Does Lateran 649 Prove Vat 1 Papacy? Ruhl & Truglia

An open debate/conversation from a Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspective over the primary sources surrounding Lateran 649 and whether they demonstrate Vatican I distinctives concerning the Papacy or an ecclesiology meeting Orthodox canonical norms.

[namapalsu]

Craig,

On 46:52, you said it was through Stephen to build up the holy orders. But in this case it was John of Philadelphia who was to ordain bishops and priest to build up holy orders. Stephen of Dora's part was that he was the one who recommended Martin to appoint John of Philadelphia to become Vicar of the pope in the East (Arabia). So whether Stephen of Dora is the locum tenens of Jerusalem Patrarchate would be irrelevant.

On this quote from Bronwen Neil, Pauline Allen, "Conflict and Negotiation in the Early Church Letters from Late Antiquity, " p. 223

*"And due to the difficulty of the times, that is, due to the pressure of the tribes who are invading us, 190 he was ordered to ordain bishops and priests and deacons according to the canons, as far as power was lacking to us to appoint the patriarch of Jerusalem, to build up the clerical orders."*

1. The *"according to the canons"* part refers to John's action in ordaining bishops and priests. He's to do so in accordance to the canons (this is clearly shown in Martin's letter to John of Philadelphia where it reads, *"Your charity should attend entirely to this [issue] in those who are confirmed or elected by you, LEST CERTAIN OTHER SINS FAMILIAR FROM THE CANONS (apart from heresy whish is renounced by them in the libellus they present) prevent either their confirmation or their election in any way, "* and elsewhere, *"And so we encourage the observance of the canon[s] among those who elected themselves, apart from their decision and without their knowledge, or who have been chosen for the patriarchate of Sophronius of blessed memory, who were obviously improperly elected by certain people before his patriarchate or after his death in the Lord."* Thus, it is NOT that having someone else (ie. John) doing ordination, which is interpreted as mediate jurisdiction, is something that is "according to the canons."

2. As for *"power was lacking to us to appoint the patriarch of Jerusalem"* part.... This simply can not mean that the pope has no immediate jurisdiction because John of Philadelphia was to ordain bishops and priests for the patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem. Such action, which John had done by the power of Martin's *"apostolic authority, "* is clearly an immediate jurisdiction bypassing the patriarchs (note that neither Stephen of Dora nor John of Philadelphia were ever become the patriarch of Jerusalem).

So what does it mean then? The more plausible explanation that does not contradict the exercise of papal immediate jurisdiction through John of Philadelphia, is that Rome can't appoint a patriarch of Jerusalem because of the muslim conquering the holy city. This explanation makes more sense since muslim had attempted to make Sergius of Jaffa (a monothelite) the patriarch of Jerusalem. Like every ruler, the muslim would like to have a bishop to their particular preference. And not being Christian they would care less as to what the pope has to say about whose bishop their conquered land should has. Therefore Rome was powerless to appoint a patriarch of Jerusalem.

[cyriljorge]

I like Allan, he's the only Roman Catholic apologist/scholar (except for a few IRL, who have since, like myself, left that church in many directions) who immediately strikes me as a decent man and more. May he overcome the forces against him and find salvation in the Orthodox church, the only place one can find salvation. The demons tend to be stronger against those who put up more of a fight.

[Isaakios]

A few questions:

Are we 100% sure there aren't interpolations and forgeries in the Acta (seeing as the West had a penchant for this)?

Did the East ever formally accept this as a regional Synod, for instance, via Trullo?

[Isaakios]

Re: St. Maximus' opusculum, tho-- we don't even have the Greek. He wasn't fluent in Latin by his own admission. The opusculum says that Rome got the binding and loosing authority from both God and from the fathers and councils.

But this begs the question-- which fathers and councils gave Rome universal authority? Was St. Maximus fooled by forgeries in Rome itself? If he locates the authority in the synods, fine, but where in the synods?

Isn't it more likely that a Greek-speaking father whose original words we don't have DIDN'T say something like that, especially when the only mss with the quotation are solely found in the Vatican? St. Maximus' answer to the Cnople legates was clear that he wouldn't be in communion with Rome if it communed with Cnople, in order to avoid the anathema of having another gospel.

[gtepp]

The question of this whole thing boils down to this I think. Do we believe the councils and the body of Christ gave to the Roman Bishop a headship, and therfore can be stripped away by these authorities? Or do we believe the headship was given by Christ himself and therfore can not be stripped away by body or councils themselves?

[Jypr]

Why isn’t it possible that those letters where St Maximus supposedly and seemingly supported the Papal claims are forgeries?

[ianpardue]

Like I said before, no one doubts that the Pope was first among equals in early Christianity. But from the time of about Chalcedon, when that line was said, "We believe, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Leo." It went to the pope's head, just like Fr Trenham said. That, and him being cut off from the rest of the Patriarchs. All of that contributed to both 1054 and Vatican I.

[lordofhostsappreciator]

Brutal physiognomy red pill. Average Papism fan vs average Orthodoxy enjoyer:

[matthewpaolantonio]

Yeah I'm gonna have to stay Roman. 1st millennium Popes definitely taught the essence of Vatican 1. And if we're gonna say that the Greeks didn't buy it, but that they did make use of the Papacy when it suited them, that only strengthens the case for the Papacy. If the Greeks were engaging in disingenuous flattery to court the Bishop of Rome's favor, that's on them. That the Bishop's of Rome taught what they taught about their own authority has been consistent. How can we be the ones in schism when we've always believed this, and the Greeks made use of it?