Author Topic: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality  (Read 4253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2011, 05:04:36 PM »
We know that your "magisterium" consumes loads of time reading the tea leaves of "theological certitude" all the while boasting of this "gift of infalliblity" that we don't have that straightens everything out fot you, and while that may sound like fun we'd rather just look at the bottom line.

We are aware of the deep denial that the pope as "the Latin church's sole authority," but since it is spelled out quite frequenty that none of your other "authorities" have any authority without his A-OK (for instance, the Vatican's "ecclesiology" of Ecumenical Councils), you all might as well as admit it.

Ah, I see that you are indeed a worthy opponent.

You refer, I think, to

Quote
The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.

- From Can. 341

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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

etc. Right?
yes indeed.  IIRC, there is also some question/debate/argument about the role of theologians other than those marked with an episcopal character (I think is the phrase).
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 Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2011, 09:03:59 PM »
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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

I don't believe that statement is denying the authority of each Bishop. It is, however, denying that "all the Bishops except the Pope" have some special collective authority. (And I believe it is right to do so -- cf. Apostolic Canon 34.)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Shiranui117

  • Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • PUDDI PUDDI!
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2011, 11:32:51 PM »
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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

I don't believe that statement is denying the authority of each Bishop. It is, however, denying that "all the Bishops except the Pope" have some special collective authority. (And I believe it is right to do so -- cf. Apostolic Canon 34.)
And isn't it true that the canon goes on to say, "But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity"? :) It seems to me that many Catholics conveniently leave off that half of the canon.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2011, 12:37:35 AM »
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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

I don't believe that statement is denying the authority of each Bishop. It is, however, denying that "all the Bishops except the Pope" have some special collective authority. (And I believe it is right to do so -- cf. Apostolic Canon 34.)
And isn't it true that the canon goes on to say, "But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity"? :) It seems to me that many Catholics conveniently leave off that half of the canon.
That's the part that Lumen Gentium and Pastor Aeternus skips over. And since they do, we deal only with the pope's opinion (or what he tolerates) when dealing with the Vatican's teachings.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 12:38:43 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 Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2011, 07:59:42 AM »
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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

I don't believe that statement is denying the authority of each Bishop. It is, however, denying that "all the Bishops except the Pope" have some special collective authority. (And I believe it is right to do so -- cf. Apostolic Canon 34.)
And isn't it true that the canon goes on to say, "But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity"? :) It seems to me that many Catholics conveniently leave off that half of the canon.
That's the part that Lumen Gentium and Pastor Aeternus skips over. And since they do, we deal only with the pope's opinion (or what he tolerates) when dealing with the Vatican's teachings.

I think saying that the Catholic Church skips the second part of Apostolic Canon 34 makes about as much sense as saying that the Orthodox Church skips the first part of it.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline vasily

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2011, 08:49:48 AM »
 I understand from your references ,Canon 341 and Lumen Gentium #22, and what they are stating. Even though there had to be a general consensus of agreement on church matters, with the Pope giving his "ok",at these Ecumenical Councils, then the Orthodox are incorrect in their opinion that there existed a true "equality" amongst all the bishops involved. When the twelve Apostles convened in Jerusalem to discuss church matters, it wasn't Peter who took the lead when disputes arose. Where did this idea of "primacy" originate from?

In my original post, I touched on the subject matter concerning "primacy of honor", with respect to the Pope of Rome. Is there historical evidence of this amongst the other Patriarchates?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2011, 10:17:17 AM »
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.

- From Lumen Gentium #22

I don't believe that statement is denying the authority of each Bishop. It is, however, denying that "all the Bishops except the Pope" have some special collective authority. (And I believe it is right to do so -- cf. Apostolic Canon 34.)
And isn't it true that the canon goes on to say, "But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity"? :) It seems to me that many Catholics conveniently leave off that half of the canon.
That's the part that Lumen Gentium and Pastor Aeternus skips over. And since they do, we deal only with the pope's opinion (or what he tolerates) when dealing with the Vatican's teachings.

I think saying that the Catholic Church skips the second part of Apostolic Canon 34 makes about as much sense as saying that the Orthodox Church skips the first part of it.
We don't have the opposites of Unam Sanctam and Pastor Aeternus.  The councils of Constance and Siena and the Protestants in the patriarchate of the West had to come up with that.
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: 38,391
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2011, 10:25:11 AM »
I understand from your references ,Canon 341 and Lumen Gentium #22, and what they are stating. Even though there had to be a general consensus of agreement on church matters, with the Pope giving his "ok",at these Ecumenical Councils, then the Orthodox are incorrect in their opinion that there existed a true "equality" amongst all the bishops involved. When the twelve Apostles convened in Jerusalem to discuss church matters, it wasn't Peter who took the lead when disputes arose. Where did this idea of "primacy" originate from?

In my original post, I touched on the subject matter concerning "primacy of honor", with respect to the Pope of Rome. Is there historical evidence of this amongst the other Patriarchates?
This?
Prior to the Schism, the Church was one unified Body in Christ, catholic and apostolic. Rome held a "primacy of honor", but this is disputed and lacks any historical evidence. Rome had the teaching authority and the authority concerning the Seven Ecumenical Councils decisions. Other than political conflicts, was there an equality amongst the other Patriarchates?
Rome didn't have the teaching authority and the authority concerning the Seven Ecumenical Councils' decisions: None were held by Rome, none were convoked on Rome's authority (apart from the other patriarchs/the Emperor), none were held in Rome (although Pope St. Leo tried to have Chalcedon held in hte West, for instance) and the Fifth Council was held over Rome's adament objections.

Are you looking for evidence of the primacy of Rome in the other patriarchates, or evidence of the primacy/honor of the other patriarchs?
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 vasily

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2011, 09:12:24 AM »
Some deny that this "primacy of honor" did not really exist between the Eastern Patriarchates towards Rome.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2011, 11:26:52 AM »
Some deny that this "primacy of honor" did not really exist between the Eastern Patriarchates towards Rome.
No, it existed. But while the Vatican claims that the pope of Rome was ruling as the monarch by the grace of God, he was presiding as Prime Minister by the confidence of parliament.  In Vatican speak, he was the head of the college of bishops as the Church's minister, not God's vicar.

One of the most obvious differences between the Orthodox papacy and the Vatican's is that the Orthodox pope never "by divine ordinance...possesse[d] a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff [was] both episcopal and immediate."  For instance, the much vaunted right of appeal to Rome (a similar one also accorded to Constantinople by the canons): it had to be appealed to, the pope had no right to interject himself.  And then his power was limited to deciding if another ajdudication in and by the local synod was warrented. He didn't get to issue his binding opinion.
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 vasily

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #55 on: July 21, 2011, 12:13:14 PM »
 If someone could please give me some basic info on the Apostolic Canons. Was this a council, who attended, and are these canons recognized by both the East and West? Do they hold any authority on a universal level? Are they still valid?

 My issue is canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, which places Rome as "first amongst equals" or "primacy of honor".  Does the Latin Church recognize this? Were there canons in any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that dealt with the structure and rankings in the Church?

 

Offline Shiranui117

  • Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • PUDDI PUDDI!
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #56 on: July 21, 2011, 01:04:41 PM »
If someone could please give me some basic info on the Apostolic Canons. Was this a council, who attended, and are these canons recognized by both the East and West? Do they hold any authority on a universal level? Are they still valid?

 My issue is canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, which places Rome as "first amongst equals" or "primacy of honor".  Does the Latin Church recognize this? Were there canons in any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that dealt with the structure and rankings in the Church?

 
I can't speak much to the origin of the Apostolic Canons, but in my experience talking with both Catholics and Orthodox, both churches hold the Apostolic Canons as valid. And Rome would certainly recognize having the primacy of honor, and being the first among equals! ;)

As far as rankings and structure of the Church go, there are numerous canons dealing with this. Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 puts the order of honor of the 5 ancient Patriarchates as going Rome, Contantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. I would recommend reading through the canons of Nicaea 1 and Constantinople to get many of the fundamental guidelines for the administration of the Church. I have yet to finish reading the canons of all 7 ecumenical councils and the others like Trullo and Sardica, but Sardica sets forth the precedent for appealing to Rome that Ialmisry mentioned, and the description of what the Pope can and can't do in regards to that appeal is spot-on.

You can do your own research and read all of the canons of the Councils, available online for free here. Others will probably be along to list some other canons you can look up.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,956
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #57 on: July 21, 2011, 01:41:45 PM »
If someone could please give me some basic info on the Apostolic Canons. Was this a council, who attended, and are these canons recognized by both the East and West? Do they hold any authority on a universal level? Are they still valid?

The apostolic canons are valid and were accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council (Canon 2). They didn't come out of a council, but rather were created anonymously, probably being written sometime between the 3rd and 5th centuries. They have an authoritative status in Orthodoxy, but like all canons it is up to the bishops to decide how they will be applied.

Quote
Were there canons in any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that dealt with the structure and rankings in the Church?

Second Ecumenical Council (Canon 3)
Fourth Ecumenical Council (Canon 28)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 01:42:24 PM by Asteriktos »
"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Offline vasily

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #58 on: July 22, 2011, 10:30:37 AM »
 But isn't it true that Rome does not recognize either of these canons ? (Canon 3- of the  Second Council & Canon 28 of the Fourth Council). If the Apostolic Canons have an authoritative status in Orthodoxy, why isn't this true with the Latin Church?

Offline Shiranui117

  • Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • PUDDI PUDDI!
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #59 on: July 23, 2011, 10:13:51 PM »
But isn't it true that Rome does not recognize either of these canons ? (Canon 3- of the  Second Council & Canon 28 of the Fourth Council). If the Apostolic Canons have an authoritative status in Orthodoxy, why isn't this true with the Latin Church?
IIRC, Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 was accepted eventually, but I believe you are quite right about Canon 28.

Also, we must distinguish between the Apostolic Canons and the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils. The Latin Church accepts all of the former, but only most of the latter.

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,600
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2011, 09:39:03 PM »
Actually the head Bishop is Peter indeed and he writes from the elect Church in Babylon which is the Assyrian Church of the East (Seleukia-Ctesiphon known to the ancients as "Babylon" which harboured the largest number of Jews outside Jerusalem also).

I believe the first Bishop of Rome was St.Paul not St.Peter based on the way he writes in Hebrews (Peter's congregation) versus the way he writes in Romans (HIS congregation where he gives his name and is expressing his mission clearly).

As for council attendance, the ACOE dikd not attend Chalcedon.
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline vasily

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2011, 08:42:18 AM »
 Per further research, the Council of Trullo, or the Quinisext Council, declared the Apostolic Canons to be a part of Orthodox Canon law.  The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches. So, if this is the case, is it only the Orthodox who recognize this "primacy of honor " or "first amongst equals"? (canon 34 Apostolic Canon).


 To clarify a comment concerning the first bishop of Rome. Wasn't Linus the first bishop? According to Scriptural and historical records Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, but not bishop of that city.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,750
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
Re: Western Supremacy Vs. Eastern Collegiality
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2011, 03:36:57 PM »
Quote
To clarify a comment concerning the first bishop of Rome. Wasn't Linus the first bishop? According to Scriptural and historical records Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, but not bishop of that city.

If I remember correctly, wasnt St. Peter the bishop of Antioch?

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker