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

Yes, it should be sufficient. The idea that one must - at the parish level - list out every single hierarch that the local Church is in communion with is really a sign that people no longer fully grasp the nature of the Body of Christ as a communion of Churches. Is a parish in one diocese in communion with the bishop of a neighboring diocese? Yes, but only through its own hierarch.

Another question - perhaps odd in your minds, but it comes to me to ask from your perspectives since you see the whole as defined by the local, and I see it can go both top down and bottom up at the same time.. Since you said the priest acts only as the bishops vicar: does all function of the presbyter cease should the See become vacant? If the priesthood is connected to solely the local bishop and it's this connection of the bishop which connects his priests' to the whole, does it not then mean the priest has no right to exercise his priesthood should there be no local bishop overseeing him due to whatever reason?

This is why we have the practice of a bishop acting as locum tenens of a vacant see.

You caricaturize Roman Catholic teaching on this subject for your own purposes. Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it teach that the Bishop of Rome is more a bishop than any other. The only thing that distinguishes him from any other bishop is the extent of his jurisdiction by reason of his office as bishop of Rome - it is universal, theirs is local. However, all bishops, by reason of their office, share in this universal jurisdiction as a solicitude for the whole Church. A Metropolitan archbishop is not more of a bishop because his jurisdiction is more extensive than his exarchs; and so a Patriarch.

By the way, is it not possible for a further development in the Church's understanding of herself, to be from God and so a Revelation? If in your mind everything has to be Biblical, or even Patristical, then you are more fundamentalist than I thought.

This defense does not work, because metropolitan bishops and patriarchs have mediate jurisdiction outside of their ordinary jurisdiction, unlike the pope, whose extraordinary jurisdiction is both universal and immediate.


Is it taught by the fathers or by the scriptures that doctrinal innovation is desirable, such that something which was not believed before may later become an acceptable opinion and then later a dogma to which one must give ascent under pain of anathema?

Wasn't trying to defend anything. My point was that the extent and quality of his jurisdiction does not make the bishop possessing it more a bishop than any other. They may be given more honor, superlative titles and regalia, but they are all sacramentally the same.

Just what doctrinal innovation is, seems to be the point of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic. Novel or not, it does not help to caricaturize the doctrinal position of either in the advancement of that cause. I think it is quite obvious that Latin Catholics believe that their expressions of doctrine and dogma are firmly rooted in, and are legitimate developments of the apostolic, biblical and patristic Tradition of the Church.

Well, said, but let's not confuse apostolic succession with the idea of successorship. Apostolic succession is a much more general concept than successorship. Apostolic succession refers specifically to the handing down of the apostolic benefits for the sake of the building up of the Church down through the centuries. It is no surprise that Catholic ecclesiology asserts that even priests share in the apostolic succession.

Successorship, on the other hand, refers to a more specific locus - the passing on of a particular position, a position which inherently possesses certain unique responsibilities for a particular purpose. For example, the Coptic Pope is the sole and unique successor of St. Mark in the See of Alexandria; the Patriarch of Antioch is the sole and unique successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch; the Roman Pope is the sole and unique successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome; etc., etc., etc. Would you say that every bishop is a successor of St. Mark? Of course not. This highlights the distinction between general apostolic succession and unique successorship. To be perfectly clear, the only thing that Pastor Aeternus claims is that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor in the primacy of St. Peter. It does not claim that there are no other Petrine successors - clearly, the Patriarch of Antioch is such, and even the Patriarch of Alexandria to some extent (since St. Mark was ordained and sent by St. Peter according to Coptic Tradition). A careful reading of Pastor Aeternus will evince that the decree does not deny in the least the teaching of Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Gregory, or other fathers regarding the general apostolic succession.

Again, we need to discern between the general concept of apostolic succession and the more specific locus of the idea of successorship. Just as you cannot claim that all bishops are the successors of St. Mark in the primacy of the See of Alexandria, then you cannot claim that all bishops are the successors of St. Peter in the primacy of the See of Rome (this latter primacy having a universal extent as well).

Btw, it should be well noted that the Traditional Tridentine rite of consecration for a bishop in the Latin Catholic Church included an explicit request to God to grant the keys to the bishop. Vatican 2 changed the Rite, but the idea of the sharing of the keys has not thereby disappeared. Rather, the more explicit teaching of collegiality asserted by V2, with the sharing of Supreme Authority in the College of bishops, is abundant proof that the same Traditional teaching has been maintained, particularly in the Latin Catholic Church (despite the claims of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors to the contrary).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Apotheoun,

I have not read through the entire thread, so if others have responded to your comments below, and I am merely repeating what has been stated, forgive me.

The traditional Latin Catholic position is more nuanced than that, and was best expressed by St. Robert Bellarmine: that the bishop of Rome can be corrected; that it is the obligation of his brother bishops to do so when it is necessary; that even though no earthly authority can depose a Pope, a Pope ceases to be Pope by virtue of heresy (i.e., by virtue of the Law itself, not by virtue of another human agency). In Latin Catholic canonical circles, the idea of "to judge" is understood to be equivalent to "having the power to depose" -- being "judged" is not equivalent to "having the power to correct." So it is a non-sequitur to claim that because the canons say that the Roman Church cannot be judged, then that means the Pope can never be corrected.

Ergo, examples of a bishop of Rome being corrected in the Tradition of the Church in no way refutes the Tradition that the bishop of Rome is the primate or head bishop of the Church universal.

Well, it is obvious that I do not completely agree with your ecclesiological stance (the "Low Petrine" view). But it is equally obvious I do not agree with the view expressed by many Latin Catholics (the "Absolutist Petrine" view). There is a third option, a real option, that exists despite your adimadversions to the contrary, and it is a real option that is the true reading of Pastor Aeternus according to the explanation of Bishop Gasser at Vatican 1.

Just very recently in an other thread, I demonstrated how you took a certain snippet of Bishop Gasser's Relatio and wrenched it out of context to pretend he was saying something he was not (re: ex cathedra dogmatic decrees versus "dogmatic pronouncements"). As long as you keep doing that, I imagine it will be very difficult to agree on how to read the Relatio.

You are welcome. That is an element of the High Petrine view that is missing from the Absolutist Petrine view, a distinction you claim does not exist.

Of course, Vatican 2 explicitly asserts that bishops are not mere lieutenants or agents of the Pope, but have a power all their own derived directly from God (i.e., not merely derived directly from the Pope). Of course, this is merely a restatement of what Pastor Aeternus already explicitly asserted: that the bishops are true shepherds, rule their flocks individually, and are appointed by the Holy Spirit himself (i.e., not by the Pope). I see you do not outright say that "Vatican 1 declares the world's bishops are priests in relation to the only universal bishop" because that would obviously not be true. You can only express it as an "end result," which exposes the fact that your claims are not actual statements of of Vatican 1 (and Vatican 2), are they? Your understanding is actually only an interpretation that depends on taking small snippets out of context. Your position and the Absolutist Petrine position actually share the same exaggerated (mis)interpretations of the Council decrees - it is only that the former uses it to disparage the papacy, while the latter uses it in (pretended) support for the papacy.

Why do you claim it is a fantasy world schema? St. Gregory the Great himself asserted that the head bishops of Antioch and Alexandria shared in the unique Petrine ministry of the bishop of Rome. It is an understanding accepted by many, even among the Orthodox. Your disparagement demonstrates, at the very least, an inconsistent position.

You are confusing the issue, I'm afraid. The issue is not who is a successor of St. Peter, but who is the successor in the primacy of St. Peter.

According to the Absolutist Petrine view, I would agree with you. But it does not affect in the least the High Petrine view. The fact is, Pastor Aeternus nowhere claims that the bishop of Rome is the only successor of St. Peter- only that he is the only successor in the primacy. Of course, I've come across Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that the bishop of Rome is the ONLY successor of St. Peter. But they are wrong, and I bet you would agree with me.

It is obvious that this statement is a prop that is apparetly supposed to be in contradistinction to Catholic ecclesiology. If you knew anything about Catholic ecclesiology, you would know that what you have stated is exactly what Catholic ecclesiology teaches about the nature of the Church. I don't know where you have learned about Catholic ecclesiology, but it does not seem to be from Catholic sources. Maybe the problem is that you are depending on non-Catholic sources to tell you about Catholic things. Please quote some CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL sources that claim that the papacy possesses a different order in the Sacrament of Orders, or that there is a something called a "Sacrament of Primacy" distinct from the universal Episcopate. In contradiction to your claim, V2 explicitly states that the episcopal Order is the highest level of the Sacrament of Orders -- there is not another above it.

I venture to say you are wong on two counts.

First, you cannot disconnect any single local Church, though fully an ecclesial body in its own right, from any other local Church, much less the universal Church. That's one of the reasons why in Catholic theology, the Church is a Mystery. I don't know what you call your ecclesiology, but it is not Eucharistic ecclesiology. Eucharistic ecclesiology, as per the Church's understanding of the Eucharist itself, does not divide the Church into independent wholly autocephalous units. I don't know why you think it does, and I don't know what possible evidence you can proffer from Tradition to support your claim that local Churches are completely independent, autocephalous units, devoid of any obvious external (not merely internal, mystical) connection. The very reality of the Ecumenical Council refutes your ecclesiological understanding. (I think Cavaradossi would actually agree with me on this, and I would appreciate his nuanced input on the matter. As mentioned in a past thread, Eastern ecclesiology seems to run the gamut from Low to High Petrine, Western ecclesiology seems runs the gamut from High to Absolutist Petrine, while Oriental ecclesiology is generally High Petrine.)

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by the statement "nothing from outside of the local body (save Christ of course)..." Christ is not "outside" of the Church, but is the very life of the Church. Maybe that was just a grammatical slip on your part, though.

Again, this demonstates a lack of understanding of Catholic ecclesiology. First of all, Catholic ecclesiology asserts that every bishop must be in hierarchal communion with every other orthodox bishop, not just the Pope in order to exercise the Sacramental ministry (It's a fact that the hierarchy of the Church does not consist of the relationship of the Pope to bishops alone, but of a relationship between bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Pope). That is actually explicitly stated in the Preliminary Note (or appendix) to Lumen Gentium. I don't know how you could have missed it, or where you got the idea that Lumen Gentium separates the two. Secondly, while the appendix to Lumen Gentium does refer to the distinction between "liceity and validity," it explicitly states that it is a matter left in the realm of theologoumena. You are unfortunately misrepresenting "the teaching put forward in the appendix to Lumen Gentium."

Yes, I understand this is one particular difference between Catholic ecclesiology and Orthodox ecclesiology - the distinction between liceity and validity. It goes to the heart of the apparent difference regarding the existence of Sacraments outside of the Church. It is only apparent because Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology actually agree insofar as heresy is concerned (i.e., heresy about a Sacrament renders the Sacrament performed by a heretic void of Grace). It is in the issue of schism that the apparent difference lies. Still, it is only apparent because the Eastern position is not as solid as the Catholic position (i.e., Catholic - merely schismatic groups can have valid Sacraments; Orthodox - don't know). I think you realize this, which, I venture to guess, would be a reason you do not feel the issue is sufficient to break Catholic communion.

Yes, I know you leave many things unanswered, I guess on the permise that they are irrelevant, though you never do provide a reason why they are irrelevant.

You are not the only one reading these posts, so If I do take the effort to quote Catholic sources, it is for the hopeful purpose of preventing others who might otherwise be misled by your misrepresentations of Catholic ecclesiology (a statement directed just as much at the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy, since both your camp and theirs actually share the same premises regarding the papacy).

Actually, I would accuse him of being an Absolutist Petrine advocate (it might be confusing since the exaggerators and detractors both share identical premises about the papacy :)), IF he was actually saying what you claim. In truth, you are misreading the excerpt. The purpose of the text is not to claim that the bishop of Rome is the ONLY successor of St. Peter. Rather, the purpose of the statement is to highlight the idea that the bishop of Rome is the succesor of a PARTICULAR Apostle - in distinction from the idea of being a successor of the Apostles IN GENERAL.(capitalization not intended as a "shout," but only as emphasis). Regardless of whether his statement is true or not, it is for certain that you have misread the intent of the statement and are looking for boogeymen where there are none.


We concur that agreement between the orthodox Pope and the other orthodox bishops must be present, and I don't know why you don't admit it (perhaps to allow yourself to persist in the pretense that there is no distinction between the High Petrine view and the Absolutist Petrine view).

Here's another example of your habit of wrenching snippets out of context. It is true that Bishop Gasser asserted that the consent of the Church should not be a condition of the Pope's exercise of infallibility - whether antecendent or consequent. What you don't take into account is that the term "consensus" has different senses, and Bishop Gasser makes this contextually clear. The consent of which Bishop Gasser speaks that cannot be andtecedent or consequent is not the agreement of the teaching of the bishops and the Pope. Rather, the consent here refers to that explicit formal response from the person of the bishop. Bishop Gasser by no means is stating that the agreement between the proposed ex cathedra decree of the Pope, on the one hand, and the present preaching of the universal Magisterium (i.e., all the orthodox bishops) is not required (whether antecedent or consequent). Rather he is saying that the Pope need not have the personal formal approval of an orthodox bishop (whether antecedent or consequent) in order for the Pope to determine that he is in agreeement with the teaching of that orthodox bishop. In truth, you cannot deny that there are other means to determine agreement in teaching aside from personal communication between the Pope and the bishops, means as equally valid as if the Pope obtained a formal and personal statement of agreement from that particular bishop. The Pope can consult with leading, orthodox theologians (even lay theologians) in that bishop's jurisdiction, he can read documents put out by the bishop, he can read catechisms or statements made by the Synod, etc., etc., etc. That is all that Bishops Gasser meant when he stated that the consent (whether antecedent or consequent) is not necessary. Permit me to quote these contextual statements (not for your benefit, since you claim to have read it already - though whether you have understood what he stated is another matter, since you seem rather more interested in intentionally looking for boogeymen from small snippets wrenched out of context:
He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support. Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church. This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted...And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment. Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.
NOTE the importance of this last statement: it says that consent is not able to be lacking not because the Church must obey the Pope, but because the Church universal possesses the infallibility that the Pope posseses (i,e, "[/i]the Church universal is not able to fail[/i]").

There is the immediate context of the statement "consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent." Far from claiming the Pope can exclude the Church from his determinations in an ex cathedra decree, it explicitly states that since infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, he does require the help of the Church. Still, it is legitimate to ask what he means by "consent is not laid down as a condition." Bishop Gasser explains it explicitly later on within a few sentences:

We here come to the crucial point. It is true that the Pope on in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Curch united with its Head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity of inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information. That strict necessity, such as would be necessary for inclusion in a dogmatic decree cannot be established. There may be a case so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches...but such cannot be set up as a rule. Whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them.

These contextual excerpts are abundantly clear that when Bishop Gasser stated that antecedent or consequent consent cannot be required, he was referring not to the theological agreement between Popes and bishops in their teaching (which is indeed required), but merely to the attempt to obtain a formal, explicit, and personal statement of agreement from each individual bishop (which he concisely calls "manifest consent").

In point of fact, Bishop Gasser does not merely detail 2 alternatives in the official Relatio, but 4, explaining how only one is feasible:
(1) That the Pope defines infallibly by himself alone on the principle that all infallibility proceeds from the Pope. This was/is the neo-ultramontanist/Absolutist Petrine position, a position that, as official spokesperson for the Committee drafting the Decree, he plainly rejected on the principle that infallibility is given by God to all the bishops as a body, not to the Pope alone.
(2) That the Pope defines infallibly with the help and agreement of the Church, but it cannot be laid down as dogmatic that the manifest consent of all the bishops or the Church as a whole is required. This is the ultramontanist/High Petrine position at Vatican 1.
(3) That the Pope defines infallibly with the dogmatic necessity of the manifest consent of the majority of bishops. This was rejected on the principles that (a) it was impossible to lay down as a dogmatic rule how "majority" is to be determined, and (b) the agreement of the bishops can just as well be determined without their explicit (or manifest) consent.
(4) That the Pope defines infallibly with the dogmatic necessity of the consent of the Church. This fourth alternative was the "Fourth Gallican principle" that was generally rejected by the Catholic Church long before Vatican 1. This was rejected on the principle that the exercise of infallibility by the Pope is already priorly determined by the Church approaching the Pope for his determination on a matter that the bishops themselves could not decide. It is illogical to ask the Pope for help and subsequently call into question his ruling. If the Church asks the Pope for help, then it is a sign that God will Grace the determination of the Pope (with the aid of the Church in agreement with the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium) with infallibility for the sake of His Church.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The rhetoric of Bishop Gasser against the fourth Gallican principle excludes any notion that the Pope can arbitrarily and unilaterally, on his mere and sole discretion, create a dogma for the Church, a rhetoric that is explicitly echoed in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus.

Please answer these questions:
Do you claim the Cathlic Church denies that the Church as a whole participates in the infallibility of God?
Do you claim the Catholic Church teaches that ONLY the Pope participates in God's infallibility?
Do you claim the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can exercise this infallibility apart or separated from the Church?
If you say "Yes" to any of these questions, I daresay you are being false. If you say "No" to all these questions, can you please explain concisely exactly what your issue with "papal" infallibility is?

By "public heretic," I assume you mean someone who publicly preaches his heresy as a teaching of the Church. Name one Pope who has done this. Don't bother with Pope Honorius. NO ONE in the Ecumenical Council even had an inkling that Pope Honorius was connected with the heresy until Sergius produced the private letter. You claim "several." Please give a list and some details.

Not unilaterally. But as Pastor Aeternus teaches, and further clarified by Bishop Gasser, the exercise of infallibility is only activated when his brother bishops approach him for a resolution FIRST. There's no room for the pretense that the Pope has some unilateral authority to create dogma at his mere and sole discretion. Of course, in order for disparagers of the papacy to deny the Catholic teaching on "papal" infallibility, they need to pretend that it teaches what it does not in order to reject it.

Thanks for your citation. Let's look at it to see if we can conclude what you claim, or if your claim has perhaps been wrenched out of context (I've already exposed your misrepresentation of "the teaching of the appendix to Lumen Gentium" above). Is there any place in the Preliminary Note that actually states that the Pope can act separately from the college?
Well, Nota 1 states, "the college is...a stable group whose structure and authority is to be deduced from revelation.[/b]" Whatever this structure is, then, since it is from divine revelation, the Pope conclusively has no authority to contrdict it.

Nota 2 states, "[i]This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office, or in an assignment of subjects; and it is given according to norms approved by the highest authority. Such an ulterior norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of functions which must be exercised by several subjects working together by Christ's will in an hierarchical manner." It states that "working together in an hierarchical manner" is "CHRIST'S WILL." (capitalized not as a "shout," but merely to emphasize its great importance)

So far, it does not seem as if it can be concluded that the bishop of Rome can act separately from his brother bishops. But, you claim, these statements in the first 2 Notae are actually contradicted by Nota 3. So let's see what it states.

The first thing Nota 3 states is, "Of the College, which cannot exist without its head, it is said that "it is the subject also of supreme and full power over the whole Church." This must be allowed of necessity if the fullness of power of the Roman Pontiff is not to be jeopardized." Interesting. The first thing it states is that the Pope has no choice in the matter of the whole Colllege also being the subject of the fullness of power. Rather, it explicitly states that the fact of the College sharing in the fullness of power is "of necessity" for the very existence of the Pope's own fullness of power. No doubt, this is due to the previous notinos established in the first two Nota that the constitution of the Church is by DIVINE decree. So far, this is in direct contradiction to the claim that the Roman Pontiff can act separately from the College. But perhaps somewhere down the line, there is a contradiction. So let's continue.

The next relevant statement runs "there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Roman Pontiff is the head of the college, he alone can perform acts which in no wise belong to the bishops, for example, convoking and directing the College, approveing the norms of actions, etc." Does having the unique authority to perform certain acts definitely mean that the Pope can act separately from the College? Well, according to Orthodox ecclesiology, it is only the Patriarch who has the authority to convoke a Synod. It is also the Patriarch alone who has the unique authority to confirm certain bishops. Does having these unique authorities mean that the Patriarch is acting or has the authority to act separately from the Synod? Obviously not. Conclusively, the mere fact of having a unique authority to perform certain acts does not demonstrate that the Pope is acting or has the authority to act separately from the College. But let's go on.

The last statement in Nota 3 runs: "The care of the whole flock of Christ has been entrusted to the Supreme Pontiff. It belongs to him, according to the changing needs of the Church during the passage of time, to determine the way in which it is fitting for this care to be execise, whether personally or collegially." Is this where it (apparently) says that the Pope can act separately from the College? Does acting with personal authority necessraily mean that the Pope is acting separately from the College? Let's consider the previous examples of Orthodox ecclesiology. Is not the authority to convoke a Synod the PERSONAL authority of the Patriarch? Obviously. It does not belong to any other bishop of the Synod except the Patriarch to convoke a Synod. That is the PERSONAL prerogative of the Patriarch. It's obvious that having the PERSONAL authority to peform an act does not immediately equate to having the authority to act unilaterally or separately. That's it for Nota 3, and there is nothing that indicates that the Pope can act separately from the College.

But there's actually a Nota 4, and perhaps that's what you intended, and inadvertantly referred to Nota 3 by mistake.

Nota 4 begins: "A supreme pastor of the Church, the Sovereign Pontiff can always exercise his authority as he chooses, as is demanded by his office itself." This actually seems like the likely candidate for the claim that the Pope can act separately. This statement actually, however, begs the question of what it is the Pope chooses to do. Does this mean that the Pope can, at his mere whim and fancy, do anything he wants? Actually, the statement is in direct reference to the very previous pargraph in Nota 3 which states: "It belongs to him, according to the changing needs of the Church during the passage of time, to determine the way in which it is fitting for this care to be exercised, whether personally or collegially." So in context, this first statement in Nota 4 does not mean the Pope can choose to do anything he wants. Rather, the choice is dictated by the needs of the Church, and his only real choice is to determine if, in responding to the needs of the Church, this care should be exercised personally or collegially. As already explained above, acting "personally" is not equivalent to acting unilaterally or separately. This is also more explicitly and clearly explained in the Canons: "The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is ALWAYS joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to choose, according to the needs fo the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner." So let's move on.

While the College always exists, it does not for that reason permanently operate through strictly collegial action, as the tradition of the Church shows. In other words, it is not always "in full act"; indeed, it operates through collegial actions only at intervals and only with the consent of its head. The phrase is "with the consent of its head"; for there should be no thought of a dependence on some outside person. The word "consent," on the contrary, recalls the communion existing between head and members, and implies the necessity of thre act which properly belongs to the head. Is this where it states that the Pope can act separately from the College? The most important thing to note is that the excerpt states that the College ALWAYS exists and ALWAYS operates - merely that it does not always operate through strictly collegial action. "Strictly collegial action" refers to the Ecumenical Council, or acts of the College even when dispersed throughout the world, when approved as such by the head of the College (see CIC Canon 337-2, CCEO Canon 50-2). The only other type of action that can be considered, however, is the personal action of the Pope. This statement indicates that a personal act of the Pope is actually an act of the College.

CONCLUSION: Your claim has been wrenched out of context. If there is any doubt to this fact, one only needs to look at the very last statement in the Preliminary Note:
In EVERY instance it is clear that THE UNION OF THE BISHOP WITH THEIR HEAD IS CONTEMPLATED, and never any action of the bishops taken independently of the Pope. For in the latter case, the head would be inoperative, and the bishops could not function as a college, as is evident from the very concept of "college." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is undoubtedly a recurring feature of Tradition.

It is abundantly clear and explicit that the idea of the Pope acting separately from the college is utterly excluded from this Preliminary Note. One can only conclude otherwise if one takes only little snippets wrenched from its context. The ecclesiology of V2 is wholly collegial, contrary to your claims. It is not Absolutist Petrine, but High Petrine. Let's work on unity based on these real premises, not the pretended misrepresentations of the Absolutist Petrine exaggerators, nor the Low Petrine detractors.

Please explain why this is a problem. It is because he is head of a college, and thus a member of it, that he in fact cannot act apart from the communion of that college. I would think this would be more agreeable to your Low Petrine standard.

It's my position because it's what Bishop Gasser, representing the official explanation of the decrees, stated. I already explained above the true, contextual meaning of the statement from Bishop Gasser you present here.

You are definitely wrong on this one, brother. Catholic ecclesiology asserts that there can be ONLY ONE bishop with PROPER jurisdiction in any singular diocese. Go ahead and do your own research, and you will discover that even though Catholic ecclesiology attaches the terms "episcopal," "immediate" and "ordinary" to papal jurisdiction in any local diocese, it does not attach the term "proper" to papal jurisdiction. The term "PROPER" is Catholic jargon. Orthodox would normally just say that there can be only one bishop in any singular diocese. However, it is obvious that Orthodox ecclesiology (both Eastern and Oriental) also makes this distinction in practice, given the presence of auxiliary bishops (in the past, even chorepiscopi) in a diocese. So there can be more than one bishop of a diocese - it is just that there can only be one who regularly exercises rule in that diocese. Other bishops cannot regularly exercise any jurisdiction in a diocese, and can only do so when an extraordinary circumstance arises which necessitates the exercise of jurisdiction by that other bishop.

The situation is complicated because the term "ordinary" does not mean the same thing in Catholic jargon as it does to the rest of the world (including the Orthodox). To the rest of the world (including Orthodox), "ordinary" would refer to having the authority to rule normatively and regularly. But to Catholics, "ordinary" means only "inherent." Thus, whereas an Orthodox would only say that there can be only one bishop with ORDINARY jurisdiction in a diocese (because "ordinary" means "to rule normatively and regularly"), Catholics are not averse to saying that there can be more than one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in a diocese (because "ordinary" means something different to Catholics - i.e., in only means "inherent"). In fact, in Catholic ecclesiology, a local bishop, his Metropolitan, his Patriarch, and the Pope all have "ordinary jurisdiction" in the local diocese. But what Orthodox mean when they say "there can only be one bishop with ORDINARY jurisdiction in a diocese" is actually exactly equivalent to what Catholics mean when we say (well, at least, the canonical experts) "there can only be one bishop with PROPER jurisdiction in a diocese" (i.e., the bishop who has the normative and regular rule of the diocese).

We use different language, and disunity will result if we don't undestand each other. In truth, if we understand each others' language, one will discover that our ecclesiologies - as far as this matter of having only one bishop per diocese -are actually the same.

But you can legitimately ask "does not assigning the term "immediate" to papal jurisdiction mean the Pope can intervene in any diocese as he sees fit?" The answer is a big fat [i]NO. There are two reasons for this:
(1) Pastor Aeternus explicltly asserts that the power of the Pope is "far from impeding the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction of [the local] bishops." It is to be utilized to "assert, confirm, and vindicate[b]" the local jurisdiction of his brother bishops. However else you may want to interpret this statement, it is for certain you can[b]not interpret it to mean that the Pope has the authority to impede the local jurisdiciton of his brother bishops. That is what the Pope would be doing if he intervenes in a local jurisdiction merely as he sees fit - and, simply put, Pastor Aeternus does not grant him the authority to do that.
(2) To the rest of the world, the term "Immediate" jurisdiction has the connotation that "nothing stands in the way" of that jurisdiction. It is obvious that if this was the meaning intended by the V1 Fathers, then it does make the Pope seem like an absolute ruler. However, the term "immediate," like the term "ordinary," does not mean the same thing in the Catholic Church as it does to the rest of the world (Orthodox included). The term "immediate" in Catholic jargon refers to two things: (a) the direct relationship between God and the recipient of power (i.e., the power comes directly from God with no intermediary); (b) the direct relationshp between an authority and the one(s) over whom authority is exercised (i.e., authority is execised directly without an intermediary). These are the two reasons why the jurisdiction of the Pope, and the jurisdiction of any individual bishop are referred to as "immediate."

But take special note what "immediate" does not mean. It does not mean:
(a) the normative and regular use of authority (concisely, PROPER means "normative and regular use of authority without intermediary," while IMMEDIATE simply means "without intermediary"); nor does it mean (b) the character to be able to use authority as one sees fit. Rather, the only thing "immediate" refers to is the notion that a certain relationship is direct, with no intermediary.

I have explained this to you several times before, and you have never been able to respond to it. Yet you somehow feel justified in constantly repeating your misrepresentations of Catholic ecclesiology (I do not say that in a mean spirit, but simply matter-of-factly). In any case, as stated, these repeated explanations are not so much for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who might otherwise be misled by your misrepresentations (deliberate or not, I cannot say).

The bishop of Rome is ontologically the same as any other bishop, and the Catholic Church teaches as much. This seems to be another example of imposing some concept on Catholic doctrine that it does not actually teach (i.e., the idea that the Pope is ontologically different from other bishops, or that there is a "fourth order" in Catholic ecclesiology, etc., etc.), in order to have an excuse to reject a teaching that otherwise cannot be impugned. May I ask what proofs you can offer to justify your claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is ontologically different from other bishops?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

It is just so wonderful to have you here!

Oh, all right - I will agree with you on the whole Pope thing!

You've convinced me . . .

Alex

Dear Todd,

I went (in disguise . . .) to a ROCOR parish where they did, in fact, commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow four times and once for the "Many Years."

So this is up to the local bishop?

In any event, I wish the UGCC shortened its commemorations and kept the Second Antiphon, the Litany for the Catechumens etc.

Alex

Dear all,

I wanted to add just a few things to my previous post(s) for the sake of clarification.

First, I wanted to provide the direct citation from the Preliminary Note of Lumen Gentium that asserts that the distinction between validity and liceity is only theologoumena.

The Commission has decided not to go into the questions of liceity and validity, which are left to the debate of theologians, especially with regard to the power which is de facto exercised among the separated Easterners and which is explained in various ways.

The second thing I wanted to expand upon is the issue of the unique papal prerogatives somehow being an indication that the Pope is ontologically above other bishops. To my fellow Catholics: If anyone ever makes the argument that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is more than a bishop, or that there is some "Fourth Order" in the Sacrament of Orders comprised of the papacy, or some such other fantastic exaggerated claim, you only need to refer them to Pastor Aeternus for a conclusive statement to the contrary.

Few know (apparently, including our brother Apotheoun), that this issue was actually debated at Vatican 1. The debate revolved around the term "episcopal" as a descriptive of the papal prerogatives. The debate was not strictly between the Majority Party and Minority Party at Vatican 1. There were three main arguments:

(1) The papal prerogatives should not be described as merely "episcopal," but "super-episcopal" or "extra-episcopal," because the Pope is in fact greater than the bishops. This was the argument of the neo-ultramontantists (the Absolutist Petrine advocates) at Vatican 1.

(2) The papal prerogatives should not be described as merely "episcopal," but "super-episcopal" or "extra-episcopal," because to describe it as "episcopal" would mean that it can be used normatively and regularly, when in fact the papal prerogatives should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. This rhetoric was supported by members of both the Minority Party and the Majority Party. Note well that members of the Neo-ultramontanist party and the Minority Party wanted the same textual change, but at cross-purposes.

(3) The papal prerogatives can only be described as "episcopal" because there is no greater degree of power than that of the episcopal order in the divine consitution of the Church. To describe it any other way would imply that the Pope is somehow above or beyond the episcopal order, which would violate the divine consitution of the Church.

In the end, the third rationale won out. The Council Fathers wanted there to be no doubt that the papal prerogatives flowed from his status as a bishop, not because he was something more than a bishop. It was also based on the doctrinal premise that the notion of primacy is a NATURAL feature of the episcopal order.

So detractors of the papacy who claim that Vatican 1 made the Pope more than a bishop have no substance to their claim, since Vatican 1 itself asserted that the papal prerogatives are indeed episcopal by their very nature.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thanks for your support, brother Alex.