The problem I see with that line of thinking for the Eastern Churches is that according to the first Vatican Council, it looks like the Pope would have the power and authority to throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and replace it by the New Mass. I don’t see why the Pope would want to have that power or authority and I can see where that would make an Eastern Christian wary of the Roman Church.
You make a good point. And stuff like that has happened- the Roman Rite was completely changed in the 60’s. We lost the Mass that had organically developed from the time of the catacombs in a span of 5 years.
Where do you get this idea?
I’m not talking about the NO. I’m talking about the TLM. It’s never been lost. It’s always been there.
So you don’t distinguish between the bishop of Rome’s role as Patriarch of the Latins, and his role as the Pope?
I agree. If this actually occurred, it would well be within my rights as a Catholic to simply not give heed to such an unjust decree. I know in my heart and mind that Vatican 1 never gave the Pope such “powers.” The Pope has been moved to change his mind not a few times in the history of the Church. With enough public pressure, in today’s atmosphere, such a scenario could not exist for very long at all within the Catholic Church.
True, but it could have been. The Tridentine Psalter was abrogated by St. Pius X; it was completely discontinued. The same fate could have happened to the TLM; I’ll bet that that might have happened, if the NO didn’t become so crazy and abusive. The fact that so many felt attached to it inclined Rome to be lenient towards it and its devotees.
The point of view that the apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch is a view that was not universally held. I think it was the historian Eusebius that taught that the apostle Peter appointed the first Bishop of Antioch whose name was also Peter but was a member of the 70, who were also sometimes called “apostles”.
I got the idea from the statement of Vatican I according to which the Pope has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction and discipline over the the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually. It loooks to me like this gives the Pope the power to throw out the Divine Liturgy if he deems it suitable to do so and replace it by the New Mass: This is part of the full and supreme disciplinary power of the Pope of Rome, is it not?
No it would not., My reading is that you would be subject to an ecclesiastical curse if you deny that the Pope has the full and supreme power in matters which pertain to the the dscipline and government of the Church. And it is within the disciplinary power of the Pope to throw out the Old Mass and replace it with the New Mass, is it not?
Sorry. Though I am the first to defend the papacy against detractors, I am no papalist. I do not concede to your extreme Latin interpretation of the papal prerogatives that assigns to the Pope absolute power in the Church. You and others of like mind, love to give that quote from Vatican I as if that was the only thing decreed by the Vatican Council. You constantly fail to balance that with other formal statements from the Council that do not permit the Pope to violate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Further, you and others of like mind, often fail to investigate the very intentions of the Council Fathers when they made those formulations, which are contrary to your own interpretations.
Unfortunately, it appears that you are subject to an anathema if you deny that the Pope has the full and supreme power over the discipline of the Church. Your argument is not with me, but with the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican I. “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually, let him be anathema.”
Yes, I deny that Liturgy is part of the “discipline” of the Catholic Church. Liturgy is part and parcel of the Sacred Tradition, not mere “discipline.” That is the way it is regarded by the Easterns and Orientals, and I suspect that is also the way it is regarded among the Westerns, especially the more traditional/conservative ones.
He can do so in his Patriarchate as Patriarch of the Latins. It is not one of his prerogatives as Pope.
No. What I reject is your interpretation of Vatican I.
Agreed, which is why I reject your interpretations.
How do you interpret that canon from Vatican I? It seems pretty straight forward.
Exactly as it says. It’s just that you, as a Latin Catholic, seem to interpret “supreme power” differently than I, as an Oriental Catholic. The Oriental Tradition (though not the Eastern Tradition) is quite used to the terminology and idea of “supremacy” - the OO use it regularly of its own Patriarchs. But “supremacy” to Orientals does not translate to “absolute power;” nor does it translate to power that is merely singularly possessed and exercised. If you read the links I gave in an earlier post, you will find that the Fathers of Vatican 1 had a rather Oriental outlook in their understanding of “supremacy” - an understanding that was even more explicit at Vatican 2.
Absolutely right. If I were to convert to the Roman Catholic Church there is no doubt I would have to accept this. It is clear and straightforward. Quite frankly I cannot understand how anyone can actually believe that they have converted to the Roman Catholic Church and yet denied this!
So the Fathers of the First Vatican Council excommunicated themselves?
Did you read the links I gave? They contain quotes from several V1 Council Fathers.