature of the sacrament of Episcopal Orders, for me that sacrament is only one sacrament, and that means that all bishops possess the same office, i.e., the same ministry. The fact that one bishop comes from a politically or historically important Church does not ontologically alter the nature of the sacrament of Episcopal Orders. Moreover, there is no sacrament of primacy distinct from the universal Episcopate, or do you believe that there are four grades (i.e., the diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate, and primacy) within the mystery of Holy Orders?

It is evident to me that we will never agree on the primacy, because we approach the nature of the Church differently. I hold that each and every local instantiation of the Church is fully and completely the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that nothing from outside of the local body (save only Christ of course) gives it its being. In addition, unlike the teaching put forward in the appendix to Lumen Gentium, I refuse to divide the Episcopal Order into the power of the office and its legal (or licit) exercise, with the former coming through the sacrament (i.e., the laying on of hands and consecration) and the latter coming from hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome. Instead, I hold that the full office, along with the right to exercise the office, comes through the sacrament, without any need to be in communion with the Roman bishop for liceity of exercise.

Finally, I am sure that you will now - in response to me - write a long post that regurgitates all the things that you have said to me before, i.e., things that I have already rejected as irrelevant, but we must keep up our tit for tat even though neither of us is going to change our positions. Such is life I suppose.


Postscipt: Quoting a bunch of Vatican documents, or Latin conciliar documents, will not be convincing to me, because I do not recognize their authority in the matter under review, so you might want to avoid a lot of copying and pasting and save yourself some time.

I guess Cardinal Ratzinger holds a low petrine viewpoint (of course you need to remember that I do not actually accept your threefold petrine schema), because in his book Called to Communion he wrote the following:

"The second point follows from what has been said: the bishop is the successor of the apostles, but only the bishop of Rome is the successor of a particular apostle - of Saint Peter - and thus given responsibility for the whole Church. All the other bishops are the successors of the apostles in general; they do not succeed a certain apostle but are members of the college that takes the place of the apostolic college, and this fact makes each single one of them a successor of the apostles."

[Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), page 97]

I see no need to go into a detailed response to this part of your post, because it is clear that we disagree on the necessity of the consent of the Church. Beyond my general statement above, I would simply add that I disagree with Bishop Gasser when he refused to make the consent of the Church a condition for infallibility - either antecedent or consequent.

I agree that only God is infallible, but where we disagree is in according a participative form of infallibility to the bishop of Rome. I reject that notion as false, and I am confirmed in my position by the fact that several popes have been public heretics.

I reject the idea that the bishop of Rome has that type of authority.

The problem is that Vatican II teaches that the college of bishops is not always fully active, and when it is not fully active the bishop of Rome can act separately **, and his action is collegial in nature because he is held to be the head of the Episcopal College.

I know that that is your position, but Bishop Gasser said that the consent of the Church cannot be "laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent" to the issuance by the bishop of Rome of a dogmatic formulation.


** See the Preliminary Note of Explanation (no. 3) from the appendix to Lumen Gentium.

No surprise here, but I disagree. The Vatican I teaching, whether Catholic apologists wish to admit it or not, makes it so that there are actually two bishops in every diocese, i.e., the local bishop and the bishop of Rome. I hold instead that each bishop has jurisdiction in his own diocese, which means that he is Peter to his people, just as the bishop of Rome is Peter to the people in the city of Rome.

Here is what Vatican I said:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate."

This teaching - as I indicated above - means that two men simultanteously have episcopal and immediate jurisdiction in each and every local Church, i.e., the bishop of Rome and the local bishop. This idea is contrary to the ancient Church's understanding of the episcopal office, for it turns the bishop of Rome into the bishop of bishops.

I would like to point out, contrary to Marduk's assertion that the Fathers (St. Cyprian excepted) do not teach that all bishops succeed Peter, that Pope St. Leo displays a very nuanced and Cyprianic understanding of St. Peter's primacy in his fourth sermon. In his exegesis of Matthew 16:18 in this sermon, he understands that the Apostles all received right to use the power to bind and loose, and that this decree applied to all leaders of the Church. However, he points out that is is not without purpose that the power was first given and declared to one. It is entrusted in a unique fashion to St. Peter, according to Pope St. Leo, because the figure of St. Peter is set before all of the rulers of the Church (another translation here reads that the type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church).

One well acquainted with St. Cyprian should immediately recognize here the similarity this teaching shares with St. Cyprian's understanding of St. Peter as being the metaphysical grounding for the unity of the episcopate. It is not that St. Peter inherits this power alone, nor that one ruler of the church inherits St. Peter's position alone, but rather that all rulers receive this power, and their unity is kept in that Peter receives this power in a principle manner, which all then exercise by typifying Peter.

The question really falls to to the Latins, here for if they wish to claim that all bishops do not succeed St. Peter, then they must explain how the bishop of Rome maintains his unique Petrine Succession. As the later Easterners rather astutely pointed out, St. Peter may have appointed and ordained St. Linus to the episcopate, but it has never been the tradition for the bishop of Rome to appoint or ordain his successor, who instead is ordained to the general episcopate by bishops. Furthermore, if succession from Peter is not a characteristic of the episcopate, how can bishops ordain the supposedly unique successor to Peter? For it is a principle that one may not give a charism which he does not himself possess, just as priests may not ordain bishops.

Also, to address Marduk's point more directly, I should point out that I reject the defense that to be what Peter is is not identical to being a successor of St. Peter. This could perhaps be true if it were not for the fact that the fathers taught that the episcopacy and the power to bind and loose finds its principal unity in St. Peter, in that St. Peter first received this power by his confession in Matthew 16:18, and the entire Apostolic college acquired this power successively. To exercise the episcopacy and to bind and loose then truly is to succeed Peter, for in so doing one successively receives a share of and participates in what first was given to St. Peter in a unique manner. This is why we know only of Apostolic Succession, and an Apostolic Church, and not Petrine Succession and a Petrine Church, because Peter serves as the unity of Apostolic Succession, and to succeed the Apostles (whether one was ordained by St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Phillip, St. Bartholomew, or any other) has as a conequence succeeding St. Peter, to whom the charism of binding and loosing first was granted, and in whom as the first rock instituted by Christ this charism is grounded.