That seems to be the “read” of several, based on the unofficial translations that have been floated around in cyberspace.
Independent Catholics aren’t under the authority of the Pope. Just there bishop all of course under apostolic succession from former Roman Catholic bishops.I’m composing a page on the question, “Are you under the pope?” I’m thinking of a conversation I’ve seen and heard many times.
Are you under the pope?
No, we are in full communion with him.
If you aren’t under the pope, you aren’t Catholic!
If you aren’t Roman Catholic, you aren’t Catholic. I don’t know what you are, but I know it isn’t right.
http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/wp-...1/ErroneousUnderstandingofChurchHierarchy.png
When the person asks, this is what they say they have in their head as the way church hierarchy works. With this understanding of the church, it makes sense that they think you’re either under him or not.
http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TheCatholicCommunionofChurchesChart.png
The person answering has something like this in his head on where he fits into the Catholic Church. This is Vico’s chart that I added some color to.
I shared this with some people and am getting feedback. One person said, “I can’t quite agree with the right chart top line, since the Bishop of Rome could depose a Patriarch.”
I responded that I’ve never heard that a pope can depose a patriarch. He can’t appoint or approve them, so I don’t see how he could depose them. All he can do is sever communion. I asked for some more info.
The response was, “Part of the Gregorian Reforms, just before I think, the Dictatus D’Avranches by some Cardinal. THe first google hit was faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/topicfive/DictatusAvranches.htm and Gregory VII himself (although he doesn’t mention patriarchs specifically) faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/TopicFive/DictatusPapae.htm. There are others.”
Will you please help me understand the bigger picture here?
Yes sir!
I believe it is, but I’m reading it in Ukrainian and am also translating a critique of it (quite biting) written by an acquaintance who is an EC doctor in theology.
The reference, footnote 245, is to Lumen Gentium 13.* Lumen Gentium* contains this in the Preliminary Note showing how communion is to be understood:
In my untrained mind, I read that to say that our hierarchs are in communion with each other. Is this how you understand it?
Yes. Also note the use of the phrase “an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity”.
I’m composing a page on the question, “Are you under the pope?” I’m thinking of a conversation I’ve seen and heard many times.
http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/wp-...1/ErroneousUnderstandingofChurchHierarchy.png
When the person asks, this is what they say they have in their head as the way church hierarchy works. With this understanding of the church, it makes sense that they think you’re either under him or not.
http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TheCatholicCommunionofChurchesChart.png
The person answering has something like this in his head on where he fits into the Catholic Church. This is Vico’s chart that I added some color to.
I shared this with some people and am getting feedback. One person said, “I can’t quite agree with the right chart top line, since the Bishop of Rome could depose a Patriarch.”
I responded that I’ve never heard that a pope can depose a patriarch. He can’t appoint or approve them, so I don’t see how he could depose them. All he can do is sever communion. I asked for some more info.
The response was, “Part of the Gregorian Reforms, just before I think, the Dictatus D’Avranches by some Cardinal. THe first google hit was faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/topicfive/DictatusAvranches.htm and Gregory VII himself (although he doesn’t mention patriarchs specifically) faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/TopicFive/DictatusPapae.htm. There are others.”
Will you please help me understand the bigger picture here?
AS FAR AS APPOINTMENT
That would be a misunderstanding.
I used to use this argument, but I realized after studying the fathers that it is an argument of hypocrisy. An ancient canon of Antioch in the 4th century REQUIRES local bishops to meet with their Metropolitan on a regular basis for the sake of the local Church. Ad Limina visits are merely an application of that same concern for the local Church that is applied to the universal Church. What you see as dictatorial actually has no such intention. It is the needs of the Church that are paramount.
What proof do you have that it is otherwise?
Actually, the language of Apostolic Canon 34 (Latin)/35 (Greek) is pretty clear that it applies to a much larger entity than a Metropolitan Church. The first instance we have on record that Apostolic Canon 34/35 was applied to a Metropolitan church was from a local Synod of Antioch in 341 A.D. That local Canon referred to Apostolic Canon 34/35 as “ancient,” using it as a model for its own governance. There is a definite change in wording, though - whereas the Apostolic Canon says “the bishops of every nation,” the local Synod used the wording “the bishops in every province.” So it was a matter of applying the canon with a greater scope to one with a more local scope. Your notion that the Canon first and foremost refers to the local Metropolitan was a later, local application of a more ancient canon (the Apostolic Canon) that had a greater scope.
See above. What you propose is a later interpretation. I admit there is an ambiguity - if the text in the original language can be read as “the bishops of EACH nation,” then there is some merit in your interpretation; if the text in the original language can be read as “the bishops of ALL nations,” or “the bishops everywhere,” then it reflects a more Catholic understanding. However, the difference in language between AC 34/35 and the Antiochene Canon of 341 is already an indication that your interpretation is not the original one.
See my first comment in this post above.
Actually, he is compelled to do so because that is the job description of the Petrine office. He might not be able to do so, or he might be late in responding, but his response is a necessity of his office.
Is that the prerogative of every bishop (i.e., to ignore those given to him by Christ to feed)? Of every head bishop? Or just the Pope? If just the Pope, I believe that exposes a very unhealthy prejudice against the papacy.You sure about that? It was our Lord himself who said, “Who is the faithful and wise servant who the master will set over his household to feed it?”Except that it has never been known that way to the church.
It’s a modern idea to place the Pope of Rome as a Metropolitan over the world’s bishops. Actually something of a fantasy.
I rather think the early Church had a greater awareness of the universal nature of the Church than many members of modern EO’xy do. My study of the canons indicate that canons were only made when there was a necessity to address an issue that was in question or contention. If there was no question on the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or his prerogatives, what need would there be to create canons over it? You obviously don’t recognize it, but AC 34/35 is a most ancient canon on the universal primacy you claim did not exist. Also, we do have the canons of Sardica which recognized the bishop of Rome’s role as court of final appeal for the whole Church. It is useless for non-Catholics to claim that this was a NEWLY established prerogative, especially as there is ample record prior to Sardica of bishops appealing to Rome.Yes. But the court of FINAL appeal was always the bishop of Rome.
Who said there was? Please give a quote from a Catholic Magisterial source that has ever claimed this.
And what business is it of the Pope to excommunicate a member of the flock of one of his brother bishops? Why blame the Pope for something that is a local bishop’s job to do?
Nice! Very patristic.
Awesome! Thanks, Marduk. I wasn’t sure, but *something *told me that the pope does not have the authority to unilaterally depose a patriarch in this manner.
Thank you. That makes perfect sense.
I didn’t know that as an historical fact, but that is the impression I got even when I first read the Apostolic Canons.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for joining us in this thread, Marduk!Dear brother Alex,
And what business is it of the Pope to excommunicate a member of the flock of one of his brother bishops? Why blame the Pope for something that is a local bishop’s job to do?
EVERY head bishop has ordinary authority/power in his plenary jurisdiction (i.e., a Metropolitan has ordinary power throughout his Metropolitan See, a Patriarch has ordinary power throughout his Patriarchate, and the Pope has ordinary power throughout the universal Church). But ORDINARY authority is not the same as PROPER authority. A head bishop can only exercise PROPER authority in a see/diocese/eparchy not his own if the local bishop of that see/diocese/eparchy is impeded. A head bishop’s authority in that local see/diocese/eparchy not his own is called “ORDINARY” because if and when he is required to use it (because the local bishop has been impeded), it is his NATURAL right to take over the reigns. But the head bishop does not himself have the authority to impede the authority of the local bishop (and Vatican 1’s Pastor Aeternus guarantees that this is the case for the Pope as well).
Blessings,
Marduk
**
Technically, doesn’t a bishop have the ability to excommunicate anybody? I can recount some cases where bishops and patriarchs have excommunicated people without first consulting a synod. I am not saying it is ideal, but it its certainly within the bishop of Rome’s rights to excommunicate people, since he is a bishop.
I believe a bishop can excommunicate anyone, or anything for that matter.
I’m not a canon lawyer, but I think they have to have jurisdiction over the person. I’m thinking of politicians who continue to receive in their home diocese but a bishop says they may not receive in his. The bishops put pressure on the bishop who has jurisdiction over the person and they can restrict reception in their own diocese, but they can’t excommunicate just anyone if I’m understanding the dynamic correctly.
Is it true that a Pope excommunicated haileys Comet?
LOL where did you read that?