OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 08:09:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jurisdiction  (Read 3846 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« on: May 06, 2010, 08:09:18 PM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2010, 07:08:40 AM »

Bump
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2010, 08:15:28 AM »

Corinth had been recently re-built as a Roman colony. It was re-founded by Rome by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was more Roman than Greek. Corinth was a Roman colony, materially prosperous but morally corrupt. It had a special judicial and civil dependence directly on the city of Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was strong church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul.

It is also highly likely that Clement who became Bishop of Rome had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.

Corinth was also full of Jewish refugees from ROME expelled from Rome in 49 AD. Some of these Jews were Christians. This is another obvious reason which made the Christians of Corinth look to Rome.  This mass expulsion of the Christian Jews of Rome to Corinth is mentioned by Saint Luke in Acts 18:2-3 - "There [in Corinth] he [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because [the Emperor] Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

So all in all there were a number of strong connections and sensible reasons why the Corinthians asked the Church of Rome to help them with their problem.

"Corinth at the Time of Paul's Arrival"
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/city.stm
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2010, 08:21:27 AM »

Corinth had been recently re-built as a Roman colony. It was re-founded by Rome by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was more Roman than Greek. Corinth was a Roman colony, materially prosperous but morally corrupt. It had a special judicial and civil dependence directly on the city of Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was strong church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul.

It is also highly likely that Clement who became Bishop of Rome had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.

Corinth was also full of Jewish refugees from ROME expelled from Rome in 49 AD. Some of these Jews were Christians. This is another obvious reason which made the Christians of Corinth look to Rome.  This mass expulsion of the Christian Jews of Rome to Corinth is mentioned by Saint Luke in Acts 18:2-3 - "There [in Corinth] he [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because [the Emperor] Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

So all in all there were a number of strong connections and sensible reasons why the Corinthians asked the Church of Rome to help them with their problem.

"Corinth at the Time of Paul's Arrival"
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/city.stm

Excellent! This is a wonderful answer. Thank you.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2010, 09:20:46 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2010, 09:28:51 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES

All empires have ruled over a diversity of peoples and in this respect the Byzantine Empire was no exception. Had its constituent population been reasonably well fused, had it been united in accepting the Empire's dominant civilization, it would hardly have been necessary to devote a chapter to this topic. It so happens, however, that even before the beginning of the Byzantine period - indeed, when the grand edifice of Rome started to show its first cracks towards the end of the second century AD- the various nations under Roman sway tended to move apart and assert their individuality. The rise of the Christian religion, far from healing this rift by the introduction of a universal allegiance, only accentuated it. We must, therefore, begin with the question: Who were the 'Byzantines'? In an attempt to answer it we shall undertake a rapid tour of the Empire, noting as we proceed the populations of the various provinces and the languages spoken by them. The time I have chosen is about 560 AD, shortly after the recovery by the Emperor Justinian of large parts of Italy and North Africa and several decades before the major ethnographic changes that were to accompany the disintegration of the Early Byzantine State.

It will have been sufficient for our imaginary traveller, provided he did not intend to stray far from the cities, to know only two languages, namely Greek and Latin. The boundaries of their respective diffusion were not in all places sharply drawn. It may be said, however, as a rough approximation that the linguistic frontier ran through the Balkan peninsula along an east-west line from Odessos (Varna) on the Black Sea to Dyrrachium (Durres) on the Adriatic; while south of the Mediterranean it divided Libya from Tripolitania. With the exception of the Balkan lands, where there was a fair amount of mingling, the western half of the Empire was solidly Latin and the eastern half solidly Greek in the sense that those were the languages of administration and culture. Nearly all educated persons in the East could speak Greek, just as all educated persons in the West spoke Latin, but a great proportion of ordinary people spoke neither.

Our traveller would have had considerable difficulty in supplying himself with an up-to-date guidebook. He could have laid his hands on a bare enumeration of provinces and cities called the Synecdemus of Hierocles as well as on a few itineraries of earlier date that gave distances between staging posts along the main roads. He might have drawn some useful but antiquated information from a little book known to us as the Expositio totius mundi et gentium which was composed in the middle of the fourth century; but if he wanted a systematic treatise combining geography with ethnography, he would have had to pack a copy of Strabo in his luggage. If he had been able to find the geographical treatise (now lost) by the Alexandrian merchant Cosmas Indicopleustes, he would probably have derived little practical benefit from it. Let us imagine that our traveller was content with such imperfect documentation and that, starting from Constantinople, he intended to travel clockwise round the Empire.

Constantinople, like all great capitals, was a melting-pot of heterogeneous elements: all seventy-two tongues known to man were represented in it, according to a contemporary source. Provincials of all kinds had either settled there or would drift in and out on commercial or official business. The servile class included many barbarians. Another foreign element was provided by military units which in the sixth century consisted either of barbarians (Germans, Huns, and others) or some of the sturdier provincials like Isaurians, Illyrians and Thracians. It is said that seventy thousand soldiers were billeted on the householders of Constantinople in Justinian's reign. Syrian, Mesopotamian and Egyptian monks, who spoke little or no Greek, thronged to the capital to enjoy the protection of the Empress Theodora and impress the natives with their bizarre feats of asceticism. The ubiquitous Jew earned his living as a craftsman or a merchant. Constantinople had been founded as a centre of latinity in the east and still numbered among its residents many Illyrians, Italians and Africans whose native tongue was Latin as was that of the EmperorJustinian himself. Furthermore, several works of Latin literature were produced at Constantinople, like Priscian's famous Grammar, the Chronicle of Marcellinus and the panegyric of Justin 1l by the African Corippus. Necessary as Latin still was for the legal profession and certain branches of the administration, the balance was inexorably tilting in favour of Greek. By the end of the sixth century, as Pope Gregory the Great avers, it was no easy matter to find a competent translator from Latin into Greek in the imperial capital.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2010, 09:35:41 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES
CHAPTER I of what?

No, Militantsparrow was talking about the claims of old Rome.

Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 09:52:56 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2010, 09:43:28 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Thank you, ialmisry. This is very helpful as well.

Let me try to explain where I'm at. It will help me understand it better by trying to explain it. And I trust and respect your input.

The first seven councils are accepted by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike. Whatever is laid out in those councils should not be abruptly abandoned or changed in such a way that contradicts what the Church agreed to in those councils.

As of right now, it would seem to me that Rome slowly, but without corroboration with or consideration of the other Apostolic Churches, amassed for itself more and more power. Universal jurisdiction is the culmination of that amassing.

If there is recognition of Rome's universal jurisdiction before the schism, then Catholic's have a solid place to stand. If not, it would appear that Orthodoxy is correct.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2010, 10:11:36 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES
CHAPTER I of what?

No, Militantsparrow was talking about the claims of old Rome.

Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).

 Smiley  Just pointing out that the balance of power in the Church tended to follow the balance of secular power in the Christian world...And so the real push-back against the Pope of Rome never really came till after the Rome receded as a world power.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2010, 10:25:57 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Thank you, ialmisry. This is very helpful as well.

Let me try to explain where I'm at. It will help me understand it better by trying to explain it. And I trust and respect your input.

The first seven councils are accepted by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike. Whatever is laid out in those councils should not be abruptly abandoned or changed in such a way that contradicts what the Church agreed to in those councils.

As of right now, it would seem to me that Rome slowly, but without corroboration with or consideration of the other Apostolic Churches, amassed for itself more and more power. Universal jurisdiction is the culmination of that amassing.

If there is recognition of Rome's universal jurisdiction before the schism, then Catholic's have a solid place to stand. If not, it would appear that Orthodoxy is correct.
I just added a bit to my previous post:
Quote
Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).

Which highlight to points: Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the Church of Asia for holding Pascha on a different date (btw, the date eventually adopted by the Church was Alexandria's, not Rome's).  Somewhere (again, the search engine is less than helpful) I've posted Eusebius' report where he quotes that councils (which he lists) were held all over the world which disagreed with Asia's date, but sent "letters of rebuke" to Pope St. Victor.  Victor's suffragan St. Iranaeus of Lyons had to talk some sense into him (Pope Victor had some pull with the Roman Emperor Commodus, through the latter's Christian concubine Marcia.

SS. Pope Damasus and Jerome weighed in on the Meletian schism in Antioch against Patriarch St. Meletius, backing the wrong horse whose episcopal line died out within a generation, while St. Meletius went on to open the Second Ecumenical Council: all the Vatican's 4 patriarchs of Antioch (Latin, Melkite, Maronite, Syriac) claim successor through him.   I've posted on this here somewhere, too, including how St. Damasus linked his see to the glories of pagan Rome, and received the office of Pontifax Maximus (the title of the old Latin kings as head of the religion of the Roman state, taken by the emperors until Gratian gave it to Pope Damasus).


Btw, some other threads:
It is curious that even while John was alive various churches appealed to Rome (ie the bishop of Rome) and not to John who was much closer in the East.

What various Churches?  The only one this is claimed for is Corinth, a colony of Rome and within its patriarchate.   That St. John was in prison at the time also put a crimp in writing him.
Quote
342  At the height of the Arian struggle, the Council of Sardica acknowledges the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Rome, and gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees. The presiding bishop at this council is St. Athanasius himself, who had previously been restored to his see of Alexandria by the authority of Pope Julius I --an authority that is even recognized by the Arians, then in power at Constantinople. Thus, Sardica merely codified Rome’s Traditional primacy as a matter of imperial law.  

Compare:

Quote
347 AD
 Council of Sardica, convened by Roman Emperors Constantius of New Rome and Constans of Old Rome, presided over by Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and attended by 370 fathers. It is convened to exonerate Sts. Paul of New Rome, Athanasius the Great of Alexandria and Maximus of Jerusalem, as well as Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza, who had been deposed in 335 at the Council of Tyre under Eusebius of Caesarea. The Easterners agree to be present at the council of Sardica, but upon discovering that the deposed clergymen are to be given seats at the council, the Easterners depart for Philippoupolis where they hold a council of their own. The Westerners continue at the council of Sardica at which they confirm the Nicene Creed and establish several canons concerning church discipline. They proceed to depose 11 of the Easterners who departed for Philippoupolis on the charge of Arianism, whereas they exonerate and annul the depositions of Paul, Athanasius, Maximus, Asclepes and Marcellus. However, this council errs in its exoneration of Marcellus in that the latter is indeed a heresiarch (Marcellianism).  
 
347 AD
 Council of Philippoupolis, attended by 76 bishops who had departed from Sardica. It confirms the Nicene Creed and condemns the extreme form of Arianism, as well as Tritheism and Sabellianism. In addition to re-deposing Paul, Athanasius, Maximus, Asclepas and Marcellus, they also depose Pope Julius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, Protogenes of Sardica, and several others who participated in the Sardican council. Thus, the Easterners and Westerners excommunicate each other on the grounds of heresy.

 
http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/timelineXXX.htm

Now, the mere existence of the Council of Phillippoulis belies the claim that the Archbishop (not yet Pope) of Rome's authority was recognized by the Arians.  In fact, it was the presence, as the Orthodox timeline shows, of Athanasius that caused the Eastern prelates to leave and reconvene at Phillippoupolis.  Not to say that Phillippoupolis was not a Robber Council.  But to claim that the Arians acknowledged Julian's dictates as mandates from heaven, implying that even heretic had to bow to the authority of Rome (then why are they still heretics?) is an outright lie.  Even more laughable is the claim that it made Rome's authority over the whole Church a matter of imperial law:Constantius, the emperor who called Sardica (note, not Rome's Julius), refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica.

A good summary of the issue:
Quote
Excursus as to Whether the Sardican Council Was Ecumenical.

Some theologians and canonists have been of opinion that the Council of Sardica was Ecumenical and would reckon it as the Second.  But besides the fact that such a numbering is absolutely in contrariety to all history it also labours under the difficulty, as we shall see presently, that the Westerns by insisting that St. Athanasius should have a seat caused a division of the synod at the very outset, so that the Easterns met at Philippopolis and confirmed the deposition of the Saint.  It is also interesting to remember that when Alexander Natalis in his history expressly called this synod ecumenical, the passage was marked with disapproval by the Roman censors.

(Hefele.  Hist. Councils. Vol. II., pp. 172 et seqq.)

The ecumenical character of this Synod certainly cannot be proved.  It is indeed true that it was the design of Pope Julius, as well as of the two Emperors, Constantius and Constans, to summon a General Council at Sardica; but we do not find that any such actually took place:  and the history of the Church points to many like cases, where a synod was probably intended to be ecumenical, and yet did not attain that character.  In the present case, the Eastern and Western bishops were indeed summoned, but by far the greater number of the Eastern bishops were Eusebians, and therefore Semi-Arians, and instead of acting in a better mind in union with the orthodox, they separated themselves and formed a cabal of their own at Philippopolis.

We cannot indeed agree with those who maintain that the departure of the Eusebians in itself rendered it impossible for the synod to be ecumenical, or it would be in the power of heretics to make an Ecumenical Council possible or not.  We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, in consequence of this withdrawal, the great Eastern Church was far more poorly represented at Sardica, and that the entire number of bishops present did not even amount to a hundred!  So small a number of bishops can only form a General Council if the great body of their absent colleagues subsequently give their express consent to what has been decided.  This was not, however, the case at the Synod of Sardica.  The decrees were no doubt at once sent for acceptance and signature to the whole of Christendom, but not more than about two hundred of those bishops who had been absent signed, and of these, ninety-four, or nearly half, were Egyptians.  Out of the whole of Asia only a few bishops from the provinces of Cyprus and Palestine signed, not one from the other Eastern provinces; and even from the Latin Church in Africa, which at that time numbered at least three hundred bishops, we meet with very few names.  We cannot give much weight to the fact that the Emperor Constantius refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica:  it is of much greater importance that no single later authority declared it to be a General Council.  Natalis Alexander is indeed of opinion that because Pope Zosimus, in the year 417 or 418, cited the fifth canon of Sardica as Nicene, and a synod held at Constantinople in 382 cited the sixth as Nicene, the synod must evidently have been considered as an appendix to that of Nicea, and therefore its equal, that is, must have been honoured as ecumenical.  But we have already shown how Zosimus and the bishops of Constantinople had been led into this confusion from the defects of their manuscript collections of the canons.  Athanasius, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, and the Emperor Justinian were cited in later times for the ecumenical character of this synod.  Athanasius calls it a μεγάλη σύνοδος; Sulpicius Severus says it was ex toto orbe convocata; and Socrates relates that “Athanasius and other bishops had demanded an Ecumenical Synod, and that of Sardica had been then summoned.  It is clear at the first 436glance that the two last authorities only prove that the Synod had been intended to be a general one, and the expression “Great Synod,” used by Athanasius, cannot be taken as simply identical with ecumenical.  While, however, the Emperor Justinian, in his edict of 346, on the Three Chapters, calls the Synod of Sardica ecumenical, he yet, in the same edict, as well as in other places, does not reckon it among the General Councils, of which he counts four.  To this must be added, first, that the Emperor is not the authority entitled to decide as to the character of an Ecumenical Synod; and secondly, that the expression Universale Concilium was employed in a wider sense in speaking of those synods which, without being general, represented a whole patriarchate.

The Trullan Synod and Pope Nicholas I. are further appealed to.  The former in its second canon approved of the Sardican canons, and Pope Nicholas said of them:  “omnis Ecclesia recepit eos.”  But this in no way contains a declaration that the Synod of Sardica was ecumenical, for the canons of many other councils also—for instance, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, and others—were generally received without those synods themselves being therefore esteemed ecumenical.  Nay, the Trullan Synod itself speaks for us; for had it held the Synod of Sardica to be the second General Council, it would have placed its canons immediately after those of Nice, whereas they are placed after the four ancient General Councils, and from this we see that the Trullan Synod did not reckon the Sardican among those councils, but after them.  To this it must be added that the highest Church authorities speak most decidedly against the synod being ecumenical.  We may appeal first to Augustine, who only knew of the Eusebian assembly at Sardica, and nothing at all of an orthodox synod in that place; which would have been clearly impossible, if it had at that time been counted among the ecumenical synods.  Pope Gregory the Great and St. Isidore of Seville speak still more plainly.  They only know of four ancient General Councils—those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.  The objection of the Ballerini that Gregory and Isidore did not intend to enumerate the most ancient general synods as such, but only those which issued important dogmatic decrees, is plainly quite arbitrary, and therefore without force.  Under such circumstances it is natural that among the later scholars by far the great majority should have answered the question, whether the Synod of Sardica is ecumenical, in the negative, as have Cardinal Bellarmin, Peter de Marca, Edmund Richer, Fleury, Orsi, Sacharelli, Tillemont, Du Pin, Berti, Ruttenstock, Rohrbacher, Remi Ceillier, Stolberg, Neander, and others.  On the other hand, Baronius, Natalis Alexander, the brothers Ballerini, Mansi, and Palma have sought to maintain the ecumenical character of the synod, but as early as the seventeenth century the Roman censors condemned the direct assertions of Natalis Alexander on the subject.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.vi.html


The canons have St. Hosius presiding, not Pope St. Athanasius.  Note the language "gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees."  "Give" is right, he had no such power before, as Victor I found out when rebuked by the entire Church for threatening to excommunicate Polycrates of Ephesus.  Rather strange, though, that our time line in the same sentence claimes the Rome had "supreme ecclesiastical authority."  If she did, why did the Council have to "give[ her] the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees?"

Btw, Pontiff Julius' did not restore St. Athansius to his see:
Quote
Athanasius came to Rome about Easter, 340.  As is known, he was there for three whole years, and in the beginning of the fourth year was summoned to the Emperor Constans at Milan.  This points to the summer of 343.  From thence he went through Gaul to Sardica, and thus it is quite possible that that Synod might have begun in the autumn of 343.  It probably lasted, however, until the spring; for when the two envoys, Euphrates of Cologne, and Vincent of Capua, who were sent by the Synod to the Emperor Constans, arrived in Antioch, it was already Easter 344.  Stephen, the 414bishop of the latter city, treated them in a truly diabolical manner; but his wickedness soon became notorious, and a synod was established, which deposed him after Easter 344.  Its members were Eusebians, who therefore appointed Leontius Castratus as Stephen’s successor, and it is indeed no other than this assembly which Athanasius has in mind, when he says it took place three years after the Synod in Encæniis, and drew up a very explicit Eusebian confession of faith, the μακρόστιχος.

The disgraceful behaviour of Bishop Stephen of Antioch for some time inclined the Emperor to place less confidence in the Arian party, and to allow Athanasius’s exiled clergy to return home in the summer of 344.  Ten months later, the pseudo-bishop, Gregory of Alexandria, died (in June, 345), and Constantius did not permit any fresh appointment to the see of Alexandria, but recalled St. Athanasius by three letters, and waited for him more than a year.  Thus the see of Alexandria remained unoccupied for more than a year, until the last six months of 346.  At length, in October, 346, Athanasius returned to his bishopric
.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.ii.html

Btw, it would not be until the edict of Theodosius, in connection with the events of the Second Ecumenical Council, that the primacy of Rome AND the Pope of Alexandria would be codified into Roman law.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 10:29:42 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2010, 10:27:40 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES
CHAPTER I of what?

No, Militantsparrow was talking about the claims of old Rome.

Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).

 Smiley  Just pointing out that the balance of power in the Church tended to follow the balance of secular power in the Christian world...And so the real push-back against the Pope of Rome never really came till after the Rome receded as a world power.

M.
Ah, wrong again.  The push against Pope Victor by the ENTIRE Church (according to Eusebius' records) took place when Rome was very much still the center of the universe.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2010, 11:18:15 AM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES
CHAPTER I of what?

No, Militantsparrow was talking about the claims of old Rome.

Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).

 Smiley  Just pointing out that the balance of power in the Church tended to follow the balance of secular power in the Christian world...And so the real push-back against the Pope of Rome never really came till after the Rome receded as a world power.

M.
Ah, wrong again.  The push against Pope Victor by the ENTIRE Church (according to Eusebius' records) took place when Rome was very much still the center of the universe.

Wrong ONLY if one defines petrine primacy as if it is the equivalent of a secular monarchy, which is not what the papal Church says at all.

M.
Logged

militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2010, 11:34:23 AM »

Quote
Wrong ONLY if one defines petrine primacy as if it is the equivalent of a secular monarchy, which is not what the papal Church says at all.

M.

This is a good point. How Rome sees (no pun intended) itself and how Eastern Orthodoxy sees it are quite different.

So the question becomes, who is correct?
  • Does Rome act as sort of a supreme monarch despite what it says?
  • Is Rome acting simply as protos?
  • Is what Catholic Apologists say about Rome's authority in line with what Rome says about it's own authority?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2010, 12:11:34 PM »

Does anyone know who had jurisdiction over Corinth in the first century?

Pope Saint Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth is used as proof of Papal universal jurisdiction.

Corinth was, during the formation of the jurisdiction system and thereafter until the 8th century, under Rome.  

Yes, I've had to point that out to Vatican apologists who so use the letter.  Corinth had been founded and resettled as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and was made the capital of the province of Achaea, a senatorial province ruled by the Roman senate.  Augustus, assuming the principate, detached Achaea from Macedonia, Tiberius made it an imperial province (direct rule by the emperor), but Claudius restored it to the senate.  The only city nearby to rival it was Ephesus, where the apologists point out St. John was still alive. They ignore, however, that St. John was incarcerated at the time St. Clement is writting, and while Achaea had been made an imperial province, Asia (of which Ephesus was capital) was not.  Had New Rome not risen, Ephesus would have ended up in the patriarchate of Antioch, to judge from the letters of Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch to the cities of Asia.

Corinth did not come under Constantinople permanently until between the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Council of Constantinople IV (879).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Are we talking about NEW ROME where the balance toward Greek in Constantinople did not begin to tilt till the sixth century?

CHAPTER I
PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES
CHAPTER I of what?

No, Militantsparrow was talking about the claims of old Rome.

Btw, you do know that Rome of the 1st century had the same Greek-Latin issue, only in reverse.  The Latin Mass didn't get started until well over a century after the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul (and was introduced from the North African Pope St. Victor I), and did not become the language of the Church of Rome until nearly two centuries after that (Pope St. Damasus (from Lusitania/Portugal) commissioning of St. Jerome (himself from Illyria, the prefecture in which Corinth lay) the Vulgate playing a role in it).

 Smiley  Just pointing out that the balance of power in the Church tended to follow the balance of secular power in the Christian world...And so the real push-back against the Pope of Rome never really came till after the Rome receded as a world power.

M.
Ah, wrong again.  The push against Pope Victor by the ENTIRE Church (according to Eusebius' records) took place when Rome was very much still the center of the universe.

Wrong ONLY if one defines petrine primacy as if it is the equivalent of a secular monarchy, which is not what the papal Church says at all.

M.
Well, let's see:

From Lumen Gentium:
Quote
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(30*) The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, (31*) fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church.(32*) For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity.



The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.(38*)


25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)


Any institute of perfection and its individual members may be removed from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries by the Supreme Pontiff and subjected to himself alone. This is done in virtue of his primacy over the entire Church in order to more fully provide for the necessities of the entire flock of the Lord and in consideration of the common good.(7*) In like manner, these institutes may be left or committed to the charge of the proper patriarchical authority. The members of these institutes, in fulfilling their obligation to the Church due to their particular form of life, ought to show reverence and obedience to bishops according to the sacred canons. The bishops are owed this respect because of their pastoral authority in their own churches and because of the need of unity and harmony in the apostolate.(8*).

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
+ PERICLE FELICI
Titular Archbishop of Samosata
Secretary General of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html


Btw, have you told us yet where you got "Chapter I" above?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 12:13:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2010, 12:18:33 PM »

Quote
Wrong ONLY if one defines petrine primacy as if it is the equivalent of a secular monarchy, which is not what the papal Church says at all.

M.

This is a good point. How Rome sees (no pun intended) itself and how Eastern Orthodoxy sees it are quite different.

So the question becomes, who is correct?
  • Does Rome act as sort of a supreme monarch despite what it says?

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Quote
  • Is Rome acting simply as protos?

This protos is another innovation, which both New and Old Rome evidently share.
May the Lord bless!

The crux of the matter is that Constantinople, ably assisted by Cardinal Casper, has been pushing for the acceptance of what the 2005 Belgrade and 2007 Ravenna documents call a universal "Protos" and a "universal primacy."  "Protos" in this sense is a neologism and maybe they thought that people would warm to the concept if they used a Greek word. :-)  To see this theory of a "Protos" expanded on, read the Ravenna Document.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Some of us, including Moscow, see this as an innovation and one which distorts Orthodox ecclesiology. It is also seen as a way of softening up the Orthodox for eventually bringing us into obedience to the Roman Pontiff. After all, if we have our own "Protos" in Constantinople it's not much more of a step to accept another and more superior one in Rome.

So the matter does not centre on a dog fight between Constantinople and Moscow for the "Proto-ship."  It's a struggle between two ecclesiologies.  It's a struggle to keep the concept of a "universal primacy" out of the Orthodox Church. Thanks to Orthodoxy's innate conservatism, and given that the concept of a universal "Protos" is not found in the Canons or the Fathers, I think Constantinople will not be successful in introducing a "universal primacy."



Quote
  • Is what Catholic Apologists say about Rome's authority in line with what Rome says about it's own authority?
Sure.  They just don't want to be called on it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2010, 01:06:26 PM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2010, 01:20:11 PM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.
Amen! Amen! Amen!

This is the Faith of the pre-schism Church:
When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2010, 02:06:04 PM »

Quote
The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

I like it.   Grin

What do you think of the following portion of St. Irenaeus' letter.
Quote
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.

It seems that it goes against every ecumenical council's teaching, but St. Irenaeus was no slouch either.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2010, 02:40:31 PM »

Quote
The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

I like it.   Grin

What do you think of the following portion of St. Irenaeus' letter.
Quote
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.

It seems that it goes against every ecumenical council's teaching, but St. Irenaeus was no slouch either.
Not against every Ecumenical Council. Just the Sixth.

But that's only in appearance.  On this passage:
I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions.

We were together on CAF and you know that time and again the Orthodox were able to rebuff the patristic quotes given in support of the papal claims by demonstrating that the quotes were falsified, by being truncated, by having phrases and sentences removed, or simply by mistranslation.  One of the worst offenders in this regard are the quotes in the articles offered on the papacy by Catholic Answers.

The falsification of patristic quotes does nothing to advance Roman Catholic claims.  It shows that people are ready to use bad polemics and it calls into question the "scholarship" supporting the papacy claims.

The Latin translation of Iranaeus:
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditi

Their is the conjecture that the underlying Greek term was archaiotes, which is connected to the idea of being tied to a source. E.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PjmA_joIEmAC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=potentior+principalitas+auctoritas&source=bl&ots=J49vfIGla_&sig=ge21ovzJ2OTd-0BGrRY4TrDPOjw&hl=en&ei=MrytSav0AcTAnQeElfi1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Hence the confusion between the translation "superior origin" or "superior authority," just underlining the problem, as I stated above about the faulty Latin translation on which we must try to figure out what St. Iranaeus said.  And of course, the problem with the Vatican interpretation is that a) St. Iranaeus explicitely couples the origin with St. Paul, not just St. Peter, b) Rome didn't have a superior origin to Antioch nor Jerusalem in this.  And Iranaeus explicitely speaks of taking recourse to the most ancient Churches.  In the West this was Rome, but in the East it was not.
Scribe of the kingdom: essays on theology and culture, Volume 1 By Aidan Nichols
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 02:42:07 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2010, 07:00:19 PM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

That is the limiting clause in the constitution and one that nearly everyone....but Catholic bishops  laugh....tends to ignore.

Without that factored into the discussion y'all are just shootin' the breeze.

M.
Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2010, 07:14:47 PM »

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

And what about when the Pope of Rome feels that he needs to exercise a bit more than his ordinary power? What sort of authority does he have in those situations?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2010, 07:33:02 PM »

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

And what about when the Pope of Rome feels that he needs to exercise a bit more than his ordinary power? What sort of authority does he have in those situations?

He may call his bishops to himself one at a time or in counsel and review things.

He may call a tribunal that is subject to the code of canons, but he does not need to ask anyone's permission to call the tribunal.

He may call a council without asking permission.

If he is asked for a formal judgment, or if he makes a formal judgment after a council or the action of a tribunal then that decision cannot be appealed to any higher court of judgment.

He cannot as it is often said, simply walk into a parish and dump the pastor.  A pastor is an office of the Church, just like the papal office is an office in the Church and there are canonical procedures that the pope would have to follow to remove a pastor.  There is a particular due process for pastors written right into the law.

A bishop on the other hand has a particular escape clause that allows him to remove a pastor without due process, and I have seen it done and done unjustly.

Most people do not have a clue as to how the Church actually works.

It surely is not perfect but its not what most of you conjure in your heads or on these discussion boards.

The current code of canons gives individual bishops unlimited power. It is FAR more frightening to me than any papal primacy.

The principle purpose of the papal office is unity.  He cannot do anything rightly to destroy order or unity.

Bishops do not have those restrictions by any means.

Mary
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 07:36:03 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2010, 08:47:38 AM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

Ah, yes: the legal disclaimers in the fine print. That's where the Truth is always trumpeted. Roll Eyes


Quote
That is the limiting clause in the constitution and one that nearly everyone....but Catholic bishops  laugh....tends to ignore.

Yeah, the local ordinary can act without reference to the "supreme head." Oh, wait!
Quote
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope.
I guess they can't.

We all know what a rubber stamp is.

Quote
Without that factored into the discussion y'all are just shootin' the breeze.
You really should get in concert with Mardukm: he inherits the same wind.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2010, 08:53:02 AM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

Ah, yes: the legal disclaimers in the fine print. That's where the Truth is always trumpeted. Roll Eyes


Quote
That is the limiting clause in the constitution and one that nearly everyone....but Catholic bishops  laugh....tends to ignore.

Yeah, the local ordinary can act without reference to the "supreme head." Oh, wait!
Quote
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope.
I guess they can't.

We all know what a rubber stamp is.

Quote
Without that factored into the discussion y'all are just shootin' the breeze.
You really should get in concert with Mardukm: he inherits the same wind.

You proof text and create an ill wind and still you are blind and ignorant of the life of the papal Church.  It is wrong and dishonest to do to anyone, but I have come to expect nothing less.

M.
Logged

militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2010, 09:36:25 AM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

That is the limiting clause in the constitution and one that nearly everyone....but Catholic bishops  laugh....tends to ignore.

Without that factored into the discussion y'all are just shootin' the breeze.

M.

I thought the Pope could appoint, censure, and excommunicate any Bishop or priest in the Church? He certainly has done as much. What does this clause actually mean then?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2010, 09:43:31 AM »

He may call his bishops to himself one at a time or in counsel and review things.

He may call a tribunal that is subject to the code of canons, but he does not need to ask anyone's permission to call the tribunal.

He may call a council without asking permission.

If he is asked for a formal judgment, or if he makes a formal judgment after a council or the action of a tribunal then that decision cannot be appealed to any higher court of judgment.

This would seem to jive with my understanding of the pre-schism Church.

Quote
He cannot as it is often said, simply walk into a parish and dump the pastor.  A pastor is an office of the Church, just like the papal office is an office in the Church and there are canonical procedures that the pope would have to follow to remove a pastor.  There is a particular due process for pastors written right into the law.

I did not know this. Can you cite the documents which corroborate it.

Quote
A bishop on the other hand has a particular escape clause that allows him to remove a pastor without due process, and I have seen it done and done unjustly.

I have seen this for myself as well and unjustly as well.

Quote
Most people do not have a clue as to how the Church actually works.

It surely is not perfect but its not what most of you conjure in your heads or on these discussion boards.

I would say this is often true on both sides. Many discussions become the destruction of straw-men.

Quote
The current code of canons gives individual bishops unlimited power. It is FAR more frightening to me than any papal primacy.

What about the case of Archbishops? Do they have unlimited power over the Bishops under their jurisdiction?

Quote
The principle purpose of the papal office is unity.  He cannot do anything rightly to destroy order or unity.

I believe this is the intent of the papal office, but certainly the office's track record for maintaining unity is terrible (the Great Schism, the Reformation, the liberalization of the Church following Vatican II, and so on).
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2010, 09:50:03 AM »

Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.

What you really ought to do Sparrow is to go and read the fine print in the dogmatic constitution on papal primacy that says that the papal office is not to replace ordinary episcopal power.  The ordinary power of the papal office is not to replace the ordinary power of the local ordinary.

That is the limiting clause in the constitution and one that nearly everyone....but Catholic bishops  laugh....tends to ignore.

Without that factored into the discussion y'all are just shootin' the breeze.

M.

I thought the Pope could appoint, censure, and excommunicate any Bishop or priest in the Church? He certainly has done as much. What does this clause actually mean then?

IF a pope has done any of these things, by way of dismissal OR appointment,  in direct and willful disregard to the canons, without consultation with his bishops, and without all due process, and against his express duty to preserve and strengthen the unity of the Body of Christ....then he has abused his office.

Can you point out any such abuse to me?  We probably can go and find them, but they are found in historical accounts about bad popes.

Are you going to suggest to me that a bad pope negates all good that can be said about the office in the Church?  The question is rhetorical since that is what is done in many instances but I still think the question is worth asking periodically.

I realize this issue does not resolve the greater issue of the petrine ministry but when examined fairly, it is indicative of something better than most Orthodox allow.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2010, 10:00:56 AM »

He may call his bishops to himself one at a time or in counsel and review things.

He may call a tribunal that is subject to the code of canons, but he does not need to ask anyone's permission to call the tribunal.

He may call a council without asking permission.

If he is asked for a formal judgment, or if he makes a formal judgment after a council or the action of a tribunal then that decision cannot be appealed to any higher court of judgment.

This would seem to jive with my understanding of the pre-schism Church.

Quote
He cannot as it is often said, simply walk into a parish and dump the pastor.  A pastor is an office of the Church, just like the papal office is an office in the Church and there are canonical procedures that the pope would have to follow to remove a pastor.  There is a particular due process for pastors written right into the law.

I did not know this. Can you cite the documents which corroborate it.

Quote
A bishop on the other hand has a particular escape clause that allows him to remove a pastor without due process, and I have seen it done and done unjustly.

I have seen this for myself as well and unjustly as well.

Quote
Most people do not have a clue as to how the Church actually works.

It surely is not perfect but its not what most of you conjure in your heads or on these discussion boards.

I would say this is often true on both sides. Many discussions become the destruction of straw-men.

Quote
The current code of canons gives individual bishops unlimited power. It is FAR more frightening to me than any papal primacy.

What about the case of Archbishops? Do they have unlimited power over the Bishops under their jurisdiction?

Quote
The principle purpose of the papal office is unity.  He cannot do anything rightly to destroy order or unity.

I believe this is the intent of the papal office, but certainly the office's track record for maintaining unity is terrible (the Great Schism, the Reformation, the liberalization of the Church following Vatican II, and so on).

The answer to your question about going into a parish and removing the pastor, unilaterally and without due process, is covered in Canon Law over several different areas and canons and I would not dare to presume to do the interpretive work of a canonist here, since I am not a canonist.  But I know that for a pope to do so would be an abuse of his office.

Archbishops have no real power over any other bishop.  They are there for consultative wisdom, experience, loving brotherhood and a history of close interaction with the Vatican so that they may work as a go-between, though that latter is somewhat idealized.

One thing that is very clear in looking at the Code of Canons is that they are only as good as the men who live them out.  The great weakness I see in our current code is that one must presume that every bishop is holy, wholly catholic and filled with an abundance of faith, hope and charity...and that ain't necessarily so.  There is really nothing limiting them except the informal "pressures" that can come from the Vatican and from their brother bishops.  Otherwise it is, crudely put, a crap-shoot!  I am more totalitarian it appears for that kind of formally sanctioned power makes me very nervous, more nervous that the limited scope of the papal office...and this also addresses you message about unity....Look at the various protestant denomination...as an example of individual will.

That is what is clear in all of this. God does not force the will of man.   His shepherds should not either.  And reality in this fallen world all goes downhill from there <smile>...

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2010, 11:37:49 AM »

Apotheum posted as only his own irenic self can, which encapsulates the whole issue:
Quote
Just as there is no more eucharist in one Church and less in another, so there is not more bishop in one Church and less in another. Alas, the Western understanding of primacy invariably devolves into supremacy of one bishop and Church over another bishop and Church, and that idea is contrary to the Gospel.

Primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of the episcopal order within the Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2010, 02:51:25 PM »

Apotheum posted as only his own irenic self can, which encapsulates the whole issue:
Quote
Just as there is no more eucharist in one Church and less in another, so there is not more bishop in one Church and less in another. Alas, the Western understanding of primacy invariably devolves into supremacy of one bishop and Church over another bishop and Church, and that idea is contrary to the Gospel.

Primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of the episcopal order within the Church.
Irenic, except when he is dealing with those in his own communion: us aweful Latins. Seriously, the guy just needs to join the faith he professes.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 02:51:53 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2010, 03:02:35 PM »

Apotheum posted as only his own irenic self can, which encapsulates the whole issue:
Quote
Just as there is no more eucharist in one Church and less in another, so there is not more bishop in one Church and less in another. Alas, the Western understanding of primacy invariably devolves into supremacy of one bishop and Church over another bishop and Church, and that idea is contrary to the Gospel.

Primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of the episcopal order within the Church.
Irenic, except when he is dealing with those in his own communion: us aweful Latins. Seriously, the guy just needs to join the faith he professes.
He is only professing the Faith which is embodied in those union bulls the Vatican signed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2010, 03:34:55 PM »

My understanding was that Corinth was independent for a while as the Metropolitan of Achaea, then sometime in the 4th century became subject to Thessalonica as the Exarch of the Diocese of Macedonia.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: jurisdiction 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.211 seconds with 60 queries.