FB Primacy in East-Glen

Sophia Macik
June 16 at 2:59pm
Hello, I am Byzantine Catholic and I have a question about the conflict between
the Orthodox and Catholics. Are the main points of conflict threefold; the hiera
rchy in the Church, whether or not purgatory exists, and the Filioque controvers
y? On the side of the Orthodox which of these or others is most important or obj
ectionable?
Like Comment Share
3 people like this.
JS Adido Is no one going to say the S word?
June 16 at 3:27pm Like
Stuart L. Koehl Based on what both Orthodox and Catholic theologians, as well as
the members of the Joint International Theological Dialogue are concerned, the
only substantive issue preventing communion is the definition and exercise of th
e Petrine Ministry through the Roman Primacy. Everything else is terminological.
June 16 at 3:33pm Like 12
John Morris To Stuark L., Koehl:
I frankly doubt that the inernational theological dilogue has taken that positio
n. Besides the papacy there are other issues that divide us. Resolving the papac
y is the major matter that divides us, but there are other issues such as purgat
ory that must also be resolved before we will be ready to resume Communion betwe
en Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Fr. John.
Sophia Macik Does anyone have any suggestions on reading I could do for or again
st the papacy?
Mykola Krokosh IMHO, everyhing separating us is terminological, even the issue o
f the papacy. But everything also is important, because all dogmatical differenc
es are connected with eachother. Therefore, all questions need to be settled. An
d we should try to understand eachother in different theological contexts. Somet
imes we make the same expressions, but we have different understandings of what
is meant. And in same cases we have different expressions, but we mean the same.
So we need a theological rapprochement.
June 17 at 2:52am Like 2
Melchiades Lozano It's a bit tangential, forgive me for it otherwise, but I reme
mber years ago when I was young at my Greek Catholic parish, we had some literat
ure pamphlets that were from St Vladimir's I think or an OCA publication (I thin
k) and some parishioner thought it was inappropriate for a Catholic parish to ha
ve it because it was "too Orthodox" and not in line with "Catholic teaching"....
. I wish I knew what specific issues or teachings they were, but I did not agree
with him.....
June 17 at 4:05am Like
Nicholas E Denisenko The classic study on Orthodoxy and the Papacy is by Adam De
Ville: http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P01438
Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy // Books // University of Notre Dame Press
Among the issues that continue to divide the Catholic Church from the Orthodox C
hurch the two largest Christian bodies in the world, together comprising well over
a billion faithful the question of the papacy is widely acknowledged to be the mo
st significant stumbling block to their unification. For
undpress.nd.edu

Glenn Guadalupe I am not Orthodox, but Catholic, and have studied the issues tho
roughly. Regarding the papacy, I believe the ecclesiology of the Ecumenical Patr
iarchate is amenable to Catholic principles, but that of the Moscow Patriarchate
is not. On Purgatory, what the Catholic Church has defined is perfectly amenabl
e to Orthodox eschatology. On Filioque, also amenable. The main issue here is th
at the Latin dogma of Filioque is addressing something different than what the O
rthodox intend. The Latin dogma of filioque is addressing the communication of d
ivine Essence, whereas the Eastern dogma is addressing the origin of hypostasis
of the Holy Spirit,. Both dogmas, taken in an of themselves are wholly orthodox.
Mary Lanser Glenn Guadalupe: Is that an albino python around your neck? I had re
gular contact with a young one years ago who had been power fed. She loved human
contact and my scent in particular but I could not keep her.
Glenn Guadalupe Yes, it's an albino python. It was exciting,. Before I draped it
over my shoulders, the handler demonstrated that even the slightest external pr
essure on the snake would cause the snake to coil in the direction of the pressu
re. I tried not to sweat. haha.
Mary Lanser Yes. Snake-handling is not an idle name for the activity. You have t
o be so tuned in to how they respond. Instinct to instinct. The one I used to ha
ve around loved the ultra-violet lights of fish tanks and would darn near purr w
hen I had her in a room with lots of u-v light. I never minded her across my sho
ulders but I was extremely uncomfortable to have her move around my waist. I wou
ld always react and she came to know my negative response and would drop as soon
as she would feel it.
June 20 at 2:27pm Edited Like
James Arturo Sophia, the issue is the papacy, just the papacy.
We have our hierarchy and the Latin Church has theirs. Canon law of both the Eas
t and West says we are sui juris. This is not an issue.
The filioque has not been an issue for centuries.
Purgatory has never been an issue; we each maintain our own traditions regarding
the continuing process of theosis after death, and the canons of the Union of B
rest precluded these differences from becoming matters of controversy.
John Morris To James Arturo:
The Eastern Catholic solution which is to have unity for the sake of unity despi
te very different doctrines is not acceptable for Eastern Orthodox. In order to
have unity, we have to resolve our dotrinal differences, not ignore them a...See
More
June 21 at 2:18pm Edited Like 1
Stuart L. Koehl Father John just uses that as an excuse. If we take him at his w
ord, the Churches were never in communion ever, because they were never truly un
ited in doctrinal expression.
June 21 at 2:32pm Unlike 4
Mary Lanser Father refuses to see that reality.
Glenn Guadalupe Michael Frost, Rome's "official" position Iis greatly misunderst
ood. Primacy/supremacy are identical issues, I believe, since "primacy" is often
conflated with "supremacy," and "supremacy" is always conflated with "absolute
power." If it can be proven that "primacy" does not equate to "absolute power" a
ccording to the teaching of Vatican 1, then it would be sufficient to resolve th
e matter, imo, and my statement about the closeness to the EP's ecclesiology is
valid. The issue of infallibility revolves around three things (correct me if I'
m wrong): (1) that the Pope's infallibility is separate from the Church's infall
ibility; (2) that the Pope's infallibility makes the Pope ALONE infallibie when
it is utilized; (3) that the Pope is the only one infallible in the Church and i
s the source of the Church's infallibility (i.e., any infallibility possessed by
the Church exists simply because the Pope's singular infallibility protects the
Church). If these three concepts can be proven to be false according to Catholi
c teaching, then I believe the issue can be resolved. What do you think?
Glenn Guadalupe Oh, and one other issue of great importance, and just as greatly
misunderstood: the statement in the decree on infallibility "not from the conse
nt of the Church." Waaaaay too many believe this means that the Church is exclud
ed from the formulation of an ex cathedra decree. That was never the intention o
f the Vatican 1 Fathers, though many Catholics misunderstand it to mean exactly
that. The text itself, the background debates, and the official Relatio of Vatic
an 1 on the decree on Infallibility (the official explanation of the Decree give
n at Vatican 1) dictates that such an interpretation of that phrase is false.
Beni Lauricella "The Eastern Catholic solution which is to have unity for the sa
ke of unity despite very different doctrines is not acceptable for Eastern Ortho
dox"....Father John, God bless you, but that statement about "the Eastern Cathol
ic solution" is so far from sight of land. That statement is truly lost at sea w
ith no hope of reaching dry land.
Beni Lauricella Michael Frost: your statement: "Few words are scarier than "has
full, supreme and universal power over the Church." Except those words which the
n follow: "And he is always free to exercise this power." Chilling. Absolute pow
er. See Lord Acton." The way you paint the picture makes the Latin Pope look lik
e Darth Vader. Makes me even more secure in my communion with the Latin Church a
nd her Pope. Prouder than ever to be who I am as a Greek Catholic. When REAL for
mal reunion happens, I will feel so much better in blending back into my mother
church, the Greek Orthodox Church. I will have done it the right way, according
to my conscience and in accordance to an ancient notion of fidelity to my Christ
ian brethren.
Glenn Guadalupe The statement that the college of bishops has no authority as a
college without its head is simply Apostolic Canon 34. That's wholly orthodox. E
very bishop is a vicar of Christ according to V2, so that should not be a big de
al. That he is always free to exercise this power does not mean that his exercis
e of it is unlimited. It simply means that it is uncoerced - i.e., that it is bo
rne of free will. You must become aware of the historic context of the papacy's
struggle to free the Church from the control of the State in the Middle Ages to
fully appreciate what that statement means. I know that the Orthodox have been a
bit more permissive/ accepting about State control of the Church than the Catho
lic Church has, so the full significance of the orthodoxy of that statement migh
t be lost on an Orthodox Christian. As far as the term "universal," I don't see
the problem. That's one term that is amenable to the EP;s ecclesiology. I think
the issue comes down to the term "full and supreme." Does this mean "absolute po
wer?" I can argue it does not. If it can be proven, like I said, that it does no
t mean "absolute power," then that would go a long way to resolving the matter,
don't you think?
Beni Lauricella Glenn Guadalupe, we had a huge discussion on the Relatio which,
surprisingly/not surprisingly had not enough thoughtful consideration from some
our Orthodox regulars here.
Glenn Guadalupe Beni Lauricella, perhaps Fr. Morris is not aware of the struggle
s that Eastern Catholics have had to preserve their heritage in the Catholic Chu
rch.
Beni Lauricella I don't think he understands fully, due to not being Eastern Cat
holic.
Beni Lauricella But I chuckle when I see non-Eastern Catholics presuming to know
what we really believe, think, experience...
Beni Lauricella When one understands us, it is through a real Christian empathy
of the experience, through a blessed unity of suffering and desire to be one's b
rother's keeper...
Glenn Guadalupe Beni Lauricella, I obviously missed that discussion on the Relat
io. hehe. I think there are a lot, BOTH Catholics and Orthodox who don't want to
even consider the ramifications of this little-known official document of Vatic
an 1. I think Catholics who want to disregard it want to maintain the "absolute
power" misconception about the papacy. I think NON-Catholics who want to disrega
rd it don't want to even consider that the teaching of V1 might be validly patri
stic in any way. I bet Orthodox don't even know that the Relatio practically res
tated Apostolic Canon 34 as being applicable to papal definitions, all the while
depending on a misinterpretation of the phrase "not from the consent of the Chu
rch" to maintain an (imo, unfounded) opposition to the teaching.
Beni Lauricella The Relatio is a major deal. The Melkite Patriarch at the time o
f V1 was one of many who had problems with Papal Infallibility, etc. The real de
al is that the acceptable universal understanding was not yet to happen. The pro
blem was the TIMING of V1's real teaching/declarations.
Beni Lauricella One may take their whole lifetime to try and get it and never ge
t, or one might spend a few months or years and get it very well.
Bob Gardner Fr. John Morris I would sum up the eastern Catholic position as not
making a mountain over a molehill. I really think the Antioch Church should cons
ider holding an inquisition as I'm sure that the church's guidelines for communi
on must be being violated.
Glenn Guadalupe Agreed Beni. I've studied the matter thoroughly. Patriarch Jusse
f was one of the members of the Commission de postulatis at V1, which was respon
sible for admitting what the topics were to be discussed at the Council. During
one of its meetings, he personally expressed his belief in the doctrine, but did
not believe it should be dogmatized. The doctrine of infallibility actually did
not make it on the original agenda of the Council, and was added much later.
Glenn Guadalupe Michael Frost, can you please be more concise about your objecti
on? From what you wrote, it seems it is the degree of obedience that is your own
concern. This puzzles me, because it seems you are implyingg Orthodox do not ow
e any sort of canonical obedience to your head bishops. Our canons say that the
purpose of the primatial office is (1) to act according to the needs of the Chur
ch (not according to his mere will and fancy), and (2) in communion with his bro
ther bishops. What part of that do you object to?
John Morris To Glenn Guadalupe;
We Eastern Orthodox do not claim the same degree of obedience to our primates as
Catholics have to the Pope. In thje Easterrn Orthodox Church a Primate is the p
residing only the officer over the Holy Synod of his Church. He must obey the de
cisions of the majority of the Holy Synod.
I used to think that the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism c
ould be resolved through negotiations. My expereicene here has caused me to chan
ge my mind. Whenever I express a genuine Eastern Orthodox point of view, I am at
tacked without mercy by self-proclaimed defenders of Catholicism. I now have rea
l doubts that we can ever come together.
Fr. John,.
Nick Chinappi ^pity party.
Beni Lauricella Should we rip on the conciliarism-only model now? What, seriousl
y, is the problem of a unified papal-conciliar system, like we had back before t
he big break-up?
Beni Lauricella Sophia Macik, I hope you see that, INDEED, the pain point IS the
papacy...
Beni Lauricella Tell me what you think that means to you, Michael. Open that quo
te up, as you think it means.
Beni Lauricella I do not think it means what you think it means...
Beni Lauricella you think the Pope of Rome can just walk in an hijack an entire
autocephalous church like he logs into his Facebook account?
Beni Lauricella that line of thinking is in complete contradiction to all of Rom
e's very explicit teaching that the dignity and integrity of every autocephalous
apostolic church must remain intact. whether there is a history of causing dama
ge in another jurisdiction by lower ranking clergy, with the help of politicians
, that is a completely different story.
Beni Lauricella i have seen some horrendous internal damage Eastern patriarchs h
ave done to there own jurisdictions......

Beni Lauricella You won't see me disagree with you on the noted abuses in the Ro
man church. However, what does that have to do with the "what it should be" part
of the argument? So there is pastoral discretion in certain situations. So what
? I do not believe in contraception personally, and still retain my Greek belief
system because my church allows that, as does yours.
Bob Gardner Michael Frost how about commenting on the obvious shortcomings of yo
ur side? Indeed, we'd be allot further along the ecumenical road if there was a
true primacy in EO, and not just a supposed primate. For instance, who is able t
o get all the Orthodox jurisdictions to the table? The answer is no one. The Mos
cow Patriarch certainly isn't going to listen to Constantinople when it comes ri
ght down to it. Which means that the same type of deference that was given to th
e first See (Rome) during the first millennium is no longer granted to the first
See in orthodoxy.
Beni Lauricella See, Michael, the Orthodox not in communion with Rome, just as R
ome and the churches in communion with her, have to dig deep on this subject, ju
st as they did in the beginning. The ancient church DID have a system, but it wa
s abandoned by all for a period, then has been resumed over the centuries again.
Have you noticed, in general, the general flow of Eastern Churches back INTO co
mmunion with Rome, as opposed to away from it?
Bob Gardner Well I see plenty of internet Orthodox running around discussing the
supposed heresies of Rome without the benefit of an ecumenical concilar stateme
nt . Nor do I see in Orthodoxy the ability to heal the schism because they canno
t all agree. And I'm sure the schism within the body of Christ is a significant
issue.
Bob Gardner Or take the issue of the date of Easter. Moscow says stick in your e
ar, who can say "yes, let's discuss it."?
Beni Lauricella I know you are WRO, Michael. I don't disagree with you on proble
ms within the Roman communion. For example, St Alexis Toth is dear to my heart,
but, in his situation, i wouldn't have left communion. I do not fault him in the
least, though, and laud him for his great courage to confront to totally dysfun
ctional Roman heirarchy in America at the time. Even silence from Rome just mean
s I get louder.
Stuart L. Koehl The Phenomenon of Anti-Papism
The phenomenon of anti-papism, understood as the denial of a primus for the univ
ersal Church and the elevation of such denial to a trait that allegedly defines
the whole Orthodox Church, is, properly speaking, heretical. In saying this, I a
m returning the favor, so to speak, to all those who have taken upon themselves
the onerous task of defending Orthodoxy against all kinds of heresy. And heresy
is all they see. Any differences, not necessarily in matters of dogma, but also
in language, in vestments, in appearance, is immediately and solemnly denounced
as heresy.
Anticipating the reaction of some who may find such a statement dangerous and in
flammatory, I wonder if it is possible that anti-papism could be confused with O
rthodoxy. And if there is such a possibility, is it not all the more necessary a
nd urgent that we speak out against such a false identification, distinguishing

the Church to which we belong and which we serve--I speak here as an Orthodox cl
ergyman--from that party which has constructed for itself an new self-identity e
xclusively based on the hatred for the office of Peter?
Nevertheless, the phenomenon of anti-papism has become increasingly more observa
ble within the Orthodox Church. Those who want to elevate their dislike for the
Pope into a definition for the Orthodox Church as a whole do not realize that, i
f they are right, their version of the Church would be reduced to little more th
an a religious club that can trace its origins to no earlier than the schism of
1054--a club that would owe its raison d'tre entirely to the very opponent it opp
oses. Indeed, we cannot continue to accept as "genuinely" Orthodox those things
that are simply the opposite of what the Catholic Church believes. Orthodoxy can
not be merely reactionary, possessed, as it were, by the demonic spirit of naysa
ying, bereft of any creative powers in theology, where what constitutes "me" is
always a negation of the "other". Truth, I would suggest, is antinomian, and thu
s , never antithetical.
--John Panteleimon Manossakis, "For the Unity of All", pp.25-26
Stuart L. Koehl "For example, St Alexis Toth is dear to my heart, but, in his si
tuation, i wouldn't have left communion."
Sorry, Beni, but out the door in a second. It is our duty as Greek Catholics to
defend the integrity of our Tradition against all attempts to impose latinizatio
ns, even (to quote Fr. Lawrence Cross), "to the point of schism, if necessary".
Glenn Guadalupe Regarding Humanae Vitae, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the
time lauded it. Michael Frost, you are unaware of how that encyclical actually c
ame about. It was a thoroughly collegial act. After the commission's recommendat
ion which the Pope disagreed with, the encyclical was submitted to the Council f
or a vote, and over 90% of the Fathers voted in favor of it. The Pope had the op
tion of promulgating it via conciliar authority or his personal authority, and h
e simply decided to do it through his personal authority as faithfully represent
ing the Church. No example here of the absolute power you claim the Pope possess
es, nor that the Catholic Church teaches such a thing. With respect to your ques
tion about when the Church practiced "monarch-conciliar" model, you name one of
our commonly-recognized ecumenical councils that did not have the confirmation o
f the Pope of Rome, and we'll agree with you that the maonarch-conciliar" model
did not exist. As far as the reset of the quote from LG that you gave, you misun
derstand the first part, which is simply part of Apostolic Canon 34. The rest of
it regarding the free exercise of the primacy is related to my comment earlier
about how the primacy is exercised according to our canons. If you can name one
instance where the Pope of Rome exercised the primacy under those conditions in
the early Church - that is (1) according to the needs of the Church, and (2) in
communion with his brother bishops - wherein he was refused by someone in the Ch
urch (OTHER THAN THE HERETICS, that is), then we will agree with you that the pr
imacy as taught by V1 and V2, and enshrined in our canons, is not patristic. As
mentioned earlier, I understand that the EO seem to generally not mind being und
er State control, so EO will not appreciate the Church's insistence of the freed
om of its hierarchy. In the Ukraine right now, there are thousands leaving the M
oscow Patriarchate because they see it as merely a tool of the State. Some of th
e Ukranian Orthodox not in communion with the MP are even opting to join the Rom
an communion. I believe there are Orthodox who are simply fed up with a State-ru
n Church, and can .see value in the Catholic Church's insistence on the freedom
of the Church from State control. You see that as something bad, and see a probl
em when we insist that the Pope must be free of State control when he exercises
the primacy (!) according to the needs of the Church and (2) in communion with h
is brother bishops. Until the Orthodox divest themselves of the idea that State
control of the Church is OK, I imagine there will not be communion. There is a b
etter chance of reunion wit that portion of the EOC that is not State-run, such
as those Churches loyal to the EP (though corporate reunion is the ideal goal fr
om the CC perspective). Unfortunately, the largest "denomination" of the EOC is
the ROC, a state-run Church, so it might take a while for that mentality to leav
e the EOC.
James Arturo Glenn, Frost gets a rise out of bashing the Catholic Church. I'm su
re he's fully aware of how Humanae Vitae came about.
Glenn Guadalupe Oh. I wasn't aware he was bashing the CC. I sincerely thought he
was not aware of the collegial means by which it was produced. After all, his p
oint was that the dictatorial monarchy of the papacy produced it. What better wa
y to refute him than to show that it was not produced in such fashion. smile emo
ticon Of course, I just joined this group, so I trust you have a better grasp of
his general mein.
Nick Chinappi Nah. He's bashing. He's always good for a Frosty rant here and the
re.
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart K, have you read the debate between the EP and the MP aft
er the Ravenna meeting in 2007? If that's any indication, MOST of the EOC is NOT
anti-papal. However, the group that is - the ROC - happens to be the largest EO
C in that communion. Throw that in with Protestant converts to the EOC who have
carried their anti-Catholicism into the EOC, and that makes for a rather vocifer
ous crowd.
Glenn Guadalupe Btw, if we understand "papism" according to some Catholic dictio
naries I've read, as an excessive glorification of the office of the papacy, I'd
consider myself "anti-papism" too. smile emoticon I'm all for the personal, sup
reme authority of the Pope, but I deny the "absolute power" mentality that I've
come across from certain Catholics and the SSPX (besides).
John Morris I very strongly suspect that Moscow speaks for far more Eastern Orth
odox than does Constantinople on the matter of primacy. We do not need an Easter
n Orthodox pope.
We converts do not need to carry ani-papalism into Eastern Orthodoxy. It was alr
eady ...See More
Mike Andrew What Stuart L. Koehl quoted from; John Panteleimon Manossakis, "For
the Unity of All," is a very interesting book. I did not finish reading it yet.
Glenn Guadalupe Hi Fr. John. I wonder what will happen if the Oriental Orthodox
and the Eastern Orthodox unite. The Oriental Orthodox have a very heady concepti
on of their patriarchs, not a mere primacy of honor as you claim for the EO patr
iarchs. I suppose it will not matter if the two groups maintain separate hierarc
hies once reunited. But that's neither here nor there for this thread ---------just mumbling. Sorry for brining it up.
Beni Lauricella Stuart, your feeling and attitude is perfectly understandable, r

egarding St Alexis.
John Morris To Glenn Guadalupe:
As far as I know none of the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs claims any authority o
ver any Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate. Therefore the powers of an Oriental Ortho
dox Patriarch are an internal matter for the Oriental Orthodox. I suspect that w
e would have parallel jusisdictions in Communion with each other rather than an
administrative merger. If Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church were to ever
resolve our doctrinal differences and enter into Communion with each other, the
Catholic Church could keep its papal administration and we would retain our con
ciliar system. There is room in the Church for more than one administrative mode
l.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner Also Saint John Paul II's invitation to discuss the primacy was met
mostly with silence from the EO, and is not a topic in the upcoming council. It'
s almost as if there is no organ by which the Orthodox church can address the is
sue.
Bob Gardner Who says Moscow speaks for most EO's in regard to the primacy? How d
oes one gauge such a thing?
Nick Chinappi Bob,
Realistically, they can't because the EP and his synod don't agree with the MP a
nd his synod. Both have issued Synodal statements, though Moscow was in essence
undermining balamand as the Metropolitan of Bursa pointed out.
Nick Chinappi Bob,
Constantinople historically "spoke for Orthodoxy". Moscow is salty over that.
John Morris To Bob Gardner:
The International Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation is discussing the i
ssue of primacy. Once they reach agreement, they will submit it to Rome and to t
he Eastern Orthodox. Then the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox
Churches will respond to the proposal.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner So after a thousand years of it being an issue the best the Orthodox
church can offer is "a very loosly defined primacy of honor?" That's just sad.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi ^ well said.
Bob Gardner Fr John Morris I do not see the work of the IOCTC reflected in most
of the comments made by the EO's in this forum. I don't mean to paint with too b
road a brush, as there are some who are a bit more fair minded.
John Morris To Bob Gardner:
Why is it sad? I think that a willingness on our part to accord Rome any kind of
primacy is more than generous on the part of us Eastern Orthodox. If the Cathol
ics expect the Eastern Orthodox to accept papal authority as defined by Vatican
I they are wasting their time, because there is no way that we could recognize p
apal universal jurisdiction or infallibility.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi Fr John Morris
What would you do if your Hierarchs accepted these teachings?
John Morris To Nick Chinappi:
I assure you that Eastern Orthodox hierarchs will never accept papal infallibili
ty, nor will they accept universal papal jurisdiction if it means giving up our
conciliar system and allowing the Pope to have authority over us. The best you c
an hope for is a very loosly defined primacy of honor for the Pope as first amon
g equals, but without the kind of power that he exercises in the Catholic Church
over us. I write over us, because I do not think that any Eastern Orthodox offi
cial would attempt to interfere in the internal administration of the Catholic C
hurch. Therefore, in the event of reunion, Rome could keep its papal system and
we would keep our conciliar system.
Fr. John/.
You ignored my question. What would you do if they did accept these teachings?
Beni Lauricella So what kind of church unity can exist if it is just another hea
ted disputed away from yet another schism? This is a major problem of the counci
l only model. Very flimsy model. Belies a very flimsy and poor understanding of
a universal primate, too.
John Morris To Nick Chinappi;
I did answer your question. There is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church wil
l ever recognize papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction. That is my anwer
. In other words, it is an impossibility that the Eastern Orthodox Church would
ever recognize papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.
Fr. John.
The Hierarchs at Florence accepted it, so it's not really an impossibility. I wa
s asking you a hypothetical question. I guess that's too much to ask.
John Morris To NIck Chinappi:
The hierarchs at Florence certainly did not accept papal infallibility. They acc
epted a very loosly defined papal supramacy with the provision that the historic
al rights of the Eastern Patriarchates would be honored. The issue of papal infa
llibility had not yet arisen. It was only in 1870 that papal infallibility becam
e a dogma of the Catholic Church. Besides, once they were free of pressure from
the emperor, the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs repudiated the Council of Florence.
I answered your hypothetical question. However, since you insist. If the leaders
of Eastern Orthodoxy were to surrender to papal domination, the clergy and fait
hful of the Eastern Orthodox Church would repudiate them. You can take Florence
as your example. The leaders of Eastern Orthodoxy compromised the Eastern Orthod
ox Faith at Florence. For that reason, they were repudiated by the Eastern Ortho
dox clergy and faithful.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi Cute double speak Fr John. You beat the drum when it comes to Cons
tantinople II excommunicating Vigilius but ignore that this was forced by Justin
ian, but attempt to explain away Florence by blaming the Emperor. I can't think
of a better example of intellectual dishonesty.
Ps: you're correct that they didn't accept papal infallibility at Florence, but
they did accept universal jurisdiction. I figured you would realize what I was t
rying to say. I was just saying that accepting universal jurisdiction isn't real
ly an impossibility as it's happened before.
Anyways, thanks for avoiding my hypothetical question. I'm done now. Good night.
You are one of the worst offenders on this list. You constantly badger me becaus
e I advocate the Eastern Orthodox position.
Florence is irrelevant, because the Eastern Orthodox repudiated it.
Fr. John.
I don't break any rules on this forum. I was just asking you a simple question.
That's all.
John Morris To Nick Chinappi'
I never said that you break the rules of this forum, but you stil badger anyone
who advocates the Eastern Orthodox position as I do here. Your style is very com
bative and not conducive to acheiving agreement that would make reunion possible
.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi So basically, if the official members of the dialogue accepted Rom
es claims with a couple provisos to endure Eastern rights wouldn't be stomped on
, you'd repudiate it? What are doing here?
Beni Lauricella Does the council want a puppet Pope? If the council has legitima
te authority, then let it have a head with legitimate authority. It has nothing
to fear. What is it, really? You fear a tyrant Pope? You can't even handle MP he
avy handedness. Once you handle that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you will
find you can move on in peace with each other and then with Rome. Rome worked a
s it should best in full communion, and so do councils. It is just weakened stat
es for all parties now.
Nonsense. I don't give Eastern Orthodox a hard time, just you and Frost. Why? Yo
u want the Catholic Church to repudiate their teaching in favor of a nonsensical
model. When I say nonsensical model, I don't mean Orthodoxy, I mean your Protes
tant-laced orthodoxy.
I am engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Catholics. You as a Catholic are suppo
sed to be engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Eastern Orthodox., Instead, you a
re trying to convert us to Roman Catholciism.
Nick Chinappi That isn't true Fr John. I just take issue when people tell me the
Catholic Church teaches falsehood. That's it.
I am much more qualified to determine what is Eastern Orthodoxy than you are. My
Eastern Orthodoxy is not Protestant laced. It is pure Eastern Orthodoxy.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi Fr John
In all of our discussions, I've always tried to find middle ground with you. The
moment we make a shred of progress, you back peddle and go into a spiel about h
ow the OC doesn't accept X doctrine. Who's not dialoguing Father?
If you're here to dialogue, why do you dismiss everything Catholics tell you? Ev
en when they tell you you are misrepresenting catholic teaching. Why?
What you consider is a middle ground is hardly middle. It is hard nosed uncompro
mising Roman Cathoicism. I have been totally hoest about what is possible here.
Fr. John.
///What you consider is a middle ground is hardly middle. It is hard nosed uncom
promising Roman Cathoicis. I have been totally hoest about what is possible here
.///
Right. And you've basically said that Catholics need to discard papal infallibil
ity, universal jurisdiction, purgatory, the immaculate conception, our understan
ding of original sin, the Mediatrix teaching... What did I miss?
How is that not telling us that we must convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?

Nick Chinappi Like, I don't care if you don't teach purgatory Fr John Morris, ju
st don't say WE CANT. I don't care if you don't teach the Immaculate Conception,
just don't say WE CANT. Catch my drift? Is that really hard nosed?
What do you expect from us? Your demand is that we surrender and accept Catholic
doctrine. There has to be some sort of comprimse possible here, because under y
our terms reunion is impossible. I think that a recognition of the pope as posse
ssing a primacy of honor is the best compromise. The Catholics could keep their
papal administration, but could not impose it on us. This would be a fair compro
mise between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic position.
Fr. John.
Beni Lauricella Is the original poster, Sophia Macik, even reading this thread a
nymore?
How are we united if we both teach different doctrine? In order to be truly reun
ited, we have to agree on doctrine or the union is a sham and not a real union.
...See More
Nick Chinappi ///How are we united if we both teach different doctrin? In order
to be truly reunited, we have to agree on doctrine or the union is a sham and no
t a real union.///
Yeah and your "compromise" is us repudiating our doctrine for yours Fr John. And
in your blind hypocrisy you tell me that I'm hard nosed. Fr John, I don't care
to continue this conversation with you. I'm done.
Beni Lauricella The schism is a sham, Father. Let's fix that and worry about the
petty stuff later.
John Morris To Beni Lauricella:
The schism is not a sham. There are serious doctrinal differences between Easter
n Orthodoxy and Catholicism. These must be resolved or any union between us woul
d be a sham.
Fr. John.
Beni Lauricella That's just reverse engineering.
Beni Lauricella Any "real doctrinal differences" have mostly been formed because
of schism.
John Morris To Beni Lauricella:

Regardles of how they were formed or why, the fact remains that there are seriou
s doctrinal differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.
That is why we have an international theological dialogue to hash these...See Mo
re
Nick Chinappi Lol.
Nick Chinappi The fires of purgatory y'all.
Nick Chinappi Bring your marshmallows.
If you read my post above, you will see that I believe that with some tweaking C
atholic doctrine can be acceptable to Eastern Orthodox.
Fr. John.
June 22 at 12:05am Edited Like
Beni Lauricella Wouldn't it be fun to hash it all out at another good old fashio
ned ecumenical council, with the Pope presiding in charity, like we used to do?
Sophia Macik Beni Lauricella Yes I am reading this although I have had a busy we
ekend and got stung by a stingray lol. I am interested in the topic although I d
on't have tons to say on it because I don't know how well I understand the it. H
owever, I am a happy listener and am hoping to find time to read up on it.
Stuart L. Koehl The Need For Primacy
Concerning the question of whether the Orthodox Church needs a primus, and espec
ially at the universal level, I will appeal to a personal experience. In 2005, I
was given permission to attend the deliberations of the Internationa...See More
Stuart L. Koehl Also worth considering:
The sacred canons (like the 3rd Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, the 28th
of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 36th of the Quinisextunct Council) RA
NK the cities, attributing to some the status of Metropolitanates, ...See More
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, your mention of ranking and order is important. In the r
esponse of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the invitation of Pius IX to Vatic
an 1, the Patriarch noted that while all the Patriarchates are equal in DIGNITY/
honor, the See of Rome was first according to RANK and the canons. The idea of m
ere "primacy of honor" is a novelty introduced into modern EO rhetoric which rea
lly has no place in the patristic history of the EOC I have read that the idea t
hat head bishops only have a mere primacy of honor was first introduced by the R
OC - well not exactly the ROC ,but Tsar Peter the Great. He sought to control th
e Church and, wishing to not have any competition from any Church authority, int
roduced a novel concept of a synod with a mere figurehead for a head bishop, thu
s violating the prescriptions of Apostolic Canon 34. The propaganda that "all bi
shops are absolutely equal and only differentiated by degree of honor" was impos
ed on the ROC for over 200 years. This naturally filtered into the self-concepti
on of the ROC. And to this day, the MP and the EP are at odds as to the exact na
ture of primacy. The EP has maintained the patristic understanding, while the RO
C and its orbit of Churches had allowed itself to be influenced by a novel eccle
siology introduced by the secular power.
June 22 at 7:24am Edited Unlike 2
Stuart L. Koehl "The idea of mere "primacy of honor" is a novelty introduced int
o modern EO rhetoric which really has no place in the history of the EOC"
As I have repeatedly stated, the concept of primacy of honor is misunderstood bo
th by Latin and Orthodox theologians today, who equate it with an honorific prim
acy. But in late antiquity, where the concept of honor had a much different mean
ing, a primacy of honor based upon the auctoritas or prestige of a person or ins
titution had real teeth. According to one eminent classicist, "Auctoritas is les
s than a command but more than a suggestion. It is a suggestion that cannot safe
ly be ignored". Thus the question of jurisdiction tends to fall out of the equat
ion. The Pope's primacy of honor, based on the enormous auctoritas of the Church
of Rome, was such that nobody would do anything extraordinary without seeking t
he approval of the Pope of Rome; and if the Pope of Rome objected to an action,
or a new doctrine, its legitimacy would be called into question, and its recepti
on by the whole Church threatened. The Pope could not give orders to people beyo
nd his very limited territorial jurisdiction, but when he spoke, people listened
, and they defied him at their own peril, because his auctoritas was greater tha
n that of any other Patriarch.
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, I agree with your analysis for the most part. Your prese
ntation strikes a chord with how the Oriental Orthodox understand the role of th
eir own head bishops - much headier than the mere primacy of honor espoused by c
ertain EO. In the OOC, from what I have observed, they also utilize the term "pr
imacy of honor," but it is, as you say, a primacy with real teeth.
Stuart L. Koehl The Coptic Church, in particular, always had a much more expansi
ve view of the primatial power of the Pope of Alexandria than actually applied t
o the Pope of Rome until very late in the day. The Pope of Alexandria could, fro
m the third century onward, appoint and depose bishops on his own authority, ind
ependent of his synod. From Clement of Alexandria through Cyril of Alexandria, t
he Archbishops of Alexandria probably wielded more raw power than any other bish
ops in Christendom. Why the Church of Alexandria developed such a strong monarch
ial Patriarchate, while elsewhere a more synodal (not a "pure synodal") model ev
olved is probably due to history, including the prevalence of gnosticism and oth
er forms of heterodoxy and heresy in the early Alexandrine Church, which necessi
tated a strong hand to impose orthodoxy (with the small o).
Glenn Guadalupe Until I read the debates between the EP and the MP after Ravenna
, I was not even aware that the notion that headship had a theological (specific
ally, Trinitarian) foundation even existed in the EOC. This is the ecclesiology
of the EP. I would also note that among the Churches of Syrian origin (including
the ACOE, the Syriac Orthodox, etc.), primacy is a doctrinal matter, so much so
that when the Indian Orthodox sought administrative independence from the Syria
c Orthodox, charges of heresy started flying around initially. QUESTION: Do you
think canonizing auctoritas would be OK, particularly of the Pope of Rome. Canon
6 of Nicea was established because there was an immediate crisis regarding the
rights of the Abp of Alexandria. It's not that these primatial rights did not ex
ist beforehand. Given the intensity of the debate about universal primacy, it wo
uld probably be good for the Orthodox to reassess the decree of Vatican 1 on pri
macy (never mind the infallibility for now). However, once canonized, would auct
oritas become potestas - which seems to be the objection of certain EO in the fi
rst place.
Stuart L. Koehl The paradox is as Manoussakis put it: Because they have no conce
pt of primacy, the Orthodox are unable to resolve the problem of primacy.
Mary Lanser Stuart L. Koehl: modern Orthodoxy has no concept or primacy or Ortho
doxy never had?
Beni Lauricella Sophia Macik: Stung by a stingray??? Yeah, I'm sure reunificatio
n was the last thing on your mind this weekend! Hope you are doing better now!
Stuart L. Koehl "modern Orthodoxy has no concept or primacy or Orthodoxy never h
ad?"
Sorry, I thought that was clear: MODERN Orthodoxy--basically defined as Orthodox
y since the middle of the19th century--has no real concept of primacy above the
local level, and tends to look at all bishops as being sacramentally but not ecc
lesiologically equal. That's just congregationalism in fancy dress.
June 22 at 8:47am Unlike 1
Mary Lanser It was clear to me but I wondered if it was to others.
Stuart L. Koehl I'm finding Manoussakis' book a real treasury. He puts more clea
rly a number of concepts and ideas which I had held in a more inchoate form, and
backs them up with a wealth of patristic and philosophical references, which is
quite remarkable in a book of just 100 pages.
Beni Lauricella Stuart, regarding auctoritas and potestas, isn't the potestas al
so kind of intertwined with auctoritas? Save for the coercion element of potesta
s, the manifestation of the socially held knowledge would be imminent. This is,
at this point, how I recognize and reconcile the "universal jurisdiction" proble
m/question. It's not like the Pope can just hijack an entire autocephalous churc
h, but due to commonly held holy wisdom and knowledge, those calling upon the Po
pe's active authoritative intervention, are opening the way for an implicit pote
stas, no? You are the scholar here, so some more thoughts on this would be appre
ciated. I know you've spoken on this before, but my mind is occupied with a tenmonth old boy most of the time now. haha!
Beni Lauricella Stuart, I have got to check out Manoussakis' book now. Thanks fo
r the mention of it!
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, I believe we can trace a healthy concept of the primacy
from the EP down through history. I think it is the ROC and its sateliites (and
the obvious influence of their numbers) that is the--- problem.
Stuart L. Koehl A person or office may have both auctoritas and potestas, but th
e two tend to be disencumbered. For instance, a magistrate may have a great deal
of potestas, but little auctoritas, which may require him to defer to a magistr
ate whose office has less potestas but greater auctoritas. Indeed, a private cit
izen with great auctoritas may be able to stare down a magistrate with potestas
up the wazoo.
Basically, auctoritas is recognized and is charismatic in nature; potestas is be
stowed and is juridical in nature. Auctoritas persuades, potestas compels. Somet
imes the two work in tandem, as when Al Capone said, "You can get more with a ki
nd word--and a gun--than with a kind word alone".
For a Church example of auctoritas, one can look to the First Council of Nicaea,
where a group of men known as "confessors" (because they had survived imprisonm
ent and torture at the hands of Diocletian and other persecuting Emperors) stood
second only to the Emperor Constantine himself, even though some of them were n
ot bishops, or even ordained ministers of any sort. The scars they bore on their
persons bore witness to their suffering for the faith, and gave them a moral au
thority that exceeded that of most bishops.
Mary Lanser That happens today with those who are recognized as holy men and wom
en and those who are seen as mere prelates. It is why St. Symeon the New Theolog
ian said that only monastics would ever see the divine light, and that not even
Bishops, once out of the monastic enclosure, could see that light.
Mary Lanser It's not that I fully agree with St. Symeon but he does testify to a
kind of truth in his thinking.
Mary Lanser This is the same kind of thinking that threw Catholics and the Catho
lic Church into a period of spiritual darkness from the mid-1700s, approximately
, till nearing the turn of the 20th century.
Stuart L. Koehl The understanding of the Petrine Ministry as charismatic can be
a very scary proposition for some people.
John Morris To Stuart L. Koehl:
The Eastern Orthodox do have a concept of primacy, but that primacy is limited.
Within an autocephalous Church there is a Primate, but that Primate is subject t
o the will of the Holy Synod of his Church. That does not mean that he ...See Mo
re
Mary Lanser And you don't see any rumple in that rug do you?, Father John.
Mary Lanser If you all already agree on what primacy means why then is that to b
e a topic of a general council?
Mary Lanser If you all cannot agree on what primacy means that Manoussakis is ri
ght.
John Morris To Mary Lanser:
As I indicated there is disagreement between Moscow and Constantinople on how a
Church becomes autocephalous. There are also some who argue that Canon 28 of Cal
cedon gives Constantinople authority over Eastern Orthodox outside of traditiona

l Easten Orthodox countries. However, the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy disagrees an
d refuses to recognize the authority of Constantinople outside of its own Patria
rchate. I personally feel that the fact that we have some disagreements and can
discuss those disagreements is healthy for the Church. After all, we are not arg
uing over doctrine. We are arguing over administration.
Fr. John.
Nicholas E Denisenko Look for a book about primacy including essays from a numbe
r Orthodox and Catholic theologians in early 2016.
Glenn Guadalupe Father John, the difference is deeper than that. The EP believes
the basis for the primacy is theological, its authority inherent in the office.
The MP, on the other hand, believes the authority has a socio-political basis,
and delegated by the Synod. Those are major differences, differences that align
the EP's understanding more closely to the Catholic concept of primacy than the
MP's. However, EVERYONE - Catholic and Orthodox alike ((at least officially) agr
ees that this primacy must always be exercised collegially, in communion with th
e other bishops, never apart or separated from them. It is normal for Catholics,
at least, to say the authority of the Pope is "independent" but this is only in
the exact same sense as proposed by the EP - that is, it is from God, not deleg
ated by a human agency. However, as noted, that it is and must be exercised coll
egially is a common official teaching of both Churches. From the Catholic pov, i
t's a matter of a difference in canonical language, though I believe the ideas e
xpressed are the same (with the EP, at least).
I agree with Moscow. The authority held by Constantinople comes from the Church
acting in synod. That is how it historically evolved. The 2nd Ecumenical Council
gave Constantinople second rank after Rome. That authority was enhanced by Chal
cedon canon 28. However, the Church existed for over 300 years without Constanti
nople. Therefore, the authority of Constantinople is not of the essence of the C
hurch.
Fr. John.
Stuart L. Koehl Well, I'm going to stick with Manoussakis, and say your perspect
ive is both ahistorical and heretical.
My perspective is definitely no heretical, because it is held by many Eastern Or
thodox. This is a minor diagreement about administration. It has nothing to do w
ith the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. My perspective is historical. C
onstantinople owes its position to its status as the Bishop of the imperial city
, not to any supposed Apostolic origins. ]
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Then you have no principle of primacy. All Orthodoxy can do is argue
over practice. That's what Manoussakis says in his book. There's no guiding pri
nciple for primacy in modern Orthodoxy.

Stuart L. Koehl "My perspective is definitely no heretical, because it is held b
y many Eastern Orthodox. "
So, the monothelites were right because their view was held by many Eastern Orth
odox--all of them, in fact, except for Maximos the Confessor. In many way, Fathe
r, you are the most perfect of all straight men.
Mary Lanser Primacy is never the essence of the Church in any event for heaven's
sake!!
Stuart L. Koehl And you cannot have conciliarity, unless you have primacy--and v
ice versa.
Stuart L. Koehl A council implies a primus who calls it and presides over it.
Stuart L. Koehl I suppose we could resurrect the Roman Emperor. I'm still availa
ble for the job.
Mary Lanser The last real primate that Byzantine Orthodoxy had, Russian or Greek
, was an emperor....smile emoticon....No wonder things are a tad confused.
Mary Lanser You'd give your assent to an imperial rule but not a papal one. Phoo
ey!!...smile emoticon
Stuart L. Koehl Or perhaps it was a Sultan?
Mary Lanser Tell me again how old the Moscow patriarchate is/
Mary Lanser However fast you talk, Father John, you simply cannot put a pretty f
ace on any of this.
Mary Lanser But if your manner of dealing with things dominates at the general s
ynod then nothing at all will happen.
Glenn Guadalupe Father John, I believe the CC can agree that the authority of Co
nstantinople comes from the Church, but it comes from the authority of the Fathe
rs, the Church in history, not his immediate Synod. The Synod is bound by the au
thority of the Fathers to have a primate - to recognize among them who is first.
It is not the Synod that is the source of this authority, but the Sacred Tradit
ion of the Fathers.
June 22 at 12:12pm Edited Unlike 1
Yes a council implies a primus who calls it and presides over it. Holwever, it a
lso implies that real authority belongs to the council The presiding officer can
not impose his will on the council, but must abide by the will of the majority o
f the membes of the council. That means that the primus can be overridden by a c
ouncil.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Thanks Glenn!!
Stuart L. Koehl Anyway, this discussion puts me in mind of blessed Vladyka Vsevo
lod of Scopelos, who ran through all the alternative nexes of primacy, starting
with the Roman Emperors, then the Sultans, then the Tsars, then the Kommisars. E
ach one, he noted, was gone and not coming back (OK, Putin is doing his darnedes
t, but the point remains). The only logical nexus of primacy is the Bishop of Ro
me, and, Vladyka noted, this was universally recognized in the first millennium.
You can argue about how that primacy was defined, about how it was exercised, b
ut you cannot deny that it was real, it was universal, and it was recognized by
all.
Nick Chinappi Stuart
Do you have a link to the work of Vladyka Vsevolod? Was/is he orthodox or easter
n Catholic?
However, the primacy of Rome was due to the fact that Rome was the capital of th
e Empire. The primacy of Constantinople is due to the fact that it was the capia
l of the Empire. I know of no one in Eastern Orthodoxy who wants to take the pri
macy away from Constantinople. However, we do disagre on what that primacy means
and what powers it gives the Ecumenical Patriarch. Hopefully this will be resol
ved at the coming Great and Holy Councill.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Again Father John, Orthodox bishops are the first to remind everybod
y that Orthodoxy is NOT a democracy. It is not majority rule. So again that flie
s in the face of practice as well as principle. Confusion.
John Morris To Mary Lanser;
Orthodoxy is not a democracy in the sense that no one has the authority to chang
e the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, it does operate accordi
ng to democratic principles. In a parish the ultimate authority is a meeting of
the members of the parish. In our Archdioceser the highest authority over the te
mporal affairs of the Church is a convention of the Archdiocese representing the
clergy and laity. In the North American Antiochian Archdiocese the clergy and l
aity particiate in the election of our Bishops. The Metropolitan represents us o
n the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod is the highest authority in the Patrirchate of
Antioch. The Patriarch presides over the meetings of the Holy Synod, but must yi
eld to the authority of the Holy Synod which makes all important decisions of th
e Patriarchate. This follows canon 34 of the Holy Apostles which requires the Pr
imate to follow the will of the other Bishops of the Church over which he presid
es.
Fr. John;
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, yet when Canon 3 of Constantinople, and Canon 28 of Ch
alcedon was renewed by the Council of Trullo, the offending portions regarding t
he source of the primacy (that it was the capital of the empire) was REMOVED. As
you might know, by this time, Constantinople was claiming primacy through its a
postolic succession from St. Andrew. This finally brought Constantiniople in lin
e with the Traditional claims of the other Apostolic Sees who all claimed their
primacy through apostolic succession. I believe it can be agreed that the Church
divisions followed along civil lines. I believe it can also be agreed that metr
opoitan primacy was based on the importance of a city. However, patriarchal prim
acy was based on apostolic succession. Father, do you have a source when the EO
started using the "capital of the empire" line of reasoning again to claim prima
cy? It had certainly disappeared for a while, replaced by the claim to apostolic
succession from St. Andrew. Do you think the "capital city" reasing became prom
inent again when the ROC started claiming to be the "Third Rome?" I think that i
s very plausible, but it exposes a weakness in that particular EO rhetoric.
It is generally agreed among historians that the importance of a see in the East
depended on the status of the city within the administration of the Roman Empir
e. Although Constantinople claimed Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, that cl
aim did not reallly play a role in the rise of Constantinople. Even canon 28 of
Chalcedon states that Constantinople owes its position to its status as the New
Rome. Despite its claims as being the 3rd Rome, Moscow still ranks fifth among t
he Eastern Orthodox Churches below Jerusalem. The issue is not the status of Con
stantinople as the first among equals in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is over what powe
r Constatninople actually has. All of us recognize Constantinople as first among
equals, but only a few argue that means that Constantinople holds anythinng mor
e than a primacy of honor among Eastern Orthodox Bishops.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, that laypersons were allowed a say in the administrati
on of the Church were instituted by the Russian Synod only in the 20th century.
Also, Father, do you think this principle of majority rule would have worked dur
ing the time of the Arian crisis. If it could not, I doubt EO can claim patristi
c authority for its way of doing things. Can the EO admit that a more centralize
d form of ecclesiastical management can be necessary during certain extraordinar
y circumstances? If so, that would go a long way to healing the breach, for the
primacy defined by V1 was in fact intended to be exercised exactly in such extra
ordinary circumstances.
John Morris To Glenn Guadalupe
If the faithful had not sided with St. Athanasius the Arians would not have been
defeated. The fatifhul have, more often than not, defended the faith of the Chu
rch against efforts to impose heresy on the Church. Take the iconclast issue. It
was the faithful that defended the faith of the Church against the emperors.
I can agree that under certain cicumstances centralization of authority is neces
sary. However, that cannot be one man rule, but must be rule by a council repres
enting the clergy and faithful of the Church, as is the case with our Holy Synod
s. Thererfore, I cannot accept Vatican I because it states that the Pope is abov
e the authority of an Ecumenical Councill. Only another general council can over
turn the decisions of a general council as was the case when Chalcedon overturne
d the Robber Council of Ephesus.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Yes, Father, Canon 28 does that, but Canon 36 of Trullo does not
. You don't find that significant? I am not referring to the rise of Constantino
ple (which is indeed connected with its civil status), but its claim to primacy,
which changed over time, bringing it into line with the Traditional standard of
the other apostolic sees..
No I see no significance in Canon 36 of Trullo. It simply repeats the ranking of
Constantinople as second to Rome. Since you recognize that the rise of Constant
inople is related to the status of the city within the empire, I do not...See Mo
re
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, show us exactly where Vatican 1 stated that the Pope i
s above an Ecumenical Council. Please give a direct quote. I'm quite familiar wi
th it, and I don't recall such a thing. As far as the rise of Constantinople, a
claim to primacy based merely on that was obviously INSUFFICIENT, according to t
he mind of the Fathers. It needed to have apostolic succession, which it forthwi
th started to claim. The current emphasis on this idea of civil status is not in
keeping with the undivided Church's Tradition. - perhaps over-emphasis - This i
s plainly evident since Rome did not admit the second place of Constantinople on
ly until after it started making this claim. Rome could never admit it's second
place because of civil status, because that was not the apostolic tradition. How
ever, once the apostolic succession from St. Andrew became more prominent, only
then could Rome accept its second place. Constantinople certainly did not have e
cumenical status as having second place until Rome agreed to it. (I mean, while
the East believed it, the claim still did not have ecumenical standing until Rom
e's confirmation). As regards the renewal of the civil status claim to primacy,
can you think of a source off-hand in the early second millennium that makes tha
t claim?
What about this from the decrees of Vatican I:
?they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to app
eal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this
were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
That certainly states that the authority of the Pope is superior to an Ecumencia
l Council.
It is historic fact that Constantinole owes its position to its status as the Ne
w Rome. The claim to Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew only came later, after
Constantinople had authority second only to Rome in the ancient Church. Actuall
y, Rome only recognized the status of Constantinople as second to Rome during th
e Latin occupation of Constantinople when the Patriarch was a Latin Bishop.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Regarding St. Athanasius, the faithful alone could not do anythi
ng without the support of the other orthodox bishops, particularly of Rome. With
out the Council of Nice 2, neither could the support of the laypeople have done
anything. I'll agree that it was the effort of the entire Church, but your state
ment is a bit too one-sided, not giving sufficient account of the more important
role of the bishops.
Glenn Guadalupe Regarding centralization, you appear to have a very poor underst
anding of Catholic ecclesiology if you think it is a "one-man rule."
John Morris To Glenn Gauadalupe;
I realize that one man cannot control as vast an organization as the Roman Catho
lic Church. However, the fact remains that the Pope has final authority and by c
anon law can intervene in the internal affairs of any Catholic Church including
Eastern Catholic Churches. It is also true that within Catholicism no body or ot
her authority can overrule the Pope, who has absolute authority. ...See More
Glenn Guadalupe Father, if I say that "cup 1 is not more full than cup 2," do yo
u think it is immediately the case that cup 2 is more full than cup 1?" How abou
t that cup 1 and cupt 2 are equally full? So no, Father, that statement does not
automatically prove your claim. At best, it states exactly what it states - tha
t an Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope. It's an unjustified extrapolation
that the Pope, by that statement alone, is above an Ecumenical Council. The tea
ching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope is a member of the Ecumenical Coun
cil as its head bishop. Nothing more, nothing less. You may quote as many singul
ar Catholic theologians as you like that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council
, but you will find no such formal teaching from the Magisterial documents of th
e Catholic Church.
Look at how decisions were made at the 2nd Ecumenical Council. The council was l
imited to making recommendations to the Pope who had an absolute veto over its r
ecommencations. Actually this particular issue was resolved by the 4th Laterine
Council in 1215 which overruled the Council of Florence that decreed that an Ecu
menical Council had superior authority to a Pope.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Father John Morris: You speak of canon law in the Roman Church as th
ough you know something about it. The Pope is as constrained by due process as a
ny other bishop in the Church, east and western Catholic.
The Pope has absolute authority according to the canon law of the Catholic Churc
h. He may not always exercise it, but in theory he always holds absoltue authori
ty over the Church and is subject to no higher authority, not evan an Ecume...Se
e More
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, it is not a mere matter of practical necessity that th
e Pope cannot rule the Church by himself. It is a matter of dogmatic, theologica
l necessity that he cannot. As Vatican 2 clearly asserted, the College of bishop
s is of divine institution. The Pope can no more rule by himself than my head ca
n survive without my body. You probably don't know this, but Vatican 1 had actua
lly prepared a Divine Constitution on the Church (the parts on the papacy origin
ally formed only a part of it). In this Decree (which unfortunately was not able
to be voted upon, it specifically asserts that the rule of the Church belongs t
o its pastors PLURAL. What misconceptions could have been avoided (by BOTH Catho
lics and non-Catholics) if this decree had gone through. We had to wait until Va
tican 2 for this Decree to be promulgated. As far as being able to intervene in
the affairs of local Churches, Pastor Aeternus specifically states that the purp
ose of the primacy is to defend and uphold the authority of local bishops. So th
e primacy has no authority to impede the authority of local bishops. Pope St. Jo
hn Paul II said exactly this in one of his Wednesday conferences - that the Pope
does not have the responsibility NOR THE POWER to intervene in the daily affair
s of the local Churches. The purpose of the intervention is to uphold and defend
the authority of the local bishop when it is impeded by an outside force. The p
rimacy is not intended to itself be the cause of impeding that local authority.
THAT is the solid and true teaching of the Vatican 1 on the primacy, not this fe
armongering claim that he can intervene by his mere will and fancy into the affa
irs of the local Churches any time he feels like it. As far as no body or author
ity being able to overrule the Pope, this is true,. But what you don't understan
d is that this does not exclude the fact that the Pope can correct himself by th
e intervention and exhortation of his brother bishops., which has happened many
times in the history of the Church, both before AND AFTER the Great Schism. Unle
ss you can make some argument against my statements above, so far it seems there
is no doctrinal or logical reason for the Orthodox to reject the primacy as def
ined by V1. Please continue to offer your objections if you have any more, so it
may be addressed.
Mary Lanser There is a small little paragraph that I keep pointing you to in the
actual apostolic constitution which guides all the readings of the canons perta
ining to papal authority.
Mary Lanser 1) Papal authority is a teaching authority.
Mary Lanser 2) Papal authority is not to take the place of the bishop in his see
.
If what you say is the case, and I doubt it, then resolving the problem of prima
cy should be easy. I will leave it up to the official Orthodox Catholic dialogue
....See More
How are Bishops chosen in the Catholic Church? In the Latin Church they are appo
inted directly by the Vatican. Even in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the electi
on of a Bishop must be accepted by the Pope.
Mary Lanser Father John Morris: Why do Patriarchs have to sign off on every bish
op elect in his jurisdiction?
Mary Lanser That is horse-hockey Father John. Bishops are not appointed directly
by the Vatican in the Latin Church. That is how we managed to get such crappy b
ishops for a while. They were cloning themselves.

Mary Lanser You really do not know what you are talking about so stop puffing up
and pretending that you do.
In the North American Antiochian Archdiocese, we nominate three candidates for B
ishop. If it is a local Bishop, one of the three is elected by our North America
n Local Synod. If it is Metropolitan, he is elected from the three nominees by t
he Holy Synod of Antioch. That means that the Patriarch has a say, but not the f
inal say on the election of a Metropolitan.
Yes, in the United States all Catholic Bishops are appointed directly by the Vat
ican.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser That is nonsense, Father John. They are not and have never been.
You are wrong. The Catholic Bishops in the United States are appointed by Rome.
...See More
Mary Lanser You've been told that before by others on this forum.
Mary Lanser The Moscow Patriarch signs off on every bishop elected or he is not
elevated.
Mary Lanser I'm not wrong at all, Father John.
I do not know how things work in the Patriarchate of Moscow. Each Eastern Orthod
ox jurisdiction follows different procedure. For example in the Greek Archdioces
e all Bishops are elected by the Holy Synod of Constantinople. However, in the N
orth American Antiochian Archdiocese that the clergy and laity participate in th
e election of our Bishops. I also know that Catholic clergy and laity do not par
ticipate in the election of their Bishops, for they are appointed by Rome.
Fr. John Morris
Mary Lanser Since I have been alive very few bishops chosen by the other bishops
in the United States have been by-passed for another by Rome and ONLY then afte
r some terrible liturgical or some other kind of scandal has had the laity pound
ing on the doors of Rome asking for help and redress of the problems in that dio
cese.
Mary Lanser Why does the Moscow Patriarch have to sign off on every bishop chose
n in his jurisdiction, Father John?

I do not know about how they choose Bishops in the Patriarchate of Moscow. I kno
w as I have indicated that in the North American jurisdiction of the Patriarchat
e of Antioch that clergy and laity play a role in the nomination and election of
our Bishops.
I understand that Rome cannot possibly know all the eligable men for the office
of Bishop and has to rely on the recommendation of local Bishops. However, Rome
has the final say on the election of Catholic Bishops.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser What role do you play?
Mary Lanser In the Latin rite it was the bishops of the United States who, over
time, eliminated the requirements that the laity and clergy be consulted when de
veloping the turna.
Mary Lanser It was not Rome who pushed for the revisions on the election of a bi
shop. It was the bishops themselves.
Mary Lanser So they could control the field.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, you need to be consistent with your own beliefs. You d
on't believe that the 2nd millennium councils of the Catholic Church are ecumeni
cal, so you cannot logically base any argument on the relationship between a Pop
e and an Ecumenical Council on those councils. I mean it doesn't make sense for
you to say, "here's what you did at your local council, so we can't accept commu
nion with your Church." What you SHOULD be arguing is, "That as only a local Cou
ncil, so its way of doing things will not affect our relationship with you, if y
ou don't impose it on us. How the Pope of Rome dealt with the Latin Church in th
ose days should not be a standard for the Pope of Rome's relationship to the Chu
rch universal." Try that approach. Case in point, your Church's diminution of al
l your bishops' in the U.S. to auxiliary status would be objectionable from a Ca
tholic pov. Such a thing could never happen in the Catholic Church. So you might
argue, "hey let's keep it local. We don't bother you if you don't bother us. We
''ll be in communion and Rome can intervene if we appeal to him." Would that be
feasible?
As the Pastor of a Church, I have a vote at the convention of the Archdiocese. W
e are given a list of all men who are eligable to be Bishops in our Archdicese a
nd vote. The names of the three top vote getters is forwarded to the Local Synod
in the case of local Bishops and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate in the case
of a Metropolitan. We went through this process just last year when we held a s
pecial convention of the Archdiocese to nominate a successor to Metropolitan Phi
lip. We chose there men and the Holy Synod elected one of them to be our new Met
ropolitan.
Fr. John.
If you read my comments, you will find that I have stated on numerous occasions
that I do not presume to tell the Catholic Church about its own internal adminst
ration. As far as I am concerend the Latin Church can keep its papal administrat
ion as long as it is not imposed on us.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser That is how the election of bishops used to happen in the Latin Chur
ch as well Father John....till the BISHOPS lobbied to by-pass the clergy and lai
ty. That happened in my lifetime.
Mary Lanser I keep telling you that it is the unlimited power of Latin rite bish
ops that should have everyone nervous and not the authority of the Pope or the V
atican bureaucracy.
John Morris To Michal Frost:
By papal adminstration, I mean only the Latin Church. I do not mean imposing uni
versal supremacy nor infallibility on the whole Church.
Fr. John.\
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, in the CC, the local episcopal conference (synod to yo
u) elects three candidates, and the Pope chooses one. Same as your system, no? F
rom what I"ve read, in the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is the Patrriarch who choo
ses the three and the Synod elects one. Different strokes--- I don't understand
how you can use the local system of administration in the Latin Church as any so
rt of argument against communion with the Catholic Church. As noted, your Church
's diminution of your bishops in the U.S. to auxiliary status is a big no-no per
Catholic standards, but I haven't seen or read any statements from Catholic sou
rces that would use that as a reason for disunity.
Mary Lanser While the eastern Catholics were being treated as rites within the R
oman Church rather than as Churches in their own right, there were huge over-rea
ches of the authority of the Vatican. But things are coming around and Patriarch
al Churches do their own thing now without "help" from the Roman curia.
John Morris To Glenn Gladalupe;
The poin is that it is the Pope who does the choosing. In the Antiochian Orthdox
o Church it is the council of bishops who do the choosing. ...See More
Mary Lanser One the matter auxiliary bishops in the Antiochian Church in America
, was that ruling not reversed? I just realized that I thought that it was but m
ay be mistaken?
Tehcinically our local Bishops are auxiliaies to the Metropolitan. However, in r

eality they actually rule their own dioceses. One of the first things that Metro
politan Joseph did when he assumed office was to send every Priest a letter tell
ing them to bring their concerns to their local Bishop not to him.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser This is stupid. The turna is presented in RANK order. The first name
on the list is the first choice of the bishop's council. THAT Is the name that
is signed off on.
Mary Lanser So it has not been reversed. Antiochian bishops in the United States
are auxiliary bishops.
Mary Lanser If it is a Patriarchal Church in the Catholic Church the turna never
makes it to Rome. It is signed off on by the Patriarch.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. help me understand your objection here. Are you saying that
in the Catholic Church, the role of episcopal conferences is null and void, and
that it is COMPLETELY up to the Pope simply because he chooses one of the candid
ates elected by the bishops? You don't think that is an overly uncharitable asse
ssment of the matter? Well, let me ask you: The ancient canons say that a bishop
cannot be a bishop without the confirmation of the patriarch.. Who has the SOLE
authority to confirm your bishops, the synod or the patriarch? After you answer
that question, please reassess whether or not the Latin Church's system is as u
nacceptable as you suppose.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, my point remains regarding your auxiliary bishops. Wha
tever process occurs is a delegated authority in their diocese, delegated from t
he Metropolitan. They are auxiliary bishops in both name and action. Such a thin
g would never happen in the Catholic Church. For all the fearmongering about pap
al dictatorship, the bishops would not allow that to happen in the Latin Catholi
c Church. The purpose of auxiliary bishops in the Catholic Church is to be an ai
d to the local bishop. The idea that all bishops are the auxiliaries of the Metr
opolitan is just a big no-no from a Catholic perspective, regardless if the situ
ation was instituted by the Synod or not (was this the Antiochian Synod, or a lo
cal Synod in the U.S.?). Again, I don't bring this up to say anything against yo
ur system of government per se, but against the consistency of your complaints a
gainst how the Latin Church runs itself. I bring it up to indicate that your sys
tem is not patristically sound enough to justify criticism of the Latin Church's
own administrative system..
The point is that the in theory and canon law the Pope has the authority to have
the final word on who is a Catholic Bishop. Our Partriarch does not have the fi
nal word on who is an Antiochian Orhtodox Bishop. In fact, he has no say on who
is a local Antiochian Bishop and only has say through the Holy Synod on who is a
n Antiochian Orthodox Metropolitan.
Fr. John.

If things are as you say, resolving the problemm of primacy should be fairly eas
y. However, I fear that you are wrong and that in theory and in canon law the Po
pe has much more power and authority than you care to admit.
Fr. John;
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, your statement indicates that your way of doing things
is not patristic. The ancient canons grant patriarchs the authority to choose w
ho or not to confirm. That is why the ancient canons specifically state that if
a bishop is not confirmed by the Patriarch, then he cannot be a bishop. If there
was no possibility that a bishop will not be confirmed, the canons would not sa
y such a thing. I see your system completely subjugates the head bishop to the w
ill of the Synod, a violation of Apostolic Canon 34. I can agree there can't be
a meeting ground with such a system that violates the ancient canons. The Cathol
ic Church fully respects the freedom and ancient prerogatives of the Eastern pat
riarchs. Your system, imo, does not. I think there will be an easier time reunit
ing with the Oriental Orthodox - not as many ecclesiastical and doctrinal issues
. Having said that, I do have hopes that the EP will turn things around.
John Morris To Glenn Guadalupe;"
Go back and reread canon 34 of the Holy Apostles. The canon specifically states
that the Primate is not to "do anything without the consent of all..." It is you
r all powerful Patriarchs that violate the principles of conciliarity enshrined
by canon law.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe The CC's teaching on the primacy does not violate AC 34. Claims
to personal authority do not violate those canons if that personal authority is
canonically bound to act in communion with the toher bishops - as in fact our ca
nons do state. You just admitted right now that your head bishop has NO authorit
y aside from what the Synod grants it. So in theory and practice, the CC's syste
m is patristically sound, while in theory yours is not, though in practice it is
.
John Morris To Glenn Gudalupe;
I honestly do not agree with you. I think that our conciliar system is completel
y faithful to the canons both in spirit and in letter. The canon specifically st
ates that the Primate is to do nothing without the approval of the other Bishops
of the Church that he leads. We follow that principle in that the Primate must
goven his Church in accordance with the decisions of the Holy Synod. On the othe
r hand, the Catholic system does not require that the Pope secure the approval o
f a Holy Synod for his actions. Therefore, I cannot see how you can argue that t
he Catholic System is faithful to canon 34 of the Holy Apostles.
Fr. John.
Stuart L. Koehl Canon 34 actually says that the bishops of a region are are to r
ecognize he who is first (protos, primus) among them, and do NOTHING unusual wit
hout his consent; and that he who is first among them shall do nothing extraordi
nary without the consent of all.
Manoussakis (yes, Father, I AM going to beat you over the head with this tiny li
ttle book at every opportunity) writes on this matter, regarding the ecumenical
council as an alternative to a universal primacy:
The Ecumenical Council
When I was a seminarian in Athens, I was taught that, unlike the Roman Catholic
Church, the highest authority in the Orthodox Church--the one with absolute powe
r to decide dogmatic and canonical matters--is an interpersonal (and thus impers
onal) body--the ecumenical council. By asserting such a claim, the Orthodox pres
ent a not-so-implicit critique against papal primacy, WHICH IS OFTEN CARICATURED
AS A CENTRALIZED, IMPERIALISTIC, AND THEREFORE TOTALITARIAN AND OPPRESSIVE ECCL
ESIOLOGY [Emphasis added]. In opposition to such a structure, the Orthodox take
pride in what they consider a more democratic structure. They give, however, lit
tle or no thought to the fact that a synod as a manifold body presupposes the of
fice of the One--that is, the one primus who, although inter pares as far as the
sacramental faculty is concerned, remains, nevertheless, UNEQUAL in his primacy
. Similarly, the patriarch or the metropolitan is also inter pares with the bish
ops who are administratively under him; yet, as the 34th Apostolic Canon makes c
lear, the synod cannot do anything without his consent. As the bishop is also in
ter pares with all baptized Christians, he is one of them every time he officiat
es--an ecclesiological truth signified by the white sticharion (the equivalent o
f the alb) that the bishop, like all clerics, wears as the first piece of his li
turgical vestments. And yet, despite the fact that he is inter pares with the fa
ithful (cum fidelibus), the local Church cannot do anything without him, nor wou
ld they even exist as a community.
The balanced dialectic I have described on the universal, regional and local lev
els respectively finds its articulation in the 34th Apostolic Canon mentioned ea
rlier, which reads as follows: "The bishops of every region must acknowledge he
who is first among them [primus, protos], and account him as their head, and do
nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only wh
ich concern his own eparchy. . . But neither let him [who is the first] do anyth
ing without the consent of the many; for so there will be unanimity, and God wil
l be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit".
There is no either/or distinction between conciliarity and primacy. No council i
s conceivable without a primus. Philosophically speaking, the emphasis on primac
y conforms with the idea that the "one" (in this case, the primus), is both logi
cally, ontologically, and "chronologically" prior to the many (the synod).
There is another reason why the ecumenical council cannot be considered an INSTI
TUTION OF AUTHORITY for the Church--without, of course, meaning to say that ecum
enical councils have no authority. The weight of argument here falls not so much
on authority but on the concept of institution. An institution implies both per
manence and regularity, two basic characteristics lacking from the convocation o
f an ecumenical council that has more the character of an EVENT (extraordinary i
n nature) than a standing institution.
Stuart L. Koehl Spirit, Michael. Spirit. "Ghost" is a very inferior translation
of the Germanic "Geist", which in turn is much closer to pneuma, spiritus, or du
cha.
Stuart L. Koehl But, wouldn't you know! Manoussakis has anticipated that argumen
t, too:
Christ Himself
Another position one hears from the Orthodox is that the Church needs no primus
because Christ himself is head of the Church. But is this true exclusively on th
e universal level? Indeed, on both the regional and the local levels, ecclesial
structures presuppose that the bishop is Christ's living icon. No Orthodox would
accept the claim that no bishop is needed, either as the head of the diocese or
the metropolitanate, simply because that role is filled by Christ himself. Furt
hermore, such a naive assertion ignores the profound theological significance of
Christ's ascension, and runs the risk of degenerating into some individualistic
, private piety that would dispense with the ecclesisal structure altogether. Ap
art from the Eucharist, Christ is not with us physically; otherwise, the Church'
s expectation of his future coming would be absurd. Moreover, saying that Christ
is present in the Eucharist points to him who is physically present and who alo
ne has the authority to celebrate the Eucharist in persona christi--that is, the
bishop. Again, it is worth citing at length Afanassief's elaboration of this pr
oblem:
"A single body must be crowned by a single head, showing in his own person the u
nity of the whole system. if we take the universal theory of the Church, we cann
ot refute the doctrine of universal primacy just by saying that the Church has C
hrist as head; that is an indisputable truth, and supporters of primacy do not t
hemselves oppose it. The real question is: If the Church has an invisible head (
Christ), can she or can she not also have a visible head? If not, then why can a
local Church have a single head in the person of its bishop? In other words, wh
y can one part of the universal Church has a single head, while the entire unive
rsal Church is deprived of one?"
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, your citation of AC 34 is deficient, I'm afraid, for i
t excludes the first part that, as Stuart pointed out, includes the necessity of
the consent of the head bishop. Your system has no such necessity, according to
your own admission. Not only does your system (at least from your dscription) d
iscounts the proper authority of a head bishop in decisions for the Church of wh
ich he is head (he is simply a figurehead for the will of the majority), but he
doesn't even have any choice in who he gets to confirm! Those are clearly unpatr
istic notions Father. The Catholic system, on the other hand, explicitly asserts
the necessity of BOTH the head bishop and his brother bishops in decisions for
the Church in which he is head. Your claim that the Catholic system does not req
uire the Pope to have the approval of his holy synod is false. On the universal
level, his Synod is the Ecumenical Council, and our canons explicitly affirm tha
t the decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not obligatory unless they are appr
oved by the head bishop AND the other bishops. On the patriarchal level, the Pop
e never does anything without consulting his brother bishops first. On the metro
politan level, I can't give any further details because I'm not Italian and I do
n't know their workings, but I'm sure it is the same case on that level - the Po
pe does not do anything withoutt the consultation and agreement of his brother b
ishops. For you to prove your claim, you have to give us evidence that a Pope ha
s ever acted in the unilateral, absolute manner that you imagine. Give us an exa
mple, Father, please. To be honest, I think your complaint is really based on on
ly one thing - the fact that the Pope often acts without a formal synod. However
, formal synodality is not required to fulfill the prescriptions of AC 34, Fathe
r. You can't deny that - in fact, AC 34 does not even mention the word synod. Th
e Catholic Church's principle of collegiality does fulfills this quite well. Whi
le no formal synod or council is absolutely necessary, actions in communion with
his brother bishops (collegiality) are, and sufficiently fulfills the prescript
ions of AC 34.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, the biggest problem with the system you propose, or wh
at you imagine the Catholic system to be, is that your are setting the head, on
the one hand, or the rest of the body, on the other, in judgment over the other.
This is evident when you style the matter as "the body approving the head" or "
the head approving the body." It doesn't work that way in the Catholic system, I
n the Catholic system, it is the head and body working together to approve somet
hing. As Bishop Gasser wrote in the official Relatio of Vatican 1, in an Ecumeni
cal Council, it is "the Roman Pontiff judging, with the bishops judging together
with him." In your system, it is always either about the head judging the body
or the body judging the head, the two always in opposition or in competition wit
h one another. Sorry Father, it is your system (I won't be so bold as to assign
your opinion as the position of all of EO'xy) which needs to change.
The canon in question stipulates that the Primate is to do nothing without the a
greement of the other Bishops of the Church over which he presides. We preseve t
hat in our system of Holy Synods. However, Rome has no Holy Synod, at least that
has the authority to direct the Pope. Thus, I do not see that your understandin
g of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles is accurate. Besides the other canons stipula
te that the Holy Synod is to be meet at least twice a year. Rome has no Holy Syn
od. An Ecumenical Council does not qualify as a Holy Synod because they meet onl
y occasionally. An Catholic Ecumenical Council doe not meet the criteria of a Ho
ly Synod because the Pope exercises a veto over Ecumenical Councils in the Catho
lic Church, while during the pre-schism days the Pope exercised no veto over the
decisions of an Ecumenical Councill. Instead, the Pope was required to obey the
decisions of an Ecumenical Council, which is the highest authority in the Churc
h.
Fr. John.
Joe Dowell The Petrine office is the big one.
Craig Ostrowski Does the canon in question stipulate the exact manner in which t
he brother bishops are to be consulted, such as in a formal synod?
John Morris To Craig Ostrowski:
The canons states that the Bishops of an area are to form a synod under the Bish
op of the capital city of the provience to administer the affairs of the Church
in the provience. This canon was written before the Ecumenical Councils divided
the Church up into 5 Patriarchates.
Fr. John.
Craig Ostrowski Fr. John Morris
Here is Apostolic Canon 34.
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and ac
count him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but
each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country plac
es which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything withou
t the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified
through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
Where does it indicate, as you suggest, that a formal synod must be the manner o
f consent given to the head?

Glenn Guadalupe Fr, John, AC 34 nowhere mentions "synod." The prescription to me
et twice a year is not contained in AC 34 but a later directive of ecumenical co
uncils. The purpose of the directive was/is for the bishops to get together to g
auge the state of the Church and to take appropriate actions for the benefit of
the Church. You might not know this, but around the 13th through 14th century th
e Roman synod was gradually replaced by the College of Cardinals, fulfilling the
exact same functions (electing the bishop of Rome when needed and collegially d
iscussing and providing for the needs of the Church). Originally, it met much mo
re frequently than twice a year for that latter purpose. Since the 17th century
it has met irregularly about twice a year. The pope and other bishop's collegial
solicitude is practiced through organs other than a formal synod, such as consi
stories and through the curial congregations. The same purpose established by th
e canons readily and easily exists in the current Roman institutions. You argume
nt that a formal synod does not meet twice a year is, basically, an argument of
legalism that depends on the letter of law instead of its spirit or true intent.
In fact, these opportunities to practice solicitude for the Church are fulfille
d more than twice a year in Rome.
Bob Gardner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Bishops_(Catholic)
Synod of Bishops (Catholic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Synod of Bishops, in the Roman Catholic Church, is an advisory body for the
Pope. It is "a group of bishops who have been chosen from different regions of t
he world and meet together at fixed times to foster closer unity between the Rom
an Pontiff and bishops, to assist the Roman Pontiff with the
en.wikipedia.org
John Morris To Bob Gardiner;
I believe that if you would investigate this a bit furter, you would find that t
his synod is purely advisery. In Eastern Orthodoxy our Holy Synods have real pow
er. A Primate must obey the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church that he lea
ds. Therefore a Holy Synod can overrule the decision of the Primate of the Churc
h that he leads.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser This is a good thread!! Father you are ignoring things that should n
ot be ignored in the canons.
Mary Lanser The Bishop of Rome, the Pope does not appoint, he affirms, and is si
lent when there is a patriarchal eastern Catholic Church involved.
John Morris To Mary Lanser
If the Pope would agree to not interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern
Patriarchates ageement could be reached on papal primacy because we Eastern Orth
odox have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the Latin Church. Ho
wever, that agreement is not possible long as Rome claims infallibility, univers
al jurisdiction or higher authority than an Ecumenical Council.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Those are principles of primacy, Father John that allow for the pope
to fulfill the charism of the papal see, and all one needs to is clarify them a
nd codify the clarifications into the canons. You don't need to dump the baby wi
th the bathwater.
Mary Lanser What I think would be helpful would be to have western regional patr
iarchs for the Latin rite.
Bob Gardner Fr John Morris what do you mean by real power? The applIcation of a
local synod is, by definition, of limited scope. As I said previously, the curre
nt ecclesial structure of the Orthodox churches is ineffective, in as much as th
ere is no real primacy.
Beni Lauricella Father John, come on. "Interfere"???
Mary Lanser The presence of western patriarchates would go a long way to paving
the path to dismantling the bloated Vatican bureaucracy.
Beni Lauricella Seriously, Mary. I have been a big proponent of the multiple Wes
tern Latin Patriarchates for a long time.
Mary Lanser I think it would go a long way in helping internal evangelization in
South America and Northern Europe and Spain.
Mary Lanser I think it would bring people back by recognizing the special anthro
pological nature of each patriarchate. It would help to build and re-build ethni
c churches.
Mary Lanser That old melting pot mess really does not work well with expressions
of the faith that are embedded in culture as much as in the parish church.
Mary Lanser Then the universal pastor could really focus on teaching and visitin
g his entire flock. It would be a massive undertaking but it would be a Church u
niversal, well suited to standing against the world.
Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, what Father means by "real power" is what we Cathol
ics call "the ordinary power of jurisdiction." In the College of Bishops (the Ec
umenical council is simply the formal expression of the College of Bishops) and
the Eastern Catholic synods, the whole body has what is termed as "ordinary powe
r." That is, the group as a whole has ordinary power, not merely the individual
bishops. In the LATIN Church, however, groups of bishops don't have ordinary pow
er of jurisdiction. Only individual bishops have ordinary power of jurisdiction.
The power of jurisdiction of the GROUP in the LATIN Church is a delegated autho
rity, delegated from the Pope of Rome. The real issue here is that Fr. John is c
onfusing the internal administration of the LATIN Catholic Church with the admin
istration of the Church universal. He seriously does not understand that on the
universal level, the Catholic Church FORMALLY and OFFICIALLY recognizes that the
College of Bishops does indeed have ordinary power of jurisdiction AS A GROUP.
The difference between our understanding as Catholics (and some other Eastern Or
thodox), on the one hand, and the system offered by Fr. John (and others who sha
re his view), on the other, is that our system acknowledges the NECESSITY and un
ique authority of the head bishop AMONG that group for the affairs of the Church
, according to the ancient canons. Fr. John's system, on the other, does not ack
nowledge that necessity or unique authority, but accounts head bishops as merely
figureheads for the will of the majority, in violation of the ancient canons. A
s noted earlier, Fr. John's system would not have worked during the Arian crisis
. His only response to that event in Church history is "the people," as if the a
uthority of the orthodox bishops then amounted to nothing in the whole ordeal. T
hat is the mentality that pervades the system proposed by Fr. John. Unless he ca
n offer a more mitigated manner of expressing his system, on the face of it, it
is ahistorical and unpatristic.
It is precisely what you call my system that worked during the Arian crisis. It
took some time, but the system worked and the Arians were defeated. At that time
, the Bishops of Rome had very little actual authority. If they did, the Pope co
uld have ended the crisis immediately after Nicaea I. Instead, the Church had to
deal with the various heretical groups and eventually make up its mind on the t
ruth declared by the 1st Ecumenical Council. I never wrote that the Bishops have
no authority. You do not understand my point. It is the Bishops, the rest of th
e clergy and the Faithful who together decide on the true doctrine of the Church
. There have been times when the Bishops take the lead. Other times the laity ta
ke the lead. However, it is all three, the Bishops and the clergy and the Faithf
ul who are responsible for defending the doctrinal integrity of the Church.
There is nothing in what you call my system that denies the role of the Bishop o
f Rome in defending the true faith. However, the Bishop of Rome does not have th
e final say on doctrine. Instead, the Bishop of Rome along with the other Patria
rchs, the Bishops and the clergy and laity together have the final say on matter
s of doctrinel. Thus there is a place for the Bishop of Rome to play a leadershi
p role, but not to hold all power in his hands.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser What you do not understand Father John is the real exercise of power
backed by the real existence of authority and how it works and how it doesn't.
What you call power is some ephemeral thing that only exists in people's minds.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr,. John, I need to go, but please answer the following questio
n. WHO, during the Arian crisis, believed that the Bishop of Rome had "very litt
le actual authority?" Was it the orthodox or the heretics? On the matter of the
authority of the Bishop of Rome, whose side are you actually taking, the orthodo
x or the heretics? I will return to address other particular points of your post
later (though on the face, I don't have anything to object to the rest of your
post).
Mary Lanser In Father John's system one could say that IF the Synod really had a
ny power at all the Synod of ROCOR could have stopped the schisms when they retu
rned to the ROC.
Mary Lanser But they failed to stop the schismatics.
I am merely invoking the historical predicent. The Pope did not have the authori
ty to end the debate over Arianism. If he did, why did he not use it. It took th
e 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 to end the debate over Arianis
m.
Fr. John.
Helen Tedcastle To bring the discussion into 2015, Pope Francis' recent encyclic
al, Laudato Si' is particularly striking in the way he brings the teaching of wo
rld-wide Bishops' conferences into his teaching document. This is a clear signal
that he is moving the church towards the collegiality of Bishops with the Pope
as a sign of unity, and away from monarchial accretions.
Bob Gardner If it makes you feel any better Nicea I didn't end the debate either
. I understand what you are going for in your criticism, Fr John, but you are wa
ding into a caricature of the actual teaching.
Ecactly how could the Synod of ROCOR have stopped anyone from leaving? In Americ
a, we have relgious freedom. The Holy Synod of Russia and that of ROCOR cannot e
nforce its authority on those who reject it. However, those who left, also left
the canonical Eastern Orthodox Church.
Fr. John.
John Morris To Helen Tedcastle
If Pope Francis moves the Catholic Church towards a collegiality of Bishops, tha
t will go a long way towards resolving the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy
and Catholicism.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser Bob Gardner: Something is wrong. I've been agreeing with every one o
f your comments for over a week!! smile emoticon
Mary Lanser Then what is the "power" that you talk about Father John when you re
fer to the "power" of the Synod or the "power" of the Papacy? What is that power
?
Mary Lanser You just gush forth words Father John and presume meaning that eithe
r is not there or ought not be there.
I firmly believe that every Bishop or Primate must be subject to the higher auth
ority of a council of Bishops of the Church which he serves. I also believe that
every local Church must be subject to the autority of a general or, in our case
, a Pan-Orthodox council. I believe that the Catholic system gives much too much
power and authority to the Pope because he is not subject to the higher authori
ty of a council.
Fr. John.
June 23 at 10:22am Edited Like 1
Mary Lanser They work together Father John. What Vatican I really was fighting i
n the trenches was the idea that a group of local councils could claim universal
ity and build the "truth" of the faith as they chose without anyone having the p
ower to call them back. Primacy says that the pope has the authority to call the
m back.
Mary
And
same
June
Lanser Besides I asked you what "power" is in the case of synods and popes?
your answer was a slide over to authority. Power and authority are not the
thing. But you know that already.
23 at 10:26am Like
John Morris To Mary Lanser'

What is the difference between power and authority? Arcticles 882-884 of the Cat
echism of the Catholic Church give the Pope absolute authority over the Catholic
Church and its Bishops. "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vica
r of Christ, as a pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal po
wer over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Tha
t does not place any limits on papal power and authority. Regarding the college
of Bishops the Catechism states that their power cannot be "exercised without th
e agreement of the Roman Pontiff." Concerning an Ecumenical Council, the Catechi
sm states, "ther never is an ecumenical council which is not fonfirmed or at lea
st recognized by the Roman Pontiff." I do not see how you can read this and keep
arguing for the limited powers of the Pope as you do. It seems to me that these
statements give the Pope unlimited authority over the Church and affirm that he
can exercise that authority "unhindered."
I do not believe that any Bishop, Patriarch or Primate has the authority to exer
cise their power "unhindered." Instead,I beleve that all Primates exercise their
authority subject to the higher authority of the Holy Synod of the Church which
they serve. I also believe that a general or Pan-Orthodox council has superior
authority to any Primate, and is the highest power in the Church, subject to no
higher authority.
I do not see how you can read the documents from Vatican I or the Catechism of t
he Catholic Church and not recognize that there is a major difference between my
Eastern Orthodox view of authority in the Church and the Catholic view. In orde
r to be reunited, we have to resolve that difference and have a view of authorit
y that we both can accept.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser All power is limited. Ecclesial authority is not limited because it
comes from God.
Mary Lanser Paragraph 5 of that section of the Apostolic Constitution limits the
authority of the Pope and also his power to act on that authority.
Mary Lanser You continue to ignore that paragraph Father john and as long as you
do ignore it, your rebuttals are false...and you know that as well. But you do
not care to dialogue. So that is all right.

I think that you have an incorrect understanding of the power that is claimed by
the Popes. The Pope claims absolute authority over the Church. That is what is
meant by the Cathechism which states that the Pope can exercise his authority "u
nhindered." The word "unhindered" says it all. It also undermines your claim tha
t the power of the Pope is limited.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser To Father John: I think you have a completely skewed understanding o
f the authority that the Catholic Church claims for the See of Peter. I think yo
u willfully ignore whole sections of the formal acts of the First Vatican Counci
l. What you claim without mitigation only draws people away from the fullness of
the truth.
Bob Gardner I believe unhindered means from political influence and/or interfere
nce. Now let's consider a Metropolitan bishop, can he not exercise his authority
unhindered in the normal course of things?
John Morris To Michael Frost:
Yes, you are right. What Mary Lanser and others here fail to recognize is that t
he Pope has absolute power over the Catholic Church and is accountable to no hig
her autority on how he chooses to exercise that power. It is this that is the pr
oblem, because I and Eastern Orthodoxy believes that no one has power that they
can exercise subject to no higher authority. Every Bishop and Primate must be su
bject to the higher power of the other Bishops of the Church which he serves, as
well as the higher power of the other Bishops of the world wide Church acting i
n an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox council. It is this, more than anything else tha
t divides us.
Fr. John.
You beat up Catholics for telling you what Orthodoxy teaches, but then tell Cath
olics what Catholicism teaches. I think the Catholics on this forum are much mor
e qualified to state catholic belief than outsiders such as yourself and Frost.
I agree, except that I too can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the
decrees of Vatican I. If the power of the Pope is actually limited resolving th
is problem should be fairly simple by agreeing that the power of the Pope is lim
ited and affirming the right of the autocephapous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy
to administer themselves subject to no higher authority but a general council. A
s it is, Rome claims the authority to intevene in the internal affairs of every
other Church. That is the issue that divides us.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi Also, your caricature of the Pope having "absolute power" over the
church is getting old. You've been told time and time again what the papal offi
ce is.
If you do not understand catholic terminology or ecclesiology, reading the catec
hism is fruitless. I have read
Orthodox statements of faith, and you tell me I'm misunderstanding them. I see t
his as a similar situation.
What exaclty do the statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church mean exce
pt that the Pope has absoltue power over the Catholic Church? Tell me, I would l
ike to know how else you can interpret them, but to state that the Pope has auth
ority that he can exercise "unhindered."
Fr John.
If a General Councils decrees must be received, then it has no real authority.
That would mean that in a perfect world, the Pope has universal jurisdiction tha
t he may exercise unhindered. However, this is not a stand alone statement. In a
reunited church, the East would appeal to the Pope in a controversy, nothing mo
re.
Yes the decrees of a general council must be receivec, However, they must be rec
eived by the entire Church, not just the Pope. The example is the Robber Council
of Ephesus. Pope St. Leo lacked the authority to overrule the Robber Council. I
t took the Council of Chalcedon to overrule the Robber Council.
Fr. John.
If you pay attention to the actions of our Popes, they tend to not use this auth
ority.
Your comment does not interact with mine and your statement about St Leo is irre
levant.
I understand that the Popes do not use all their authority. However, in theory t
he authority exists. Therefore as long as it exists in theory, it is a problem f
or Eastern Orthodox. We cannot accept the authority of Rome to intevene in the i
nternal affairs of our autocephalous Churches, even in theory.
Fr. John.

Then we are at an impasse.
The Pope and Patriarchs will probably sign an addendum that states that the Pope
will only be appealed to in a case of need. We're passed the time when the chur
ch was rife with intrigue.
On the contrary, my statements about Pope St. Leo and the Robber Council are ext
emely relevant to this discussion. Here we have a clear example of a Pope who re
jected the decisions of a general council, but lacked the authority to do anythi
ng but appeal to the emperor about the matter. The empeor did not reject the dec
isions of the Robber Council just because Pope St. Leo opbjected to them. Instea
d, he called another general council to consider the matter. It was Chalcedon th
at negated the decisions of the Robber Council, not Pope St. Leo.
Fr. John.
Now that imperial problems are out of the way, I'm sure the Pope and Patriarchs
will work something out so that their due honor is preserved and the pastoral mi
ssion of the Pope is not diminished. To me, Sardica is the ticket. What say you?
Is Sardica an acceptable guideline for you?
We have been over Ephesus II dozens of times. We obviously have conflicting hist
orical views. Nathaniel McCallum, an Orthodox historian, has affirmed my side of
Ephesus II. I see no need to rehash it.
Nick Chinappi Fr John Morris,
I wrote:
"Fr John Morris
Now that imperial problems are out of the way, I'm sure the Pope and Patriarchs
will work something out so that their due honor is preserved and the pastoral mi
ssion of the Pope is not diminished. To me, Sardica is the ticket. What say you?
Is Sardica an acceptable guideline for you?"
Could you answer my question?
Bob Gardner What exactly do Michael Frost and Fr.John Morris think this power en
tails? Heck JP II couldn't get Gregorian chant to be used in Pittsburgh and B16
couldn't allow the faithful to ask for a Latin Mass outside of the already exist
ing LM community.
Nick Chinappi Beats the hell out of me Bob.
Nick Chinappi Bob,
What say you? Is Sardica an acceptable guideline?

Mary Lanser Bbb Gardner: Neither Father John nor Michael Frost are here to do an
ything but deflect from any kind of mutual recognition of the realities of both
formal and lived realities. What they are after is the positioning of a narrativ
e that puts the Catholic Church in a box out of which they are not permitted to
come or deviate from the boundaries set by said priest and layman.
Bob Gardner Michael Frost I think it wiser to say the Latin bishops went along w
ith the proposed changes. They could have pushed back had they so desires.
Nick Chinappi Could any orthodox Christian please tell me if they feel Sardica i
s at least an acceptable guideline for a reunited church?
Bob Gardner Nick Chinappi that works for me. I also think that the Roman church
should revisit some if the language that is used in order to placate some of the
fears.
Mary Lanser Agreed Bob!!
I am here seeking mutual agreement. However, in order to do that one must deal w
ith the differences. Then once we have identified the differences, we can work t
o overcome them. However, your approach which is to ignore the differences ...Se
e More
Nick Chinappi If you're here for mutual agreement, why are you ignoring my quest
ion about Sardica, Fr John Morris?
Fr John Morris
I'm sure the Pope and Patriarchs will work something out so that their due honor
is preserved and the pastoral mission of the Pope is not diminished. To me, Sar
dica is the ticket. What say you? Is Sardica an acceptable guideline for you?
No Sardica has no relevance for us today. It was a local council held within the
canonical territory of the Roman Church and never claimed ecumenical authority,
at least at the time that the council was held. It is true that later Ro...See
More
Nick Chinappi Yep. Done with fr John.
"Canon 4
Greek
Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this
decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop b
e deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has
fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bish
op of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.
Latin
Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this se
ntence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that when any bishop has been
deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, a
nd he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the
city of Rome that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, afte
r the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been d
etermined in the judgment of the Roman bishop."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm
According to Sardica, the Pope could judge himself *or* appoint others to judge.
Could Sardica at least be a guideline to follow if we were to reunite is my ques
tion.
CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Sardica (A.D. 344)
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
newadvent.org
Perhaops Sardica can be revived. I do not know. It is all up to the internationa
l Orthodox Catholic theological dialogue. However, it is important not to make t
oo much of Sardica. I personally believe that our system is better because the p
arties of a dispute can appeal to Constantanople which can call a Pan-Orthodox c
ouncil to deal with the issue. However, I see no reason why in a reunited Church
the Pope could receive the appeals as long as the actual decision is made by an
international council representing the whole Church.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, the "historical precedent" is that the orthodox bishop
s affirmed the authority of the Pope of Rome, while the heretics did not. THAT i
s why an Ecumenical Council needed to be called. It was not that the Pope of Rom
e lacked doctrinal authority - it was that the heretics did not recognize it. So
can we say that you are approving the position of the heretics in the early cen
turies of the Church?
Glenn Guadalupe Mary, appeals to denials or challenges of authority by those who
were judged to be schismatics or heretics is not valid. So, sorry to be tough,
but neither your appeal to the schisms in Eastern Orthodoxy, nor Fr. John's appe
al to the denial of the authority of Rome are valid arguments. Existence of schi
sms do not actually disprove the inherent authority claimed by either system. On
e might as well argue that Jesus Christ had no inherent authority because the Ph
arisees contended against him. We shouldn't use the same invalid arguments as ce
rtain non-Catholics.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, I will agree with you on the principle of mutual agree
ment. Can we mutually agree that your appeal to the intransigence of heretics an
d schismatics does not count as a valid argument against the existence of eccles
ial authority?
Yours is a very subjective reading of church history. An Ecumenical Council had
to be called to overrule Ephesus 449 because only a general council can overrule
another general council. That is the historic precident. Pope St. Leo l...See M
ore
Stuart L. Koehl While acknowledging that the Christian East recognized the AUTHO
RITY of the Church of Rome, it s also an historical reality that you cannot get
from there to Pastor Aeternus, or even the Papal Decretals of Gregory VII, in a
straight line, but have to take into account the diverging conceptions of primac
y in the West and the East, beginning as far back as the 7th century, but accele
rating after the 9th century, as communications between the two halves of the Ch
urches became more difficult, and they became mutually estranged. The fact is, t
he Christian East held onto an older ecclesiology, while that of the West change
d, and changed radically, after the ascension of the German Popes of the 11th ce
ntury. And, as a general rule, the one who changes from established precedent be
ars the burden of proof to justify his change. Also as a general rule, in ecumen
ical discussions, a privileged place must be given to the understanding, or, at
least, the modus vivendi that existed in the first millennium.
What that means, in practice, is the current ecclesiologies and ecclesiastical s
tructures of both the Western and Eastern Churches are going to change, indeed,
must change, for communion to be restored, because both Churches have departed f
rom Patristic norms, each exaggerating certain characteristics at the expense of
others, due to the lack of a countervailing influence from the other Church. Ca
tholics are going to have to accept a Papacy that is a bit less powerful and mon
archical than it is today; and the Orthodox are going to have to accept a "prima
cy of honor" that is much more than a mere "honorific primacy.
Moreover, as this model of primacy is holistic, and applies from the diocese up
to the universal Church, it also means that the prevailing Orthodox model of aut
ocephalous national Churches under the nominal primacy of the Ecumenical Patriar
ch is going to change, with the Church of Constantinople recovering its position
of FIRST among equals in the East, while the Church of Rome is recognized as FI
RST among equals in the universal Church.
For this to happen, hierarchs in ALL Churches will have to put aside their pride
, their perquisites, and their overweening arrogance, placing the unity of the C
hurch ahead of their own self-aggrandizement.
Glenn Guadalupe Nick Chinappi, the EO have no choice in the matter of Sardica. I
t already had ecumenical status through Trullo and Nice 2. Even though its provi
sions did not have ecumenical status until the 7th century, they were utilized b
y bishops both East and West during the intervening period. Its provisions are p
art of the sure Tradition of the undivided Church.
Mary Lanser Glenn Guadalupe: I think you misunderstood me.
John Morris To Glen Guadalupe:
The Council of Chalcedon gave the authority to hear appeals to the Patriarch of
Constantinople not Rome. Since Chalcedon took place after Sardica and was an Ecu
menical Council, its canons overrule the canons of Sardica.
Fr. John.
Stuart L. Koehl "I think that you have an incorrect understanding of the power t
hat is claimed by the Popes. "
This is good. First Erick Ybarra chastises Mary for becoming Orthodox because sh
e doesn't understand Catholic doctrine. Then Father John criticizes Mary for not
understanding Catholic doctrine. I do believe that Father Robert Taft is correc
t--the Orthodox have a much more exalted view of the Papacy than do Catholics th
emselves, and that the more traditionally Catholic a country, the less attention
it pays to the Pope. Erick, therefore, is a typical American Catholic in two re
gards: first, he's still basically a Protestant who goes to Mass and loves Mary
(cf. Samuel Huntington); and as such, he carries with him a much higher concept
of primacy than actually exists in Catholic countries, where the local Churches
long ago mastered the art of repulsing Rome's attempts at micromanagement.
Mary Lanser Glenn: I was pointing out what you are pointing out only with invers
ion and irony, pitting one false premise against another hoping one might see at
least the falsehood in the one most dear. And still Father John ducked.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, you didn't answer my question. Can you agree that appe
als to the intransigence of heretics and schismatics is no reflection on the aut
hority of the ecclesiastical structures either of us is defending?
Bob Gardner Stuart L. Koehl might be a good person to ask about how the changes
in the Latin church came about. What was the attitude of the Latin bishops after
Vatican II that the Novus Ordo, new fasting regulations etc., were accepted wit
hout much pushback. And a related question would an eastern patriarch be thwarte
d (except by the laity) from making similar changes?
Stuart L. Koehl "Fr. John, you didn't answer my question."
In other news, dog bites man. Pictures at eleven.
Stuart L. Koehl "What was the attitude of the Latin bishops after Vatican II tha
t the Novus Ordo, new fasting regulations etc., were accepted without much pushb
ack."
The real reason has nothing to do with the Papacy, and everything to do with the
hands-off attitude of Latin bishops towards both liturgy and asceticism.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, you need to read the Canons of Chalcedon again. It say
s it gave to Constantinople the SAME PREROGATIVES as Rome had. Whatever you thin
k Chalcedon gave to Constantinople, they were the ones Rome had first. In additi
on, despite the grant of those prerogatives, it said that in ecclesiastical affi
ars, Constantinople was STILL only SECOND to Rome.
Glenn Guadalupe Mary, thanks for the explanation. Reductio ad absurdum. Gotcha.
smile emoticon

John Morris To Glenn Guadalupe'
I do not understand your point. I took just one example from church history to s
how that in the ancient Church an Ecumenical Council had superor authority to th
at of the Pope. I could have cited other examples to prove this point.
I have no problem with ranking Constatantinople second to Rome. However, I do no
t believe that either Constantinople or Rome had the authority to intervene in t
he internal affairs of any other Church or had superior authority to an Ecumenic
al Council. I also do not beleive that either Rome or Constantinople ever had th
e authority to unilterally issue binding statements on the doctrine of the Churc
h. Only an Ecumenical Council had that authority in the ancient Church.
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser The Latin bishops were the ones who populated the committees who mad
e the changes. They wanted to flex their muscle for you see the Church had just
given the sign that the horizontal aspect of the Church, the episcopacy, was now
in the ascendency.
Mary Lanser Vatican II and the consequent changes in canon law were made to give
bishops full and unassailable authority in their Sees that was explicit. Due pr
ocess for priests went out the window and the laity could cry to the heavens and
hear nothing but the soft easy snoring of their bishops.
Mary Lanser You cannot rightly blame the papacy for the disasters that followed
in the wake of the Council.
Bob Gardner Mary Lanser, I'm not I was looking to the historical aspect to addre
ss Michael Frost's questions that he raised above.
Mary Lanser I think I was just adding a bit more to Stuart's response, Bob. Ther
e's a tendency among many Catholics of the Latin rite to blame the aftermath of
the Council on the papacy.
Stuart L. Koehl Specifically, to Paul VI.
Mary Lanser Canon law was revised with the trust that bishops are all faithful a
nd holy men. It's a risk we run in hewing to divine authority and hoping for the
best....smile emoticon
Stuart L. Koehl It was a little naive to believe that, having treated bishops li
ke branch managers of a multi-national enterprise for more than a century, that
the bishops would suddenly develop a sense of initiative and self-reliance. Howe
ver, what else could be done? Fire all the bishops, and their places would have
been taken by priests with the same mindset.
Mary Lanser Sometimes we just have to outlast 'em!! smile emoticon
Bob Gardner I'm still waiting for an EO to criticize (or defend beyond pointing
their finger at Rome), what I consider to be, the ineffectiveness of their curre
nt ecclesiology. They are quick to jump on what they think is the Roman view. Ha
ving read Deville's book I question if there is truly one view of church governa
nce shared by the Orthodox churches? I guess if you count "anything but Papal" t
hey do share something in common.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, the point of my statement to reread the canon of Chalc
edon is that no Ecum Council gave the authority to the bishop of Rome to univers
ally hear appeals. Yet, it recognized that Rome already had that prerogative. Th
is is despite the fact that Sardica did not have ecumenical status. This means t
hat the non-Catholic claim that it was Sardica that gave that prerogative to Rom
e is false. Rome's prerogative to universally hear appeals was a universal Tradi
tion which no one doubted and needed no conciliar approval to exist.
Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, do a Google search on "Ravenna document Moscow Cons
tantinople." As noted earlier, there is a healthy debate going on between the EP
and MP. The EP's ecclesiology is closer to the Catholic Church's (not identical
, but closer), but the MP's view is -- well -- it ain't Catholic, nor can we say
it is Orthodox since his pov does not represent all of Orthodoxy.
Glenn Guadalupe "I do not believe that either Constantinople or Rome had the aut
hority to intervene in the internal affairs of any other Church." They wouldn't
unless it is needed - I mean objectively needed, not that they could decide by m
ere will to intervene. Rome does not even claim that kind of power to intervene
unilaterally, so I don't see why you should suspect that Constantinople would ha
ve it or claim to have it either.
Glenn Guadalupe "or had superior authority to an Ecumenical Council." Well, then
, that's a second roadblock out of the way, because the Catholic Church formally
teaches that the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and the supreme authori
ty of the Ecum Council are EQUAL, not one above the other.
Glenn Guadalupe "I also do not beleive that either Rome or Constantinople ever h
ad the authority to unilterally issue binding statements on the doctrine of the
Church. " A third roadblock out of the way, because Rome has never claimed to ha
ve UNILATERAL authority to issue binding statements. And I doubt Constantinople
would claim that either.
Glenn Guadalupe "Only an Ecumenical Council had that authority in the ancient Ch
urch." Here's where the situation gets sticky. The official Relatio of Vatican 1
affirmed that the Ecum Council is indeed the normative means by which the Churc
h gives its most solemn judgments. But there are two issues with the EO who shar
e your particular way of thinking. First, the Catholic Church recognizes that th
e value of the formal authority of an Ecum Cncl to make dogmatic judgments. rest
s in the unanimity or near-unanimity of belief among its members. However, there
could be cases - there HAVE BEEN cases - when there is clear division among the
episcopate. The Catholic Church has an answer for that. Your system doesn't. Th
e second issue is that your system's definition of "Council" is inherently defic
ient and unpatristic.because it denies the necessary role of its head bishop.. O
nce you submit yourself to the authority of the apostolic Tradition reflected in
AC 34, all will be fine and well, Until then, there will be no agreement.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, Chalcedon did not have authority over the Pope of Rome
, The fathers of Chalcedon judged the theological matter WITH the Pope, not over
him. If you will carefully check the acts of the Council, you will find that th
e MAJORITY of the Fathers wanted to accept Pope Leo's tome by mere acclamation (
i.e., WITHOUT REVIEW) ALREADY. It is only that a few wanted to review it first.
So if you don't want to trip all over your own "majority rules" principle, then
you will have to admit that your claim that the Council was above the Pope in th
at instance is false. Further, that the Council did indeed affirm the Tome demon
strates the truth of the infallibility of the Pope's decree. If you disagree, th
en you have a very deficient understanding of what infallibility is. The grace o
f infallibility does not MAKE a teaching infallible. It merely permits the Churc
h to proclaim God's Truth correctly. Did the Council affirm that Pope's Leo decr
ee was infallible - that is, did it affirm the Truth of his Decree? YES IT DID.
As noted, your claim that Chalcedon disproves the dogma of the infallibility of
the Pope's teaching ex cathedra is not supported by the facts. Your claim only p
roves that your understanding of infallibility is deficient.
Stuart L. Koehl Didn't I already address that issue? You cannot have synodality
without primacy, nor primacy without synodality.
Glenn Guadalupe Yes you did, Stuart, wonderfully so, but without going back thro
ugh the posts, I think I am addressing something Fr. John stated AFTER your post
. So it doesn't hurt to repeat.smile emoticon
Glenn Guadalupe Robert Frost, your citation from Wikipedia about Hunanae Vitae i
s not altogether complete. It says that the matter was "reserved to the Pope." T
his language is usually taken to mean that it is the Pope himself who made the d
ecision to reserve the matter to himself. But that was not the case. The fact is
that during the debates regarding The Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Sp
es), a Latin American bishop had made a minor sensation about the issue of contr
aception, proposing some limited form. MOST of the bishops disagreed But there w
ere a few who did not. Hence, the fathers decided to APPEAL the matter to the Po
pe. That's how it came about,. This was not some UNILATERAL undertaking by the P
ope. In fact, the matter was not even on his mind UNTIL the bishops brought it t
o his attention. It was the bishops themselves who wanted him to decide on the m
atter. I hope you are honest enough to no longer use Humanae Vitae as some sort
of example of papal dictatorial power.
Stuart L. Koehl Hey, don't you like being mistaken for an overrated poet?
Glenn Guadalupe Robert Frost, it is you who is completely missing the point. A d
raft of the encyclical was circulated among the Council Fathers and the MAJORITY
was in favor of it (heck, even the EP was in favor of it). So in promulgating H
umanae Vitae, the Pope was expressing the belief of the MAJORITY of the bishops.
Neither the initiation of the encyclical nor its determination was a unilateral
decision of the Pope. By all means, it was promulgated by his PERSONAL authorit
y, but by no means was this a UNILATERAL decision. by the Pope. As noted earlier
, I hope you have enough honesty to stop presenting the case of Humanae Vitae as
a unilateral dictatorial imposition by the Pope.
Mary Lanser smile emoticon
Justin Manley Robert Frost...

Nick Chinappi It would seem that Fr John Morris has, yet again, misrepresented t
he events of Ephesus II and St Leo's role in overturning the decrees this counci
l gave. For example, Theodoret of Cyrrus was deposed at Ephesus II. After this e
vent, Theodoret immediately petitioned Pope St Leo inquiring whether he should a
bide by the deposition or not. His petition can be found here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604052.htm
Leo, wasting no time, restored Theodoret to his See unilaterally, to use the wor
ds of Nathaniel McCallum, and the Churches of the East did not protest. That St
Leo did restore Theodoret of Cyrrus to his See over the judgement of Ephesus II:
"The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: The most devout Bishop
Theodoret, ***restored to his see by the most holy archbishop of the renowned ci
ty of Rome***, has now appeared in the role of accuser. Lest the hearing be disr
upted, let us conclude what we have initiated. The presence of the most devout T
heodoret will be prejudicial to no one..."
Acts of Chalcedon, Richard Price, book 1: 135
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1846311004/ref=mp_s_a_1_1...
Now, Fr John wrote:
"Pope St. Leo lacked the authority to overrule the Robber Council. It took the C
ouncil of Chalcedon to overrule the Robber Council."
If this is true, then how on earth did St Leo unilaterally restore the deposed b
ishops of the East over Ephesus II *before Chalcedon*? The general academic cons
ensus is that Ephesus II was dead on arrival when Dioscorus wouldn't allow the T
ome to be read, followed by the Legates walking out on the Council. Which aspect
of the Council was authoritative until Chalcedon's "overruling" of Ephesus II?
Certainly not the depositions. Then what?
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 52 (Leo the Great)
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
newadvent.org
Mary Lanser These are important questions Nick.
Glenn Guadalupe Nick Chinappi, I put a like to your post about Ephesus, but I wo
uld like to offer a very small clarification. In those days, and until the 13th
century, the Pope ALWAYS acted in synod. The Pope's reinstatement of Theodoret w
as a synodal action, not a unilateral action by the Pope. History often records
decisions of the bishops of Rome in the first millennium as "the Pope did this,"
but it was actually always "the Pope and his synod" did this. Of course, this d
oes not in any way impugn the personal prerogative of the bishop of Rome. After
all, it, was on his personal authority that the case of Theodoret could even be
retried. However, the final determination was a synodal action. We as Catholics
recognize the Pope's formal, persona,l judicial and executive authority, distinc
t from the formal, collegial, judicial and executive authority of the College or
other group of bishops. However, whether a decision is promulgated through a fo
rmal collegial authority, or the Pope's personal authority, the ancient canons a
re not violated because there is always consensus with other bishops in those pe
rsonal decisions.. Fr. John and those that think like him always fail to take th
at latter consideration into account.
Stuart L. Koehl Acting "in" synod is the perfect expression of the concept of pr
imus inter pares. The primus heads the synod, presides over it (directly or thro
ugh his agents), and expresses his views on the issues being discussed. The syno
d discusses the issues, takes into account the views of the primus, formulates a
solution, but does not promulgate it without the endorsement of the primus. Thu
s, the principles of Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34 are upheld: the synod does
nothing without the permission of the primus; the primus does nothing without t
he consent of all; neither can act without the other.
Nick Chinappi Glen:
I agree. My use of the term unilateral was in reference to the Popes actions ove
r Ephesus II. It was not intended to present a catholic version of Fr Johns Chur
ch/Synod vs Pope dichotomy.
Glenn Guadalupe Great point, Stuart. When the College of Cardinals replaced the
Synod of bishops, the notion of a FORMAL collegiality (as expressed in a synod)
did not yet disappear immediately from Latin Church' administration. However, in
o, as the quorum of the College of Cardinals became more and more international
in the late Middle Ages and beyond, whereby the members of the College were no l
onger concentrated in a particular locake, the formalness of the College (I.e.,
the notion of synod) gradually disappeared. Be that as it may, the notion of col
legiality still and always has existed
Glenn Guadalupe Who is Robert Frost? smile emoticon
Jose L. Martinez Perhaps we can start with homework. Let us begin with some join
t statements made by the popes and various Orthodox Patriarchs as well as those
from the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Cat
holic Church and the Orthodox Church
http://www.vatican.va/.../sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm
The Holy See - The Roman Curia - Pontifical Councils - Pontifical Council for...
vatican.va
Glenn Guadalupe Jose L, Martinez, the problem is that these agreed statements me
an little to those like Fr. John Morris and Michael Frost. Their ecclesiology se
ems to be basically democratic, and the teaching of patriarchs and head bishops
in their view are just opinions until there is explicit approval from the laity
for them. Of course, Fr. John and Frost's own views are also mere opinions, with
no actual authoritative documents to back them up. Let us pray that the EP's po
v is more prevalent and gains authoritative (i.e. synodal) approval at a future
pan-Orthodox council, since the EP''s ecclesiology is more likely to lead to uni
ty with the Catholic Church than the one proposed by Fr. John Morris.
You completely misunderstand the points that I have been trying to make. Of cour
se, I recognize the authority of the hierachy. However, it is also true that unt
il competent authority such as the Holy Synods and ultimately the clerg...See Mo
re
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, I fully understand the practice in EO'xy of synodality
. My problem with your opinion is the excessive role of the laity as judge over
their ecclesiastical authorities, and your idea of "majority rules" in a synod.
A balance must be struck in the concept of synodality that fully takes into acco
unt the true and proper authority of its head bishop WORKING TOGETHER with his b
rother bishops. Your system discounts that primatial authority altogether. The f
irst part of Apostolic Canon 34 is discarded by your system, hence it is unpatri
stic. Your system is not the synodality that was practiced by the early Church.
Stuart L. Koehl "My problem with your opinion is the excessive role of the laity
as judge over their ecclesiastical authorities, and your idea of "majority rule
s" in a synod."
There is no denying that the laity have retained a more active role in the recep
tion of doctrine in the Eastern Churches than in the West; Vatican II never did
get around to formulating a "theology of the laity", but in practice the laity i
n the Latin Church DO have a real voice through their implicit acceptance or rej
ection of a specific teaching; and if rejection reaches a certain level, the bis
hops do tend to respond to it, which is far less satisfactory than acknowledging
the role of the laity in the first place.
As far as synodality goes, the objective is not a majority, or even a super-majo
rity, but rather UNANIMITY, either literal or moral. Thus, synods tend to be lon
g, drawn-out affairs, because a real consensus fedelium is needed. Canon 34 of t
he Holy Apostles is very explicit about the need for unanimity, "for the greater
glory of the Father in Christ, through the Holy Spirit". When the Church spoke
with one voice, it was seen as proof that the Spirit was guiding; disputed counc
ils or councils were a specific view was imposed upon the majority, did not poss
ess the same degree of legitimacy.
Sometimes it is the faithful that defend the Faith of the Church. During the ico
noclastic crisis the faithful and the monastics more than anyone else defended t
he orthodox faith against the iconoclasts. However, I by no means believe that t
he faith should be decided by majority vote. Therefore, I agree with your statem
ent that properly understood it is a matter of the Bishops working together to d
efend the doctrine of the Church. However, I also beleive that in an autcephalou
s Church, the ultimate authority is the Holy Synod not the Primate. The Primate
must abide by the will of the Holy Synod in all matters. Naturally, he has a voi
ce, but he can and has been overridden by the majority of the Holy Synod. I bele
ive that does fit in with the reqiirement of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles that
the Primate not "do anything without the consent of all."
Fr. John.
Craig Ostrowski Stuart L. Koehl
///When the Church spoke with one voice, it was seen as proof that the Spirit wa
s guiding; disputed councils or councils were a specific view was imposed upon t
he majority, did not possess the same degree of legitimacy.///
Do you think any of the first seven ecumenical councils fit that description. I
don't. Nicaea came to be rejected by a majority of the East, but when a new empe
ror came along who fully accepted Nicaea, the imperial authorities persecuted th
ose who rejected Nicaea and they were then simply described as being outside the
Church. Essentially the same thing happened with each of the following ecumenic
al councils. Consequently, your entire theory rests on being able to identify "t
he Church" in a principled manner. However, all of your previous history of comm
ents in this group has shown that you entirely reject such methodology. Thus bot
h your historical account as well as your own view of ecclesiology is incoherent
. This same problem plagues Fr. John's arguments as well, which is why all of hi
s arguments about Apostolic Canon 34 are also incoherent.
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, I believe the CC's teaching on the infallibility of the
sensus fidei acknowledges the role of the laity in dogmatic matters, and I think
it is lived out in the manner that you described. But the executive authority i
s always in the hierarchy, never in the laity. That is the way the order the Lor
d himself established in His Church. I think Fr. John's ecclesiology is somewhat
lacking in that feature. As to your comment on unanimity, I agree. I'll flesh o
ut my pov more in my following response Fr. John.
Stuart L. Koehl True, Father. The classic example is Maximos the Confessor, who
was just a lay monastic when he stood against the entire Episcopacy of the Churc
h. When told that "everybody" had accepted the doctrine of monotheiitism, and th
at he was all alone, he responded, "Then I am the Orthodox Church".
Metropolitan Kallistos made an interesting observation about authority in the Ch
urch last week, noting that no one bishop, no one assembly of bishops, can, a pr
iori, be called "infallible". Rather, he said, "Truth is invincible within the C
hurch as a whole, but one cannot always tell in advance who it is that will pron
ounce the truth".
The Pope, he said, is "infallible when he speaks the truth", but there is no gua
rantee that what he says will be true just because he meets an arbitrary set of
criteria. So also for a general synod or ecumenical council, for there have been
councils that explicitly called themselves ecumenical, but which were rejected.
The fact is, anyone is infallible WHEN HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH, but it is up to the
Body of Christ to discern that truth.
At the same time, Father Robert Taft made another excellent observation: that Va
tican I did not actually say that the Pope is infallible; rather, it said that t
he CHURCH is infallible, and that the Pope, under certain circumstances, can spe
ak the truth on behalf of the Church. The problem is, the council adjourned befo
re defining the scope of the circumstances (referring to the situations that jus
tify an ex Cathedra decree, as opposed to the simple mechanics of making one) in
which the Pope can and should use that authority.
///The classic example is Maximos the Confessor, who was just a lay monastic whe
n he stood against the entire Episcopacy of the Church. When told that "everybod
y" had accepted the doctrine of monotheiitism, and that he was all alone, he res
ponded, "Then I am the Orthodox Church".///
The problem here is that Maximus never said any such thing.
Jose L. Martinez So why do you think that St. Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical P
atriarch Dimitrios I put together this joint commission? Why did popes Benedict
XVI and Francis together with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew continue supporti
ng it?
This commission is to do the labor, to bring something that both Churches can sa
y yes to, that will brings us back into full communion with each other.
John Morris To Jose L. Martinez:

The international theological dialogue can only make recommendations. In order f
or those recommendations to take effect the Pope must agree from the Catholic si
de and the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches must agree
from the Eastern Orthodox side.
Fr. John.
Stuart L. Koehl "Nicaea came to be rejected by a majority of the East,"
That's simplistic. The Nicene formula was deliberately vague in order to accommo
date the broadest range of interpretations, some of which were rejected by the H
omoousians, led by Athanasius. The Homoiousian party, led by Arius and later by
Eusebious of Nicomedia, held a view that was within the Nicene umbrella, but tha
t in turn revealed the need for further refinement of the theological synthesis,
which was not self-evident. In fact, the solution was derived through the works
and insight of the Cappodocian Fathers, whose neo-Nicene theology gradually won
acceptance not only in the East but ALSO in the West, where it was popularized
by Ambrose and only reluctantly adopted by the Church of Rome, which held to the
paleo-Nicene view for almost fifty years.
The history of doctrine cannot easily be divided into white hats and black hats;
nor were the issues that seem so cut-and-dried to us today as well defined at t
he time. We must avoid cartoon or caricature in our view of doctrinal history, a
nd we must avoid theology by cliche.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, during the iconoclastic controversy, the faithful alon
e did not determine the matter. The hierarchy had the final authority to judge.
I believe your pov does not give sufficient recognition to that fact. As far as
the issue of the authority of a synod, what is lacking in your pov is recognitio
n of the unique authority of its head bishop, A synod cannot exist without a hea
d bishop. That is what AC 34 states (though, in truth, AC 34 can be fulfilled in
other ways than a synod since AC 34 does not even mention "synod"). The claim t
hat a Synod is above its head bishop cannot be a starting point for discussion b
ecause such a notion is already considered a heresy (i.e. conciliarism) in Catho
licism. What the Catholic Church CAN agree to is that the head bishop can be cor
rected by his brother bishops in a synod (or college), whereby the head bishop c
an change his view, and hence the head bishop and other bishops TOGETHER can pro
nounce AS a synod/council/college. Synodal authority can exist ONLY when there i
s UNANIMITY between the head bishop and his brother bishops, not the head bishop
alone without his brother bishops, nor the rest of the bishops alone without th
eir head. THAT idea of unanimity between head and body is what is missing from y
our personal ecclesiology.
Glenn Guadalupe Jose Martinez, I am in agreement with Fr. John's answer to you.
This principle was recognized at the Council of Florence. There are times when i
t is known that participants in a colloquium have full authority to represent th
eir Churches. Other times, those participants have advisory roles.
Jose L. Martinez I agree, that they must be approved by Rome and a EO Holy Synod
. But this group is doing the research and presenting their findings. SO the que
stion for you Fr. John and Glenn is, do you find fault in their research and rea
soning?

Nothing in your comment overturns anything in my critique of your previous comme
nt, and so the fact remains that it (my comment) showed your argument to be inco
herent.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not share the condemnation of conciliarism with
the Catholic Church. Indeed, I would say that conciliarism is the Eastern Ortho
dox approach to church administration. There are indeed times when the ...See Mo
re
Stuart L. Koehl "The Apostolic Canon does not give the Primate absoltue authorit
y, but limits his authority with the qualifciation that he must not do anything
without the consent of the other Bishops of his Synod."
It is a reciprocal relationship, Father. You cannot ignore that the Canon ALSO s
tates that the synod cannot act without the Primate's consent. So each MUST defe
r to the other. There must be primacy within the concilium; and conciliarity in
the exercise of the primacy.
That is not so hard to understand; and understanding it, you can perceive why cu
rrent Orthodox AND Catholic ecclesiology is out of balance.
Craig Ostrowski Stuart
What specifically in the extra details you provided do you think overturns my cr
iticism of your view?
Yes, it is normally are reciprocal relationship. However, in the end the authori
ty of a Holy Synod is superior to the authority of the Primate. At least it is i
n modern Eastern Orthodoxy. In our system, the Primate only presides over the me
etings of the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod makes the decisions. Of course, he has
a voice in all that pertains to the autocephalous Church that he leads. Therefor
e, the Primate has a voice on the Holy Synod. However, it is possible that the H
oly Synod may overrule a Primate.
Fr John.
Stuart L. Koehl In modern Orthodoxy, whose ecclesiology has been busted since 14
53. Unless there is balance between the primus and concilium, between the one an
d the many, then you have no real primacy at all; and if you have no real primac
y, your conciliarity has no effective means of enforcement.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, the incident with the Patriarch of Jerusalem proves, c
ontrary to your claim, that LOCAL Synods do NOT have authority over their head b
ishop. The one that had the authority was your pan-Orthodox Council. If it was t
rue that the LOCAL Synod had authority over him, then his deposition by his loca
l Synod could never have been reconsidered. Only the Church universal has the au
thority to depose a bishop (which would have been represented by your pan-Orthod
ox council). So any examples from local synods does not demonstrate nor help you
r claims, The real issue before us, I believe is whether there is a human author
ity that can .judge the Pope of Rome.

Stuart L. Koehl "Only the Church universal has the authority to depose a bishop
"
This has never been true. History is replete with examples of bishops being depo
sed by local or regional synods. The system does have avenues of appeal, that ru
n upward from the metropolitan synod to the patriarchal synod (and the Patriarch
himself, who has an appellate jurisdiction), and ultimately, according to Tradi
tion, to the Bishop of Rome as court of final appeal. No all bishops appeal thei
r deposition, and not all who appeal do so all the way to Rome.
The main weakness of the system is a man cannot be judge over his own cause, whi
ch means that it breaks down whenever the Church of Rome is a party in any inter
-ecclesial dispute. If "no one may judge the Roman See" was originally meant to
spell out Rome's ultimate appellate power, it begs the question of how one gets
a fair hearing if one's grievance is against the Church of Rome. This needs to b
e worked through, because, in the first millennium, up until the 9th century, th
ere were no instances of Rome interfering unbidden in the affairs of another pat
riarchal Church.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, are you saying that your Synod can proceed WITHOUT the
consent of its head bishop? If so, how could it be claimed that your ecclesiolo
gy is faithful to AC 34? If your Synod can NOT proceed without the consent of th
e head bishop (even if he is corrected therein by his brother bishops), how can
you claim that the Synod is ABOVE its head bishop? Please respond. As it stands,
the claim that a synod is ABOVE its head bishop would be false.
Nick Chinappi ^ and that's why Fr Johns ecclesiology and continuous appeals to c
anon 34 make no sense.
Stuart L. Koehl "The real issue before us, I believe is whether there is a human
authority that can .judge the Pope of Rome."
Pick your Council: Constance said yes, Florence said no. Ultimately, though, tha
t is not the right question.
Craig Ostrowski Stuart,
Was Constance consistent with the principles of binding ecumenical authority des
cribed by Nicaea II? If not, then why bother to even mention it? Certainly you w
ouldn't mention Hieria to prove your point, so why would you use Constance?
Stuart L. Koehl Constance was a general council of the Church in the West that s
tated it had authority over the Pope(s), by which authority it brought about an
end to the Great Western Schism. As regards the canons of Nicaea II, no Council
is ecumenical based on a priori criteria, only by its reception.
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, if someone can appeal the decision of a certain authorit
y to another authority, then the first authority cannot be said to have the real
authority on that matter. In truth, I believe the real authority in depositions
is the Tradition of the Church. The decisions of synods and bishops individuall
y can be revised or cancelled according to Tradition. No synod, nor any individu
al bishop, including the bishop of Rome, can depose by his sole whim and fancy.
Stuart L. Koehl Glenn, that's silly. Just because the Supreme Court is the court
of final appeals in civil and criminal law in the United States does not mean t
hat every lower court, all the way down to small claims and traffic court, has n
o authority within its jurisdiction.
Here is how New Advent begins its entry on Constance:
"A (partly) ecumenical council held at Constance..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
Previously, you referred to Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils to suppo
rt your theories, but in this case Tanner essentially agrees with the Catholic E
ncyclopedia. Thus my question to you still stands. So please tell me which pope
ratified that part of Constance which you are relying upon.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Constance
A (partly) ecumenical council held at Constance, now in the Grand Duchy of Baden
, from 5 Nov., 1414, to 22 April, 1418
newadvent.org
In order to talk about reception you first have to be able to identify in a prin
cipled manner whose reception counts. But, once again, this is something that yo
u've consistently rejected which is why both your historical account as well as
your ecclesiology is incoherent.
Yes, I am saying that a synod can proceed without its Primate. It has happened i
n Eastern Orthodoxy. It is rare, but a Holy Synod may remove its Primate and ove
r his objections elect a new Primate. It happened in Jerusalem in 2005. Several
times Metropolitan Philip clashed with Patriarch Ignatius IV. He took the disput
e to the Holy Synod and the Synod always backed Metropolitan Philip.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Lower courts have certain competencies (i.e., sole jurisdiction)
on certain matters, but not in all matters. Deposition of bishops is not in the
competence of lower courts. Only the supreme authority of the Church universal
has that competency for the mere fact that the office of bishop is of DIVINE ins
titution, not of merely ecclesiastical institution.
Stuart L. Koehl "Deposition of bishops is not in the competence of lower courts.
Only the supreme authority of the Church universal has that competency for the
mere fact that the office of bishop is of DIVINE institution, not of merely eccl
esiastical institution."
Don't mistake the 1917 and 1980 Codes of Canon Law as representing the history o
f the Church going back two millennia.
Stuart L. Koehl The Pope of Alexandria had, from the third century onward, the p
ower to appoint AND depose ALL the bishops in his territory, a power that exceed
ed that of the Bishop of Rome until the early 20th century. Elsewhere, bishops w
ere deposed by Metropolitan and Patriarchal synods for centuries, and appeals to
Rome are noteworthy ONLY by their rarity.
Glenn Guadalupe I'm not basing my statements on the current law of the Catholic
Church, but the praxis of the first millennium. Appeals from deposition to eithe
r the bishop of Rome or an Ecumenical Council are easily evident in the history
of the undivided Church.
Stuart L. Koehl As appeals, they by definition represent exceptions to the rule.
John Morris Glenn Guadalupe
Under normal circumstances a Holy Synod can depose its Primate. However, the Pri
mate can appeal to the higher authority of a Pan-Orthodox council convened by th
e Ecumenical Patriarch. However, uless he appeals, and the Pan Orthodox council
decides in his favor, the decision of the Holy Synod stands.
Fr. John.
Dan Szynal "In order to talk about reception you first have to be able to identi
fy in a principled manner whose reception counts. "
I, as well as others, have wondered about this for a long time, too. I've really
never seen anyone give an answer to this other than saying, reception occurs wh
en it is received, which is nothing more than a circular argument.
Craig Ostrowski Dan,
Very true. It would be nice if those who talk about reception would try to deal
with this issue because without being able to identify in a principled, as oppos
ed to an ad hoc, manner whose opinions count as "the Church", their entire argum
ent is useless.
John Morris To Dan Szynal:
However, a council can also be rejected as was the case with the Robber Council
of Ephesus. Therfore, the argument that a council must be received is not a circ
ular argument.
Fr. John.
Craig Ostrowski That an historical council was rejected does not mean that the t
heory of receptionism is not circular.
Dan Szynal It is just that there should be some set of criteria which should be
identifiable. I don't think it's too much to ask for specifics regarding what th
e Church sets as the criteria for reception.
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, local authorities have competence to perform an action o
n a matter that is in the true competence of a higher authority ONLY if the stan
dards used by the local authority to justify its action align with the standard
of the higher authority. If it does not so align with the higher standard, then
appeals are made., This is not an exception, but the rule.

John Morris To Dan Szynal:
There is no clear cut criteria for the reception of a council. Reception means t
hat a council must be accepted by the Church as an Ecumenical Council over time.
In other words the decisions of a council must withstand the test of time. That
reception can come by the recognition of a council by another later general cou
ncil as an Ecumenical Council, or by the general agreement in the Church that a
council is an Ecumenical Council.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner Given the lack of an authoritative list of infallible statements ema
nating from the bishops of Rome I'm surprised that Craig Ostrowski and Dan Szyna
l question the idea of reception. I'm surprised because, as St. Cardinal Newman
pointed out, one must be careful in saying a particular statement from the bisho
p of Rome is infallible because over the course of time it may prove otherwise.
So in a certain sense even ex cathedra statements are dependent on reception.
Nick Chinappi Papal Encyclicals and Ex Cathedra definitions are not subject to t
he reception of the faithful. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that each r
equire faith/religious assent and obedience, in varying degrees.
"892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching
in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bish
op of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible
definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the
exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understand
ing of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the
faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from
the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it." ---CCC
Craig Ostrowski Bob Gardner
How does that question relate to and impact the question of the coherence of the
theory of receptionism?
Dan Szynal Even the list of ecumenical councils (I think Rome counts 21?) really
isn't authoritative. It seems that we do this by osmosis. You know it when you
see it. But that's a slippery slope.
it is not that i question reception. It is just that there needs to be some crit
eria by which we evaluate it. It is the same thing with infallible statements as
well. That is true.
Mary Lanser Nick: The faithful accept what the Church says as long as the Church
says it. When the Church says something else again, then the faithful are expec
ted to accept it because the Church says it. That is what that passage means.
Mary Lanser Years ago Father Hal instructed/ordered me to spend year accepting a
ll that he said and finding ways to see how it could be true.....Rather than con
stantly arguing with his every word. It changed my entire perspective on Church
teaching as well as his own.
Mary Lanser I did not get stupid by doing so. I opened my mind and heart instead
. That is what the Church is asking of her faithful.
Bob Gardner Craig Ostrowski, I believe the principal is the same. How do you thi
nk it differs?
The principle is most definitely not the same for at least two reasons:...See Mo
re
John Morris To Nick Chinappi
I disagree that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were not subject to rec
eption by the Faithful. Your idea creates a primacy above but not in the Church.
Propterly understod Primacy exists within, not over the Church. Under nor...See
More
Bob Gardner Craig, while VI has criteria it is perhaps interesting to note that
they were 1000% incorrect about which statements fit the criteria. Modern day th
eologians typically list two (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) as opposed t
o the "thousands" offered by some of the concilar fathers. I believe this proves
the Newman rule. The underlying principal for the difference (between then and
now) is reception by the church.
Craig Ostrowski Bob,
///while VI have criteria it is perhaps interesting to note that were 1000% inco
rrect about which statements fit the criteria.///
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that VI's criteria is 1000% wr
ong? It seems that you are because you then go on to claim that some of VI's fat
hers claimed that there were 1000's of papal proclamations that met such criteri
a. But even if you were correct about them, it does not follow that merely becau
se some of those fathers made that claim that it is true. Whatever the case may
be, whether there are only two papal proclamations which fit that criteria or 10
00's, the criteria was clearly laid out and any propositions can be measured aga
inst that criteria. But, once again, there is no such criteria among the theory
of receptionism.
Bob Gardner Dan Szynal, I believe the answer is similar to the one given by Chri
st to Nicodemus in John 3:8. Our rational minds may find the answer unsatisfacto
ry, but, after all, this side of eternity we only see in part.
Bob Gardner Craig, I was not saying the council's criteria was wrong. I am sayin
g some of the fathers were wrong about the statements they thought fit the crite
ria. So while they defined the criteria, it was up to the church to receive the
statements that fit it. The only logical way around that would have been to auth
oritatively list the statements, which was not done, so the faithful had to wait
and see which ones were received as such.
Your response ignores the fact that we can compare any proposed statements again
st that criteria and determine which ones meet it or not. In other words, that c
riteria is objective, and not subjective.

Bob Gardner And yet in the real world it doesn't work like that.
But, it actually does work like that in the real world, except for those who wis
h to avoid the consequences of such criteria and thus render everything into rel
ativism.
In fact, two recent papal works implicitly deny the concept of receptionism. Pop
e BXVI's statements on limbo and purgatory note that while limbo was commonly re
ceived by the Western Church for quite a long time, it never gained dogmatic acc
eptance and thus cannot be considered to be a definite truth of the Church. The
same goes for the idea of purgatory as a place as opposed to a state.
John Morris To Michael Frost:
We would not teach that unbaptized infants are automatically damned. Instead, we
would commend tham to God's mercy and leave their fate in His hands. That is ba
cically what St. Gregory of Nyssa said in his homily on the subject.
Fr. John.
John Morris To Micheal Frost;
Nevertheless, we do not teach that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell. We
trust their fate to the mercy of God and leave it at that.
Fr. John.
John Morris To Michal Frost;
However, the East did not accept the argument that an unbaptized infant automati
cally goes to hell I know about this subject because we had a discussion on it d
uring the recent meeting of the Pastoral Affairs Committee of the Assembly of Ca
nonical Orthodox Bishops in the US. We have approved a service for the burial of
the remains of a miscarriage.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner Nick Chinappi you wound me.
Nick Chinappi ?
Bob Gardner Craig, I'd have to relook at those documents to see if that is merel
y your interpretation. Regardless, even from an RC perspective neither one is co
nsidered "binding."
Nick Chinappi How did I wound you Bob? I haven't really participated here that m
uch.
Bob Gardner I saw the "likes" man smile emoticon

Nick Chinappi I agree with Craig on this one bro. Nothing personal.
Bob Gardner In the final analysis I think both east and west depend on reception
to some degree, and on both sides the process is somewhat nebulous.
What does me being on a blog have to do with my personal adherence to the teachi
ngs of the Greek Archdiocese of America?
Ps: wrong thread.
Nick Chinappi You have a PhD in history, and yet said that Hieria met all the ou
tward qualifications for an Ecumenical Council... Wow. And the fact that you tau
ght history is equally wow.
Please transfer your comments to the other thread. This is a different thread.
Nick Chinappi Still on the wrong thread Fr John Morris
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, whether the deposition of the Patriarch was confirmed
or the Patriarch was reinstated, either result would only prove that the local p
atriarchal synod did not have an inherent authority to depose its head bishop. S
imple as that.
Glenn Guadalupe Michael Frost, what do you mean by the "damnation" of infants? P
lease define that term.
Dan Szynal Glenn Guadalupe, IGNORE what Michael Frost has to say about Catholici
sm. He makes all sorts of claims about a lot of things, and only demonstrates ig
norance. If you want to read THE authoritative source, read the International Th
eological Commission's writings on the topic from 2007. It is a true theological
work of the Church, not the opinions of one former Catholic with an axe to grin
d.
http://www.vatican.va/.../rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un...
The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised
The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of
un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the hierarchy of truths and
the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the uni
city and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the
vatican.va
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, is your synod allowed to make decisions for the Church
of Antioch without a head bishop? If not, how can you claim that your Synod can
function without a head bishop?

Glenn Guadalupe Thanks Dan. Michael Frost, you didn't answer my question. What d
o you mean by the "damnation of infants?" Pope Pius IX taught in "Quanto confici
amur moerore," (1863) "God in His supreme
goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal pun
ishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." It appears your are sp
reading falsehood by claiming the matter of the damnation of infants was defined
in the history of the Catholic Church.
Dan Szynal You are dead wrong. If you read the ITC, which you either haven't or
ignore, this has never been dogma at all. Even Ludwig Ott's text on Dogmatic The
ology places it in the category of Common Teaching, and his book dates to Pre-Va
tican II. What is showing for all to see is your ignorance on the issue.
The ITC goes at long length to establish the historical documents from the Fathe
rs onward on this subject. The fact is, is that this was never dogma. The ITC sa
ys it in crystal clear language. You are wrong, yet again. You can argue with me
but you can't argue with the FACTS of the ITC which contains the most preeminen
t theologians in the world.
Glenn Guadalupe "But it does mean that anyone who dialogs with Rome has to keep
this in mind at all times. What she believes, teaches and confesses today may no
t be what she believes, teaches, and confesses tomorrow." OR it could simply mea
n that people like Michael Frost like to pick and choose whatever they feel will
support their anti-Catholicism. So even if there is no dogma, but a range of be
liefs over a matter, you will insist there is ONLY to promote an anti-Catholic p
ov. That was already evident in your claim, Michael, that Humanae Vitae was a un
ilateral imposition by the Pope of Rome. You would ignore the beliefs of the ove
rwhelming majority of the Council Fathers, yet promote the beliefs of a few in a
papal commission, in order to propose your falsehood, all the while proclaiming
a "majority rules" ecclesiology. However, it seems your position is only expedi
ent according to its usefulness in promoting anti-Catholicism. Your rationale ap
pears to readily switch depending on whatever promotes the most anti-Catholic vi
ew.
Dan Szynal The ITC document addresses Augustine, Aquinas, etc. so I didn't need
to address them. My point stands. I don't care what you think. Your opinions do
not represent what the Church has taught. You cite Dyer. I cite the ITC. My sour
ce has the authority that Dyer doesn't.
Dan Szynal Get a clue, Michael. That is just what the ITC did in its document. T
hey went through the centuries and synthesized the whole thing. I don't skip any
thing to the present. The ITC document says it all, from the beginning to now. B
iblica foundations, latin fathers, greek fathers, medieval and scholastics, Tren
t up to V1. It's all there.
Dan Szynal Let's make it crystal clear to the ignorant. In Section 34.
In the Church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are
deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been common doctrine . This co
mmon doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles
of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or
the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denia
l of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act o
f the magisterium.

Dan Szynal 38. d) The Bull Auctorem fidei
tion of the existence of Limbo
of Pope Pius VI is not a dogmatic defini
Dan Szynal 40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism
suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of
the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church.
Glenn Guadalupe St. Thomas Aquinas taught that unbaptized infants did not suffer
the torments of Hell, but were in a state of natural (not supernatural) happine
ss.. I ask you again, Michael Frost, what do you mean by "damnation?"
Dan Szynal 24. The theologians who taught, in one form or another, that unbaptis
ed children are deprived of the vision of God generally held at the same time a
double affirmation: (a) God wills that everyone be saved, and (b) God, who wills
that all be saved, wills equally the dispensations and the means that he himsel
f has established for this salvation and that he has made known to us by his rev
elation. The second affirmation, of itself, does not exclude other dispositions
of the divine economy (as is clear, for example, in the witness of the Holy Inno
cents).
Of course the Holy Synod of Antioch functions under the leadership of the Patria
rch. However, the Holy Synod has the authority to overrule the Patriarch for the
Patriarch must abide by the will of the majority of the Holy Synod of Antioch.
Fr. John.
Dan Szynal Michael Frost, which the ITC discussed in section 24. Lyons and Flore
nce did not say that infants who die are automatically damned because the Church
affirmed that there are other ways in which the grace of baptism can be made ma
nifest. So Lyons and Florence is true, but the fact is is that they are misappli
ed to automatically condemning infants. The ITC already addresses all of these t
hings Michael.
Go back and open your eyes and soften your hard hearted attitude. I've demonstra
ted where you're wrong, on multiple fronts.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, that does not address my question. I asked if your Syn
od can make decisions for the Church of Antioch WITHOUT the consent of its head
bishop? If the head bishop is corrected by his brother bishops, is it the Synod
as an entity that is correcting the head bishop, or is it his fellow bishops cor
recting the head bishop? Please answer those two questions separately. A "YES" o
r "NO" for the first question is all that is needed.
Dan Szynal From the ITC document. Let's clarify it again.
Remember, this is the document which is a theological arm of the Catholic Church
, who has authority to speak on the issue as faithfully representing the teachin
g of the Catholic Church.
40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the
privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church
, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory th
at the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusi
on of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance
in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a natural happiness som
etimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.
John Morris To Glenn Guadalupel;
I haver written that the Holy Synod has full authority to overrule the Patriarch
. What more do you need. The ultimate authority is the Holy Synod, not the Patri
arch.
Fr. John.
Dan Szynal
an tell us
lic Church
ching is.
June 25 at
It is sad that Michael Frost's pride is such that he thinks that he c

what he thinks the teaching of the Catholic Church is, when the Catho
itself plainly and clearly teaches with authority what the actual tea
3:48pm Like 1
Glenn Guadalupe What more do I need? I need you to answer my question. Does your
Synod have the authority to make decisions for the Church of Antioch WITHOUT th
e consent of the head bishop? YES or NO. The answer will determine if your eccle
siology is faithful to Apostolic Canon 34.
The Holy Synod makes the decisions concerning the affairs of the Church of Antio
ch. The Patriarch presides over meetings, but does not make the decision. It is
entirely possible for the Holy Synod to make a decision without the con...See Mo
re
Glenn Guadalupe Dan Szynal, naturally, Michael Frost could not address my citati
on from Pope Pius IX or what St. Thomas actually taught. If he stopped to think
about them, it would demonstrate he was wrong. But it appears his only interest
is to promote whatever he fantasizes will weaken the Catholic Church. Oh well..
John Morris To Glenn Gauadalupe:
For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to disagree with the Catholic position during
a discussion between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox does not mean that the Easte
rn Orthodox Christian wants to weaken the Catholic Church. It merely means that
he disagrees with the Catholic Church on a specific issue.
Fr. John.
Dan Szynal "All you and the ITC are doing is re-defining, re-interpreting, revis
ing."
That's your opinion. And since you are an no authority on nothing, that's about
how much your opinion is worth. What the ITC says matters. What you say.... not
so much.
The hubris of someone who claims to understand the teaching of the Church better
than the Church itself. You are a legend in your own mind, dude. Certifiable.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, REALLY? You think "Imposing its will on the Patriarch"
satisfies the prescription of AC 34's necessity of the consent of the head bish
op? Wow! No wonder you said earlier that you don't think there can be agreement
between the EOC and CC on this issue. Your understanding is really --- out there
.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, when Michael Frost refuses to address my questions to
him which will, with some thought from him, disprove his own thesis, I believe i
t is safe to say his only interest is anti-Catholicism.
The canon stipulates that both are required the consent of the Primate and the c
onsent of the other Bishops of the Holy Synod. Therefore, it is a fair conclusio
n that the Bishops of the Holy Synod have full authority to make decisions and i
f necessary to impose their will on the Primate.
Fr. John.
Dan Szynal Glenn, when I post direct citations from an official Church source, a
nd Michael's response is to question their integrity by calling them revisionist
s which implies that they are not truthful, it rather obvious that anti-Catholic
prejudice is driving it.
Glenn Guadalupe The problem, Fr. John, is that the term "consent" is used for bo
th the head bishop, on the one hand, and the rest of the bishops on the other. C
onclusively, whatever necessity or imposition of authority you claim exists by t
he rest of the bishops towards its head bishop, the same must also exist by the
head bishop towards the rest of the bishops. Hence, your interpretation is lacki
ng, which is why it is unpatristic. Because it has no basis in the Fathers, it c
annot be accepted as a basis for a common ecclesiology. For this same reason, th
e position of the SSPX, that makes the consent of the head the SOLE criterion of
judgment for the decisions of the Church is as unacceptable as your own.
Stuart L. Koehl Glenn Guadalupe, it is a mistake to regard canons--especially th
e ancient ones--as a positive code of law. They are, rather, a set of recommenda
tions and precedents to guide the Church through difficult situations, and ALL b
ishops, by virtue of their ordination, have the responsibility to consider how t
o apply the canons in a particular situation. So, while Canon 34 says that the b
ishops SHOULD do nothing without the consent of the primate, and that the primat
e SHOULD do nothing without the consent of all the bishops, this ought to be see
n as an ideal that will admit of extraordinary circumstances in which a primate
will have to overrule a synod, or vice versa. But the Church needs to remember t
hat tough cases make bad law.
The canon requires the consent of both the Primate and the Holy Synod. In practi
ce that has come to mean that the Holy Synod can overrule a Primate in Eastern O
rthodoxy. Therefore, I seriously challenge your assertation that our vi...See Mo
re
Glenn Guadalupe Stuart, I have no problem with your statement. What I have a pro
blem with is the idea that a Synod as an entity is above its head bishop, when,
in fact, a Synod cannot exist by definition without its head bishop. I can accep
t the idea that the head bishop can be corrected by his brother bishops, but I d
on't see the feasibility or logic of claiming that a Synod is above its head bis
hop.
Stuart L. Koehl Well, it's already been established that there can be no synod w
ithout a first (primus), even if he is pro tempore. And a synod is no more above
the primus, than the primus is above the synod. The very concept of primus inte
r pares, to which the Orthodox give lip service without actually understanding,
presumes that he who is first acts within the collegium of the bishops, and that
within the collegium, all bishops are equal, but the one who is first has a spe
cial role and a special sort of authority.
Suffice it to say that in Eastern Orthodoxy a synod as representing the entire e
piscopate has higher authority than the Primate, because all Bishops are equal.
...See More
John Morris To Glenn Gauadalupe;
Basically I agree with Stuart L. Koehl. However, ultimately the synod as represe
nting the entire episcopate has authority over the Primate, although I agree tha
t the Primate "has a special role and a special sort of authority." Ho...See Mor
e
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, the Synod is not correcting the primate. His brother b
ishops are correcting the primate. The Synod cannot act AS a Synod unless the co
nsent of BOTH the head bishop, on the one hand, and the rest of the bishops, on
the other, are present, according to AC 34. THAT is my disagreement with your po
sition.
Glenn Guadalupe Further, it may be the case that it is the head bishop who is co
rrect, and the rest of the bishops are wrong. This has happened on several occas
ions in the early Church, whereby the deposed bishops appealed to the bishop of
Rome and the sentence was corrected. Your standard, Father, if it existed during
those troubling times, would have plunged the Church into heresy. So the "major
ity rules" standard is not patristic. AC 34 offers the correct balance, but your
own ecclesiological perspective rejects all of AC 34, but only accepts a portio
n of it. Father, I do understand the need to correct an erring head bishop, but
the ideas you are proposing are novel..
Nick Chinappi There goes that "synod/primus" distinction again...
Glenn Guadalupe Nick Chinappi, if I'm reading Fr. John correctly, it's more than
a mere distinction according to his ecclesiology, but an actual separation.
Mary Lanser Stuart: Ask Father John if the Patriarch can over-rule a Synod.
Mary Lanser Stuart says that a Patriarch can over-rule a Synod, Father John. Do
you agree?
Mary Lanser Stuart L. Koehl: Given the tenor and substance of Glenn's questionin
g of Father John, he is moving toward uncovering the anomaly in Fr. John's eccle
siology.
Mary Lanser Father John has indicated over and over and over and over and over a
gain here that a Synod is the apex of governance in the Church.
Mary Lanser There is no patristic version of primacy in Father John's Orthodoxy.
No. I do not agree that a Patriarch can over-rule a Synod.
I strongly disagree that my vision of primacy is not patristric. If a synod does
not have ultimate authority within an autocephalous Church, why have one? It is
a fact that within Eastern Orthodoxy that the Holy Synod is the ruling body of
each autocephalous Church and that all, including the Primate, are subject to it
s authority.
Frankly, I would say that your understanding of primacy is not Easteren Orthodox
. It certainly is not how things are done within the OCA, of which I believe you
are a member. We just saw the Holy Synod of the OCA remove its primate, Metropo
litan Jonah. Therefore, how can you argue that it is not Eastern Orthodox that a
Primate is subject to the authority of the Holy Synod of the Church which he le
ads?
Fr. John.
Mary Lanser The patristic Church was not a Church of majority rule, Father John
and when I ask bishops today, I am told it is not a Church of majority rule. So
you seem to be rather innovative in your thinking.
Mary Lanser By your lop-sided understanding of the patristic Church, to which yo
u want to drag Catholics back, then a Synod can take the Church into heresy and
there's nothing to stop them.
Mary Lanser When in fact, if the Synod gets some hair-brained idea going the Pat
riarch, and the Emperor, could call them back from the brink.
Mary Lanser Perhaps things are skewed today because there is no enforcer. There
no Emperor....except in the Russian Church of course.
Mary Lanser You want it fast and loose Father John and that is not how the Churc
h started and not what it codified.
Mary Lanser The ONLY answer you can give to a Synod dragging the Church into her
esy is "It hain't happened yet" But there is no principle that would KEEP it fro
m happening in the future.

Mary Lanser At least no principle in modern Orthodoxy, as there was in the patri
stic Church.
Mary Lanser I've said before that the LAST Churches who would want to return to
the first thousand years are the Orthodox Churches and I am righ on with that on
e!!
Mary Lanser According to Father John's logic and ecclesiology the guiding princi
ple for governance and doctrine is:
Selective Avuncular Congregationalism
Glenn Guadalupe Mary Lanser, Fr. John's ecclesiology would not have worked durin
g the Arian crisis, so I don't know how he can claim it is patristic. As you say
, there is no way Fr. John's ecclesiology could do a thing to stop any future he
resy that might be big enough to endanger the whole Church. Of course, Fr. John
will appeal to the laity, without any mention of the hierarchy above the local l
evel (for that would only give in to the patristic ecclesiology of the Catholic
Church and other Eastern Orthodox like the EP and Bishop Zizoulias), but there i
s no example in Church history of the laity being able to stop heresy on their o
wn without the hierarchy of the Church.
Glenn Guadalupe However, on your question regarding whether a head bishop can ov
errule the synod, I find that question misleading. The head bishop is nherently
part of the Synod, so your question would be tantamount to asking if the head bi
shop can overrule himself, which is silly, don't you think? So I would, like Fat
her John, say that the head bishop cannot overrule a Synod, but for obviously VE
RY different reasons. I would say he can THEORETICALLY veto the vote of the othe
r bishops, but until there is actual unanimity between the head bishop and his b
rother bishops, then it cannot be said that the Synod as an entity has actually
acted in any manner.
Glenn Guadalupe QUESTION: Is there a limit to the number of characters per post?
Sometimes my comments are not accepted, but I notice it is when they are really
long, but they go through after a while. I just split my two posts (originally
one post) and t went through immediately. My original post (a combination of my
previous 2 posts is on "try again" status.
Glenn Guadalupe Mary, I didn't know you were a member of the OCA. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but didn't Metr. Jonah resign? Fr, John says he was removed. What's t
he real story?
/// I'd have to relook at those documents to see if that is merely your interpre
tation. Regardless, even from an RC perspective neither one is considered "bindi
ng."///...See More
Craig Ostrowski Michael Frost
///Yet JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis are entirely wrong about the damnation of
unbaptized infants. That was clearly taught by all the major Western fathers fr
om Augustine on. Including Lombard, Aquinas, etc. And was promulgated officially
and repeatedly down the centuries by numerous bishops of Rome. And specifically
dogmatized in RC councils! Limbo was merely a way to minimize their damnation.
But damned they were. Now that dogma has been overturned. Odd and interesting. T
hat isn't a case of "reception" but of clear dogmatic history being suddenly ove
rthrown for no reason.///
Please identify exactly which popes and ecumenical councils dogmatized the conce
pt of limbo. Also, please identify which specific dogma regarding the necessity
of baptism has been overturned.
Bob Gardner Craig, rather let's focus on your interpretation vs. what was actual
ly stated in the documents. Let's not major in the minors.
The twin horns of the dilemma that I identified in your view are by no means min
or issues because both of them pre-determine the outcome of your conclusion inde
pendently of the objective criteria.
Bob Gardner If you care to you can cite the pertinent text that you feel adds we
ight to your argument.
Bob Gardner Craig since you have not dealt with my (and Cardinal Newman's) premi
se we can't judge the veracity if your claim.
One of the texts is the ITC's Hope of Salvation.... It has already been thorough
ly cited and discussed here.
Regarding your use of Newman's argument, I asked you what was its relevance to m
y own argument. In other words, how does it overturn anything I've argued? If Ne
wman warns about carefully considering things, I fully agree with him. In no way
does that disprove anything I've said. However, it seems to me that it has deva
stating consequences for your position which seeks to disregard the criteria of
VI in lieu of how you think things work in the real world.
Bob Gardner Strange I don't feel devastated. The reality is ex cathedra statemen
ts are not as readily apparent as you suggest, and the only way to account for t
hat is through the process of reception that you denigrate.
The strength or weakness of an argument is not determined by feelings. ...See Mo
re
Bob Gardner Your argument boils down to you know better than the council fathers
what they defined. There is a certain hubris in your argument.
No, it doesn't. It boils down to an objective set of criteria vs. your claims. S
ince I have not seen any particular claims of any VI fathers, I have not made an
y arguments against any of them. The thing I have responded to are your own clai
ms. Either way, I fully support Newman's warning (which you cited).
Glenn Guadalupe Craig and Bob, I'm not sure what your debate is. It seems Bob is
simply claiming that for those things on which Tradition is not 100% clear, a p
rocess of reception is necessary. What is wrong with that? Or is Bob saying some
thing else?
Craig Ostrowski Glenn Guadalupe
I don't think you've correctly identified the problem because Bob makes everythi
ng subject to receptionism. In addition, I think I've shown that the RC implicit
ly rejects receptionism.
What is there to keep your all powerful primate from falling into heresy? The co
nciliar system that I favor and believe is mandated by the canons is a system of
mutual responsibility. The Primate is an important member of the Holy Synod and
certainly has influence. However, the Holy Synod as the voice of the episcopate
is the supreme authority in a local Church just as the episcopate meeting in an
Ecumenical Council was the supreme authority in the ancient Church and a Pan-Or
thodox council is in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.
Fr. John.
The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in receptionism, because it is the recognit
ion by the Church that a council is ecumenical that makes it an Ecumenical Counc
il. Sometimes that takes time as it took from 325 to 381 until the final victory
of Nicene orthodoxy. However, eventually, God leads His Church to recognize the
truth
by recognizing that a council was met the qualifications of an Ecumenical Counci
l.
Fr. John.
Craig Ostrowski Fr. John,
You asked Mary:
///What is there to keep your all powerful primate from falling into heresy?///
In return, I ask you if you think the Holy Spirit is incapable of keeping the po
pe from binding the universal Church from error?
If the EO believes in receptionism, which isn't necessarily clear, then this is
an example of its departure from the patristic Church which never subjected its
dogmatic conciliar rulings to reception by the laity.
In the ancient Church the laity certainly played a major role. The emoperor as h
ead of the laity spoke for the laity. He certainly had great influence over the
affairs of the Church. Now that we are in more democratic times, the laity can s
peak for itself. The laity in Eastern Orthodoxy speaks for itself through variou
s diocesan and archdiocesan conventions. However, it is important to remember th

at no one, not a Patriarch, nor a Bishop, nor a Priest, nor the laity can change
the doctrine and moral teachings of the Church.
No one individual is infallible. It is the Church that is infallible, not any Pr
imate. Primates, including the Pope can fall into doctrinal error. Pope Honorius
was the case of a Pope who fell into doctrinal error, for example. Therefore, o
ne must look to the whole Church for an exmpression of the infallible truth.
Fr. John.
Glenn Guadalupe Craig, I agree with your statement that the Holy Spirit can keep
the pope from binding the universal Church from error, ESPECIALLY when the Chur
ch appeals to the Pope to settle the matter. But I would not discount the possib
ility that the Holy Spirit will help prevent the Pope from going into error by u
sing his fellow bishops to correct him. Of course, I will never agree to the her
esy of conciliarism which claims that a council/synod is above the Pope of Rome.
I can agree that the principle of conciliarty (NOT conciliarism) is patristic.
What Fr. John is proposing is not conciliarity but conciliarism.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not "believe in receptionalism". It is a theory
. And as theologians such as John Romanides have pointed out, it is a problemati
c theory:
"An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophi
le philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity the idea that
a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church is d
etermined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. That is, while a par
ticular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by
the Church as being a Robber Council, that is, a council which did not declare
the truth but rather heresy. Likewise, a council may properly teach the truth bu
t not be of universal significance for the Church. Such councils are usually ter
med local. That a council must be "received" by the Church before it can be cons
idered ecumenical is sometimes termed receptionism.
Receptionism was formed primarily in opposition to Roman Catholic viewpoints on
the same question. For the Roman Catholic Church, a council's ecumenicity is pri
marily determined by its ratification by the Pope of Rome. Orthodoxy does not ha
ve the same ecclesiological structure as Rome, however, and so Khomiakov and oth
ers attempted to formulate another model by which the infallibility of Ecumenica
l Councils may be determined.
A form of receptionism (or, at least, language which is conducive to receptionis
t thought) may also be found in the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, w
hich proclaims against papism that the guardian of the truth is not the office o
f the pope, but the whole people of God.
Theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that the council
s universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themse
lves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went in
to effect. Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity,
and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial l
aw. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils' texts.
Further, the question of when exactly one may say that the Church has received o
r rejected a council is not answerable by receptionist theory. Another ecclesiol
ogical problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that th
e Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Chur
ch" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejecte
d it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular,
because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who r
eject it are outside. In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially b
ecause those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the
Church.
The practical needs of the historical circumstances of the councils also bear ou
t Romanides' analysis. Dogmatic decisions were needed right away when the counci
ls met. The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know wheth
er a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of
such a council. The councils' fathers regarded their decisions as immediately bi
nding.
At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a u
niversal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What i
s generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible b
ecause they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church
Fathers."
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_councils
I have posted this article in the past but you ignore it. Please let me know whe
n you can deal with this rebuttal.
Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki
Ecumenical Councils are extraordinary synods of bishops which primarily decide u
pon dogmatic formulations, especially in the face of heresy. Secondarily, they a
lso issue canonical legislation which governs the administration of the Church.
orthodoxwiki.org
I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the view of the emperors during patristic time
s. They commonly believed that they shared some sort of priesthood which is why
Maximus argued that they most definitely did not enjoy any role of the priesthoo
d. Whatever the case may be, they most definitely do not represent the role of t
he laity in deciding doctrine. Simply put, there was never any case during patri
stic times when doctrine in the form of ecumenical councils was put to the test
of the laity in order for it to gain binding ecumenical force. Additionally, no
one during those times argued any such things. In short, your argument is nothin
g but pure unadulterated anachronism.
I agree completely.
John Morris To Craig Ostrowski;
It cannot be denied that the faithful preseved the faith of the Church in the fa
ce of the iconclastic heresy. The laity do not participate in the councils that
decide on doctrine. However, they are not entirely absent from the dis...See Mor
e
Bob Gardner Craig, are you claiming ignorance of the fact that the council fathe
r's felt that more than one papal decree met the criteria they had defined?
Which laity? The non-Chalcedonians generally favored iconoclasm while the Chalce
donians were iconodules. This shows that one needs to have a principled method b
y which to identify whose opinions get to count as "the Church" before one can e
ven talk about the Church. I will also repeat that there was not one single case
of any father making the argument you make about dogma depending of the recepti
on of the laity.
As the article notes, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs embraced the receptionist
theory in their Encyclial of 1848. The key pargraph in the article is:
At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a u
niversal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What i
s generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible b
ecause they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church
Fathers.
Therefore receptionism is a very good theory on why a council is considered an E
cumenical Council.
Fr. John.
I would need to see those arguments and when they were made. In other words, whi
ch arguments / views pertained to which version of the criteria laid out in Past
or Aeturnus. This is necessary because if one or more fathers made such claims u
nder some other version of that criteria then their opinions are not really rele
vant to the criteria of PA.
I obviously disagree with you. The whole body of Christ, clergy and laity is res
ponsible for the preseveration of the truth. Look at the Divine Liturgy as a mod
el of how the Church operates. There can be no Divine Liturgy without the presen
ce of the faithful. Without them, I cannot serve the Divine Liturgy. Just as the
Divine Liturgy is the Priest and faithful cooperating to worship God, so also i
s the general life of the Church, the clergy, indluding the Bishops, working tog
ether to preserve the truth.
Fr. John.
Why distort the article as if I hadn't read it? It says
"A form of receptionism (or, at least, language which is conducive to receptioni
st thought) may also be found in the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs,
which proclaims against papism that the guardian of the truth is not the office
of the pope, but the whole people of God."
With that being the case the article is not stating that the encyclical advocate
d the position that you are. Rather, it is possible that some form of your view
*may be* found in the encyclical.
The laity does not compose the liturgy.
I will ask you once again for just one example of some from patristic times maki
ng your argument.
Nick Chinappi There is none. This is just Fr John's way of escaping a certain co
uncil that the East accepted but then later rejected.
John Morris To Craig Ostrowski;
I do not have the time to search for patristric evidence to support my contentio
n that the faithful have a role to play in the presevation of the truth. All I h
ave to do is to look at the Eucharistic Liturgy. Without the presence ...See Mor
e
Nick Chinappi In the end, receptionalism is a modern theory in orthodoxy that ma
y or may not be true. To pretend like it is doctrine is another falsification.
The attendance and participation of the laity at the Divine Liturgy in no way pr
oves the novel doctrine of receptionism.
Your Ad Hominem to Craig doesn't detract from his argument.
Florence is a perfect example of what I mean. After there was time to refelect,
the East rejected the Council of Florence. Therefore the East never received the
Council of Florence.
Fr. John.
The East's actions at Florence were a complete deviation of patristic times.
John Morris To Craig Ostrowskil;
I disagree, The Divine Liturgy is the model for the Church, because the Church i
s first and foremost a Eucharistic Assembly. Everything flows out of the Divine
Liturgy in the life of the Church.
Fr. John.
If you disagree, then please make that argument. Simple asserting it can never p
rove your point.
No the decision of the East to reject Florence was an exercise in how the ancien
t Church functioned. The Church rejected the Robber Council of Ephesus just as i
t rejected the Council of Florence. Ephesus 449 had all the outward forms of an
Ecumenical Council. Yet, it was not an Ecumenical Council, because the Church re
jected it at Chalcedon. The East rejected the Council of Florence at Constantino
ple 1484.
Fr. John.
Florence is a perfect example of what I mean:
You cannot claim to be the same church that issued the qualifications for Ecumen
icity at Nicaea II and reject Florence, as it met all the criteria for Ecumenici
ty.
Ephesus II lacked all the qualifications or "outward forms" of
an ecumenical council:
Pope St Leo rejected it.
You're once again showing why dialogue with you is impossible and furthermore wh
y no one should take you seriously. The reason is because Ephesus II failed to g
ain Roman ratification and thus a consensus of the patriarchs as set out at Nica
ea II. Your rejection of this doctrine in this case shows that you apply your pr
inciples in an ad hoc fashion.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, I'm not sure where your quote from the 1848 Encyclical
claims "receptionism." That they accurately teach Tradition is the claim of eve
ry Ecumenical Council. The Encyclical could be referring to THAT inherent claim,
instead of some future judgment of the Church at large. So I hope you can provi
de a better reference than that.
If you look at the actual decisions of Nicaea II, you will find that the criteri
a that is required for a council to be Ecumenical was only an informal discussio
n. It was expressed by the deacon sent to represent Rome and included approval o
f a council by all 5 Patriarchs, not just Rome. That is exactly what happened wi
th Florence. Once the Eastern delegates were free to speak their minds, they rej
ected the agreement that they had been forced to make by the emperor at Florence
. The faithful of the Eastern Orthodox Church definitely played a major role in
the discussions and influenced their Bishops to have the courage to reject Flore
nece. Face it Florence was a bad deal for Eastern Orthodox. It did not really re
present a coming together because the emperor pressured the Eastern Orthodox rep
resentatives to accept the agreement.
Fr. John.
The article cited by Nick Chinappi stated that the Encyclical invoked the princi
ple of receptionism. That is why I included it in my answer to him.
Fr. John.
The criteria laid out at Nicaea II was accepted by all the fathers of that counc
il. This is another example of you picking and choosing what you want to accept
or reject, even when it comes to ecumenical councils.
Another such example of your hypocrisy is your reliance on the freedom of the bi
shops from imperial pressure. Probably none of the first 7 ecumenical councils w
ere free from such pressure and yet you accept every one of them. Thus relying o
n the claim of imperial pressure to reject Florence is entirely ad hoc on your p
art.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, it's altogether possible also that out of fear of the
populace they repudiated the Council. not that they did not personally believe i
n its decisions. It's also obvious that rejection of the Council was partly base
d on misunderstanding. Can misunderstanding be a true basis for Faith?
You cannot deny that the emperor pressured the Eastern Orthodox representatives
at Florence to accept the agreement. Sometimes the emperor was right. Sometimes,
he was wrong. In this case, he was wrong. In others he was right.
The criterial laid out at Nicaea II was not officially accepted by the Fathers o
f that council. It was only contained in an unofficial declaration by the deacn
who represented Rome. Besides, even then the criteria was that to be Ecumencial
a council required the endorsement of all 5 Patriarchs.
Fr. John.
Nick Chinappi Craig
Notice how Fr John ignores Imperial force at Constantinople II, but insists on i
t to justify Florence.
Glenn Guadalupe OK, Fr. John, but do you have anything other than that Encyclica
l - which is not altogether clear - that is official and says receptionism is a
generally accepted principle in the EOC?
Papal ratification was a distinct qualification and was listed separately from P
atriarchal ratification at Nicaea II.
It was accepted by the Council fathers. Can you present proof to the contrary?
I haven't denied that the emperor pressured the bishops at Florence. In fact, I
clearly stated that such imperial pressure was present at probably each one of t
he first 7 ecumenical councils. So why you would bring this up is beyond me, unl
ess, of course, it's a diversionary tactic.
If you think the Nicaea II's criteria is not authoritative, then please identify
which fathers of the council rejected it. Moreover, if it's not authoritative d
espite being accepted by all of the conciliar fathers, then how in the world can
you point to some ecclesiological theory which was never even discussed by any
patristic witnesses, whether in council or not?

Stuart L. Koehl If YOU, on the other hand, Craig, choose to stand by the criteri
a of Nicaea II, then you are compelled to acknowledge there hasn't been a truly
ecumenical council in the second millennium, and that Paul VI was correct in ref
erring to Lyons II as a "general synod of the Church in the West.
Glenn Guadalupe Fr. John, I hope you are aware that what a Council does not rece
ive, it does not include in its Acts. If it is included in its Acts. that means
it is received by the Council as such. This is why some statements by papal repr
esentatives are not included in Greek versions of the Acts of a few Councils. My
question to you is: was this criteria laid out by the deacon contained in both
the Latin and Greek versions of the Acts of the Council? If so, how can you clai
m that it was a mere discussion?
I think that it is rather apparent that once they were free to speak without imp
erial pressure that the Eastern Orthodox representatives at Florence did not rea
lly accept the decisions of the Council. Besides, even if they did, it is quite
apparent that the clergy and faithful of Eastern Orthodoxy rejected Florence. Ac
tually the case of Florence shows receptionism in action. The Eastern Orthodox C
hurch, clergy and faithful rejected Florence. Therfore the Eastern Orthodox Chur
ch rejected Florence. That is they refused to receive the council or recognize i
ts ecumenical authority.
Fr. John.
John Morris To Glenn Gladalupe
The criteria outlined by Deacon John was not included in the official acts of Ni
caea II. That is why I classified it as unofficiail. Even if it were official, i
t stated that the agrement of all 5 Patriarchs is needed for a council to be rec
ognized as Ecumenical, not just the Pope. Therefore, I have no objection to cons
idering it an official document
Fr. John.
That would only follow if I rejected the patristic principle by which one can id
entify whose opinion gets to count as "the Church".
What evidence do you have that the fathers of Florence did not speak their true
minds at Florence or that they didn't cower in fear and state things they didn't
really believe once they felt the rabid attacks of the monks as well as the res
t of the laity?
Stuart L. Koehl A large body of Catholic theological and historical opinion now
views the Union of Florence as false and coerced, unacceptable from many perspec
tives, not the least its attempts to interfere in the most intimate aspects of t
he sacramental life and practices of other Churches.

Which body is that? Please keep in mind that many modern documents, as well as t
he CCC cite it authoritatively.
Read an account of what happened at Florence. The emperor definitely pressured t
he Eastern Orthodox to accept the council. Besides, even if the delegates accept
ed the council, the clergy and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox Church rejected
Florence. That shows receptionism in action. ...See More
Do you reject every one of the first 7 ecumenical councils which were coerced?
Stuart L. Koehl I'm thinking there are a lot of tree counters here, on both side
s, but not too many qualified to be foresters.
The 7 Ecumenical Councils have withstood the test of time and have gained the ac
ceptance of the Eastern Orthodox Church.Florence, on the other hand was rejected
by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I am not going to play your high school debate game. I do not use diversinary ta
ctics. I speak my mind clearly. I was never a high school debator and do not kno
w how to play this chidish game.
Fr. John.
You're simply repeating your diversionary tactics which I haven't denied. ...See
More
That the 7 ecumenical councils have stood the test of time **by some** does not
and cannot show that receptionism was something accepted by the patristic Church
.
Stuart L. Koehl We have also reached a point where, though some of the ancient C
hurches have not received some of the seven Councils, none of them reject the su
bstance of what they teach.
It may have taken until Khomiakov in the 19th century to identify redeptionism.
However his conclusions fit the historical narriative....See More
That statement depends on the ability to identify whose opinion gets to count as
"the Church" in a principled manner. So far you haven't made any attempt whatso
ever to provide those principles.

Bob Gardner Craig Ostrowski, I'm not sure if you have read the Revenna Document
yet, but it is on the Vatican website if you care to look it up. Of interest to
the discussion of reception is no. 37 "The ecumenicity of the decisions of a cou
ncil is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short durati
on, according to which the people of God as a whole
by means of reflection, disc
ernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostoli
c faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the b
ishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of receptio
n is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective cano
nical traditions."
John Morris To Bob Gardiner:
Thank you for mentioning the Ravenna Document.
Fr. John.
John Morris To Craig Ostrpowski;
There comes a point when an argument becomes beating a dead horse. We do not agr
ee and will never agree on this point. I think that I reflect a proper Eastern O
rthodox understanding of this issue, and frankly do not care that you ...See Mor
e
Stuart L. Koehl Even the Catholic Church accepts the principle of receptions, ha
ving taken some time to accept some councils, and reversing its reception of oth
ers either wholly or in part.
I would hazard that, if his foot was nailed to the floor and he was backed into
a corner, Craig would say a council is ecumenical if Rome thinks it is, and isn'
t when Rome says it is not.
I'm very familiar with Ravenna, which by the way, has been increasingly been rej
ected by the East. Anyhow, recognition of something is different from the divine
teaching authority given to the guardians of the faith, namely the bishops. In
other words, Ravenna states what I'm saying. It even states that the East has a
different view of this "recognitions. In other words, I don't see how it helps y
our view at all.
It would indeed amount to beating a dead horse, that is, if you ever actually pr
esented an argument (as opposed to mere assertions).
Which councils did the Catholic Church reject which fit its principles?
John Morris To Stuart L. Koehl
You have hit the nail on the head. The problem with this sort of argument is tha
t there is really no way to prove who is right, because we both have different p
resuppositions. I do not recognize the authority of the Pope to determind the do
ctrine of the Church. Craig does. I do not know how to deal with our disgreement
. I try to provide support for my position, but in the end it is really an matte
r of opinion. That is what Craig fails to see. I do support my position, but he
is so blinded by his loyality to the papacy that he cannot see it.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner Craig, I think it helps my position because I have said the same thi
ng as the document states.
John Morris To Craig Ostroswki:
It is not so much a matter of what councis it rejects. It is a matter of what co
uncils it accepts. The West accepts as Ecumenical Councils councils that were re
ally only local Western councils and do not meet the criteria to be classified a
s Ecumencial Councils because they were not accepted by the East as well. Only t
hose councils accepted by both East and West are Ecumenical Councils.
Fr. John.
I do not fail to see what you think I do because I am basing my argument on the
principles accepted by the patristic Church while you reject those principles.
Glenn Guadalupe I agree with Craig that we need to distinguish between the inher
ent authority of an Ecumenical Council from the reception of that authority by t
he rest of the Church. I agree with Fr. John that the decision of the Pope alone
does not determine the inherent authority of a Council.
No, you haven't. That document distinguishes between recognition and the divinel
y instituted teaching authority of the bishops while your argument implicitly el
iminates that distinction.
John Morris To Craig Ostrowski"
I too am acquainted with the patristic church and disagee with you that your vie
w is truly patristric.
Fr. John.
Yes, I know you disagree with me. The thing I keep waiting for is for you to pre
sent an actual argument rather than mere assertions.
What part of this do you not understand? I do not agree with your presupposition
s. I do not know how we can ever reconcile our two different views. I can only e
xpress what I believe is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church. You expres
s your views, but neither of us can prove that our positions are right. That is
the problem. It is a matter that is too subjective to determine using logic, rea
son or historical evidence. Why cannot you recognize this and cease this childis
h argument? Ultimately, we will not decide on this issue. That is why we have ex
pert theologians on both sides meeting to resolve them. If they can and can prod
uce a plan for reunion that is acceptable to both the Eastern Orthodox and the C
atholic Church we will be reunited. If they cannot, then we can still be friends
in Christ and agree to disagree. However, you will get nowhere trying as you ar
e to convert Eastern Orthodox to the Catholic point of view. You completely misu
nderstand the method and purpose of ecumencial dialogue; Ecumenical dialogue is
not a debate contest. It is the search for common agreement on theoological issu
es. Both sides state their positions and over time discuss ways to bring them to
gether, if it is possible to bring the two together. One side does not try to co
nvert the other side.
Fr. John.
Bob Gardner How so Craig? I said, "In the final analysis I think both east and w
est depend on reception to some degree, and on both sides the process is somewha
t nebulous." That seems to me a good synopsis of #37.
Your view allows the laity to reject the divinely instituted teaching authority
of the bishops and in turn, teach them.
John Morris To Craig Ostrowski'
Sometimes the Bishops are wrong. In that case, it is the duty of the faithful to
correct them. They are not completely silent partners in the Church, but also h
ave a voice.
Fr. John.
James Arturo Fr John, the Church is not a democracy.
Stating that bishops can sometimes be wrong does not equate to the united voice
of bishops gathered in an ecumenical council being wrong. You have yet to make t
hat case in a manner consistent with the patristic Church.
Bob Gardner //Your view allows the laity to reject the divinely instituted teach
ing authority of the bishops and in turn, teach them.// At what point did I say
that? I said that given the fact that the council fathers felt that there were m
any more ex cathedra statements than are accepted as such today, there was a per
iod of reception, by the church as a whole, that helped to shape the list that m
ost agree upon today.
Please not that I never stated that you explicitly said as much, but rather that
your view allows for it.
If you want to return to your claims about the fathers of VI, then you're going
to have to present their actual arguments / statements along with the specific c
ontext in which they made them. I already pointed this out to you.
John Morris To James Arturo:
No the Church is not a democracy. However, neither is it a dictorship by the cle
rgy. It takes both the clergy and the Faithful. Once again the model is the Divi
ne Liturgy. The clergy cannot serve the Divine Liturgy alone without the...See M
ore
Craig Ostrowski Yes, the bishops have the divinely instituted teaching authority
and the rest have the obligation to receive their divinely instituted teaching
authority. Receptionism destroys that divinely instituted teaching authority bec
ause it subjects it to those who do not have that authority.
Stuart L. Koehl Well, that's as good a description of clericalism as I have ever
heard.
Call it what you will, but I challenge you to find any patristic account which d
enies my argument.
Stuart L. Koehl "I do not recognize the authority of the Pope to determind the d
octrine of the Church."
In fact, the Pope has no such authority. The Church has that authority, and the
First Vatican Council said that sometimes the Pope has the authority to speak on
behalf of the Church. The Second Vatican Council made more explicit that the Po
pe is one of and works within the college of bishops, not outside and above it.
On the unlikely chance that the Pope would make an ex Cathedra statement, he wou
ld only do so--regardless of what the wording of Pastor aeternus might say, only
after detailed consultations with the bishops, because only in that manner woul
d his statement be received as legitimate by the episcopate, and through them, b
y the faithful as a whole.
There you go opposing VII to VI which VII denies.
Stuart L. Koehl It can swear on its mother's grave, for all I care.
Bob Gardner And to further cloud the issue when I say the Church as a whole, I s
peak of the RC Church. The reception of the Papal definitions differ somewhat wh
en it comes to the eastern churches in union with Rome.
//If you want to return to your claims about the fathers of VI, then you're goin
g to have to present their actual arguments / statements along with the specific
context in which they made them. I already pointed this out to you.//
I don't see why I would need to supply the lists given by all the council father
s in order to have this discussion? Do you need proof that they accepted more th
an Ineffabilis Deus as infallible?
Stuart L. Koehl One thing I do know about the Catholic Church: It may not always
be right, but it is NEVER wrong. Craig demonstrates how they do it so well.
Glenn Guadalupe I agree with Stuart. The official Relatio of V1 said that the Po
pe has the exact same sources as the rest of the bishops, so whatever it is the
Pope is deciding in an ex cathedra decree, it is what is already contained in th
e Sacred Deposit of Faith, nothing new.
I already explained that it matters greatly which context those alleged statemen
ts were made under. Were they made under some preliminary proposal which wasn't
finely tuned enough? Or were they made in reference to the final ratified versio
n? The first step is to make this answer provable and crystal clear.
I see that you've abandoned argumentation in favor of personal attacks. That ten
ds to show that you cannot support your arguments.
Bob Gardner Craig, sorry for misunderstanding your question. I am speaking of th
e lists given by the fathers after the council.
What you say it true, but what Stuart said is false. Please note that Stuart opp
osed VII to VI. I assume you do not.
I am not aware of those lists.
Glenn Guadalupe Craig, sorry, but he stated that V2 made "more clear" what V1 st
ated, not that they were opposed. In fact, V2 did make more clear something whic
h a lot of people (both Catholic and non-Catholics) misunderstood about the teac
hing of V1 - the phrase "not from the consent of the Church." A lot of people th
ink that phrase means that the Church is excluded from an action of the Pope dec
laring ex cathedra - that is, that this is merely and completely a unilateral ac
t by the Pope of Rome.. V2 clarified that the consensus of the Church is not bei
ng distinguished from the action of the Pope, but rather from the action of the
Holy Spirit. It is the action of the Holy Spirit which makes an ex cathedra decr
ee irreformible, not the action of the Pope per se, nor the consensus of the Chu
rch. The statement "not from the consent of the Church" is not a reference to th
e act of formulating an ex cathedra decree, but rather merely a statement about
the inherent truth of an ex cathedra decree. The Church is certainly inherently
included in the Pope's act of formulating an ex cathedra decree. But it is simpl
y that it is not the Church's consensus which determines the inherent Truth of t
hat decree.
Bob Gardner Here are some: Cardinal Franzelin (acted as Consultor to several Rom
an Congregations, and aided in the preliminaries of the First Vatican Council, i
n which he afterwards served as papal theologian.) writing in 1875, gives some e
xamples of utterances whose Infallibility he regards as certain. They are four i
n number.
1. The Dogmatic Constitutions of the Council of Constance against Wiclif and Hus
, confirmed by Martin V.
2. The Constitution exsurge of Leo X. against Luther.

3. The Constitution of Clement XI. against the Jansenists the Bull Unigenitus.
4. The Constitution Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI. Against the Synod of Pistoia ; wh
erein many prepositions are condemned with various degrees of censure.
Franzelin by no means limits Infallibility to these four utterances. But these a
re all that he gives as illustrations of its exercise. And of these he says with
perfect confidence: " It is not lawful for any Catholic to deny that these are
infallible definitions."
Lucien Choupin, repeats Franzelin's list, and gives four other utterances in add
ition :
1. The Decree of the Immaculate Conception.
2. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility. (Pius IX. is affirmed to have infallibly de
creed his own Infallibility).
3. The condemnation of the five propositions of Jansen by Innocent X. in 1653.
4. The Constitution of Benedict XII. in 1336.
To these many theologians, says Choupin, add the Encyclical Quanta Cur a of Pius
IX. in 1864.
On the other hand, Carson in his Reunion Essays says :
" These four conditions so narrow the extent of the Petrine prerogative that it
is difficult to point with certainty to more than one, or at most two, papal pro
nouncements, and declare them, with the consent of all, to be infallible.
"The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception, may be considere
d, as we have seen, to be a definition of doctrine about whose Infallibility the
re cannot well be any question. The tome of Pope Leo the Great on the Incarnatio
n, sent by him to the Council of Chalcedon, and accepted by the assembled father
s as the echo of Peter's voice, may perhaps be placed on the same footing. Beyon
d these two ecumenical utterances on points of doctrine, we cannot assert with a
ny assurance that the prerogative of Papal Infallibility has been exercised from
the day of Pentecost to the present time."
Certainly if the intrinsic value of a document be any witness to its Infallibili
ty no papal utterance has better claim to be an instance of that stupendous prer
ogative than the famous letter of Leo the Great
Glenn Guadalupe However, I would like to offer a clarification or correction to
Stuart's statement about detailed consultation with the bishops. The Relatio of
V1 affirmed that the agreement of the ex cathedra decree with the teaching of th
e orthodox bishops is necessary. But however much it is deemed necessary, this a
greement can be determined by means other than direct consultation with the bish
ops. It can come about by his personal study of the Scriptures and the Fathers,
by consultation with theologians, even by consultation with knowledgeable lay pe
rsons, etc, etc.. The agreement with the orthodox bishops is necessary, but the
MEANS of arriving at that agreement is not confined merely to consultation with
the bishops, because that agreement can be determined by other means. However, t
he official Relatio does aver that consultation with bishops is the NORMATIVE me
ans.
Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, the idea that Pope Pius IX declared his own infalli
bility ex cathedra is a bit silly. It is a fact that Pope Pius BEFORE the promul
gation of the decree was (what is known as) a NEO-ultramontanist. He had explici
tly supported the writings of the extreme school of infallibilitists like WIllia
m Henry Ward, Louis Veuilot, Herbert Vaughan and others who imagined that just a
bout any utterance of the Pope is infallible. But we know that the Council in fa
ct limited the scope of infallibility against the claims of the Neo-ultramontani
sts. If anything, what was defined by V1 was NOT the infallibility that Pope Piu
s imagined himself to have.
Bob Gardner Glenn Guadalupe, it's not my argument.

Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, I know. I'm just saying it is a silly claim by the
person who made it. smile emoticon
No, that 's not what Stuart wrote. Here is what he wrote:
/// The Second Vatican Council made more explicit that the Pope is one of and wo
rks within the college of bishops, not outside and above it. On the unlikely cha
nce that the Pope would make an ex Cathedra statement, he would only do so--rega
rdless of what the wording of Pastor aeternus might say, only after detailed con
sultations with the bishops, because only in that manner would his statement be
received as legitimate by the episcopate, and through them, by the faithful as a
whole.///
Stuart opposed VII to VI when he rested the above statement on the premise of "r
egardless of what the wording of Pastor aeternus might say". If he would have li
mited himself to only stating that VII made VI more explicit regarding the relat
ionship of the pope to the episcopal college, then I would've fully agreed with
him. Unfortunately he crossed the line when he essentially opposed those two cou
ncils to each other.
If I remember correctly, you said that the fathers of VI claimed there were thou
sands of papal statements which met the criteria of Pastor Aeturnus. Contrary to
that claim, the most the list you actually provided is four that meet that crit
eria. I don't see how that establishes your claim.
Glenn Guadalupe Craig, OK, I see what you mean. My own immediate thought was tha
t he was referring to certain misconceptions about V1. But I can also see how yo
u interpreted it differently, given your explanation.
Craig Ostrowski Glenn,
Given Stuart's history of comments in this group (and on FB in general), I have
no doubt that my interpretation of Stuart's comments is the correct one.
Bob Gardner Craig, that was an accurate statement on my part. I forget who said
it, when it comes back to me I'll post it.
Craig Ostrowski Bob, that's fine, but again, we would need to know the specific
context in which it was made.
Nick Chinappi I think I'll have to reread this one as it is a bunch of assertion
s and Craig pointing out that fact lol.
Glenn Guadalupe Craig, I believe Bob is referring to Bishop Gasser's statement i
n the Relatio that there have been thousands of dogmatic statements by the Popes
. Actually I don't recall if it exactly said "thousands" -- maybe "numerous." I'
ll have to check again, but I think Bishop Gasser actually made that statement m
ockingly as a reduction ad absurdum argument against those who wanted to include
in the definition a statement about the means by which the Pope could arrive at
an ex cathedra statement.
Craig Ostrowski Thanks, Glenn. I'm not sure if I'll have the time to check out t
he Relatio any time soon, so if you do, please let me know. Thanks again.
Bob Gardner Glenn you are correct, that is who I was thinking of. I think his st
atement was thousands, but he was using hyperbole to convey numerous. Either way
my point is there was a period of discernment after the council regarding which
statements fit the criteria. If you don't want to view that as reception then f
ine, but I don't see a problem with doing so.
Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, oh I do believe that there is a period of discernme
nt, and not just whether it fits the criteria, but whether or not the statements
are true altogether. This, on the solid principle of the role of conscience in
the formation of one's faith. If that is what you mean, I am in full agreement.
However, I would disagree if by it you mean that the inherent authority or truth
of a dogmatic decree by a Council or ex cathedra decree is somehow put into que
stion or held at bay until that discernment is achieved. The role of discernment
or reception is subjective acceptance. However, the inherent truth or authority
of the decrees are objective matters, regardless of reception.
Yesterday at 12:29am Like 1
Joseph Haryanto The Truthfulness of FILIOQUE:
(In answering the question: do you renounce fake dogma that HOLY SPIRIT proceeds
from CHRIST THE SAVIOR and The FATHER? )
FILIOQUE is TRUE because it s according to The TRUTH taught by Holy Bible AND The
TRUTH taught by Ecumenical Council (1st Nicea and 1st Constantinople):
A> The TRUTH taught by Holy Bible:
HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER and SON
i> HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER
(Luk 11:13, John 14:16-17,26, John. 15:26, Act 2:33)
ii> HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from SON
(John 20:22)
iii> HOLY SPIRIT is FATHER S SPIRIT
(Mat 10:20, Rom 8:11, Rom 8:14-15)
iv> HOLY SPIRIT is SON S SPIRIT
Rm 8:9 dan 1Ptr1:11 (SPIRIT of CHRIST), Gal 4:6 (SPIRIT of SON), Filipi 1:19 (SP
IRIT of JESUS CHRIST), Kis16:7 (SPIRIT of JESUS)
v>HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER and SON
(Rev 22:1)
B> The TRUTH taught by Ecumenical Council:
HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER, as The Source as signified by the word ????????
????? which have SPECIAL meaning: Source without Source (Principle without Princi
ple= ????-???????/ arch-anarchos), Cause (?????), Principium, Origin.
It means ONLY FATHER deserve to use the word: ?????????????
Because Only FATHER is the Source of SON and HOLY SPIRIT.
And HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from SON because SON had received HOLY SPIRIT from FATH
ER because SON is NOT "the Source and origin of the whole divinity"
C> The TRUTH taught by Catholic Church (according Catechism of the Catholic Chur
ch/CCC):
HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER and SON (CCC 246),
which is MATCHED with The TRUTH taught by Holy Bible.
But,
ONLY FATHER is "The Source (????) and Origin/Cause (?????) of the whole Divinity
" (CCC 245).
(FATHER is The Origin/Principium/Aetia/Cause of SON and HOLY SPIRIT)
which is MATCHED with The TRUTH taught by Ecumenical Councils
Or,
It can be simply and correctly expressed that:
HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from FATHER through SON (CCC 248).
Catholic Church uses Correctly the GENERAL word processio to express FILIOQUE, whi
ch does NOT violate the Right of FATHER, Who is The Only ONE deserve to use the
SPECIAL word ?????????????
as The Source (????) and Origin/Cause (?????) of the wh
ole Divinity .
So, the Truthfulness of FILIOQUE taught by Catholic Church is CORRECTLY and COMP
LETELY according to the TRUTH taught by Holy Scripture and Ecumenical Councils (
1st Nicea and 1st Constantinople)
3 hrs Like
Joseph Haryanto NDISPENSIBLE and UNDENIABLE Truthfulness of Purgatory:
i>GOD create and wish everything (including human beings) perfectly holy to live
with HIM (Mat 5:48 and Eph 1:4)
So,
a>Adam and Eve had to leave Eden because they d committed sin (not perfect anymore
)
b>LORD JESUS CHRIST came and became Man to redeem the sins of the worlds so huma
n beings can be holy again.
c>The Church provides the sanctifying instruments: Holy Mass and the Holy Sacram
ents (especially the Sacraments of Baptist and Reconciliation), etc.
ii> Man who pass away, do NOT AUTOMATICALLY become holy.
So:
a>There are heaven and hell.
b>The Church ALWAYS teaches and urges Repentance in order to reach eternal life
in heaven
So, those who die and deserve to enter heaven but still not holy, they MUST be p
urified first which is known as Purgatory in Catholic Church (from the name: purg
e =clean)
Purgatory is a Purification Process for those who would enter heaven, but is sti
ll not completely clean (holy) yet.
That Purgatory sometimes understood as a place, it s because the purification proc
ess is not in heaven nor hell, and that heaven and hell are also separated.
Purgatory is NOT the Salvation itself, but merely a salvation instrument, SIMIIL
AR to Holy Sacraments
Purgatory is GOD S last chance of purification to obtain the Merit of LORD JESUS C
HRIST S Redemption for those who can not receive Holy Sacrament anymore because th
ey are already dead.
Prayer of the living will be supporting and helpful (especially offered in Holy
Mass), but those who are not holy must be purified because each person are respo
nsible to their own deeds.
If soul can be purified only by prayers and mercy of the living faithful then th
ere is no need to receive Sacrament of Reconciliation as long as do not committe
d mortal sins.
Because after they dead, there would be people who will pray and guarantee their
salvation
3 hrs Like
Stuart L. Koehl Spare us, please.
2 hrs Like
Glenn Guadalupe Can anyone provide any distinction between receptionism and the
Modernist heresy that truth is determined by consensus or majority? I'm asking t
his because those apostolic Christians who adhere to receptionism surely do not
support the Modernist heresy - BUT, what would reasonably distinguish it from th
e Modernist heresy?
Mary Lanser We have been asking that question here for quite more than a year no
w. And no principled response in sight.
Mary Lanser Glenn Guadalupe has rightly asked: "Can anyone [Orthodox] provide an
y distinction between receptionism and the Modernist heresy that truth is determ
ined by consensus or majority? I'm asking this because those apostolic Christian
s who adhere to receptionism surely do not support the Modernist heresy - BUT, w
hat would reasonably distinguish it from the Modernist heresy?
Mary Lanser Apparently Glenn these is NOTHING that distinguishes or differentiat
es Receptionism from Modernism.
Glenn Guadalupe Let's wait a couple of more days, Mary. Hopefully, an answer can
be provided.
Glenn Guadalupe Thanks for the answer, Michael Frost. But "'nuff said" is far fr
om the case, because Scripture and Tradition says the Holy Spirit does not give
the same grace to everyone.. Does the Holy Ghost provide the truth to everyone e
qually? For example, is the action of the Holy Ghost to grace EVERYONE with the
office of teaching, or is it that the grace is given to some to be teachers, whi
le grace is given to others to be convicted of the teaching given by those teach
ers empowered by the holy Spirit to teach?
Bob Gardner Isn't it obvious?
Stuart L. Koehl Reception is when the OVERWHELMING majority of believers accept
a proposition as true over an extended period of time. People wishing for precis
ion in this matter don't understand theology.
JS Adido .
Mary Lanser smile emoticon....I've been waiting nearly two decades, what's a few
more days?
Stuart L. Koehl Reception is like pornography--you know it when you see it. Put
another way, if you have to ask whether a doctrine has been received, it hasn't.
JS Adido What mechanism does that leave in place for the ones who first receive
the doctrine to know truth from error, without the benefit of hindsight for the
time reception is needed to take place.
Mary Lanser Discernment requires some kind of principle. Primacy and authority w
ere the principles in the patristic era, but that seems to have been over-writte
n in the modern era.
JS Adido See this is where it gets tricky. Because given church history
w it, it would be incorrect to say that the Church knew what to do when
spoke. For as far as I know, not everyone received his words that way.
ame time, there clearly was a special place for the Pope of Rome in the
of the church and it had more to do with just the fact that Rome was an
t city, for what does that matter theologically?
as I kno
the Pope
At the s
history
importan
Stuart L. Koehl "What mechanism does that leave in place for the ones who first
receive the doctrine to know truth from error, without the benefit of hindsight
for the time reception is needed to take place."
God doesn't promise us certitude. That notion is a product of the Reformation, a
nd the desire for clear-cut lines. God wants from us two things, our trust and o
ur love; and in return He extends to us the promise of eternal life. Our trust a
nd belief in God is manifested in our belief and faith in the Church, and that w
hich the Church has received as true we likewise assume to be true. As for matte
rs in dispute, until they are resolved in manner that results in reception, then
we are left to prayerfully discern the truth and place our trust in God.
As the monograph, "Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral
Thought" states:
The fourth century Church knew two great churchmen. Each was deeply immersed in
the Scriptures and the Tradition. Each held that he had the Spirit's guidance in
his teachings. Each was defamed and rejected by Church teachers, hounded and ex
iled time and again. The two, Arius and Athanasius, were at opposite poles in th
e doctrinal issues of the day. They both relied on the Church, but the mind of t
he Church was not yet made up on these themes. Each of these men depended on his
fellow churchmen and fought with them as well. One of them, Arius, was later ju
dged definitively to be in error, but he--no less than Athanasius--was convinced
he was led by God.
It is precisely episodes such as this that led to the teaching that there is no
certain ground by which we can automatically discern God's guidance in situation
s which have not been subject to revelation. We can seek his will prayerfully, c
onsult the Church and its Tradition, and still be wrong. On the other hand, we m
ay find ourselves opposed to the highest Church authority and be right. Thus, th
e monk St. Maximos the Confessor, opposed the patriarchs of Constantinople and A
lexandria almost singlehandedly during the seventh century monothelite controver
sy. He rejected his own Church's bishops, saying, "When I see the Church of Cons
tantinople as it was formerly, I will enter into communion with it without any e
xhortation on the part of men, But while there are heretical temptations in her,
and while heretics are its bishops, no word or deed will ever convince me to en
ter into communion with it" (Anastathius of Rome, "The Life of Our Holy Father,
Maximos the Confessor). Within a short time, the Church reversed itself and acce
pted Maximos' teaching.
And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry
given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its direction as well as the l
eading of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs
counter to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our
proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden ways, and then act. We may
be wrong, and even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that o
ur conclusion be founded on solid reflection and prayerful maturity. We must kno
w, however, that simply following whim or convenience is not the same as followi
ng an informed conscience.
Normally, however, any doubtful question invites us to make a different response
. it calls us to an even greater degree of trust as we continue to do as the Chu
rch does, even though we do not see all the connections. For it is precisely in
the surrender of our autonomy that the greatest obstacle to our perfection is ov
ercome.
(pp.67-68)
http://www.amazon.com/Shown-Holy.../dp/B000V3PG8W
Shown to be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought
Shown to be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian...
amazon.com
JS Adido In a way that makes sense. But one is only allowed disagree with the Ch
urch if they believe the Church has deviated from its past teaching universally
held? As opposed to following "conscience" for new doctrines? I want to be fair
and not go so far as to day you're justifying (no pun intended) Martin Luther he
re because the case for Maximos is clear. I think you're correct in your assessm
ent that the issues of certitude came out of the Reformation. They have no infal
lible tradition to fall back on but only each individual left to interpret a pre
ssuposed Canon for themselves. So precision is the only thing they have. On the
other hand, this may still not hurt the case for the Roman See, if it can't be s
hown that the Roman bishop ever endorsed and led his flock to follow heresy? Eg
did the Bishop of Rome support Arius? (I believe Arius was on his way to be exon
erated before he died?). And did Rome stand by Maximos?
Glenn Guadalupe Bob Gardner, it's obvious to Catholics, but I'm trying to unders
tanding the theory of receptionism as understood by CERTAIN Orthodox. An orthodo
x concept of receptionism understands future general ecognition as merely a FAIT
HFUL WITNESS to the authority of what was prior. AFAIK, in opposition to this vi
ew, certain Orthodox view future general recognition as the JUDGE of the authori
ty that was prior. I can't see how this view by certain Orthodox is orthodox, fo
r it relegates truth itself to the judgment of the many. I can see that future g
eneral recognition makes belief more SECURE, but to actually base belief itself
on future general recognition makes the divinely-established teaching authority
of Councils and bishops of the past subject to mere democratic appeal.

FB Primacy in East-Glen

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FB Primacy in East-Glen

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sophia Macik

June 17 at 5:36pm Like

June 21 at 8:19pm Unlike 2

nd urgent that we speak out against such a false identification, distinguishing

Beni Lauricella Stuart, your feeling and attitude is perfectly understandable, r

How is that not telling us that we must convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?

John Morris To Beni Lauricella:

cedon gives Constantinople authority over Eastern Orthodox outside of traditiona

June 22 at 12:07pm Like

ishops for a while. They were cloning themselves.

n in his jurisdiction, Father John?

Tehcinically our local Bishops are auxiliaies to the Metropolitan. However, in r

John Morris To Mary Lanser;

June 22 at 7:21pm Unlike 2

John Morris To Mary Lanser'

June 23 at 10:53am Like

June 23 at 11:51am Like 1

June 23 at 12:04pm Like

June 23 at 12:53pm Unlike 1

Justin Manley Robert Frost...

John Morris To Jose L. Martinez:

Craig Ostrowski Stuart L. Koehl

June 25 at 11:36am Like

June 25 at 12:13pm Like

riteria is objective, and not subjective.

Bob Gardner I saw the "likes" man smile emoticon

June 25 at 2:56pm Like

June 25 at 3:35pm Like

of Pope Pius VI is not a dogmatic defini

It is sad that Michael Frost's pride is such that he thinks that he c

m happening in the future.

s diocesan and archdiocesan conventions. However, it is important to remember th

patristic witnesses, whether in council or not?

Craig Ostrowski Stuart L. Koehl

ever to provide those principles.

2. The Constitution exsurge of Leo X. against Luther.

June 25 at 10:37pm Like

Você também pode gostar