GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction  (Read 2660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« on: Sat Jul 09, 2011 - 16:53:16 »
I figured while we have two Orthodox online, it would be good to keep the ball rolling on this series. Would one of you care to lead out?

Christian Forums and Message Board

As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« on: Sat Jul 09, 2011 - 16:53:16 »

Offline Joel, the Son of Pethuel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #1 on: Sat Jul 09, 2011 - 20:55:30 »
Ah, the crux of the schism!

Any particular angle from which you wanted to approach this?

BTW, "debate" isn't exactly what I do. My interest is in the spirituality, not the politics, of the EOC. Not that I won't discuss it, but by no means is it my forte.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #1 on: Sat Jul 09, 2011 - 20:55:30 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #2 on: Sat Jul 09, 2011 - 21:12:24 »
Ah, the crux of the schism!

Any particular angle from which you wanted to approach this?

BTW, "debate" isn't exactly what I do. My interest is in the spirituality, not the politics, of the EOC. Not that I won't discuss it, but by no means is it my forte.

Well I know both the East and West agree with Primacy of the Chair of St. Peter, I would just like to debate whether or not discrepancies over the extent of Chair's jurisdiction existed before papal supremacy of the 11th and later centuries.

At least I think that is a good place to start.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jul 11, 2011 - 09:44:34 »
Greetings LightHammer!

You are welcome to our eastern corner(ette) of the grace-centered forums (fora?).

To answer your question, of course the east did not submit to the so-claimed superauthority of Rome.

Where to begin:  How about St. Cyprian of Carthage who said at the Council of Carthage (I think), "There is no Bishop of Bishops."

Or the Pope (Victor) who wanted to impose a date for Easter on the whole church.  The southern churches (including Polycarp's)
said "no thank you."

If the Bishop of Rome was the only one with authority  to speak for the church, why have the ecumenical councils in the first place?

There were plenty of temporary schisms in the early church between the churches.  Had they recognized the Bishop of Rome's
authority--there would have been fewer of temporary schisms if it was agreed that Rome has universal authority.

Why was the Bishop of Rome given the title "Patriarch of the West" if he indeed had universal authority? 

Or if you prefer earlier:  We see evidence of councils in Bible (Acts 15).  At the same time, we have apostles (Paul)
arguing with Peter and winning (Galatians 2).  What evidence to we have of Peter with universal authority?
One sentence of Peter holding the keys, but apparently this did not mean the Peter's authority should go unquestioned.

The evidence is clear -  no one man had universal authority in the early church.  Even some Popes-like Leo-- did not
claim universal authority.   The real question (at least to us) is where does Rome get this idea they had universal
authority.  Clearly, not from the early church.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jul 11, 2011 - 09:44:34 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jul 12, 2011 - 21:39:40 »
Quote
Greetings LightHammer!

You are welcome to our eastern corner(ette) of the grace-centered forums (fora?).


Honored to be here. See the West is in somewhat of a communication with the East.lol  ::giggle::

Quote
To answer your question, of course the east did not submit to the so-claimed superauthority of Rome.

Where to begin:  How about St. Cyprian of Carthage who said at the Council of Carthage (I think), "There is no Bishop of Bishops."

I couldn't find the Council but I know of St. Cyprian. I recall when dealing when the validity of baptisms carried out by heretics, St. Cyprian believed such was null and void and that outside of the Church there was no true baptism. When St. Cyprian, gained follwoing in the East, Pope Stephen asserted that the patriarchate of Rome was authorative over the rest and St. Cyprian refused to acknowledge such.

The altercation shows that there was always a mild dispute about this primacy issue but even still St. Cyprian is a honored saint in the West.

Quote
Or the Pope (Victor) who wanted to impose a date for Easter on the whole church.  The southern churches (including Polycarp's)
said "no thank you."

But the Church in the same Council adopted the Roman nativity festival and December 25th as the universal observence.

Quote
If the Bishop of Rome was the only one with authority  to speak for the church, why have the ecumenical councils in the first place?

For the same reason St. Peter and the other Apostles and presbyters coordinated together at the Council of Jerusalem before St. Peter spoke.

The See of Rome was taught as the Chief Leader not the only leader. The Prince of the Apostles not the Dictator of the Apostles.

St Peter was more like, I don't know maybe the President of the United States is the best way to go with it. He wasn't like Adolf Hitler, Stanligrad or Mussolini.

Quote
Why was the Bishop of Rome given the title "Patriarch of the West" if he indeed had universal authority?


I always thought it was because Jerusalem was the big guy in the East. I never thought it meant to limit Rome's authority to the west. So wait are you implying that Rome was jurisdictionally the head of the West?

If we are going to the use the title to infer a limitation of jurisdictional authority then it can go both ways. Rome was the head of the western Sees but not the East?

Quote
Or if you prefer earlier:  We see evidence of councils in Bible (Acts 15).  At the same time, we have apostles (Paul)
arguing with Peter and winning (Galatians 2).  What evidence to we have of Peter with universal authority?
One sentence of Peter holding the keys, but apparently this did not mean the Peter's authority should go unquestioned.

Are you from America, trifecta? Here we next to eat our leaders if they step out of line or if we don't like them, so to me St. Peter and St. Paul bumping heads over a non-doctrinal issue dealing with practice isn't really a compromising factor of St. Peter's primacy.

Quote
The evidence is clear -  no one man had universal authority in the early church.  Even some Popes-like Leo-- did not
claim universal authority.   The real question (at least to us) is where does Rome get this idea they had universal
authority.  Clearly, not from the early church.

Well we know Pope Stephen I held this belief because he and St. Cyprian had their little altercation. Does Pope Stephen fit into the category of Early Church?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jul 12, 2011 - 21:39:40 »



Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #5 on: Thu Jul 14, 2011 - 08:53:10 »
Quote
Greetings LightHammer!

You are welcome to our eastern corner(ette) of the grace-centered forums (fora?).


Honored to be here. See the West is in somewhat of a communication with the East.lol  ::giggle::

You're funny!  Yeah, I guess we don't have the "they don't speak our language" excuse anymore.  ::laughinghisterically::


Quote

The altercation shows that there was always a mild dispute about this primacy issue but even still St. Cyprian is a honored saint in the West.


Actually, I give you all credit for this.  I wonder if his sainthood was made before the split.

Quote
Quote
Or the Pope (Victor) who wanted to impose a date for Easter on the whole church.  The southern churches (including Polycarp's)
said "no thank you."

But the Church in the same Council adopted the Roman nativity festival and December 25th as the universal observence.


I have news for you friend,  most eastern Christians do not celebrate December 25 as the Navity of Christ, but January 7--to this day. Interestingly, in America (where yes I indeed live), most churches celebrate it on December 25 as a concession to the culture.  I guess people couldn't deal with their
kids desire to open their presents when everyone else does.

 The Easter dating thing is called, by the way (I had to look it up), the quartodeciman controversy.

Please remember both the Cyprian and Quartodeciman controversy are evidence in the sense of examples.  Since there was no public polling of the day, you have to assume that other people thought as Cyprian did.  Some people will say --about anything ancient-- "well, your example (say, X) doesn't prove that my assumption (Y) is wrong."  The problem is no number of Xs can amount to anything using modern evidence for ancient times.   For example, notice that most modern Protestants when confronted with writings of the Church Fathers simply say, well,  X Church father was wrong.  He didn't write for everybody.  etc.

Having said all that,  these pieces of evidence are pretty strong.  Cyprian was well-known and well-admired in the church.  It would be hard to believe that many others didn't think like he did.  The Quarto (my abbrev)  shows that parts of the church not only disagreed with Rome but refused to comply.

Quote
Quote
If the Bishop of Rome was the only one with authority  to speak for the church, why have the ecumenical councils in the first place?

For the same reason St. Peter and the other Apostles and presbyters coordinated together at the Council of Jerusalem before St. Peter spoke.


In the Orthodox church, we think that the ecumenical councils hold the highest level of authority outside of Scripture.  But in the Catholic Church,
the role of the councils (you have had about 20) is unclear.  Since Vatican I, the Pope could even nullify declarations of a council.  And, of course,
Rome didn't always like what the councils had to say.  They were not even at the 2nd council - and it took a long time to accept the Patriacharate
of Constantinople to be equal to that of Rome.

Let me pause here and say that Constantinople was not always right, and Rome always wrong.  It's not an ethnic thing.  It's a matter of who was
right.
 
Quote
The See of Rome was taught as the Chief Leader not the only leader. The Prince of the Apostles not the Dictator of the Apostles.

St Peter was more like, I don't know maybe the President of the United States is the best way to go with it. He wasn't like Adolf Hitler, Stanligrad or Mussolini.




I agree, more or less, with your characterization of St Peter, although I think he was more like Chief Justice of the Surpreme Court (I'll explain later).
But the Bishop of Rome holds far more authority than Peter did.  Correct me if I'm wrong:  The Pope appoints every cardinal.  The Pope appoints
every bishop.  If this is true, it goes against the Council of Chaledon. (We're guilty of this too--for other reasons).  The Pope has authority over every
individual Catholic.  This was not the role of St. Peter.  Evidence on this one is easy to find.   Note in Acts 1, did the Apostles turn to Peter and ask
him to appoint the twelth apostle?  Hebrews 13 says to revere your leaders, for **they** watch over your souls. Other evidence I mentioned before, so
I won't repeat it.

Quote
Quote
Why was the Bishop of Rome given the title "Patriarch of the West" if he indeed had universal authority?


I always thought it was because Jerusalem was the big guy in the East.


No, I know this sounds strange, but the Bishop of Jerusalem had the least authority.  At one council, they actually ranked the 5 patriarchates.
They are: 1) Rome   2) Constantinople  3) Alexandria  4) Antioch  5) Jerusalem.   (Alexandria was not happy about this, since they held more
authority, especially regarding apologetics, in the early church.)

Quote

 I never thought it meant to limit Rome's authority to the west.


You're too close to Rome, my friend.   If Light Hammer is the patriarchate of the Catholic Forum on Grace-Centered Forum, why would you assume
you would be the patriarchate of the Orthodox Forum? (I think that is CD Healy, by the way).   By defining a jurisdiction, we are limiting
the authority of the leader to that jurisdiction.

We don't call Barack Obama the President of Vermont, although in fact he is.  In fact, no offense to the Green Mountain state, but it would kind of
insulting for the President to be introduced at a state dinner as the President of Vermont.

In the olden days honorifics were even more important.  So, why would the Bishop of Rome accept the title "Patriarchate of the West" when in
fact he had universal authority?  It would not only be insulting but confusing.  

Quote
So wait are you implying that Rome was jurisdictionally the head of the West?


Yes!  At the time of the five patriarchates, the west was the backwater of the religious world.  The history of Judaism was in the Middle East.
None of the other four patriarchates was in the west, so, they granted the Pope that title.  Rome held that title from around 500 to
2007 A.D.  Interestingly, Pope Benedict gave up that description of the RCC.   I've got to give him credit for that.   Although I disagree that
Rome holds universal authority, dropping this title makes it more clear that this is what Rome claims.  On the other hand, if the Pope did the opposite--
renounced his authority over the whole world and kept the title "Patriarchate of the West", we'd be far along the road to unity.    


Quote

If we are going to the use the title to infer a limitation of jurisdictional authority then it can go both ways. Rome was the head of the western Sees but not the East?


Yes.  

Quote

Are you from America, trifecta? Here we next to eat our leaders if they step out of line or if we don't like them, so to me St. Peter and St. Paul bumping heads over a non-doctrinal issue dealing with practice isn't really a compromising factor of St. Peter's primacy.


But note how this was resolved, Paul won.  Peter never claimed " I'm the lead apostle. I have authority over you."  The proper role of the Bishop of Rome
was historically analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He's the leader of the Court, and to some degree, it's spokesperson.  But when it
comes to power issues (voting) he is just one vote of nine.

Quote
Well we know Pope Stephen I held this belief because he and St. Cyprian had their little altercation. Does Pope Stephen fit into the category of Early Church?

Well, you are right here.   It seems to me that some Popes (Victor, Stephen) claimed some version of universal authority, and some did not (Leo, Martin).
Rome did hold a kind of appellate authority regarding priests getting in trouble, but that is not universal authority (and Rome's opinion did not always win the day).  So some Romans in the early church claimed some kind of universal authority--but no one outside of Rome universally accepted Rome's claim.

Let me conclude that although the evidence against universal authority is strong,  it is not the largest thing dividing east and west, IMHO.   If Rome thought
more like the east, I think I'd consider compromising and giving in Rome here (please don't revoke my membership in the Orthodox Church), but those three As -- Augustine, Acquinas, and Anselm, have caused the West to think quite differently from the East and the early church.    
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 14, 2011 - 09:00:46 by trifecta »

Offline Joel, the Son of Pethuel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #6 on: Thu Jul 14, 2011 - 11:06:47 »
I have to disagree with you, Trifecta, on one point.

The Eastern Churches, even to this day (ALL of them, in fact) celebrate the feast of the Nativity on Dec 25... ALL of them.

The discrepancy is in how one defines Dec 25. Before adopting the Gregorian Calendar, we all used the Julian Calendar (common knowledge, I know). But when the Gregorian Calendar began to be adopted, the two calendars were off by 13 days. When the Gregorian Calendar followers were celebrating the Nativity on THEIR Dec 25, it was only Dec 12 on the Julian Calendar. By the time the Julian Calendar made it to Dec 25, it was Jan 7 on the Gregorian Calendar. Such is the case to this day. The Old Calendar still celebrates the Nativity on Dec 25 - it's just the Julian Dec 25.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #7 on: Thu Jul 14, 2011 - 11:37:31 »
Quote
I have news for you friend,  most eastern Christians do not celebrate December 25 as the Navity of Christ, but January 7--to this day. Interestingly, in America (where yes I indeed live), most churches celebrate it on December 25 as a concession to the culture.  I guess people couldn't deal with their
kids desire to open their presents when everyone else does.


But at the 1st Council of Nicea the Church did formally adopt the Roman nativity observence, right? I mean I could be wrong but thats how I understood it.

Quote
Please remember both the Cyprian and Quartodeciman controversy are evidence in the sense of examples.  Since there was no public polling of the day, you have to assume that other people thought as Cyprian did.  Some people will say --about anything ancient-- "well, your example (say, X) doesn't prove that my assumption (Y) is wrong."  The problem is no number of Xs can amount to anything using modern evidence for ancient times.   For example, notice that most modern Protestants when confronted with writings of the Church Fathers simply say, well,  X Church father was wrong.  He didn't write for everybody.  etc.

Having said all that,  these pieces of evidence are pretty strong.  Cyprian was well-known and well-admired in the church.  It would be hard to believe that many others didn't think like he did.  The Quarto (my abbrev)  shows that parts of the church not only disagreed with Rome but refused to comply.


Most certainly St. Cyprian was well admired and it seems that throughout the Church he did have a strong following. My point however is to place the controversy of papal universal jurisdiction in context. The issue has been there almost since the beginning with no definitive side being absolute.

Just a question, does the East teach that there is no true baptism outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church or do you profess one baptism under God as the West does?

I'd like to know who's side you guys chose, St. Cyprian or Pope Stephen?

Quote
In the Orthodox church, we think that the ecumenical councils hold the highest level of authority outside of Scripture.

In the Catholic Church, ecumenical councils are the highest ranking of the seven different types of councils. Through its authority whatever is proclaimed is binding (or loosed) on all Christians. The Pope's authority is not above a council but when speaking ex cathedra his office is just as binding. However in regards to practice and discipline, the Pope has the authority to implement such on the entire Church. For an example refer to when St. Peter had his vision and then declared that all food was now clean to eat. That was a unilateral declaration that loosed all Christians.

However in the East, just as it is in the West, bishops can bind and loose over their specific jurisdictions. It is entirely Biblical that St. Peter's Chair holds this authority first because Christ gave it to St. Peter before any of the other twelve.

The authority of the Pope doesn't supercede an Ecumenical Council and its rarely exercised equal to one, at least thats the limits of my research. I know there's the whole filioque insertion which was not based on a universal consensus but well I don't really understand how that actually compromises the Trinity, even though CD Healy explained it very well.

Quote
But in the Catholic Church, the role of the councils (you have had about 20) is unclear.

I don't understand how our ecumenical councils differ. The authority to bind and loose resides first and foremost with the bishop and his chair, with St. Peter's being Chief. The ecumenical council gets its supreme authority from the consolidation of the orthodox bishops.

That seems to be the same on both sides of the coin.


Quote
Since Vatican I, the Pope could even nullify declarations of a council.


I only know of four Councils that popes have loosed and those were in matters of practice and not doctrine. Practice and disciplines can change as long as they don't violate doctrine.

The Pope can not go against a declaration of sound doctrine and to my knowledge never has. The Council of Ephesus, the Quintext Council, the Council of Hieria and the Council of Pistoia, the Pope did only nullified practice.

An example would be the selling of indulgences for money. The practice was booted out but recently the practice of indulgences has been reinstated for charity and such but not currency.

Quote
The Pope appoints every cardinal.  The Pope appoints every bishop.


A Cardinal exist in several ranks within the clergy. There have been cardinal-deacons and cardinal-bishops alike. The title of Cardinal was traditionally meant to indetity and clergymen as an advisor or worker assigned to the Bishop of Rome, so of course naturally the Bishop of Rome chose the advisors and workers assigned to the Patraiarchate of Rome.

In regards to the bishops, yes the Pope appoints the bishops by way of the second Papal Chauncery rule. Before it was the cathedral chaoters who elcted the bishops of their specific jurisdictional areas. However this is not entirely separate from the Early Church. St. Peter traveled to Antioch and appoint St. Evodius to the bishopric there and then traveled to Rome. Now when St. Evodius passed, St. Peter appointed St. Ignatius to be the Bishop there.

Now St. Peter was residing in Rome as the Bishop there but he still appointed the second Bishop of Antioch. So as I said this isn't completely foreign to the Early Church and its history.

Quote
The Pope has authority over every individual Catholic.  This was not the role of St. Peter.  Evidence on this one is easy to find.   Note in Acts 1, did the Apostles turn to Peter and ask him to appoint the twelth apostle?  Hebrews 13 says to revere your leaders, for **they** watch over your souls. Other evidence I mentioned before, so I won't repeat it.


I don't know how you are intending to define "authority" here. St. Peter wwas first given the charge to feed the flock. He was the first in a position of overseer over Christ's flock. If you mean to suggest that "authority" is synonymous with "overseer" then yes; St. Peter was the first to assume that role so of course he has that responsibility over the entire flock. The same is said for the other Apostles.

Quote
No, I know this sounds strange, but the Bishop of Jerusalem had the least authority.  At one council, they actually ranked the 5 patriarchates.
They are: 1) Rome   2) Constantinople  3) Alexandria  4) Antioch  5) Jerusalem.   (Alexandria was not happy about this, since they held more
authority, especially regarding apologetics, in the early church.)

No disrespect intended to St. Mark but Alexandria can miss me with the claim that they held more authority. I really don't get how they placed Jerusalem last when Jerusalem is the oldest patriarchate.

Quote
You're too close to Rome, my friend.   If Light Hammer is the patriarchate of the Catholic Forum on Grace-Centered Forum, why would you assume
you would be the patriarchate of the Orthodox Forum? (I think that is CD Healy, by the way).   By defining a jurisdiction, we are limiting
the authority of the leader to that jurisdiction.

We don't call Barack Obama the President of Vermont, although in fact he is.  In fact, no offense to the Green Mountain state, but it would kind of
insulting for the President to be introduced at a state dinner as the President of Vermont.

In the olden days honorifics were even more important.  So, why would the Bishop of Rome accept the title "Patriarchate of the West" when in
fact he had universal authority?  It would not only be insulting but confusing.  


Fair enough but when was the title applied to Rome?


Quote
But note how this was resolved, Paul won.  Peter never claimed " I'm the lead apostle. I have authority over you."  The proper role of the Bishop of Rome
was historically analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He's the leader of the Court, and to some degree, it's spokesperson.  But when it
comes to power issues (voting) he is just one vote of nine.


True however the matter in question wasn't one of doctrine but of pratice, I believe it was baptism and circumcision I think, but don't quote me on that. Had it been a matter of doctrine and St. Peter was wrong it would be a little bit more powerful. However if the two are disputing between whether or not to use the fish or the lamb as the faith's secret symbol or something along the lines of that and St. Paul wins and fish is what they use, then I'm not really convicted by an argument like that.

Now if it was a matter of Christ's divinity, salvation or authority then that would be a whole different ball game.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #8 on: Thu Jul 14, 2011 - 21:31:18 »
Greetings again LightHammer ::tippinghat::!


Quote
I have news for you friend,  most eastern Christians do not celebrate December 25 as the Navity of Christ, but January 7--to this day. Interestingly, in America (where yes I indeed live), most churches celebrate it on December 25 as a concession to the culture.  I guess people couldn't deal with their
kids desire to open their presents when everyone else does.


But at the 1st Council of Nicea the Church did formally adopt the Roman nativity observence, right? I mean I could be wrong but thats how I understood it.


First, thanks to Joel for his correction.  I always forget about that Julian calendar change thing.  One day I will try to understand it better.  Actually, the 1st Council of Nicea came up with the date for Easter (or as we call it Pascha).


Quote
Quote
Please remember both the Cyprian and Quartodeciman controversy are evidence in the sense of examples.  Since there was no public polling of the day, you have to assume that other people thought as Cyprian did.  Some people will say --about anything ancient-- "well, your example (say, X) doesn't prove that my assumption (Y) is wrong."  The problem is no number of Xs can amount to anything using modern evidence for ancient times.   For example, notice that most modern Protestants when confronted with writings of the Church Fathers simply say, well,  X Church father was wrong.  He didn't write for everybody.  etc.

Having said all that,  these pieces of evidence are pretty strong.  Cyprian was well-known and well-admired in the church.  It would be hard to believe that
many others didn't think like he did.  The Quarto (my abbrev)  shows that parts of the church not only disagreed with Rome but refused to comply.


Most certainly St. Cyprian was well admired and it seems that throughout the Church he did have a strong following. My point however is to place the controversy of papal universal jurisdiction in context. The issue has been there almost since the beginning with no definitive side being absolute.

I don't get your point about papal universal jurisdiction (p.u.j ?) in context.  Nevertheless, it is important to the discussion.  I suggest that you not get down in the weeds.  The temptation is to be as you conclude here.  Different people had different opinions, so there is no absolute answer.  (Who was it that
said, "The only absolute is there are no absolutes?")  The evidence shows 1) some in the West claimed some type of universal jurisdiction (although no one claimed that the Bishop of Rome should appoint all bishops).   2)  the non-West resisted this claim and no one else agreed to anything like the p.u.j. that Rome claims today. 

Assuming these assumptions are correct, Rome's claim to be following the ancient customs of the church cannot be justified, at least in this area.  The biggest problem I have with Rome is they are so insistent on p.u.j.  For example,  recently Pope Benedict said that many Protestant gatherings are not church because they do not follow in historical succession (I agreed with the Pope here) and that the churches of the east are defective.  Why?  They don't believe in p.u.j.


Quote
Just a question, does the East teach that there is no true baptism outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church or do you profess one baptism under God as the West does?


This is one thing that we argue about.  However, in most Orthodox jurisdictions, we accept baptisms from other churches as long as they are Trinitarian.  Unfortunately, an increasing number of Protestant baptisms do not follow this formula.  Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are just two who Baptise in Christ's
name only.   CD wrote a good explanation of why we accept other baptisms--but the short of it is if it done correctly, it doesn't matter who does it.


Quote
I'd like to know who's side you guys chose, St. Cyprian or Pope Stephen?


St. Cyprian, of course. 

Quote
In the Catholic Church, ecumenical councils are the highest ranking of the seven different types of councils. Through its authority whatever is proclaimed is binding (or loosed) on all Christians. The Pope's authority is not above a council but when speaking ex cathedra his office is just as binding. However in regards to practice and discipline, the Pope has the authority to implement such on the entire Church. For an example refer to when St. Peter had his vision and then declared that all food was now clean to eat. That was a unilateral declaration that loosed all Christians.


I think the way that Vatican I was written made the Pope's opinion -- when made ex cathera-- superior to the councils. 

Quote
However in the East, just as it is in the West, bishops can bind and loose over their specific jurisdictions. It is entirely Biblical that St. Peter's Chair holds this authority first because Christ gave it to St. Peter before any of the other twelve.


Agreed, but, really, big deal that Peter was the first to get it.   All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt 18:18).   Saying that the chair of Peter is superior to the other Sees and indeed inferior to them is not what the Bible says.  But it is what Rome says today.


Quote
The authority of the Pope doesn't supercede an Ecumenical Council and its rarely exercised equal to one, at least thats the limits of my research. I know there's the whole filioque insertion which was not based on a universal consensus but well I don't really understand how that actually compromises the Trinity, even though CD Healy explained it very well.


Forgeting about the theology of the filioque for the moment, this is an example of the Pope, or the Church in Rome, putting itself above the decision
of an ecumenical council.  How could that be denied?  Rome didn't even ask the opinion of the others.   It and the sacking of Constantinople were real
lows in RCC history.  I wish they would admit they were wrong.   That would help to make us closer.


Quote
Quote
But in the Catholic Church, the role of the councils (you have had about 20) is unclear.

I don't understand how our ecumenical councils differ. The authority to bind and loose resides first and foremost with the bishop and his chair, with St. Peter's being Chief. The ecumenical council gets its supreme authority from the consolidation of the orthodox bishops.

That seems to be the same on both sides of the coin.

My point here was there were 7 ecumenical councils that we both accept.  You guys have had about 14 since then.  The most important being  Trent,
Vatican I, and Vatican II.  There is nothing wrong with having councils, it is called for in Chalcedon (I think).  We've had a few since the split.  Unfortunately, neither your councils or ours are ecumenical since we are not represented in each others councils.
 

Quote

I only know of four Councils that popes have loosed and those were in matters of practice and not doctrine. Practice and disciplines can change as long as they don't violate doctrine.

The Pope can not go against a declaration of sound doctrine and to my knowledge never has. The Council of Ephesus, the Quintext Council, the Council of Hieria and the Council of Pistoia, the Pope did only nullified practice.


Okay, so why is the p.u.j. so important to Rome?   Over the time, the mark of a real Christian became the Nicean Creed.  Therefore, it is such a shame
that Rome went ahead and changed it.  Similarly, I can accept anyone as a Christian who was baptised in the name of the Trinity.  Now, some Protestants are not doing this.  The frustrating part is if everyone just stuck to the way things were done historically, we'd be closer to Christian unity.  Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Quote

An example would be the selling of indulgences for money. The practice was booted out but recently the practice of indulgences has been reinstated for charity and such but not currency.


I really think the Catholics get a bump wrap for indulgences, but the concept does still exist, and just smacks of Roman Law.  I bought this Catholic
NT in a used book store published in the 1950s, and sure enough, there is a statement right is the beginning from the Pope (Pius VI?) saying that
15 minutes of Bible reading a day counts as an induligence.   


Quote
In regards to the bishops, yes the Pope appoints the bishops by way of the second Papal Chauncery rule. Before it was the cathedral chaoters who elcted the bishops of their specific jurisdictional areas. However this is not entirely separate from the Early Church. St. Peter traveled to Antioch and appoint St. Evodius to the bishopric there and then traveled to Rome. Now when St. Evodius passed, St. Peter appointed St. Ignatius to be the Bishop there.

Now St. Peter was residing in Rome as the Bishop there but he still appointed the second Bishop of Antioch. So as I said this isn't completely foreign to the Early Church and its history.


I think the p.u.j. gets in the way of what we know about history here.  I hope CD can say something about Antioch, because he is in that church and, yes, I am aware of Peter and his role in the Church of Antioch.  The 12 apostles did not hold jurisdictional authority.  Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, I think Linus was.  All historical evidence shows Rome as the City of St. Peter and Paul (thus the feast day).  Eusebius's history names Linus as the first bishop (or was it Anecletus?).  The real kicker for me is Pope Sixtus, who was the sixth Bishop of Rome.  He is only the sixth Pope if Linus is the first.


Quote

Quote
No, I know this sounds strange, but the Bishop of Jerusalem had the least authority.  At one council, they actually ranked the 5 patriarchates.
They are: 1) Rome   2) Constantinople  3) Alexandria  4) Antioch  5) Jerusalem.   (Alexandria was not happy about this, since they held more
authority, especially regarding apologetics, in the early church.)

No disrespect intended to St. Mark but Alexandria can miss me with the claim that they held more authority. I really don't get how they placed Jerusalem last when Jerusalem is the oldest patriarchate.


I had to look this up.  Its ranking was given at the Council of Chaledon.  The sad thing is Jerusalem wasn't even a Patriarchate until this council established it as one.  It was under the See of Ceserea before this.  My understanding of Palestinian history from the 1st to 3rd century is sketchy, but many Christians moved out from the city of Jerusalem, and there were groups that were mixing Judaism and Christianity a bit too much.  Then, there is the destruction of the Temple.   The center of Christianity moved out of Jerusalem and went elsewhere.  That is why is lost its status.

Due to cool dudes like Athanasius, Alexandria became a real bedrock of Christianity.  They were always consulted with, especially about Biblical interpretation and apologetics, and did not want to be bumped down to third place, and, I don't think they ever accepted this pecking order of the 5 patriarchates.

Quote

Fair enough but when was the title applied to Rome?


I had to look this up too.   Justinian (5th century) used the term first.  I thought an ecumenical council declared it, but can't find that it did.  I came in common use in the 9th century.  Not sure when it was officially declared. 

Quote
Quote
But note how this was resolved, Paul won.  Peter never claimed " I'm the lead apostle. I have authority over you."  The proper role of the Bishop of Rome
was historically analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He's the leader of the Court, and to some degree, it's spokesperson.  But when it
comes to power issues (voting) he is just one vote of nine.


True however the matter in question wasn't one of doctrine but of pratice, I believe it was baptism and circumcision I think, but don't quote me on that. Had it been a matter of doctrine and St. Peter was wrong it would be a little bit more powerful. However if the two are disputing between whether or not to use the fish or the lamb as the faith's secret symbol or something along the lines of that and St. Paul wins and fish is what they use, then I'm not really convicted by an argument like that.

Now if it was a matter of Christ's divinity, salvation or authority then that would be a whole different ball game.

Fair enough.  I think I hear you saying that the Pope hasn't opposed the historical teaching of the church, so let's follow him.  In reality, you follow the Pope because he follows the historical church (or so Rome claims).  We say why not just follow the historical teaching of the church? We call it Holy Tradition.  We've kept it for 2000 years.  Why would we need a Pope to declare it?

Thanks for reading and discussing!

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #9 on: Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:56:50 »
Quote
First, thanks to Joel for his correction.  I always forget about that Julian calendar change thing.  One day I will try to understand it better.  Actually, the 1st Council of Nicea came up with the date for Easter (or as we call it Pascha).

Do you happen to remember which council it was that officiated the universal acceptance of the Roman Nativity Feast?


Quote
I don't get your point about papal universal jurisdiction (p.u.j ?) in context.  Nevertheless, it is important to the discussion.  I suggest that you not get down in the weeds.  The temptation is to be as you conclude here.  Different people had different opinions, so there is no absolute answer.  (Who was it that
said, "The only absolute is there are no absolutes?")  The evidence shows 1) some in the West claimed some type of universal jurisdiction (although no one claimed that the Bishop of Rome should appoint all bishops).   2)  the non-West resisted this claim and no one else agreed to anything like the p.u.j. that Rome claims today.  

Assuming these assumptions are correct, Rome's claim to be following the ancient customs of the church cannot be justified, at least in this area.  The biggest problem I have with Rome is they are so insistent on p.u.j.  For example,  recently Pope Benedict said that many Protestant gatherings are not church because they do not follow in historical succession (I agreed with the Pope here) and that the churches of the east are defective.  Why?  They don't believe in p.u.j.


When I said context, I was alluding to a concern I had that the opposition would suggest that P.U.J. (we have to come up with a more catchy abbreviation.lol) was an invention of the 11th and subsequent centuries. My point was to illustrate the reality of this topic. This issue has been unresolved by universal consensus since nearly the beginning. St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen are way old school and although they had their positions, no ecumenical declaration or universal consensus ever put the hammer to the nail, if you will, to this.

In all honesty, even with the minor separations before the 11th century, it seemed that the historic Church was quite willing to let this issue go unresolved officially as long as they could. Had not Pope Leo enforced his supremacy so forcefully, thus driving the Church to choose a side, I doubt the East and West schism would have ever occured. Don't get me wrong the filioque was a big issue but that addition was made in the 4th century. The Church went another 600 years united, minus the Coptic succession.

That was my point about conetxt. IMO the only way for this ageold issue to be truly resolved, is to do what should have been in the 11th century and have a Ecumenical Council resolve it. If anything we know through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, that God's Hand directly inspires the infallible declaration of an ecumenical council.

Then and only then will the matter be resolved.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Just a question, does the East teach that there is no true baptism outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church or do you profess one baptism under God as the West does?



This is one thing that we argue about.  However, in most Orthodox jurisdictions, we accept baptisms from other churches as long as they are Trinitarian.  Unfortunately, an increasing number of Protestant baptisms do not follow this formula.  Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are just two who Baptise in Christ's
name only.   CD wrote a good explanation of why we accept other baptisms--but the short of it is if it done correctly, it doesn't matter who does it.



Quote
Quote
I'd like to know who's side you guys chose, St. Cyprian or Pope Stephen?


St. Cyprian, of course.  


Actually you guys side with Pope Stephen not St. Cyprian. Pope Stephen is the one who believed in one universal baptism in the Trinitarian formula. St. Cyprian believed that a baptism wasn't valid, regardless of the Trinitarian Formula, outside of the Christian Church.

So really you guys agree with Pope Stephen on this one.

Standby.
« Last Edit: Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 12:59:51 by LightHammer »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #10 on: Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 13:52:07 »
Quote
I think the way that Vatican I was written made the Pope's opinion -- when made ex cathera-- superior to the councils. 


For th epast few months I have been dealing closely with the Early Church Fathers, so I'm not very knowledgeable on Vatican I or II.

Could you maybe produce a specific article of declaration that alludes to papal superiority over ecumenism? 

Quote
Agreed, but, really, big deal that Peter was the first to get it.   All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt 18:18).   Saying that the chair of Peter is superior to the other Sees and indeed inferior to them is not what the Bible says.  But it is what Rome says today.

But St. Peter's Chair was superior, because it was prime. Thats the whole point, in my opinion. If the Church is a building and we are all living stones, St. Peter was quite literally the first first living stone erected on Jesus Christ, who is the Chief Cornerstone. If the See of Rome is built and predicated on the authority of St. Peter it is in fact Primus.

Although all the children have claim and responsibility to the House when the father is absent, the oldest brother has the final say so in that absence.

Quote
Forgeting about the theology of the filioque for the moment, this is an example of the Pope, or the Church in Rome, putting itself above the decision
of an ecumenical council.  How could that be denied?  Rome didn't even ask the opinion of the others.   It and the sacking of Constantinople were real
lows in RCC history.  I wish they would admit they were wrong.   That would help to make us closer.


In regards to the Fourth Crusade, I'm not sure if you will find a lot of RC's who back the savageness the crusaders exhibited in Constatinople, let alone argue in favor of it.

In regards to filioque, you got me there. Although I have yet to see any codice in the Latin Church that asserts the See of Rome over excumenism, I will concur that the addition of the filioque as an act, not the definition, was extremely schisomatic. Theology aside, the See of Rome had no right, even as the See of the presidency, to contermand an explicit universal prohibition without proper consensus.

I think alot of RC's will say that the insertion was inappropriate. They, like myself, however will deny that it is a doctrinal error.

Quote
My point here was there were 7 ecumenical councils that we both accept.  You guys have had about 14 since then.  The most important being  Trent,
Vatican I, and Vatican II.  There is nothing wrong with having councils, it is called for in Chalcedon (I think).  We've had a few since the split.  Unfortunately, neither your councils or ours are ecumenical since we are not represented in each others councils.



Well technically, although the West and East exist in a peaceful and respectful schism, we still claim that the other is unorthodox. You guys don't even acknowledge our Sacraments as valid because of doctrinal differences, however we acknowledge yours as valid.

With that in mind and both sides viewing the other as null and void by way of doctrinal apostasy, our councils can't be deemed non-ecumenical for not representing an unorthodox apostolic chair.

That's like Abraham Lincoln passing the Emancipation Proclamation and the slaves in the Confederacy somehow thinking that means they're free.

In the reunion of the East and West, one of us will be found wanting and the other will be found faithful. Either way it is that wanting side who's post-shcism ecumenicism will be in question.

Quote
I really think the Catholics get a bump wrap for indulgences, but the concept does still exist, and just smacks of Roman Law.  I bought this Catholic
NT in a used book store published in the 1950s, and sure enough, there is a statement right is the beginning from the Pope (Pius VI?) saying that
15 minutes of Bible reading a day counts as an induligence. 
 

The concept of Purgatory is to the West, what the concept of Toll Houses is to the East. I haven't the slightest clue about Toll Houses, or if its even official doctrine but that has always been the correlation I have been presented with in the previous site I was on.

I think the practice of indulgence nowadays is beautiful especially in comparisson to the past. Through idulgences you see the Catholic Church promoting, Bible readings, charity, evangelism and many more Christian works.

Currency is not even an option. Its about the Christian and stressing dedication and devotions to God. That is what the Church is encouraging.



Quote
I think the p.u.j. gets in the way of what we know about history here.  I hope CD can say something about Antioch, because he is in that church and, yes, I am aware of Peter and his role in the Church of Antioch.  The 12 apostles did not hold jurisdictional authority.  Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, I think Linus was.  All historical evidence shows Rome as the City of St. Peter and Paul (thus the feast day).  Eusebius's history names Linus as the first bishop (or was it Anecletus?).  The real kicker for me is Pope Sixtus, who was the sixth Bishop of Rome.  He is only the sixth Pope if Linus is the first.


I'm familiar with this historical view point of the Early Church but one loose end with this idea, is St. James, son of Alphaeus. Although can idenitify this Apostle as like three other mentioned James' in the New Testament, St. Jerome was classic for refering to him as the brother of Christ.

If I recall right, Eusebius records the first Bishop of Jeruslem(which we see in Acts 15) as this St. James. With this in mind there is just as much to go on by way of the Early Church Fathers to defend the bishopric of St. Peter as there is to suggest that he was not the Bishop.

However that was not exactly my point. The point was to show how St. Peter from Rome appointed the second Bishop of Antioch. This would thus express that it wasn't entirely foreign in for the presidency to appoint Bishops in other jurisdctions, as the Pope does with all bishops today.

It was just supposed to establish a connection is all.

Quote
I had to look this up.  Its ranking was given at the Council of Chaledon.  The sad thing is Jerusalem wasn't even a Patriarchate until this council established it as one.  It was under the See of Ceserea before this.  My understanding of Palestinian history from the 1st to 3rd century is sketchy, but many Christians moved out from the city of Jerusalem, and there were groups that were mixing Judaism and Christianity a bit too much.  Then, there is the destruction of the Temple.   The center of Christianity moved out of Jerusalem and went elsewhere.  That is why is lost its status.

Due to cool dudes like Athanasius, Alexandria became a real bedrock of Christianity.  They were always consulted with, especially about Biblical interpretation and apologetics, and did not want to be bumped down to third place, and, I don't think they ever accepted this pecking order of the 5 patriarchates.
`

Alexandria aside, where did you find this? I ask because you state that Jeruslem wasn't an individual patriarchate until Chlaedon. How is that possible when the first Church council was held there? How is that the case when St. James was Bishop there?

I'm sure there's more behind it but it just sounds weird, you know.


Quote
Fair enough.  I think I hear you saying that the Pope hasn't opposed the historical teaching of the church, so let's follow him.  In reality, you follow the Pope because he follows the historical church (or so Rome claims).  We say why not just follow the historical teaching of the church? We call it Holy Tradition.  We've kept it for 2000 years.  Why would we need a Pope to declare it?



To be in line with the orthodox teachings of the Church is to be under the leadership of God's chosen and ordained; well those who are faithful. We in the West believe the Pope holds the presidency among the faithful ordained, just as you in the East serve God in the belief that the Patriarch leads the faithful.


Quote
Thanks for reading and discussing!



Always a pleasure to get into Christian history. Its especially refreshing to debate these fundamental and core issues in an honorable manner for a change.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #11 on: Thu Jul 28, 2011 - 15:20:03 »
Quote
Having said all that,  these pieces of evidence are pretty strong.  Cyprian was well-known and well-admired in the church.  It would be hard to believe that many others didn't think like he did.  The Quarto (my abbrev)  shows that parts of the church not only disagreed with Rome but refused to comply.

trifecta,

None of the ECFs gave unqualified authority to the bishop of Rome. Even bishop Augustine held synods and decided doctrines regrding the bible without consulting Rome whatsoever. Even bishop Ambrose said that the bishops held the keys and not just the bishop of Rome. All this is nothing new. The Roman Catholic church is a latecomer. Here is what Ambrose said at the end of the fourth century  from Paul Johnsons' History of Christianity:

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing
aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed
Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles
to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

It was much much later as Roman church authority grew and it finally consolidated enough power to from the Roman Cathoic church. Besides, Peter was never a bishop of Rome anyway. Historians know that now. Peace, JohnR

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One: Papal Universal Jurisdiction
« Reply #12 on: Thu Aug 04, 2011 - 20:54:50 »
Brothers,

I especially commend to your attention on this topic the talk given by Metropolitan Kallistos (ne Timothy Ware).  About 49 minutes in length, it is well worth it (download to your iPod or mp3 player).

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/orientale_lumen_xv_conference/plenary_three

His Eminence deals honestly and fairly with the pre-Schism evidence on papal universal jurisdiction.  It is definitely from the Orthodox perspective, but as I say, it is honest.  He's not polemical and will admit points that are "in Rome's favor" on the issue.  Ultimately, however, he does list several items of evidence that make Rome's claims highly problematic.

Do give it a listen.