Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

That is the same type of language the govt. uses every time it concentrates more power in itself. “It is for your own protection”. Communism was for the good of the people. But that is not how it turned out.

That’s a very poor comparison. That Catholic Church admits the divine rights of bishops. Communist governments don’t have such limits. The Pope can no more violate the divine rights of his brother bishops than he can teach that Christ did not die on the cross for us. Very poor comparison, brother.

No man on earth has a right to judge whether the Pope is right or wrong in his actions so it is irrelevant until a pope comes along to reverse his actions and say it contradicted God’s will.

Given your logic, then God’s commandments don’t mean squat, right? Why should anyone become Christian according to your fear-based logic? Even if there was no Pope, according to your fear-based logic, there is really no guarantee that one bishop will not take his own diocese into heresy, is there? According to your fear-based logic, the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Churches can overturn the Sacred Tradition of the Church at any time, correct? According to your fear-based logic, what use is collegiality - you are merely replacing a tyranical monarchy with a tyrannical oligarchy ,correct? According to your fear-based logic, what guarantee is there that an Ecumenical Council will not contradict Sacred Tradition? As sister Marymol has repeatedly stressed, it is a matter of trust in the Holy Spirit. Any fear-based argument you may have against the papacy can easily be turned against an Ecumenical Council. In truth, if you let fear rule your conscience, then you’re lost already, and no authority in the Church will satisfy you. What prevents one bishop from taking over the diocese of any other bishop, and causing ecclesiastical upheaval? According to your fear-based logic, the canons of the Church are no good, after all, correct? Seriously, how much better is your fear-based logic from the fear-based logic of Protestants who reject authority altogether? And instead of accusing me of an ad hominem, please answer the question instead.

You are accusing me of Cafeteria Catholicism but I am simply reading the statements of the councils as they are. You are trying to interpret around the canons and the statements of the councils and the popes. It has been stated clearly that the Popes authority is universal and it is unhindered. There are no limits. You try to say that he is limited by the rights of his brother bishops but you can’t even establish what these rights are. He certainly doesn’t have a voting right in a council because it has been established that it is up to the pope whether a bishop has a vote in a council or only an advisory role.

No, you are only reading the portions you want. That is Cafeteria Catholicism. This claim is rather hollow, given that not you, nor any in the absolute power camp, can even respond to the several posts I mentioned earlier (twice already)…

Give the canon. I have never seen a canon that says anything about the possibility of a motu proprio being invalid.

I gave the canon earlier. Why are you avoiding it? I have asked people in the absolute power camp to respond to it twice already (this will be the third time).

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Regarding the authority of bishops to vote in councils, take for example the Synod (which is a type of synod). Here is a statement from Apostolica Sollicitudo:

The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.

You can ignore this if you want but this is the model of collegiality in the west. Collegiality is at the will of the pope. There are no rules for the process of a council except those established by the pope.

You said in an earlier post that you support Apostolic Canon 34, but now you complain against it. You are advocating that the head bishop should have no role in a Synod of bishops?

Can you please lay out for us exactly what the difference is between the Catholic Church stating that the Pope is REQUIRED to confirm all such acts, and the Apostolic Canon 34 stating that the head bishop is REQUIRED to confirm acts affecting the whole Church?

Blessings.

 

[mardukm]

According to Father Baumann: “You must clearly understand that the initial error of the Society of St. Pius X is not the consecration, but a schismatic attitude —to want to judge the Church (i.e. the ordinary Magisterium) which has been there from early on. The sin is one of arrogance, of a lack of humility, of elitism and Sectarianism.” (Fr. Baumann to seminarians 1992-1993)
The objection to the New Mass would be part of the schismatic attitude, would it not?

Wanting to celebrate the EF is not a schismatic attitude (if celebration of the EF per se was schismatic, why was there an indult granted?). However, calling the NO invalid and claiming that heresy infected the Church is indeed schismatical.

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps this topic is noteworthy enough to deserve a thread of its own?

Then why did you bother to mention it? Is anyone else here frustrated at your tactics?

 

[mardukm]

To respond to brother Marduk’s suggestion, I will reiterate that Rome has never ordered, through unilateral Papal decree, any insertion of the Filioque into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy since the Union of Brest. As reminded by Magisterial documents lauding the Union, it still stands as written and approved by Metropolitan Mykhayl and the other Kyivan hierarchs. Although I have never seen the actual document, the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholics claim to have the “same deal” with the Union of Uzhorod which came 50 years later.

BTW, Father deacon Diak, thank you very much.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Volodymyr]

BLESSING FOR ORTHODOXY

I have read this entire long string of comments. Obviously there is much concern about what Bishop of Rome can and has done. I think if one looks at this as outsider Orthodox - we can only be happy that Bishop of Rome has no authority in our churches to cause such problems or even only potentially to cause problems as enumerated here - that he could force, has forced, etc.

Supreme, universal authority - obviously belongs to Christ and not to Bishop of Rome, in order to have a peaceful, devote church I have learned from this string.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Volodymyr,

BLESSING FOR ORTHODOXY

I have read this entire long string of comments. Obviously there is much concern about what Bishop of Rome can and has done. I think if one looks at this as outsider Orthodox - we can only be happy that Bishop of Rome has no authority in our churches to cause such problems or even only potentially to cause problems as enumerated here - that he could force, has forced, etc.

Supreme, universal authority - obviously belongs to Christ and not to Bishop of Rome, in order to have a peaceful, devote church I have learned from this string.

Can I ask how you would respond to the Protestant who uses the same logic to deny any sort of ecclesiastical authority in the Church?

Of course, I am asking this rhetorically. I had occasion to debate Protestants on the matter when I was not yet in communion with Rome. I am just wondering how you would respond to a Protestant who states, “the only authority in the Church is Christ, not bishops or Patriarchs. Christ speaks directly to me by the Holy Spirit. There is no need for such earthly authorities. It is the jealousies between such earthly ecclesiastical authorities that have caused all the problems in the history of the Church. It is better to do away with them altogether.”

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

Wanting to celebrate the EF is not a schismatic attitude (if celebration of the EF per se was schismatic, why was there an indult granted?). However, calling the NO invalid and claiming that heresy infected the Church is indeed schismatical.

At the time of the suspensions, there was no motu proprio for the EF. The motu proprio came much later, and was granted with much difficulty. The suspensions of many Traditional priests and bishops were incurred at least partially, by the rejection of the imposition of the New Liturgy, and by reason of the Supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff to impose obedience to the celebration of the New Mass.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

To repeat. he was not suspended for his desire not to celebrate the NO. In that instance you are speaking of, his suspension was due to the fact that he performed ordinations without the consent of the local ordinary. Stop trying to insinuate otherwise. Why are you trying so hard to mislead everyone?

In another thread, you complained that women can’t be ordained. Here, you give the appearance of being a traditionalist. Is it your purpose just to sow discord?

Brother Marduk:

Here are a few links to posts by Bobzillz on THAT TOPIC - I should have recognized this “Broken Record” & the utter futility of debating with him:

Philosophy - Women in the Priesthood
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5243595&postcount=206
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5263174&postcount=253
Women in the Priesthood - Arguments on these pages
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338473&page=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5264822&postcount=269
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5265988&postcount=278
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5267410&postcount=288
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5273996&postcount=324
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5276282&postcount=332
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5282000&postcount=360
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2954520&postcount=144
Here’s something a little INTERESTING - Romanus Pontifex
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2485346&postcount=12
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2486387&postcount=19
Bobzillz was directly quoting the Woman Priests Website
womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp
Bobzillz questions Church Authority - List of Infallible Teachings
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2943936&postcount=100
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2944052&postcount=106
And Yet, Just to confuse Matters - My #1 Reason for not converting
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3065732&postcount=476
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3069601&postcount=493

It would seem we are dealing with someone who likes to ARGUE…
*Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them. *
Titus 3:9-11 NLT
I’m sorry, but that says it all… NO MORE debates with any “Broken Records” - It’s not only futile, unproductive and a waste of time, it’s also not edifying.

Let the “Agent Provocateurs” find someone else to argue with.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Brother Marduk:

Here are a few links to posts by Bobzillz on THAT TOPIC - I should have recognized this “Broken Record” & the utter futility of debating with him:

Philosophy - Women in the Priesthood
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5243595&postcount=206
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5263174&postcount=253
Women in the Priesthood - Arguments on these pages
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338473&page=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5264822&postcount=269
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5265988&postcount=278
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5267410&postcount=288
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5273996&postcount=324
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5276282&postcount=332
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5282000&postcount=360
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2954520&postcount=144
Here’s something a little INTERESTING - Romanus Pontifex
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2485346&postcount=12
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2486387&postcount=19
Bobzillz was directly quoting the Woman Priests Website
womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp
Bobzillz questions Church Authority - List of Infallible Teachings
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2943936&postcount=100
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2944052&postcount=106
And Yet, Just to confuse Matters - My #1 Reason for not converting
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3065732&postcount=476
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3069601&postcount=493

It would seem we are dealing with someone who likes to ARGUE…
*Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them. *
Titus 3:9-11 NLT
I’m sorry, but that says it all… NO MORE debates with any “Broken Records” - It’s not only futile, unproductive and a waste of time, it’s also not edifying.

Let the “Agent Provocateurs” find someone else to argue with.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

BLESSING FOR ORTHODOXY

I have read this entire long string of comments. Obviously there is much concern about what Bishop of Rome can and has done. I think if one looks at this as outsider Orthodox - we can only be happy that Bishop of Rome has no authority in our churches to cause such problems or even only potentially to cause problems as enumerated here - that he could force, has forced, etc.

Supreme, universal authority - obviously belongs to Christ and not to Bishop of Rome, in order to have a peaceful, devote church I have learned from this string.

Metropolit Volodmyr:

I hope this isn’t out of place, but most of the comments claiming the Pope would change the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil or would have the authority to make any changes to your beautiful Divine Liturgy are baseless. I would hope the Eastern Catholics and Maronite Catholics would have made that clear.

As a member of the TAC, and one who is familiar with the negotiations between the Vatican and the TAC (and the other “Continuing Anglicans” who have asked to be included), I can tell you this Pope and his predecessor handled us with extreme sensitivity & generosity. Our problems have come from elsewhere, and much of that is chronicled in the “Anglicans to Rome” threads (I could call these threads TRAINWRECKS, because a deal for INTER-COMMUNION was scuttled because of the thoroughly nasty & uncharitable tone of those threads).

Contrary to what you may have read here, and what some here might have led you to think, the exercise of Papal Authority has Limits and is for the SAME REASON as your exercise of Authority - Because the Pope is the Servant of the Servant of God, and is given in Love & Service to the Body of Christ and in Obedience to Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ (Our Lord Jesus to Peter, “Feed my sheep…Feed my sheep… Tend my lambs.”).

I understand your misgivings as many in my Communion (the TAC) have suffered at the hands of PECUSA / TEC & other Anglican Bishops who’ve abused their Authority and have arrogated Authority for themselves they didn’t have have in order to persecute orthodox believers who disagreed with their neo-pagan agendas.

Please P/M me if you have any questions.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Diak]

BLESSING FOR ORTHODOXY

I have read this entire long string of comments. Obviously there is much concern about what Bishop of Rome can and has done. I think if one looks at this as outsider Orthodox - we can only be happy that Bishop of Rome has no authority in our churches to cause such problems or even only potentially to cause problems as enumerated here - that he could force, has forced, etc.

Supreme, universal authority - obviously belongs to Christ and not to Bishop of Rome, in order to have a peaceful, devote church I have learned from this string.

Perhaps its better not to rush to pat oneself on the back. The Moscow Patriarchate has its own very unique form of primatial authority and actively uses its governmental influence to force, coerce and prevent other churches from being established or registered within and outside of the Russian Federation. The primatial attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate has been very strong since Tsarist times through the capitulation of Patriarch Sergius until the current time, usually with the backing of the political regime (or being a tool of the regime).

I know of Greek Catholic communities who have to meet in barns, sheds, community centers, etc. because a parish or mission cannot be legally established. Several of our Greek Catholic priests have to operate a parish out of an apartment simply because no church can legally be purchased or even rented. This sort of oppression simply does not happen in Catholic countries.

Moscow declaring herself to be the “Third Rome” is a case in point - even claiming the title assumes a certain level of primatial authority. I would even go so far as to say that most Catholic bishops enjoy far more administrative autonomy than any bishop of the MP (I know several of them). I can cite many examples from intereference of the MP in affairs of many Churches outside of the Muscovite Church, especially in Ukraine. The multiplication of jurisdictions, many of whom do not consider each other Orthodox although they profess the same faith and use the same services, is another subject entirely.

In spite of some historical problems and disagreements with the exercise of primacy by Rome, I still think every game needs an umpire. The umpire doesn’t play the game, but makes the call when needed. That being said, I maintain that the opening question of this thread is absurd.

 

[malphono]

In spite of some historical problems and disagreements with the exercise of primacy by Rome, I still think every game needs an umpire. The umpire doesn’t play the game, but makes the call when needed.

Not a bad analogy. The umpire is part of the game, and is also subject to rules, just as are the players. The game needs the umpire and the umpire needs the game. All very much in line with the “High Petrine view” expounded earlier.

Diak:

That being said, I maintain that the opening question of this thread is absurd.

Here I have to disagree. IMO, this is one of the most interesting threads I’ve yet seen in this forum. But it’s just that: my opinion.

 

[bobzills]

Then why did you bother to mention it? Is anyone else here frustrated at your tactics?

SSJ was brought up by Diak. This concerns a topic which is of interest to some of us.

 

[mardukm]

SSJ was brought up by Diak. This concerns a topic which is of interest to some of us.

Why do you feel that talking about the SSPX belongs in this thread, and not SSJ? Face it, you were wrong and you were refuted…

 

[malphono]

You said in an earlier post that you support Apostolic Canon 34, but now you complain against it. You are advocating that the head bishop should have no role in a Synod of bishops?

Can you please lay out for us exactly what the difference is between the Catholic Church stating that the Pope is REQUIRED to confirm all such acts, and the Apostolic Canon 34 stating that the head bishop is REQUIRED to confirm acts affecting the whole Church?

Regarding the authority of bishops to vote in councils, take for example the Synod (which is a type of synod). Here is a statement from Apostolica Sollicitudo:

The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.

You can ignore this if you want but this is the model of collegiality in the west. Collegiality is at the will of the pope. There are no rules for the process of a council except those established by the pope.

Maybe I’m being dense, but I have to say I’m a little confused too, jimmy. Would you mind clarifying one thing for me?

Is it your position that you support the “absolutist view” or are you pointing out that the “absolutist view” is de facto the hierarchical ecclesiology of the West?

 

[mardukm]

Maybe I’m being dense, but I have to say I’m a little confused too, jimmy. Would you mind clarifying one thing for me?

Is it your position that you support the “absolutist view” or are you pointing out that the “absolutist view” is de facto the hierarchical ecclesiology of the West?

I’d just like to point out that 70% of the Latins who responded to the Papal Prerogatives poll (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives) agreed with the “High Petrine” view. I wish there were more respondents, but I suspect the poll is a good gauge of the Latin Church’s understanding.

 

[malphono]

I’d just like to point out that 70% of the Latins who responded to the Papal Prerogatives poll (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives) agreed with the “High Petrine” view. I wish there were more respondents, but I suspect the poll is a good gauge of the Latin Church’s understanding.

Yes I saw the poll results, but it’s still interesting that there were a goodly number of posts supporting the “absolutist view.” Now, this is not a criticism, but remember, you posted the poll in this forum, which doesn’t normally get a lot of non-Eastern traffic. All together, kind of makes me wonder if the results are skewed.

BTW, happy birthday! Many happy returns!

 

[mardukm]

Yes I saw the poll results, but it’s still interesting that there were a goodly number of posts supporting the “absolutist view.” Now, this is not a criticism, but remember, you posted the poll in this forum, which doesn’t normally get a lot of non-Eastern traffic. All together, kind of makes me wonder if the results are skewed.

I had actually made a simultaneous notification thread in the Apologetics Forum inviting Latins to come to this Forum to participate in the thread (with a link). Perhaps we would have had a lot less Latin participation without it.

BTW, happy birthday! Many happy returns!

Thank you! In truth, for the past 4 years, I’ve been forgetting, and my friends have been reminding me! Thank you, my friend.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

I’d just like to point out that 70% of the Latins who responded to the Papal Prerogatives poll (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives) agreed with the “High Petrine” view. I wish there were more respondents, but I suspect the poll is a good gauge of the Latin Church’s understanding.

I don;t believe that there is any justification to say that a sample of 66 people on a topic on a CAF thread is “a good gauge of the Latin Church’s understanding”. Such samples are well known to be misleading.