Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[JohnVIII]

malphono;5384888:

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

So you think “submit” is too harsh a word. I suppose you’re right, but only technically. To the Orthodox world simply going into communion with the pope will be seen as submitting to him. And as stated by some people in this forum, there certainly will be plenty of people that believe that the Pope has the authority to do whatever he wishes to do with any church that is in communion with him. And as I read posters arguing this point back-and-forth, I can’t tell which is the truth. Nevertheless, clearly many people will believe that the Russian church must “submit”. Furthermore, I am totally convinced that the patriarch in Russia will try to make the Russian people “submit”. And that is how I worded my prediction. Not that the pope would cause the Russian orthodox to submit, but that the patriarch in Russia will be the one that makes the Russian Orthodox Church “submit” to the pope.

 

[jimmy]

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.

This is the problem that I have had with the quotes that have been supplied. There are no actual restrictions, only what seems to be practical. Karl Rahner wrote a commentary on Lumen Gentium (you can’t discount Karl Rahner’s ecclesiology because Lumen Gentium was practically written by him) and he mentions the fact that the only restriction on the Popes authority is the moral teachings of Christ. We must remember though that the Pope is not impeccable according to the western dogmas so you must realize the threat of a human leader whose only restriction is moral.

 

[Hesychios]

So you think “submit” is too harsh a word. I suppose you’re right, but only technically. To the Orthodox world simply going into communion with the pope will be seen as submitting to him.

I don’t know… it depends upon whether the Papacy still insists upon Universal Jurisdiction at that point

Intercommunion is possible with any self-governing church that agrees in doctrine. It does not require submission (although that is the terminology usually applied by the Papacy in the past). It requires, more than anything, a common Orthodox theology.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

just a thought…from orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
The sad fact is that the attainment of a true spiritual relationship with Christ was never a possibility for Francis, for being outside the Church of Christ, it was impossible that he could have received Divine Grace, or any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.** His gifts were from another spirit**.
At least when the Jews accused Jesus they were clear enough in their language: But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out the devils but by **Beelzebub **the prince of the devils - Matthew 12:24
These cowards running this site can’t even speak clearly…“gifts from another spirit”

I thought one of the main thing of EO spirituality is the lack of an ability to discern where the Holy Spirit acts outside of their Church… they don’t pass judgements against others…ah, the hypocrisy.

 

[NoWings]

just a thought…from orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
The sad fact is that the attainment of a true spiritual relationship with Christ was never a possibility for Francis, for being outside the Church of Christ, it was impossible that he could have received Divine Grace, or any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.** His gifts were from another spirit**.
At least when the Jews accused Jesus they were clear enough in their language: But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out the devils but by **Beelzebub **the prince of the devils - Matthew 12:24
These cowards running this site can’t even speak clearly…“gifts from another spirit”

I thought one of the main thing of EO spirituality is the lack of an ability to discern where the Holy Spirit acts outside of their Church… they don’t pass judgements against others…ah, the hypocrisy.

You have to take orthodoxinfo with a heavy grain of salt. They also call OOs monophysites. Look at them the way Catholics look at Feeneyites.

 

[mardukm]

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.

In a similar thread in the Traditional Catholicism Forum, when I quoted the following statement from Vatican 1:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment by the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St, Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.

there was absolutely no response from even the Traditionalists. In fact, at least one Traditionalist there did not even know that such a statement existed in Vatican 1. And still, not one in the “absolute power” camp has been able to give one iota of a response to posts #61, #81, #188, #191, and #205.

It seems those who think the Vatican 1 gave the Pope absolute power in the Church apply only eisegesis in their understanding of the Church’s ecclesiology. They are on the same level as “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose those things from the teaching and Tradition of the Church that suits their particular form of “Catholicism.”

As a great Archbishop once said, “there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but rather hate her for what they THINK she is.”

It’s also interesting how even among the EO today, a certain Church has gone so far as to demote all its bishops to auxiliary status. No one can do a thing about it. In the Catholic Church, such a thing could not occur, because the Pope would not let it happen. As Vatican 1 asserted, the papacy, as far as his relationship with the rest of the episcopate, exists to uphold and defend the rights of the episcopate, not to stand in the way or take away such rights.

What circumscribes the Pope’s authority is just about as “practical” as the Ten Commandments. IOW, these restrictions are part and parcel of the divine constitution of the Church. If the Pope decrees something that violates the rights of his brother bishops, then such decrees have no effect in the Church.

Blessings

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

As a great Archbishop once said, “there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but rather hate her for what they THINK she is.”

Actually his proper title would now be

, Archbishop Fulton J. SheenServant of God

 

[mardukm]

So you think “submit” is too harsh a word. I suppose you’re right, but only technically. To the Orthodox world simply going into communion with the pope will be seen as submitting to him. And as stated by some people in this forum, there certainly will be plenty of people that believe that the Pope has the authority to do whatever he wishes to do with any church that is in communion with him. And as I read posters arguing this point back-and-forth, I can’t tell which is the truth.

As stated in another thread, this would seem to be the case only if one believes that the Pope has the authority to violate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Correct? But none in the “absolute power” camp have been able to refute the Vatican Councils’ teaching that the Pope does not have this authority - but must rather use his papal authority to uphold and defend the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops.

Nevertheless, clearly many people will believe that the Russian church must “submit”. Furthermore, I am totally convinced that the patriarch in Russia will try to make the Russian people “submit”. And that is how I worded my prediction. Not that the pope would cause the Russian orthodox to submit, but that the patriarch in Russia will be the one that makes the Russian Orthodox Church “submit” to the pope.

It does seem that the Russian Patriarch (and the EP) have Traditionally held a “high Petrine” view of the Church.

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

It’s also interesting how even among the EO today, a certain Church has gone so far as to demote all its bishops to auxiliary status. No one can do a thing about it. In the Catholic Church, such a thing could not occur, because the Pope would not let it happen. As Vatican 1 asserted, the papacy, as far as his relationship with the rest of the episcopate, exists to uphold and defend the rights of the episcopate, not to stand in the way or take away such rights.

What circumscribes the Pope’s authority is just about as “practical” as the Ten Commandments. IOW, these restrictions are part and parcel of the divine constitution of the Church. If the Pope decrees something that violates the rights of his brother bishops, then such decrees have no effect in the Church.

Blessings

Yeh, no other bishop could do it but the Pope could. It is already part of the Churches ecclesiology that no bishop has a voting authority at a council unless the pope says so. I think that is from the document on the Bishops from VII.

In Exodus 32 Moses came down the Mt to find the people already violating the first commandment. People sin, they don’t always follow what they should. And you can’t say that the Pope necessarily would because not all popes have been good. Some have definitely been evil. The Church recognizes these popes though so it doesn’t expect the pope to be impeccable.

 

[mardukm]

Yeh, no other bishop could do it but the Pope could. It is already part of the Churches ecclesiology that no bishop has a voting authority at a council unless the pope says so. I think that is from the document on the Bishops from VII.

Can you please be more specific with a reference?

AFAIK, every bishop has a right to vote in an Ecumenical Council. As stated before (it might have been in another thread), once a bishop receives his territorial jurisdiction, not even the Pope has the authority to take it away, short of heresy or a great public scandal. The Pope cannot on a whim tell a bishop that he has no right to vote at an Ecumenical Council, since that is his by divine right as a member of the college of bishops. Read our canons.

Once again, please be more specific with a reference. Thanks.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Yeh, no other bishop could do it but the Pope could.

Once again, you say this only by neglecting the teaching of the Vatican Councils that the Pope must uphold and defend the rights of his brother bishops. That’s nothing more than cafeteria Catholicism, brother.

In Exodus 32 Moses came down the Mt to find the people already violating the first commandment. People sin, they don’t always follow what they should. And you can’t say that the Pope necessarily would because not all popes have been good. Some have definitely been evil. The Church recognizes these popes though so it doesn’t expect the pope to be impeccable.

If the Pope does so, he has not done it by the authority he is recognized to possess by the Vatican Councils. If the Pope does so, it would be done OUTSIDE the authority that God has given him. That is why, our canons explicitly state that even a motu proprio, if it violates the rights of individuals and Tradition, is invalid. Once again, your position seems to be nothing more than cafeteria Catholicism.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

It does seem that the Russian Patriarch (and the EP) have Traditionally held a “high Petrine” view of the Church.

In the Russian Church the Chief Hierarch can exercise supreme authority over his jurisdiction. This authority is not often used as they don’t like to be thought of as a “pope”. Technically the patriarch never issues any “order” only a “ukaz”, which is a blessing, but in reality it is an order, it just can’t be called such because according to Russian canon law only the tsar can issue an order. Just see what happens one day when the patriarch of Russian issues a ukaz to submit to the authority of the Pope of Rome. Once again, mark my words!

 

[Aramis]

Can you please be more specific with a reference?

AFAIK, every bishop has a right to vote in an Ecumenical Council. As stated before (it might have been in another thread), once a bishop receives his territorial jurisdiction, not even the Pope has the authority to take it away, short of heresy or a great public scandal. The Pope cannot on a whim tell a bishop that he has no right to vote at an Ecumenical Council, since that is his by divine right as a member of the college of bishops. Read our canons.

Once again, please be more specific with a reference. Thanks.

Blessings

Not every bishop; chorbishops and auxiliary bishops do not get votes in any canonical council.

(Which is what the hue and cry is about for the Antiochian Orthodox Bishops… it deprives them of vote in Synod when they are demoted from territorial bishops to auxiliary.)

 

[mardukm]

Not every bishop; chorbishops and auxiliary bishops do not get votes in any canonical council.

(Which is what the hue and cry is about for the Antiochian Orthodox Bishops… it deprives them of vote in Synod when they are demoted from territorial bishops to auxiliary.)

Good point, brother, as usual. I had originally made an additional clause that included the info you gave, and then I deleted it in favor of the clause on “territorial jurisdiction.”

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

If the Pope does so, it would be done OUTSIDE the authority that God has given him. That is why, our canons explicitly state that even a motu proprio, if it violates the rights of individuals and Tradition, is invalid.

I am not going to argue over this point with you. I say fine.

I would like you to develop this further for us…

Does the church have a mechanism in place to show an action of the Pope as invalid?

Is there a way for the church at large to address just such an injustice (an invalid action), or is it going to have to grin and bear it?

Thanks
Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Not every bishop; chorbishops and auxiliary bishops do not get votes in any canonical council.

Are you certain about this?

Of course, I am not clear about whether a chorbishop is an actual bishop, I had thought that they were the equivalent of an Archimandrite, or mitred archpriest or such. But an auxiliary is definitely a bishop, I wonder how it can be that they would be excluded…

Michael

 

[JReducation]

Are you certain about this?

Of course, I am not clear about whether a chorbishop is an actual bishop, I had thought that they were the equivalent of an Archimandrite, or mitred archpriest or such. But an auxiliary is definitely a bishop, I wonder how it can be that they would be excluded…

Michael

There are three ways in which a vote can be taken in the Catholic Church. The circumstances determine which method is used.

1. Voting by jurisdiction. In this case there is one vote per diocese. That is the vote of the Ordinary of the diocese. If he is not present, the auxiliary votes for him. But both cannot vote.
2. Voting by colegiality. In this case, every man who is a bishop has a vote. This is the way that votes are usually counted in Ecumenical Councils, Synods, Episcopal Councils.
3. Voting by college. In this case only the members of the college authorized to cast a vote may do so. Such is the case in the election of a pope. Only the College of Cardinals can vote.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Joseph629]

Whether the Pope has the authority -or not- to abolish the DL is a good question, I don’t know the answer, but would he? NO. That will never happen.

Were the Latin and Byzantine (generic) rites to come together, this would be “MY” ideal:
N.O. during the week, and the availability of both the Byzantine AND the Tridentine on Sundays. Of course I would attend the Melkite or the Salvonic liturgies on Sunday. OH, Heaven on earth.

 

[mardukm]

Are you certain about this?

Of course, I am not clear about whether a chorbishop is an actual bishop, I had thought that they were the equivalent of an Archimandrite, or mitred archpriest or such. But an auxiliary is definitely a bishop, I wonder how it can be that they would be excluded…

Michael

That is a good question. There is not really a concept of “auxiliary bishops” in the Eastern Code. The best comparison is with the concept of an “apostolic administrator,” which is often a priest who does not have the episcopal dignity. This is the reason why I assumed that “auxiliary bishops” don’t have a vote in an Ecumenical Council (perhaps also the reason why brother Aramis did not think so either). After some research, I found out that according to the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (for the Latins), “auxiliary bishops” are indeed to be regarded as full bishops with the right of deliberative vote in an Ecumenical Council.

So much to learn.

Blessings

 

[JReducation]

That is a good question. There is not really a concept of “auxiliary bishops” in the Eastern Code. The best comparison is with the concept of an “apostolic administrator,” which is often a priest who does not have the episcopal dignity. This is the reason why I assumed that “auxiliary bishops” don’t have a vote in an Ecumenical Council (perhaps also the reason why brother Aramis did not think so either). After some research, I found out that according to the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (for the Latins), "auxiliary bishops" are indeed to be regarded as full bishops with the right of deliberative vote in an Ecumenical Council.
So much to learn.

Blessings

This is what I said above. This is voting by collegiality. They are not considered full bishops. THEY ARE full bishops. There is no such thing as a partial bishop.

Sometimes the laity confuses the terms ORDINARY and BISHOP.

An ordinary is anyone who has the authority of a bishop. He need not be a bishop to have that authority. All male Major Superiors of Religious Orders or Religious Congregations are ordinaries. But they are not bishops. However, they have the authority of bishops over their subjects, their houses and their institutions. They do not have the sacramental power of a bishop, only the legal authority. They can grant faculties to the priests and deacons in their community, they can suspend, they govern the clerics in their community, instead of the bishop of the diocese.

A bishop is a priest who has been consecrated to the episcopal order. He need not be an ordinary. In other words, he does not have the authority of a bishop, unless it is delegated to him by the ordinary of his diocese, who is always another bishop. He has the sacramental powers of any bishop, but can only use them with permission of the ordinary of the diocese or the bishop of the diocese. These are auxiliary bishops. In addition, some of them work in the curia in Rome. They are not auxiliary bishops. But they are bishops nonetheless.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF