Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[jimmy]

I have said this before and I will say it again. Unity under the pope WILL occur, when the patriarch of Moscow submits the entire Russian Church to the pope. I seem to stand alone in this belief, but I’m sure it will happen under the terms of the pope and in less than five years - mark my words! As I have said before this is not what I want to happen (if unity occurs I would like it to occur in an orthodox fashion) but that’s the way it will happen. Just wait and see!

That is a very interesting statement. What makes you think that it will happen, especially in such a short period of time? Five years is a pretty bold prediction.

 

[malphono]

That is a very interesting statement. What makes you think that it will happen, especially in such a short period of time? Five years is a pretty bold prediction.

I agree: short period and bold prediction. IMHO, it’s not likely that any EO or OO Patriarchate is going to “submit” to Rome. More likely they’d choke on the word “submit” itself. (I can’t say I’d blame them: that word leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, too .)

 

[JReducation]

I agree: short period and bold prediction. IMHO, it’s not likely that any EO or OO Patriarchate is going to “submit” to Rome. More likely they’d choke on the word “submit” itself. (I can’t say I’d blame them: that word leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, too .)

I think submission is exactly what the Holy See is trying to avoid. It’s what both sides are trying to avoid. I sense that both sides are trying to find a point of harmony where the reunification is based on shared faith and love.

Submission leaves a bad taste in my mouth too. Assent is a completely different story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

I think submission is exactly what the Holy See is trying to avoid. It’s what both sides are trying to avoid. I sense that both sides are trying to find a point of harmony where the reunification is based on shared faith and love.

Submission leaves a bad taste in my mouth too. Assent is a completely different story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, that’s true: “assent” is quite different.

IMHO, assent to the “Absolutist Petrine View” (which is “submission” by another name) as noted by [post=5376939]mardukm[/post], is unlikely to ever occur, OO or EO. OTOH, assent to the “High Petrine View” as noted in that same post is eminently possible, particularly with the OO. But the EO (including even Moscow) could, with a little ecclesiological tweaking on their part, easily follow.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, that’s true: “assent” is quite different.

IMHO, assent to the “Absolutist Petrine View” (which is “submission” by another name) as noted by [post=5376939]mardukm[/post], is unlikely to ever occur, OO or EO. OTOH, assent to the “High Petrine View” as noted in that same post is eminently possible, particularly with the OO. But the EO (including even Moscow) could, with a little ecclesiological tweaking on their part, easily follow.

I’m sorry. But I don’t understand all of the letters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

shorthand…

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

OTOH = On The Other Hand

EO - Eastern Orthodox/diaphysite/Chalcedonian

OO - Oriental Orthodox/miaphysite/non-Chalcedonian

Blessings!

 

[JReducation]

shorthand…

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

OTOH = On The Other Hand

EO - Eastern Orthodox/diaphysite/Chalcedonian

OO - Oriental Orthodox/miaphysite/non-Chalcedonian

Blessings!

Thanks for the translation. Now I understand your post. Let us hope and pray that reunification is progressing. I believe that the Lord wants his people reunited in one communion and bound by their love of him and what he loves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimmy]

Yes, that’s true: “assent” is quite different.

IMHO, assent to the “Absolutist Petrine View” (which is “submission” by another name) as noted by [post=5376939]mardukm[/post], is unlikely to ever occur, OO or EO. OTOH, assent to the “High Petrine View” as noted in that same post is eminently possible, particularly with the OO. But the EO (including even Moscow) could, with a little ecclesiological tweaking on their part, easily follow.

The only way I can see the ‘high view’ working is if there are specific roles which the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome would be kept to and it would have to be stated just as clearly as papal infallibility was stated at Vatican I. Right now there is no clear limitation on the jurisdiction of Rome. Not only will Moscow have to tweak their ecclesiology but so will Rome.

 

[JReducation]

The only way I can see the ‘high view’ working is if there are specific roles which the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome would be kept to and it would have to be stated just as clearly as papal infallibility was stated at Vatican I. Right now there is no clear limitation on the jurisdiction of Rome. Not only will Moscow have to tweak their ecclesiology but so will Rome.

I’m wondering if it is ecclesiology that needs tweaking or law? I tend to believe it will be law. I believe that it is fair to think that the Catholic Church would be willing to preserve and protect the autonomy of the Eastern patriarchs once there is an agreement on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Even as it stands now, the Apostolic See rarely intervenes in the internal affairs of the Eastern Catholics. There is a Congregation for that purpose made up of Eastern rite clerics, theologians, monks and other.

Let us pray for the unity that we need and that Christ wants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JohnVIII]

shorthand…

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

OTOH = On The Other Hand

EO - Eastern Orthodox/diaphysite/Chalcedonian

OO - Oriental Orthodox/miaphysite/non-Chalcedonian

Blessings!

What shorthand do you use for Eastern Orthodox/miaphysite? EO(m)?

 

[malphono]

The only way I can see the ‘high view’ working is if there are specific roles which the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome would be kept to and it would have to be stated just as clearly as papal infallibility was stated at Vatican I. Right now there is no clear limitation on the jurisdiction of Rome. Not only will Moscow have to tweak their ecclesiology but so will Rome.

Yes of course. The presumption in “assenting to the High Petrine view” by the OO/EO is that Rome has done the same.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I have heard this spewing before but never could accept it.

This is one of the most horrible things one can say about the recently departed, “God killed him to prevent him from making a mistake”. God must have been looking elsewhere for a long time because he surely missed a few. I think it is an urban legend among traditionalists with over active imaginations.

This is just one more myth circulating around the church that has got to stop.

If anyone cares to discuss this very serious allegation about a recently deceased bishop I suggest that they start a thread somewhere with all the facts at their disposal.

Hesychios:

I was told the story by a historian I trust. I fear I may owe Pope Sixtus V an apology:

History of the Egyptian Obelisks
egipto.com/obeliscos/sanpedro2.html
Croatian History - Pope Sixtus V
croatianhistory.net/etf/sixto.html
Catholic Encyclopedia - Pope Sixtus V
newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm

In my internet search, I verified part of my friend’s story and contradicted part. The Vulgate Pope Sixtus V published had errors, which he and his printers caught. Pope Sixtus V & his printers had it pulled and the next Pope, Pope Clement VIII, had the errors corrected and the book republished/reprinted. Pope Sixtus V died after the Vulgate was printed the first time and before the errors could be corrected. By all appearances, Pope Sixtus V fully intended to correct the errors and reprint the corrected Vulgate - The problem was he died before he could do that.

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate - The Clementine Text Project
vulsearch.sourceforge.net/gettext.html

Unlike many here, I do try to admit when I’m mistaken. I thought you knew that.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

These opinions are taking an odd, ahistorical turn. Documents and books show that the Maronites convened various Synods and adopted these practices themselves, albeit with some “persuasion”.

books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=Maronite+latinization&source=bl&ots=CVAAZoPlxC&sig=jTm8SVdqKwD4FblZA37tMJ_vF7M&hl=en&ei=0FpESv_lK4KENoKJhc0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The above is a book written from the Syriac Orthodox perspective, and even these, while they emphasize that Rome - at one time or the other - “suggested” these changes, these still show that the Patriarchs and Maronite Synods HAD to convene and accept them for the changes to actually be implemented.

Thank you!! This anti-Roman sentiment is not a historical phenomenon.

The constant teaching of the Roman Church regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches was reflected yet again at Vatican II, I challenge anyone to show me an official Catholic document from the Pope of Rome which mandated the “raping” of Eastern liturgies that is being accussed.

I, on the other hand, can cite NUMEROUS Papal documents which not only mandate that the Eastern Catholics maintain their history, but at the same time give severe censures to those who attempt to convince the Easterners to change their traditions.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. “The pope”, as Cardinal Hergenröther well says,

is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges…He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy – to “feed” – and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations (“Cath. Church and Christian State”, tr., I, 197).

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Good quote~!

 

[bpbasilphx]

I agree: short period and bold prediction. IMHO, it’s not likely that any EO or OO Patriarchate is going to “submit” to Rome. More likely they’d choke on the word “submit” itself. (I can’t say I’d blame them: that word leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, too .)

That’s why I prefer using the terms “reconciliation” or “restoration of communion.”

And it’s also why I use as my signature line…

 

[mardukm]

Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. “The pope”, as Cardinal Hergenröther well says,

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Good quote~!

WELL DONE, brother!

Also worth noting is the following Pastoral Encyclical from the Swiss bishops’ conference, immediately on the heels of Vatican 1:
"he [the Pope] is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this previous line has great relevance to our discussion about the Pope’s relationship to his brother bishops]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

PIO NONO’s REPLY: “nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

I don’t know about anyone else here, but I would much rather listen to Pope Pius IX, rather than the exaggerations of anti-papal pundits.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I agree: short period and bold prediction. IMHO, it’s not likely that any EO or OO Patriarchate is going to “submit” to Rome. More likely they’d choke on the word “submit” itself. (I can’t say I’d blame them: that word leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, too .)

Me, three. As I’ve stated in the past, I don’t even like the word “jurisdiction,” but prefer the terms “solicitude and care.”

Blessings

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

WELL DONE, brother!

Blessings,
Marduk

I thought so too. I think I am finally beginning to grasp this.

 

[jimmy]

I’m wondering if it is ecclesiology that needs tweaking or law? I tend to believe it will be law. I believe that it is fair to think that the Catholic Church would be willing to preserve and protect the autonomy of the Eastern patriarchs once there is an agreement on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Even as it stands now, the Apostolic See rarely intervenes in the internal affairs of the Eastern Catholics. There is a Congregation for that purpose made up of Eastern rite clerics, theologians, monks and other.

Let us pray for the unity that we need and that Christ wants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think it is ecclesiology because as it is at the moment, the law can be changed by the Pope at will. It must be made clear that the Pope as well is a subject of the law rather than the determiner of the laws. There must be boundaries to the authority of the Pope that are above the Popes authority to change and it must be stated clearly. As it is now there is nothing that is stated clearly. If it is not above the authority of the Pope then who is to say that a future Pope would not assume more authority to himself that is actually proper to the bishops like has been done at times in the past? As has been mentioned the papal doctrines don’t say the pope is impeccable so it is certainly possible that there would be a pope in the future that would not be ideal for the autonomy of the eastern churches.

 

[JohnVIII]

Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. “The pope”, as Cardinal Hergenröther well says,

is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges…He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops

It may sound like a good quote, but to me it sounds like the pope is just being restricted by practical considerations, it doesn’t sound like actual restrictions in his authority.