Posted on 11/06/2006 4:52:55 PM PST by NYer
I am not much interested in the commentaries of others. I could produce a hundred commentaries to support the Catholic position and you could produce a hundred commentaries to support the Orthodox position. This would get us nowhere. Rather, what do the documents say themselves and what did the contemporaries believe?
Second, what you call "subordinate" jurisdiction was anything but that, which is why Pope +Leo was so disturbed by Canon XXVIII, feeling that his presumed supremacy was being usurped.
Leo did not protest because this was impugning his authority but rather because it was prejudicial to Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, and because it violated the canons of Nicea.
How can someone have jurisdiction over all, if he doesn't have authority over all? Calling the authority of other Patriarchs "subordinate", when in fact it is absolute, is an oxymoron.
A division of responsibilities does not contradict supremacy. A general does not do all the tasks himself but leaves some to his colonels and captains. Canon 28 was not about telling the pope the limits of his authority but rather about reordering the division between the Eastern bishops.
I will ask you again to read the entire text of the Council.
Indeed, let us read the entire text of the Council. You should find the following interesting which comes from the letter of the Council addressed to Pope Leo requesting its ratification:
1.You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth. … For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, he has said that he is in the midst of them, must he not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests who preferred to their country and their ease the spread of knowledge about him? Of all these you were the chief, as head to members, showing your goodwill in matters of organization. …Thus in an official act of the council Leo is recognized has being the head with an authority which comes from Jesus Christ himself. Leo is also petitioned to confirm the decision of the council.2. The enemy would have been like a wild beast outside the fold…if the late pontiff of the Alexandrians had not thrown himself to him for a prey….By his terror-won votes he aquitted Eutyches…. Besides all this he extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour–we refer to your holiness– and he intended to excommunicate one who was zealous to unite the body of the Church. …
4. We mention further that we have made certain other decisions also for the good management and stability of church affairs, as we are persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them when you are told. … We have also ratified the canon of the 150 holy fathers who met at Constantinople…which declares that after your most holy and apostolic see, the see of Constantinople shall have privileges, being placed second; for we are persuaded that, with your usual interest, you have often extended that apostolic radiance of yours even to the church of Constantinople also. … And so, deign, most holy and blessed father, to embrace as your own, and as lovable and agreeable to good order, the things we have decreed, for the removal of all confusion, and the confirmation of church order. … But we … recognized as fitting the confirmation of the honour by this universal council, and we confidently endorsed it,… knowing that every success of the children redounds to the parents. We therefore beg you to honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the head in noble things, so may the head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. Thus … the see of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement. (Council of Chalcedon, To Leo. A.D. 451. Leo, Ep. 98. [P.L. 54. 952; P.N.F. 12. 72A.])
As for your quotes of other bishops, I repeat that bishops individually, or as a local group, do not (and can not) represent the Church as a whole, speak on behalf of the Church as a whole, have authority over the Church as a whole, or are necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit. Their opinions and expressions of praise are just that.
I think that you misunderstand the Church's charism of Infallibility and its relationship to councils. It is the Church as a whole that is infallible, not just councils. Thus to understand the orthodox faith we must ask ourselves what the Church has always and everywhere taught. If we were to restrict infallibility only to the declarations of Ecumenical Councils, a sort of sola concilia, then we would have to say: that only from 325 did the Church teach that Jesus had an uncreated nature, that only from 431 did it teach that Jesus was only one person or that Mary is the Theotokos, etc. These truths, and other, were always taught by the Church. The councils were only called to clarify and proclaim in extraordinary way what was already the orthodox faith. This it is right to look at the teachings of the bishops to discover what the Church believed and proclaimed. Even the Orthodox do this with their appeals to the Fathers.
"It is the Church as a whole that is infallible, not just councils."
Precisely, P, which is why the Union of Florence went nowhere. The Laos tou Theou would have none of it or the other proclamations that council made.
For the moment, if we could, let us limit our discussion to the topic of papal supremacy. I think that I have adequately demonstrated that for the thousand years before the schism that the Church did indeed profess such a doctrine and that it was actually acknowledged by the Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo requesting that its acts be ratified.
+Peter was never, to the bets of my knowledge, appointed to be a supreme general, nor have any of the Apostles been likened to +Peter's "colonels and captains." Never was +Peter proclaimed to be the Prince of the Apostles by the Lord, nor His "vicar," nor a "lord" over other Apostles.
The letter shows great reverence the bishops had for the Pope (who is also an Orthodox Saint,among several other Popes). But their decision, despite their humble please (they begged him), was final and the Church implemented it despite his opposition. Their begging was not a sign of subservience but a plea for acceptance.
There was no jurisdictional papal supremacy in the Undivided Church. Papal primacy, yes. He was both a real and a symbolic bishop of highest honor and a role model for others to imitate and seek advice from (out of respect for papal almost unfailing Orthodoxy) and not because of their "general rank."
Needless to say, I do not see what you se ein that letter.
Exactly! Let us look at the letter a little more closely. We can find the following:
1) The pope holds his office as the successor of Peter, and not as kosta50 would have merely as the bishop of the capital city of the empire: You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter. The reason this was not invoked in Canon 28 is because the council was trying to justify the elevation of the status of Constantinople, not to deny the Petrine foundation of the office which is here acknowledged.
2) This office was established by our Lord himself and not by an act of a council: charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour–we refer to your holiness
3) The pope exercises a true headship over the Church: you were the chief, as head to members (hôs kephalê melôn) and we have yielded agreement to the head (tê kephalê).
4) The pope does actually govern. ... charged with the custody (phulakên) of the vine ... Phulakê is more than just concern or solicitude, it is the watch or guard.
The phrase that was translated above as "you were the chief, as head to members, showing ..." actually reads in the Greek: hôs kephalê melôn, hêgemoneues ..., i.e., you ruled.
We also need to remember that this letter must be read in the context of what the Papal Legates were saying about the role of the pope as well as other contemporary evidence of what was the common understanding of the Church.
If the letter meant what you believe it does, why did not one Eastern Patriarch support his refusal to accept Canon XXVIII?
In one word, disobedience. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last. To be fair, they probably thought that what they were doing was proper and that Leo was being unreasonable in withholding ratification. It should be pointed out here that to say that the pope is the supreme head of the Church on earth does not mean that his authority is absolute and can be arbitrary. Like all proper authority it is bounded by justice and charity. Catholic thought also includes the idea of subsidiarity. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1882:
The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activities with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."The papacy, too, should also be bound by this concept. Nor is it always improper to resist the authority of one's superior. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. However, if he were to give the order that the civilian population should be attacked by gas not only would his subordinates have the right to disobey such an order, they would have the positive obligation to do so. If fact, they could be court-marshalled if they did not disobey such an illegal order. It would be much more fruitful for the Orthodox to discuss what are the proper limits of papal authority rather than to try to deny that it exists.
Now as for limiting our discussion to the topic of papal supremacy, the role of the Laos tou Theou, as history demonstrates, is the final and ultimate limitation on the power of any bishop or bishops.
It is not enough just to invoke the People of God. The Catholic laity in the West are also the People of God and they do not accept the Orthodox position. Since we are in disagreement we should seek to discover who is agreement with what the Church held for the thousand years before the schism. And here I refer not just to the letter of the Council to Leo but to the other citations that I have provided to show that the Church at the time did indeed accept the leadership of the pope over the Church and not just as a brother bishop. To deny this is to deny the historical record.
Not a few Greek Father would have disagreed with you:
[King] David handed over the Kingdom to [Prince] Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.And finally from St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.D. 387):
(St. Aphraates the Sage (c. AD 330) Aphraates, xxi, 13).Peter, the Prince of the Apostles...
(St. Anthony of Egypt (A.D. 330), Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687)Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people." (St. Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli)
[As if spoken by Jesus:] "Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of My holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of all who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of all My treasures. I have given you the keys of My Kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all My treasures!
To whom, O Lord, didst Thou entrust that most precious pledge of the heavenly keys? To Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apostles, with whom, I implore Thee, may I share Thy bridal chamber...Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the Apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of His establishment. He appointed him head of the Apostles and commanded him to feed His flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs.
(St. Ephraem, Homilies, 4:1, 350 A.D.)Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (A.D. 363), Catech ii. n. 15)
The memory of Peter, the Head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but [upon him] is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church.
(St. Nyssa, (371) alt. Or. De S. Steph. Galland. t. vi.)Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.
(St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.), Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same [Peter] furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, 'feed my lambs'; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.
(St. Epiphanius of Salamis (385 A.D.), T. ii. in Anchor)
Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.If these are not enough, other citations can be given. Can you give any citations that explicitly deny this? You could argue your position on theological grounds but then you would have to say that for a thousand years the Church, both East and West, were wrong. The historical record does not allow you to say that this was not taught at the time in the Eastern church.
(Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)[Peter], the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.
(De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.
(Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
That is exactly what the Orthodx are discussing. The problem is: you can't have universal jurisdiction and limited authority.
+Peter was never given universal jurisdiction over other Apostoles. And, let's be frank and blunt about it: the pope is no +Peter.
the council was trying to justify the elevation of the status of Constantinople, not to deny the Petrine foundation of the office which is here acknowledged
No one was or is trying to deny the foundation of papal office. I don't know where you are getting this from.
I have also shown you already (from the papal legate's own words) that the concept of "primacy over all" applied to all major church sees and that the phrase, referring to the Pope of Rome (a title actually rather new at +Leo's time -- first brought on by Pope Siricius only 40 years prior; the popes up to the 5th century were simply titled Episcopus Romanus not "Papa." So in a way the popes did consider themselves as one of the bishops).
The council (and that is made abundantly clear at the very beginning of Canon XXVIII) decided the honor and privilege of the Bishops of Rome, and not the office. The See of Antioch is also a Petrine office. There is a distinction, (again) between theoffice and the person, lest we confuse the Pope with +Peter in person, as some seem to be doing.
You are quoting human elevations of the office by a handful of bishops. I am not interested in human composition. All I said, it is biblically not supported.
Custodian of the keys is a janitor. That does not make him a CEO. This is not meant to dishonor the Pope or to compare his position in the Church to that of a janitor. I am simply stating that one's responsibility for one thing doesn't make him or her in charge of everything. And the keys were also given to the rest of the Apostles, thus making them all equal in authority in the Church. This is not the same as jurisdiction, Petrosius.
Sure you can. You can have vertical limitations on the exercise of authority as well as horizontal limitations of jurisdiction. That is what the concept of subsidiarity is all about. By way of example: While a bishop exercises a supreme and universal jurisdiction within his diocese, he should also respect the internal organization of his parishes. Thus we would recognize a bishop as being abusive in his exercise of power if he were to attempt to run the individual parishes by dictating the Mass schedules, directly appointing the choir directors, mandating "the lunch menu at the local school cafeteria", etc. Thus within the framework of subsidiarity we could also say that a pope should respect the authority of the lower orders within the Church while at the same time acknowledging that he possesses a universal jurisdiction.
No one was or is trying to deny the foundation of papal office. I don't know where you are getting this from.
I was responding to the statement of yours: "... some bishops have jurisdictional authority that others don't, not by dogma, but by custom and tradition, as agreed and decided on by the Church."
I have also shown you already (from the papal legate's own words) that the concept of "primacy over all" applied to all major church ...
Yes, but you will notice that when it was referring to the other patriarchs that the limits of their jurisdictions were spelled out. You will find that there is no such limitation applied to Rome.<
So in a way the popes did consider themselves as one of the bishops
Of course, he is one of the bishops. But in addition to being a bishop he is also the successor to Peter as the head of the entire Church.
If you are referring only to the title of patriarch, I will concede the point. But the office of Peter and its authority predated any granting of a latter title by the Church, coming directly for our Lord himself.
The See of Antioch is also a Petrine office.
Not so. The Patriarch of Antioch holds the apostolic office of bishop over a Petrine see. The Petrine office as the head of the Church is unique to the pope alone. While Peter established the church in Antioch, he left and established the seat of his authority in Rome, leaving the ordinary function of bishop in Antioch to another.
It is hardly a handful. I can provide further citations if you wish. On two occasions, separated by a span of 300 years, all the bishops in the East signed a statement recognizing papal authority.
I am not interested in human composition. All I said, it is biblically not supported.
Has the Orthodox position abandoned the consensu Patrum in favor of sola scriptura? The quotations were given to show what was the consensus of the Church at the time. You have yet to show any explicit opposition by their contemporaries to these statements.
Custodian of the keys is a janitor.
Actually our Lord's reference to the keys is to Isaias (22: 19-22):
And it shall come to pass in that day thee [Sobna] out from thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.The Sobna was the chief minister of the king, replaced by Eliacim. The "key" is the symbol of his office. Just so, the keys granted to Peter are the symbol of his office as the Vicar of Christ over the entire Church. So yes, that does make him the CEO.
And the keys were also given to the rest of the Apostles, thus making them all equal in authority in the Church.
The keys were never given to the rest of the Apostles. Please give the reference if you can.
"While Peter established the church in Antioch, he left and established the seat of his authority in Rome, leaving the ordinary function of bishop in Antioch to another."
In great haste as I am off to a parish council meeting....
From your statement am I to take it that it is the accident of where +Peter died then, not appointing a successor, upon which the claims of universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome rests? With all due respect, P, it seems to me that the very existence of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of undoubted Petrine lineage, puts the lie to any pretentions of primacy of the See of Rome beyond that which the councils gave it on account of the fact that it was established at the seat of the Empire and once so established, quite naturally rose to the top and equally naturally, when Rome was no longer the center of the world, fought hard to hang on to its privileges.
Sounds funny doesn't it? Well, it sounds just as funny (and without biblical reference) that +Peter was made the "Vicar of Christ," the "Prince of the Apostles," along with "universal jurisdiction" over the Church, and that all the bishops serving in the Apostle's office somehow have the Apostle's qualities. Where does it say so in the New Testament? The Popes are not inspired. That is sufficient diefference already, even if we ignore the rest. So, he is not +Peter.
All ecclesial canons were agreed upon by the bishops, including the ones giving him primacy. However, he was never givne supremacy. The Bishop of Rome didn't even have a distinct title of "Papa" until +Siricius (384-399). All Popes prior to +Siricius used only the title Episcipus Romanus. The idea that the Bishop of Rome is something higher than the rest of the bishops is a latter-day development, Petrosius.
The Pope was the presiding bishop and due honor and reverence was always paid to him for this (and was given to him by the Church and by Imperial decree after the VI Ecumenical Council), but the Church did not understand it to mean that he had jurisdictional authority over other Patriarchs, or that he was above the canons, or that he can proclaim dogma on his own, and so on.
Our problem is not with papacy and primacy, but with supremacy. We have issues with the jurisdictional limitations and, last of all, theological barriers. The reason we are not in communion with the Pope of Rome is because he is (as far as we are concerned) no longer Orthodox. IOW, the theology of the Latin Church is different from ours. Communion is an expression of, and not a means of achieving unity.
So, the road ahead will be long and bumpy. Pope +Benedict XVI would do a great thing for the unity of the Church if he called for an Ecumenical Council to hash out these issues until they are either resolved or permanently buried. At any rate, our differences should not obliterate what we share in common (which is a lot more than what divides us), nor should they be the reason for anything but the closest and fraternal relations between the East and the West.
Kosta and Kolokotronis have done an admirable job of repeating the solid Orthodox positions regarding the papacy.
What continues to be of the greatest psychological interest to me is the inner compulsion that many Catholics have to convince Orthodox of papal claims -- in the face of the fact that a thousand years of such argumentation hasn't worked. We Orthodox don't seem to feel the same compulsion to initiate dialogues aimed at convincing Catholics that the Roman positions of the last millenium are wrong.
Only combinations of raw coercion and covert activity have ever brought about union on any significant scale. The fact that Uniate activities continue apace and that the West continues to put the political (and military) squeeze on Orthodox countries with the apparent approval of the Vatican shows that that particular line of attack hasn't been dropped.
Which makes it even less likely that informed Orthodox are going to budge an inch from the positions held by the Orthodox from at least the time of St. Photius.
Perhaps it has to do with how we read documents, including the Bible. For example, +Paul says
"Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk And so I direct in all the churches" [1 Cor 7:17]
Clearly, these passages indicate that +Paul felt that he was charged with care for all the churches and not those of his jurisdiction. Rather than consider +Peter to be charged with less, I firmly believe that +Paul held the same view held by the Orthodox, namely that all the Apostles were equal in everything, including the universal care and that, had there been lording over by +Peter, it would have been mentioned explicitly.
All the subsequent titles and honors bestowed on various bishops and patriarchs were either of honor or of administration.
The holy Apostles could have transferred their "offices" to their successors, but that act does not make bishops "inspired" as the Apostles clearly were. Therefore, the Petrine Office, whether in Antioch or Rome, is not synonymous with being inspired, but simply charged with doing the duty of keeping the Church Catholic and the Faith Orthodox.
Given the one thousand years of non-communion, clearly this was not the case. Blaming it on Orthodox "disobedience" is an excuse and not the reason.
Reading through successive documents unveils the developing human element in the Church. Thus, while at Chalcedon the Pope is referred to as the "Most Holy Pope of Old Rome," in the Council of Trullo he is referred to as the "Most Holy Ecumenical Pope [Father]," and the Bishop of Constantinople is referred to as the "Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch [Father] of the New Rome."
This is like night and day when one looks at the Bishop of Rome before the 5th century, when he was simply that which he was from the beginning: the Bishop of Rome [Episcopus Romanus].
All the rest was later added by Councils, imperial decrees, or simply arrogated by power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.