Author Topic: Universal Bishop  (Read 2169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Universal Bishop
« on: December 02, 2010, 12:57:34 AM »
So I was reading an apologetics piece on Pope St Gregory I and the modern (written in the 18th century, prior to Vat 1) pope.

It reads inconsistent with modern Roman ecclesiology.

St. Gregory the Great and Papal Supremacy
By Fr. Edward Hawarden, Charity and Truth (1728) pp. 233-243.
Quote
This is very true, but not at all to the purpose. Ecumenical Patriarch, which St. Gregory calls Universal Patriarch and Universal Bishop, is (as he understood the word) the same as the only patriarch, the only bishop, or the bishop to whom all other bishops are subject as his deputies and vicars only. In which sense it agrees to Christ alone, and cannot without blasphemy be applied to any other, much less to the bishops of Constantinople, who never claimed any jurisdiction over the Roman See.

That St. Gregory understood the title of Ecumenical Patriarch in the sense now mentioned is plain from his own words. "If one," says he, "be called Universal Patriarch, the name of patriarch is taken from all the rest."10
http://www.pugiofidei.com/gregory.htm

Code of Canon Law
Quote
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM


How is this reconcilable? The Pope today functions as the bishops of bishops who uses other bishops to delegate his teachings, right? Is this not the same thing?

The Pope of the past is showing as more than the current Ecumenical Patriarch, but less than the present Pope.

I'm going to need this.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,198
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2010, 10:46:47 AM »
So I was reading an apologetics piece on Pope St Gregory I and the modern (written in the 18th century, prior to Vat 1) pope.

It reads inconsistent with modern Roman ecclesiology.

St. Gregory the Great and Papal Supremacy
By Fr. Edward Hawarden, Charity and Truth (1728) pp. 233-243.
Quote
This is very true, but not at all to the purpose. Ecumenical Patriarch, which St. Gregory calls Universal Patriarch and Universal Bishop, is (as he understood the word) the same as the only patriarch, the only bishop, or the bishop to whom all other bishops are subject as his deputies and vicars only. In which sense it agrees to Christ alone, and cannot without blasphemy be applied to any other, much less to the bishops of Constantinople, who never claimed any jurisdiction over the Roman See.

That St. Gregory understood the title of Ecumenical Patriarch in the sense now mentioned is plain from his own words. "If one," says he, "be called Universal Patriarch, the name of patriarch is taken from all the rest."10
http://www.pugiofidei.com/gregory.htm

Code of Canon Law
Quote
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM


How is this reconcilable? The Pope today functions as the bishops of bishops who uses other bishops to delegate his teachings, right? Is this not the same thing?

The Pope of the past is showing as more than the current Ecumenical Patriarch, but less than the present Pope.

This is a subject of much scrutiny these days in ecumenical consultations between the Orthodox and the Romans. For a recent paper on the subject, see http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2010, 11:00:21 AM »
It seems to me that the "development of doctrine" is the answer to your dilemma.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of a Universal Patriarch is more of a disciplinary issue, rather than a doctrinal or dogmatic issue. If so, a denial of a Universal Patriarchate in the 18th century need not detain us from affirming such in the 21st century -- purely for the sake of church unity or discipline or order, where such unity, discipline, or order experiences present-day challenges not present in previous eras.
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2010, 11:13:24 AM »
It seems to me that the "development of doctrine" is the answer to your dilemma.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of a Universal Patriarch is more of a disciplinary issue, rather than a doctrinal or dogmatic issue.

For the Vatican, it is a dogmatic issue. Again, that doctrinal drift called "development of doctrine."

Quote
If so, a denial of a Universal Patriarchate in the 18th century need not detain us from affirming such in the 21st century -- purely for the sake of church unity or discipline or order, where such unity, discipline, or order experiences present-day challenges not present in previous eras.
Unfortunately, past eras have shown us how well that works.
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

Offline Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,137
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2010, 11:18:59 AM »
It seems to me that the "development of doctrine" is the answer to your dilemma.

As I understand it, "development of doctrine" is supposed to reveal what was already implied or latent in the previous revelation, as opposed to contradicting or revising, which is plainly the case of Papal supremacy.
"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2010, 12:34:02 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 12:34:24 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2010, 01:45:37 PM »
It appears that St. Gregory's problem with the "Universal Bishop" idea was due to the assumption that the title meant the abolition of local diocesan authority.

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21).
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2010, 01:59:04 PM »
It appears that St. Gregory's problem with the "Universal Bishop" idea was due to the assumption that the title meant the abolition of local diocesan authority.

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21).

Interesting.

The only debate from there then is how much authority the local diocese has over the Pope, if any.

I'm going to need this.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2010, 03:31:22 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.

That's right, so until the grounds of the discussion are aligned in accord with the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism then there really is no dialogue.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2010, 03:31:33 PM »
So I was reading an apologetics piece on Pope St Gregory I and the modern (written in the 18th century, prior to Vat 1) pope.

It reads inconsistent with modern Roman ecclesiology.

St. Gregory the Great and Papal Supremacy
By Fr. Edward Hawarden, Charity and Truth (1728) pp. 233-243.
Quote
This is very true, but not at all to the purpose. Ecumenical Patriarch, which St. Gregory calls Universal Patriarch and Universal Bishop, is (as he understood the word) the same as the only patriarch, the only bishop, or the bishop to whom all other bishops are subject as his deputies and vicars only. In which sense it agrees to Christ alone, and cannot without blasphemy be applied to any other, much less to the bishops of Constantinople, who never claimed any jurisdiction over the Roman See.

That St. Gregory understood the title of Ecumenical Patriarch in the sense now mentioned is plain from his own words. "If one," says he, "be called Universal Patriarch, the name of patriarch is taken from all the rest."10
http://www.pugiofidei.com/gregory.htm

Code of Canon Law
Quote
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM


How is this reconcilable? The Pope today functions as the bishops of bishops who uses other bishops to delegate his teachings, right? Is this not the same thing?


Your re-capitulation here is a very poor expression of the doctrine of papal primacy.  So the rest of the comments on your question have no basis save as personal opinions of things poorly understood and expressed.

Now you all may reject that at your leisure but it is true and till it is dealt with fairly, there is no dialogue.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2010, 05:19:00 PM »
It seems to me that the "development of doctrine" is the answer to your dilemma.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of a Universal Patriarch is more of a disciplinary issue, rather than a doctrinal or dogmatic issue. If so, a denial of a Universal Patriarchate in the 18th century need not detain us from affirming such in the 21st century -- purely for the sake of church unity or discipline or order, where such unity, discipline, or order experiences present-day challenges not present in previous eras.


Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is from Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyeve) who is our Church's primary delegate to RC-Orthodox theological discussion.  He is speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007. He is referring to the Ravenna 2007 document and what it says on a universal bishop

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2010, 05:24:42 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.

That's right, so until the grounds of the discussion are aligned in accord with the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism then there really is no dialogue.


Until the Vatican realises that for the Orthodox there is no such institution in the Church as the papacy, that the papacy is a beast not called into existence by Christ, then there really is no dialogue.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2010, 05:33:14 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.
Really?

The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, "Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6).

From Vatican Council:

This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 05:35:59 PM by Jetavan »
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2010, 05:35:38 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.

That's right, so until the grounds of the discussion are aligned in accord with the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism then there really is no dialogue.


Until the Vatican realises that for the Orthodox there is no such institution in the Church as the papacy, that the papacy is a beast not called into existence by Christ, then there really is no dialogue.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
boo
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2010, 05:41:19 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.

That's right, so until the grounds of the discussion are aligned in accord with the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism then there really is no dialogue.


Until the Vatican realises that for the Orthodox there is no such institution in the Church as the papacy, that the papacy is a beast not called into existence by Christ, then there really is no dialogue.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
boo
hoo
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

Offline Twenty Nine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2010, 05:51:48 PM »
From Lumen Gentium 1964:

Quote
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.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. - Philippians 4:8

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,299
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2010, 06:25:57 PM »
Papist and elijahmaria--While there is no question that we all have seen a mellowing of the Roman Catholic dogmas in the past 50 years, this has happened informally as further or more up-to-date explanations of the existing formal doctrinal pronouncements. Therein lies the difficulty for us; I do not think that any one of us think you do not mean what you say, but it is difficult to overlook what has been officially declared and documented. Even this week, I read a review of a book that consists of lengthy conversations with the current Pope, where he himself is saying much the same thing that y'all are saying or at least he is not repeating the official pronouncements as his personal opinions. I like what he said and I like what you say; however, I do not like what the Roman Catholic Church officially maintains.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2010, 06:36:38 PM »
Papist and elijahmaria--While there is no question that we all have seen a mellowing of the Roman Catholic dogmas in the past 50 years, this has happened informally as further or more up-to-date explanations of the existing formal doctrinal pronouncements. Therein lies the difficulty for us; I do not think that any one of us think you do not mean what you say, but it is difficult to overlook what has been officially declared and documented. Even this week, I read a review of a book that consists of lengthy conversations with the current Pope, where he himself is saying much the same thing that y'all are saying or at least he is not repeating the official pronouncements as his personal opinions. I like what he said and I like what you say; however, I do not like what the Roman Catholic Church officially maintains.

That is because you let everyone BUT the Catholic Church interpret it for you.  There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.  Not one, stands on its own in the eyes of a new believer without any question at all.  This entire Forum in one way or another is dedicated to that proposition.

It is offensive in the extreme to be told by anyone but my Church, what it is that my Church teaches.

Mary

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2010, 07:05:57 PM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2010, 07:52:58 PM »
I was hoping for more of a defense instead of anger from the local Catholics.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2010, 07:54:08 PM »
I was hoping for more of a defense instead of anger from the local Catholics.
Anger grows defending the indefensible.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2010, 07:57:39 PM »
Papist and elijahmaria--While there is no question that we all have seen a mellowing of the Roman Catholic dogmas in the past 50 years, this has happened informally as further or more up-to-date explanations of the existing formal doctrinal pronouncements. Therein lies the difficulty for us; I do not think that any one of us think you do not mean what you say, but it is difficult to overlook what has been officially declared and documented. Even this week, I read a review of a book that consists of lengthy conversations with the current Pope, where he himself is saying much the same thing that y'all are saying or at least he is not repeating the official pronouncements as his personal opinions. I like what he said and I like what you say; however, I do not like what the Roman Catholic Church officially maintains.

That is because you let everyone BUT the Catholic Church interpret it for you.  There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.  Not one, stands on its own in the eyes of a new believer without any question at all.  This entire Forum in one way or another is dedicated to that proposition.

It is offensive in the extreme to be told by anyone but my Church, what it is that my Church teaches.
we know what your church teaches (many of us were taught it by your church), but we also can distinguish the spin you put on it.
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2010, 08:06:04 PM »
I was hoping for more of a defense instead of anger from the local Catholics.
Anger grows defending the indefensible.
And the stupidity of your posts grows daily.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2010, 08:07:20 PM »
Is the problem here a difference I've heard about before, between a "Mediterranean" and an "Anglo" understanding of law and documents, the Mediterranean understanding being one that interprets the written word in a looser, less technical fashion, whereas the Anglo way is to try to follow the written word exactly as it states? Thus, when a Latin Catholic documents speaks about "universal jurisdiction", it's not meant to be taken literally or at all times and places?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2010, 08:08:54 PM »
No one ever said that the Pope is the universasl Bishop.

That's right, so until the grounds of the discussion are aligned in accord with the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism then there really is no dialogue.


Until the Vatican realises that for the Orthodox there is no such institution in the Church as the papacy, that the papacy is a beast not called into existence by Christ, then there really is no dialogue.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
boo
hoo
You
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,281
  • City of Light
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2010, 01:24:21 AM »
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?


I think we covered that before not too long ago; the fact that in the modern Catholic Church it's the Magisterium that determines what the teaching is, not tradition or official documents. Recent history bears out again and again the fact that they can interpret and reinterpret documents and teachings to mean whatever they want them to mean at that moment. It's a religion governed by the whims of men, not the Holy Spirit.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2010, 01:58:56 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

That would be a start actually.

Might offer some cues and direction about what to do after that.


Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,397
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2010, 01:58:56 AM »
I was hoping for more of a defense instead of anger from the local Catholics.
Anger grows defending the indefensible.
Our faith is quite defensible. The Gates of Hell won't prevail against it. ;)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2010, 01:58:56 AM »
Papist and elijahmaria--While there is no question that we all have seen a mellowing of the Roman Catholic dogmas in the past 50 years, this has happened informally as further or more up-to-date explanations of the existing formal doctrinal pronouncements. Therein lies the difficulty for us; I do not think that any one of us think you do not mean what you say, but it is difficult to overlook what has been officially declared and documented. Even this week, I read a review of a book that consists of lengthy conversations with the current Pope, where he himself is saying much the same thing that y'all are saying or at least he is not repeating the official pronouncements as his personal opinions. I like what he said and I like what you say; however, I do not like what the Roman Catholic Church officially maintains.

That is because you let everyone BUT the Catholic Church interpret it for you.  There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.  Not one, stands on its own in the eyes of a new believer without any question at all.  This entire Forum in one way or another is dedicated to that proposition.

It is offensive in the extreme to be told by anyone but my Church, what it is that my Church teaches.
we know what your church teaches (many of us were taught it by your church), but we also can distinguish the spin you put on it.

That might have some kind of impact on me if you were the only person I've ever met that was trained in a Catholic school.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  The "spin" here is all your own!! 

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2010, 01:58:56 AM »

That is because you let everyone BUT the Catholic Church interpret it for you.  There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.  Not one, stands on its own in the eyes of a new believer without any question at all.  This entire Forum in one way or another is dedicated to that proposition.

It is offensive in the extreme to be told by anyone but my Church, what it is that my Church teaches.

Mary

This is not anger.  It is a fact.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2010, 01:58:56 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

For example none of the other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood without understanding how they interact and are influenced in the Church by the following...but in venues like this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Quote
3.5 This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

3.6 Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2010, 02:42:07 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

That would be a start actually.


Quote
Might offer some cues and direction about what to do after that.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 02:44:02 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2010, 02:47:37 AM »

That is because you let everyone BUT the Catholic Church interpret it for you.  There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.  Not one, stands on its own in the eyes of a new believer without any question at all.  This entire Forum in one way or another is dedicated to that proposition.

It is offensive in the extreme to be told by anyone but my Church, what it is that my Church teaches.

Mary

This is not anger.  It is a fact.
Are you now officially talking to yourself?
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,483
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2010, 02:52:41 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

For example none of the other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood without understanding how they interact and are influenced in the Church by the following...but in venues like this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Quote
3.5 This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

3.6 Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
The other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood by how they interacted and are influenced the Church, impossing a Latin patriachate on Jerusalem, exiling the patriarch of Antioch and replacing him with a usurper, sacking Constantinople and putting a whore, first literally then figuratively, on the throne of EP St. John Chrysostom, invading Alexandria trying to replace the original pope...but in your venues this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?
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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2010, 04:43:16 AM »
The other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood by how they interacted and are influenced the Church, impossing a Latin patriachate on Jerusalem, exiling the patriarch of Antioch and replacing him with a usurper, sacking Constantinople and putting a whore, first literally then figuratively, on the throne of EP St. John Chrysostom, invading Alexandria trying to replace the original pope...but in your venues this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?

Encountering either Mecca or the Mons Vaticanus does not make much difference to the Orthodox.  In both cases we are the ones who end up being slaughtered.

Offline Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,137
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2010, 08:04:20 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

That would be a start actually.

Might offer some cues and direction about what to do after that.


Then the "Magisterium" has failed in its express purpose.
"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2010, 10:14:45 AM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

For example none of the other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood without understanding how they interact and are influenced in the Church by the following...but in venues like this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Quote
3.5 This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

3.6 Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.


I think this answers this question, thanks!

It appears that St. Gregory's problem with the "Universal Bishop" idea was due to the assumption that the title meant the abolition of local diocesan authority.

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21).

Interesting.

The only debate from there then is how much authority the local diocese has over the Pope, if any.

I'm going to need this.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Universal Bishop
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2010, 12:09:00 PM »
There is not one single doctrinal statement, east or west, that does not require some explanation on the part of the Church who is asking for some kind of assent to that doctrine.
OK, so you're saying ignore the official written documents, and rely on what the current Pope and current bishops teach, even if what they teach is rather informal and 'non-official'?

For example none of the other declarations and decrees concerning papal primacy can be understood without understanding how they interact and are influenced in the Church by the following...but in venues like this it is glossed over, never mentioned or scoffed at.  Is that the way to come to understand something?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Quote
3.5 This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

3.6 Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.


I think this answers this question, thanks!

Also in the decrees is the statement that this unity is a first line defense against the secular world.  Combine that statement with the current status of the Vatican, in your thinking. 

There are times when it is very good to be able to close ranks. 

Then compare it with the governance of Church in Russia and the Balkans and in Istanbul, in Jerusalem, and realize how intimately tied those so-called independent patriarchates are tied to the actions of each secular governing body.

So Isa can mock me personally all he likes, and get away with it,  but reality always wins over propaganda.  May take a while but the truth beats fiction every time.

Mary