Pope as Final Authority For Ecumenical Councils?

[prodromos]

Read how the previous Patriarch of Jerusalem was deposed. Your answer is there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To make one statement equal to another when the wording and intention isn't even close. To say that the keys to the kingdom, which indicates the giving of authority over a household, is the same as the authority to forgive sins, which is a different thing altogether, and is linked to the transfer of the Levitical priesthood to the Apostles....well, that is problematic to me.

But let's play this game to the end.....so the Fathers and their interpretation trumps my or any other understanding of the Bible and establishes what the real interpretation is.

Fine....then don't call me a heretic when I quote all the Fathers of the Church who believe in apokatastasis, okay? To tell me that "aionios" means "eternal" when it does not and the Fathers did not interpret it that way until Augustine came along is to go right back to the same kind of "sola scriptura" and ignoring the Fathers that Protestants do. If you can accept that the Fathers taught that the keys were given to all when they were only given to Peter, and use their quotes to "proof-text" yourself as being right, then I can do the same thing.

And I say that kindly (lest you think that I am posting with an attitude. I am not) and with out teeth.

This is something that is really bugging me about both the East and the West. It seems that a little twisting of the Scriptures is just fine when it supports one's own ideals. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I can tell when someone is stretching, especially when other quotes from other sources go against what someone is saying. There were several long quotes given by the Early Fathers by a Roman Catholic which show the authority that Rome had in settling disputes and even deposing wicked and heretical bishops.

Let's take another example. Suppose the Patriarch of Antioch loses his mind and begins to teach something that is not orthodox. Who has the authority to depose him? The Patriarch of Jerusalem? The Patriarch of Moscow? Who?

Do you see the problem collegiality creates in this situation which needs authority? Why is it so hard to imagine that the Holy Spirit would take one particular office and protect it from heresy. (Of course, after I typed that, I realized what a loaded question that is, since the Filioque IS a heresy and Rome has been supporting and teaching it for quite a while now)

Okay, so now I'm back to my troubling question.....how is a heretical Patriarch deposed and who has the authority to do it? The whole Church united in the Patriarchs.

(This is giving me an intense migraine!)

Anyway, thanks for putting up with me. I do appreciate it.

an Ecumenical Synod would depose a heretical patriarch if a local one has not already done it.

and the eternity of hell is in Justin Martyr and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of whom are before Augustine. I don't know why you keep bringing up that this originated with Augustine. and we do believe in apokatastasis, just not that meaning universalism. which we have also discussed before.

 

[prodromos]

Cliff notes version:
Synod of bishops in Jerusalem voted for the removal of former Patriarch Irineos after he had effectively sold properties to the Israeli Gov't without the synod's approval. Irineos appealed the decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch, however a synod held involving the other patriarchates upheld the Jerusalem synod's decision. Former patriarch Irineos was removed from his position and the synod chose Theophilos III to replace him.

I presume that you are aware that the Catholic Church has no way of removing a heretical or otherwise problematic Pope.

 

[Light of the East]

Cliff notes version:
Synod of bishops in Jerusalem voted for the removal of former Patriarch Irineos after he had effectively sold properties to the Israeli Gov't without the synod's approval. Irineos appealed the decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch, however a synod held involving the other patriarchates upheld the Jerusalem synod's decision. Former patriarch Irineos was removed from his position and the synod chose Theophilos III to replace him.

I presume that you are aware that the Catholic Church has no way of removing a heretical or otherwise problematic Pope.

Great answer. This is what I am looking for!!!

 

[Light of the East]

an Ecumenical Synod would depose a heretical patriarch if a local one has not already done it.

and the eternity of hell is in Justin Martyr and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of whom are before Augustine. I don't know why you keep bringing up that this originated with Augustine. and we do believe in apokatastasis, just not that meaning universalism. which we have also discussed before.

So really, what you are saying, Father, is that the authority of the Church rests in the Church as a whole and not in the ruminations or ideas of one man? And the Church as a whole is represented by the bishops meeting in ecumenical council?

Seems right to me.

I say this because I thought of something today. In Timothy, we see that the Church, and not any individual, is called "the pillar and ground of truth." Therefore, to conflate the Church with a single individual is simply wrong (did I present that correctly?)

 

[ArmyMatt]

So really, what you are saying, Father, is that the authority of the Church rests in the Church as a whole and not in the ruminations or ideas of one man? And the Church as a whole is represented by the bishops meeting in ecumenical council?

Seems right to me.

I say this because I thought of something today. In Timothy, we see that the Church, and not any individual, is called "the pillar and ground of truth." Therefore, to conflate the Church with a single individual is simply wrong (did I present that correctly?)

yes, in addition, in Acts, the Apostles say it was good to the Spirit and us, not to the Spirit and Peter.

 

[Light of the East]

Read how the previous Patriarch of Jerusalem was deposed. Your answer is there.

Uh......which Patriarch of Jerusalem? Someone recent or an older model?

Maybe you have a link to the story?

 

[prodromos]

Uh......which Patriarch of Jerusalem? Someone recent or an older model?

Maybe you have a link to the story?

That was described in the Cliff notes version. Google "Jerusalem Patriarch Irineos" and it should get you started.

 

[Light of the East]

That was described in the Cliff notes version. Google "Jerusalem Patriarch Irineos" and it should get you started.

"The decision reached by the Holy Synod of Jerusalem of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre was made final on May 6, 2005 by a two-thirds vote of that body. As far as the Church leaders were concerned, Irenaios ceased to be Patriarch from that point. On 24 May 2005 a special pan-Orthodox Conference was convened in Constantinople (Istanbul) to review the decisions of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem. The pan-Orthodox Conference under the presidency of the Ecumenical Patriarch voted overwhelmingly to confirm the decision of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher and to strike Irenaios' name from the diptychs. On 30 May, the Synod of Jerusalem chose Metropolitan Cornelius of Petra to serve as locum tenens pending the election of a replacement for Irenaios.

The Holy Synod of Jerusalem went further. On June 16, 2005 it announced that Irenaios had been demoted to the rank of monk.[2] This action is now widely viewed as being uncanonical. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has also said the defrocking does not have any validity, and is not recognized by any Orthodox Church. Since then Irenaios has not left his apartment and is de facto imprisoned there.[3]

Theophilos III was elected as the new Patriarch on 22 August 2005 by the Synod. The election was confirmed by the pan-Orthodox Synod of Istanbul (Constantinople) and he was enthroned on 22 November 2005.

By a longstanding tradition, the dismissal of a Patriarch of Jerusalem and the election of a replacement requires the approval or recognition of the governments in the regions of the Patriarchate's authority - presently, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan. Jordan had recognized the dismissal by June 2005. Ireneos continued to be recognized by Israel as the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem until December 2007, and Israel continued to invite him to official government functions. As of 20 December 2007, the governments of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority and Israel all now recognise Theophilos III as Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem."

I find the part in red profoundly odd. What does the secular government have to do with Church matters? Render to Caesar, you know? The governance of the Church is none of Caesar's business.

 

[FireDragon76]

Cliff notes version:
Synod of bishops in Jerusalem voted for the removal of former Patriarch Irineos after he had effectively sold properties to the Israeli Gov't without the synod's approval. Irineos appealed the decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch, however a synod held involving the other patriarchates upheld the Jerusalem synod's decision. Former patriarch Irineos was removed from his position and the synod chose Theophilos III to replace him.

I presume that you are aware that the Catholic Church has no way of removing a heretical or otherwise problematic Pope.

There's always Sedevacantism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"The decision reached by the Holy Synod of Jerusalem of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre was made final on May 6, 2005 by a two-thirds vote of that body. As far as the Church leaders were concerned, Irenaios ceased to be Patriarch from that point. On 24 May 2005 a special pan-Orthodox Conference was convened in Constantinople (Istanbul) to review the decisions of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem. The pan-Orthodox Conference under the presidency of the Ecumenical Patriarch voted overwhelmingly to confirm the decision of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher and to strike Irenaios' name from the diptychs. On 30 May, the Synod of Jerusalem chose Metropolitan Cornelius of Petra to serve as locum tenens pending the election of a replacement for Irenaios.

The Holy Synod of Jerusalem went further. On June 16, 2005 it announced that Irenaios had been demoted to the rank of monk.[2] This action is now widely viewed as being uncanonical. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has also said the defrocking does not have any validity, and is not recognized by any Orthodox Church. Since then Irenaios has not left his apartment and is de facto imprisoned there.[3]

Theophilos III was elected as the new Patriarch on 22 August 2005 by the Synod. The election was confirmed by the pan-Orthodox Synod of Istanbul (Constantinople) and he was enthroned on 22 November 2005.

By a longstanding tradition, the dismissal of a Patriarch of Jerusalem and the election of a replacement requires the approval or recognition of the governments in the regions of the Patriarchate's authority - presently, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan. Jordan had recognized the dismissal by June 2005. Ireneos continued to be recognized by Israel as the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem until December 2007, and Israel continued to invite him to official government functions. As of 20 December 2007, the governments of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority and Israel all now recognise Theophilos III as Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem."

I find the part in red profoundly odd. What does the secular government have to do with Church matters? Render to Caesar, you know? The governance of the Church is none of Caesar's business.

it's just what those nations choose to do officially. it has nothing to do with how the Church actually functions. it's not like Russia or Georgia was waiting for those nations to work with the new patriarch

 

[truefiction1]

No. Again, with great respect for you, Father, what you have said is kind of like someone saying that just because all men are in the police force, that all men are captains or hold the same level of authority.

Furthermore, the history of the Church in the East seems to refute this very idea. To whom did the orthodox bishops turn when the whole world of emperors was against them? To whom did Athanasius turn to support his orthodoxy when emperor was after his hide for being orthodox?

Rome!

If I have an office of special privilege in a company and I retire (or die) the only one who holds that office upon my death is the next man to sit in my chair and use my phone. It does not belong to the rest of those in my company who may also have certain privileges of authority above the average worker (I'm trying to find a good analogy to use here).

I get the feeling that the refusal to acknowledge that there must be a center of unity and authority comes from some serious anger against Rome, some of which is rightly deserved (such as the Sack of Constantinople) rather than a good piece of scriptural interpretation.

Sometimes this may be the case, but it's mostly on account of the "logos bias" that the Church must struggle against. The logos bias is strong in the Church of the West, and it's primary theological and ecclesiological manifestations are expressed in the both the filioque as a definition relationships between Divine Persons in tri-unity, and the papacy as the center of unity in the Church (just as you expressed it yourself).

Its funny that the Orthodox faithful are okay without a "center of unity" in the Church. We encounter our Lord, face to face, when He imparts to us His own most pure body and His own most precious blood when, by the uncreated energy of God we are brought to Heaven to dine with Him and on Him, and He is in our midst and inside of us. By the Holy Spirit, we have our Head, Who is our "center of unity". It's our Holy Tradition, received from the Apostles, that keeps this an ongoing reality in the Church. This is done both with and without a Roman bishop being in agreement with us.

 

[truefiction1]

Not what Jesus said.....at all.

It is very disappointing to see my Orthodox friends and brothers doing the same thing to Scripture that the Protestants do - twisting and turning words and changing meanings to fit a presuppositional stance. To say that giving the power to the Apostles to forgive sins is the same thing as the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 by the giving of the keys to the household to a single overseer is to me being disingenuous to keep one's interpretation alive.

I am disappointed and sad. I feel that what I keep reading from the East and West in this regard means that we are never going to have a united Church again. At least, not on this earth.

But it doesn't matter as much as a lot of people think that we have a united Church again, because this earth is "passing away". The East/West schism had to happen so that the reformation could happen, so as to usher in the philosophies that will ultimately lead to the great "falling away" before the end. Be disappointed only if our names are not written in the "Book of Life".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sometimes this may be the case, but it's mostly on account of the "logos bias" that the Church must struggle against. The logos bias is strong in the Church of the West, and it's primary theological and ecclesiological manifestations are expressed in the both the filioque as a definition relationships between Divine Persons in tri-unity, and the papacy as the center of unity in the Church (just as you expressed it yourself).

Its funny that the Orthodox faithful are okay without a "center of unity" in the Church. We encounter our Lord, face to face, when He imparts to us His own most pure body and His own most precious blood when, by the uncreated energy of God we are brought to Heaven to dine with Him and on Him, and He is in our midst and inside of us. By the Holy Spirit, we have our Head, Who is our "center of unity". It's our Holy Tradition, received from the Apostles, that keeps this an ongoing reality in the Church. This is done both with and without a Roman bishop being in agreement with us.

exactly. the Chief Priest and Head of the Church, Who alone possesses direct and universal jurisdiction, and has infallibility is the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[truefiction1]

exactly. the Chief Priest and Head of the Church, Who alone possesses direct and universal jurisdiction, and has infallibility is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes. If we are His mystical Body, and He our Head, how therefor is our Holy Tradition not infallible? But if we declare a different head, how then will we not become fallible?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes. If we are His mystical Body, and He our Head, how therefor is our Holy Tradition not infallible? But if we declare a different head, how then will we not become fallible?

right. and even looking at history, ignoring the heretics that sprung from Rome (like every patriarchate), whenever any Pope made a power grab, others in the Church opposed him. the only option was to break with the rest of the Church. that's a huge red flag.

 

[buzuxi02]

In my study of Church History, Pope Leo I of Rome is the first guy I have come across who obviously comes across as a Pope. He wrote letters to Alexandria and Constantinople that appeared to say that his Apostolic See controlled everything, and his own supporters called him an "Apostle" and "Peter."

What I find strange is, if the whole Christian world did not reject thing, why did they allow for it? Further, according to Letter 132 of Leo (I do not know if there is a Greek copy or if it is a Roman forgery) it says that Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople said the following:

"As for those things which the universal council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the Church of Constantinople [canon 28], let your holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople (his subjects) who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force and confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of your blessedness. Therefore let your holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, having always held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and coveteousness" (Epistle 132, Leo's Collections).

Does the Roman Bishop have the whole force of confirming a Council or not? Why would Anatolius write such a thing if he didn't? How to Orthodox understand this?

Much thanks!

Pope Leo "sounded" like a moden pope but actually it was more akin to pouting. For example Pope Leo had to write to Proterius of Alexandria to ask him to explain how Pascha was calculated because he was perplexed as to why it fell so late in some years. Patriarch Proterius explained to him how the Alexandrian paschalion is calculated and why the earlier usage used only by Rome was in error.
Pope Leo wrote to the emperor and empress begging them that the Nicene canons not be revised in which his request was rejected. He even lamented in an epistle to the Empress Pulcheria how the autonomous Illyrian bishops rejected his request not to recognize canon 28.
The quote you are giving was a common way to smooth things over and give an off ramp to Pope Leo's humiliation where everyone rejected his grandeur demands. This is why all the chalcedonian canons stood regardless of what the roman bishops ever claimed.
If you read Pope Leo'' epistle you will recognize that Rome was never even taken seriously in ecclesiastical and theological issues, it was important strategically but not theologically. This is why Pope Leo and the roman church was terrified that Chalcedon would be overturned. Many compromises were discussed for alternative formulas in the eastern empire the most famous was the Henotikon which would have rejected the definition of Chalcedon and demote it to a regional council. Chalcedon was the only council Rome could say they effected so it was defended by them the most.

 

[buzuxi02]

There's a quotation of an Early Church Father who said that all the apostles possess the Keys to the Kingdom: Can anyone help me find it here?

There are many. In fact St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on the gospel of John , singles out the apostle John as having the keys of heaven, then goes on to praise and bestow accolades to John more than he ever did for Peter.

 

[Markie Boy]

I am still at a Catholic Church - but struggling to stay. One thing that gets me is when they claim Papal Infallibility, but we can historically find heretical popes. Then there comes another huge explanation of why this does not contradict that, blah, blah - and now they are loosing my trust. And I fully understand all the stipulations and not everything he says is claimed as infallible.

But the idea that he could personally be a heretic, but not teach heresy?

I don't ask that you personally be infallible - unless that is you state you are. Seems to be common in Catholic parishes that people deny papal infallibility from those I talk to.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Buzuxi02,
Don't worry about it.