Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

[Hesychios]

Well, first let’s define Primacy: The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm

Papal Primacy as per Vatican I.

In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Vatican I, under Primacy, the Pope’s power is described as:

Yes, that is what is so difficult. The eastern churches have never used that definition of primacy. Primacy functions at all levels of the church and does not imply absolute jurisdiction anywhere, even in a limited sized group.

The modern Latin Catholic concept assumes that this is a zero-sum game, that the increase of one necessarily suggests the reduction of the other. It has to be thought of that way because the Latin church as defined papal jurisdiction as an absolute.

As long as the various groups inside and outside the church are defining important terms differently, the parties will constantly talk past one another and there will be no progress.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, that is what is so difficult. The eastern churches have never used that definition of primacy. Primacy functions at all levels of the church and does not imply absolute jurisdiction anywhere, even in a limited sized group.

The modern Latin Catholic concept assumes that this is a zero-sum game, that the increase of one necessarily suggests the reduction of the other. It has to be thought of that way because the Latin church as defined papal jurisdiction as an absolute.

As long as the various groups inside and outside the church are defining important terms differently, the parties will constantly talk past one another and there will be no progress.

I’m having a difficult time seeing how Jesus command to shepherd His sheep translates to “rule over the entire Church”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Why Hesychios and ByzCathCantor?

Is it because it fits the Eastern viewpoint better and sets the stage for a future reconcilation between East and West by minimizing the Primacy of the Pope?

My first thought was a reflection on the Catholic Church alone.

Simply speaking, within the Catholic Communion, I see a need for our bishops to be more united in many matters. It is still difficult for me to understand how there can be such disparity of viewpoint between bishops of the same Church (e.g. liturgical practices and norms). Collegiality should allow for varying points of view (and still be respectful of the independent authority of each ordinary), yet always gravitate the group toward a consensus that is consistent and representative of the best traditions and values of the Church.

Further, I do see the benefit of collegiality extending beyond the bounds of the Catholic Church. In particular, in order to be faithful to our own charge to remain true to our Orthodox roots, collegiality between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox bishops is of benefit to themselves and the Church at large. Of course, this should assist greatly in the cause of reunification over time, but does serve a purpose beneficial to the Catholic Church even in the current state of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relations.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

To ByzCath’s point, we must agree on what is meant by collegiality.

This definition (from Wikipedia) is consistent with my understanding of the term and concept:

Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues.

Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other’s abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.

IMHO, it is that notion of “working toward a common purpose” that is most essential.

 

[TrueLight]

My first thought was a reflection on the Catholic Church alone.

Simply speaking, within the Catholic Communion, I see a need for our bishops to be more united in many matters. It is still difficult for me to understand how there can be such disparity of viewpoint between bishops of the same Church (e.g. liturgical practices and norms). Collegiality should allow for varying points of view (and still be respectful of the independent authority of each ordinary), yet always gravitate the group toward a consensus that is consistent and representative of the best traditions and values of the Church.

The funny thing is I see collegiality as why Bishops feel they can do what they want or even downright speak publicly against Catholic teaching or go against the will of the Pope.

Then again, I do not know how Bishops acted in the 1700’s for example.

The modern Latin Catholic concept assumes that this is a zero-sum game, that the increase of one necessarily suggests the reduction of the other. It has to be thought of that way because the Latin church as defined papal jurisdiction as an absolute.

I’m not so sure the Latin Church sees things this way anymore.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Then again, I do not know how Bishops acted in the 1700’s for example.

I don’t have any specific examples in mind, but just thinking about ordinary historic realities, I would guess that bishops were *more *autonomous in the past.

Travel and communications were so much more difficult, that when specific questions arose in a diocese, the bishop would have had to answer them without necessarily referencing any other bishop, or even Rome. So a bishop may have interpreted or implemented Document X in a much different way than another bishop and it wouldn’t necessarily been noticed or resolved for quite some time.

That’s not to say the bishops in the 1700s were any different than bishops today - trying to follow God’s will for their church in the best way they can with the understanding they have.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t have any specific examples in mind, but just thinking about ordinary historic realities, I would guess that bishops were *more *autonomous in the past.

Travel and communications were so much more difficult, that when specific questions arose in a diocese, the bishop would have had to answer them without necessarily referencing any other bishop, or even Rome. So a bishop may have interpreted or implemented Document X in a much different way than another bishop and it wouldn’t necessarily been noticed or resolved for quite some time.

That’s not to say the bishops in the 1700s were any different than bishops today - trying to follow God’s will for their church in the best way they can with the understanding they have.

Interesting point!

We have Youtube and laity can easily videotape and post all sort of stuff.

 

[diane_taylor]

Bp Fellay of course is a respected member of holy Mother Church therefore what he says must surely be respected. All of us, with true comprehension of the Extraordinary Form need to be patient, in the knowledge that our Holy Father is steering the bark of Peter!: God bless all who care.thumbsup:

 

[clem456]

I see neither conflict nor mutual exclusion.

The Pope’s power is supreme, and the Order of Bishops, together with the Pope have supreme and full authority over the universal church.

I don’t see what the issue is. It makes perfect sense to me.

-Tim-

Tim, cmon. You have to -look- for the issues.You are approaching it from the wrong angle dude.

 

[Elizium23]

The developments this week have been interesting, to say the least. There is a good article with words from Di Noia here.

 

[TrueLight]

I think everyone is now afraid of this thread.

 

[TimothyH]

Tim, cmon. You have to -look- for the issues.You are approaching it from the wrong angle dude.

When there is no conflict, argument, dissention, factions, splits or loss of peace, then it is obviously being approached from the wrong angle.

I’ll try to do better.

You stink!

How’s that?

-Tim-

 

[LoyalViews]

I think everyone is now afraid of this thread.

I am.

(hides in the corner)

 

[TrueLight]

I am.

(hides in the corner)

Ha ha!

 

[dmartin11]

When there is no conflict, argument, dissention, factions, splits or loss of peace, then it is obviously being approached from the wrong angle.

I’ll try to do better.

You stink!

How’s that?

-Tim-

 

[dmartin11]

When there is no conflict, argument, dissention, factions, splits or loss of peace, then it is obviously being approached from the wrong angle.

I’ll try to do better.

You stink!

How’s that?

-Tim-

no need for issues, no need for “critical thinking” - which is a euphemism for tearing down and destroying all tradition and values. the Church is not a democracy.

 

[Jane_of_Arc]

The funny thing is I see collegiality as** why Bishops feel they can do what they want or even downright speak publicly against Catholic teaching or go against the will of the Pope.**

Then again, I do not know how Bishops acted in the 1700’s for example.

I’m not so sure the Latin Church sees things this way anymore.

I feel the same way--------the majority of the Bishops think they can do as they please &, though I can’t cite what they were like in the 18th century either,…in the 40’s & 50’s, the bishops were obedient, respectful & actually believed that the Pope is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ…

 

[Not_Sure_1]

I feel the same way--------the majority of the Bishops think they can do as they please &, though I can’t cite what they were like in the 18th century either,…in the 40’s & 50’s, the bishops were obedient, respectful & actually believed that the Pope is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ…

and in the 60s and 70s many that believed that the Pope was the successor of Peter were the ones who were disobedient, disrespectful, and reigned in the Spirit of Vatican II to try to destroy the Church. as Pope Paul said, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR REMINDER

The bishops are not the subject of this thread.

Speculation about who did what is unacceptable, if it disparages the good name of another person.