M
mardukm
Guest
Can you indicate what use answering “who’s first?” will have for the sake of Christian unity?
Blessings
- Status
Blessings
J
John_Larocque
Guest
Yep, my typo. My source, a reprint has 348 in there as well. I was trying to compare the time gap with Cyprian/Stephen conflict and the Catecheses and grabbed the wrong date in the chart, that of the Council of Nicea. It’s closer to a full century.
It appears it was largely a question of the Novatians, which the St. Basil quote I dug up seems to bear out.
I reprinted the only two sections which referred specifically to heretical baptism. In the first he simply states that baptismal waters have no impact on heretics, and he cites Simon Magus from the New Testament. Later on he says flatly that heretical baptism is no baptism at all. I’m not trying to pick and choose quotes here, but it’s clear he believed that there are cases where the Holy Spirit is the missing ingredient for some baptisms. The focus seemed LESS on who was administering the sacrament, and MORE on those receiving it. Hence the question, what are the conditions under which the spirit is absent?
Feel free to find other quotes in the Procatechesis, because the heretical portions are just smaller statements of a larger work.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Marduk,
That is how I read it, and no, no Metropolitan nor Patriarch has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction outside of his own diocese. No matter how you try to confound the issue, this is a totally new concept never before recognized by the church.
We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character.
How does this make the bishop of Roma anything but co-ruler of each diocese?
Are you calling that a violation?
But the problem rests with you. I don’t know why you resist this concept so much, no other Catholic I know tries to minimize the Pope’s actual power like you do, to what end? Who are you trying to convince?
Blessings,
Michael
Are you asserting that the decree does not state that the bishop of Rome has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every diocese and every parish everywhere?
That is how I read it, and no, no Metropolitan nor Patriarch has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction outside of his own diocese. No matter how you try to confound the issue, this is a totally new concept never before recognized by the church.
What I am saying is that according to Roman Catholic church law spelled out clearly here, there are TWO ordinaries in every diocese save one, the diocese of Rome.
We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character.
How does this make the bishop of Roma anything but co-ruler of each diocese?
Are you calling that a violation?
I too sense this.
But the problem rests with you. I don’t know why you resist this concept so much, no other Catholic I know tries to minimize the Pope’s actual power like you do, to what end? Who are you trying to convince?
Blessings,
Michael
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Hesychios,
You might notice that I did not apply the word “immediate” to the offices of Metropolitan and Patriarch. I will explain further on.
You apparently (obviously?) don’t understand the difference between the term “ordinary” and the term “bishop” (who is the “ruler” of the diocese). The ecclesiological term “ordinary” is not equivalent to “bishop.” In fact, not all ordinaries are bishops. Abbots of monasteries, administrators, and vicars, for example, are also referred to as “ordinaries.” “Ordinary” simply means, as pointed out in my last post, “inherent.” “Ordinary” as a person refers to one who has inherent authority. As also pointed out in my last post, the term “ordinary” does not have anything to do with the use or frequency of use of that authority.
The term that you need to look for in Catholic ecclesiology if you want to find out who is the ruler of a local diocese (the one who has the regular and everyday exercise of jurisdiction in that diocese) is not the term “ordinary,” but the term “proper.” This is evident in the following canon:
By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.
Whatever else the Church may recognize of the Pope’s jurisdiction, we know that in a local diocese, it is not “proper.”
Now in each diocese, there is actually physically more than one bishop - these are the co-adjutor bishop and (in some cases) the auxiliary bishop. However, in each diocese, there is always and truly only ONE bishop who has PROPER ordinary power. The other bishops present exercise what is known as VICARIOUS ordinary power - in other words, the power they exercise is not their own, but the power of the bishop who has PROPER ordinary power.
Finally, it should be emphazised once again that the term “ordinary” does not refer to the use or frequency of use of certain prerogative. The ordinary power of Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Popes are always ever used EXTRAordinarily in a local diocese - i.e., very, very rarely and only when it is necessary for the peace of the Church.
CONTINUED
No I am not.
I am not trying to confound the issue. You are simply misunderstanding what I am saying. I did not say that a Metropolitan or Patriarch has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction outside his own diocese. I said that the Metropolitan or Patriarch has, according to the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, jurisdiction outside his own diocese - period. But since you bring it up, I’ll assert right now that Metropolitans and Patriarchs (at least in the early Church, as well as the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches today) have ordinary power in their entire sphere of jurisdiction (not just their own diocese). Most EO I know deny this (there is one EO here in CAF who doesn’t). The Russian Patriarch and EP both intervene in the affairs of jurisdictions outside their own diocese. In this, they are preserving the prerogatives given to Patriarchs by the Ecumenical Councils, but most EO complain about this. This indicates to me that EO ecclesiology has changed since the time of the early Church, proven by the fact that not only do you deny the ordinary jurisdiction of Patriarchs in the entire Patriarchate, but also by the fact that the office of Metropolitan effectively disappeared from the EOC for hundreds of years, except in name. Only in the past year did the Antiochene EO Church finally revive the Metropolitan office in that particular Church as it was meant to be according to the ancient Canons.
You might notice that I did not apply the word “immediate” to the offices of Metropolitan and Patriarch. I will explain further on.
Earlier, you claimed that in the Catholic paradigm, there are two RULERS in each diocese, which I explicitly denied (because it is not true). Here you phrase it differently, and very differently indeed. Here you ask if there are two ORDINARIES in every diocese. This I accept, but actually, there are four ordinaries in any given diocese - the proper bishop (who is the ruler), the Metropolitan, the Patriarch, and the Pope (except those dioceses who are not in a Patriarchal jurisdiction, which would then only have three ordinaries). But there is only one proper bishop in each diocese.
You apparently (obviously?) don’t understand the difference between the term “ordinary” and the term “bishop” (who is the “ruler” of the diocese). The ecclesiological term “ordinary” is not equivalent to “bishop.” In fact, not all ordinaries are bishops. Abbots of monasteries, administrators, and vicars, for example, are also referred to as “ordinaries.” “Ordinary” simply means, as pointed out in my last post, “inherent.” “Ordinary” as a person refers to one who has inherent authority. As also pointed out in my last post, the term “ordinary” does not have anything to do with the use or frequency of use of that authority.
The term that you need to look for in Catholic ecclesiology if you want to find out who is the ruler of a local diocese (the one who has the regular and everyday exercise of jurisdiction in that diocese) is not the term “ordinary,” but the term “proper.” This is evident in the following canon:
By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.
Whatever else the Church may recognize of the Pope’s jurisdiction, we know that in a local diocese, it is not “proper.”
Now in each diocese, there is actually physically more than one bishop - these are the co-adjutor bishop and (in some cases) the auxiliary bishop. However, in each diocese, there is always and truly only ONE bishop who has PROPER ordinary power. The other bishops present exercise what is known as VICARIOUS ordinary power - in other words, the power they exercise is not their own, but the power of the bishop who has PROPER ordinary power.
Finally, it should be emphazised once again that the term “ordinary” does not refer to the use or frequency of use of certain prerogative. The ordinary power of Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Popes are always ever used EXTRAordinarily in a local diocese - i.e., very, very rarely and only when it is necessary for the peace of the Church.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
I already explained to you why this is not so earlier. But permit me now to explain the term “immediate” in Catholic ecclesiology. As noted in my last post, “immediate” does not carry with it the secular sense of “unimpeded, without pause.” Rather, the term means “directly from God.” This is why this term is not attach this word to the offices of Metropolitan and Patriarch - because these offices were established by ecclesiastical canon - i.e., it was given by the Church. In distinction, the Petrine office, as well as the rank of bishop, were divinely established by Christ or the Apostles. So the word “immediate” (i.e., directly from God) is used when describing the jurisdiction of Popes and bishops, but not of Metropolitans and Patriarchs. Of course, all these can be and are regulated by the Church.
Blessings
I already explained to you why this is not so earlier. But permit me now to explain the term “immediate” in Catholic ecclesiology. As noted in my last post, “immediate” does not carry with it the secular sense of “unimpeded, without pause.” Rather, the term means “directly from God.” This is why this term is not attach this word to the offices of Metropolitan and Patriarch - because these offices were established by ecclesiastical canon - i.e., it was given by the Church. In distinction, the Petrine office, as well as the rank of bishop, were divinely established by Christ or the Apostles. So the word “immediate” (i.e., directly from God) is used when describing the jurisdiction of Popes and bishops, but not of Metropolitans and Patriarchs. Of course, all these can be and are regulated by the Church.
A violation of what?Are you calling that a violation?
The reason I resist your claim so much is because you are basing it on an erroneous understanding of Catholic ecclesiology, as well as a denial of the full jurisdiction of patriarchs and metropolitans as established by the early Church.mardukm:
I too sense this.
But the problem rests with you. I don’t know why you resist this concept so much, no other Catholic I know tries to minimize the Pope’s actual power like you do, to what end?
I guess you could say I’m trying to convince those who have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and the papacy.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Hesychios,
One final thing you need to really understand is that Vatican 1 was an incomplete Council. It was prematurely prorogated because of impending war. You can’t truly understand the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church without taking into account Vatican 2, which formally completed Vatican 1.
The episcopal prerogative was more fully expressed at Vatican 2 (though already, you can see it from Chapter 3, paragraph 5 of the Vatican Decree on Papal primacy, which you fully quoted earlier). Here is the teaching of Vatican 2 on the matter:
The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather upheld, defended and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit perserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in His Church.
Though there was no time to formally make a Decree on the Episcopate at Vatican 1, the teaching above was fully expressed in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church immediately after Vatican 1 (e.g., Pius IX’s letter to the bishops of Germany on March 12, 1875; a papal Allocution on March 17, 1875; a papal letter Officio sanctissimo dated December 22, 1887; Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896; the Code of Canons of 1917; etc.).
BTW, there are several prerogatives that bishops possess in their diocese that the Pope, Patriarch, or Metropolitan does not. For example, only the local bishop can grant a priest the faculty of hearing confessions outside his parish. You can find more of such unique prerogatives of local bishops in our Canons if you’re willing to look. That only local bishops have such prerogatives in their local diocese pretty much obliterates your claim of “two bishops in a diocese.”
Blessings
One final thing you need to really understand is that Vatican 1 was an incomplete Council. It was prematurely prorogated because of impending war. You can’t truly understand the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church without taking into account Vatican 2, which formally completed Vatican 1.
The episcopal prerogative was more fully expressed at Vatican 2 (though already, you can see it from Chapter 3, paragraph 5 of the Vatican Decree on Papal primacy, which you fully quoted earlier). Here is the teaching of Vatican 2 on the matter:
The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather upheld, defended and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit perserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in His Church.
Though there was no time to formally make a Decree on the Episcopate at Vatican 1, the teaching above was fully expressed in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church immediately after Vatican 1 (e.g., Pius IX’s letter to the bishops of Germany on March 12, 1875; a papal Allocution on March 17, 1875; a papal letter Officio sanctissimo dated December 22, 1887; Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896; the Code of Canons of 1917; etc.).
BTW, there are several prerogatives that bishops possess in their diocese that the Pope, Patriarch, or Metropolitan does not. For example, only the local bishop can grant a priest the faculty of hearing confessions outside his parish. You can find more of such unique prerogatives of local bishops in our Canons if you’re willing to look. That only local bishops have such prerogatives in their local diocese pretty much obliterates your claim of “two bishops in a diocese.”
Blessings
M
Mickey
Guest
J
John_Larocque
Guest
The issue of recognition of Catholic baptism in Orthodox churches is a complex one but ultimately goes back to St. Basil and the distinction between schismatics and heretics. I found this link from a joint Catholic/Orthodox commision:
usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml
The Russian Church at various points either chrismated or confessed Latin converts (bypassing rebaptism). Things got interesting after the Council of Florence, with Mark of Ephesus promoting a policy of chrismation to the “heretic” Latins, after the second ecumenical council. However, after another dispute with the Latins (Melkite Union) the Ecumenical patriarch issued a policy of rebaptism (optional, at the priest’s discretion) of Latin converts, after the compiler of the Philakoia urged the same. This ecumenical commission urged that the EP decree be suppressed.
This Russian church link covers many of the same points, referencing St. Basil’s canon #1 (on accepting schismatic baptism):
holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html
It also points to canon #7 of the second ecumenical council, which exempts rebaptism from Arians, Macedonians and Novatianists and Quatrodecimians and Apollinarians - provided they confess their errors and are chrismated. Quatrodecimans are a unique group - if I recall, they believed that Christian Easter should always be fixed to the Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html#P4014_722138
usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml
The Russian Church at various points either chrismated or confessed Latin converts (bypassing rebaptism). Things got interesting after the Council of Florence, with Mark of Ephesus promoting a policy of chrismation to the “heretic” Latins, after the second ecumenical council. However, after another dispute with the Latins (Melkite Union) the Ecumenical patriarch issued a policy of rebaptism (optional, at the priest’s discretion) of Latin converts, after the compiler of the Philakoia urged the same. This ecumenical commission urged that the EP decree be suppressed.
This Russian church link covers many of the same points, referencing St. Basil’s canon #1 (on accepting schismatic baptism):
holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html
It also points to canon #7 of the second ecumenical council, which exempts rebaptism from Arians, Macedonians and Novatianists and Quatrodecimians and Apollinarians - provided they confess their errors and are chrismated. Quatrodecimans are a unique group - if I recall, they believed that Christian Easter should always be fixed to the Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html#P4014_722138
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Hesychios. Interesting post … we don’t often discuss the implications of that phrase “ordinary and immediate jurisdiction” (or at least not in the way you’re bringing it up here).
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with calling the Pope a “co-ruler of each diocese”.
- Status