Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[bobzills]

Nah! It only hurts YOUR credibility.

Another ad hominem argument, refusing to address the serious issues at hand. This concept of papal supremacy as defined in the post Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church and as declared and solemnly defined at Vatican I, is presenting a serious problem and reluctance on the part of the Orthodox Churches to submit to a reconciliation and reunion with the Roman Church.

 

[mardukm]

Once again your argument is an ad hominem one, calling your opponent ignorant. Let me go over with you and others here what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hominem argument is when someone launches a vicious personal attack on the character or intelligence of his opponent, instead of addressing the issues at hand. It is generally done when the person does not have a convincing answer to the arguments of his opponent. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, he says that his opponent is ignorant.

And so the reason you callously compare the Divine Liturgy with the discipline of celibacy is ____________. Add your own adjective, if you don’t want to use the word “ignorant.”

The catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that the Pope may always exercise his power unhindered. What does this phrase mean to anyone reading it?
“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

So what does this phrase mean to anyone reading it?

I already explained this in the “Papal prerogatives” thread which I have asked you several times to read, but since you are not sincere enough in this discussion to read the responses given to you, I will repeat it for you here.

The Canons state that if there is any doubt as to the meaning of a certain word or phrase, the first and appropriate course of action is to find other instances wherein that word or phrase is used in the Canons to get a better understanding of it. The word which you are placing your bet on is the term “unhindered.” You think this should be interepreted to mean a laissez-faire policy where the Pope can do anything he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. But if one follows the instructions of the Code of Canons, and searches other instances where the word translated as “unhindered” is used, that person will find that it is ALWAYS used in reference to the exercise of a volitional act.

When the canon states that the the Pope can exercise his prerogatives unhindered, it is not saying the Pope can exercise his prerogatives whenever he wants, whereever he wants, however he wants. It simply means that the Pope can exercies his prerogatives in a manner that is not against his free will. It cannot be forced, but must be a free act. Any other manner would invalidate those acts. The freedom of the Pope against coercion was of special concern to the Vatican Council Fathers. In fact, if you have ever bothered to read the context of the Vatican decree on the primacy on which the canon you quoted is based, you will find the following:

"Furthermore, from his supreme power of governing the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has the right of freely communicating with the shepherds and flocks of the whole Church in the exercise of his office so that they can be instructed and guided by him in the way of salvation. Hence, we condemn and disapprove the opinions of those who say that it can be licit to hinder the communication of the supreme head with the shepherds and flocks, or those who make this communication subject to the secular power in such a way that they claim whatever is decreed for the government of the Church by the Apostolic See or by its authority has no binding force unless it is confirmed by the placet of the secular power."

THAT is the true meaning of the Canon that states that the Pope can exercise his prerogatives unhindered. It does not mean the Pope has absolute power, but simply that the Pope cannot be coerced (either positively or negatively) in the exercise of his prerogatives.

I do hope you take the time to read the links I gave (is that a vain hope?). I’m pretty sure everything you could possibly come up with has already been addressed there. The thread (the “Papal Prerogatives” thread) was pretty thorough in its discussion (over 30 pages long! )

Can you give us one statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that the Pope’s power is limited, or are you simply going to go on about how ignorant everyone else is?

Show me just one place in the Catechism, or ANYWHERE which states that the Pope’s power is “UNLIMITED.”

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

I already explained this in the “Papal prerogatives” thread which I have asked you several times to read, but since you are not sincere enough in this discussion to read the responses given to you, I will repeat it for you here.

Once again, we see that Mardukm’s argument is an ad hominem one. Previously he has said that his opponent was lacking in credibility, was ignorant and in another case dishonest. Now the argument of Madukm is that his opponent is not sincere enough. Obviously these type of vicious, uncharitable personal attacks by Mardukm do not go anywhere toward defeating the simple words and declarations of Vatican I which are available for anyone to read and comprehend:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the RomanPontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, bothsingly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination andtrue obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regardthe discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance,and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in mattersof faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Churchdispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolutefullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over alland each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema

 

[mardukm]

Once again, we see that Mardukm’s argument is an ad hominem one. Previously he has said that his opponent was lacking in credibility, was ignorant and in another case dishonest. Now the argument of Madukm is that his opponent is not sincere enough.

Please don’t misrepresent me. I said you were insincere before this time (it might have been in another thread). If these are not appropriate terms to describe your method of argumentation, then prove it otherwise. When I described you with a certain adjective, I always gave a reason for it. It seems to me the best refutation of my description of your tactics is to demonstrate otherwise, instead of merely pleading “ad hominem!!!”

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the RomanPontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, bothsingly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination andtrue obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regardthe discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance,and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in mattersof faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Churchdispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolutefullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over alland each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema

So basically, no response to my last post, and no statement that the Pope’s power is UNlimited. Gotcha.

BTW, did you get a chance to read those many canons I gave that demonstrate that the Pope’s “power” is not UNlimited? They’re in the “Papal Prerogatives” thread. If you can at least give us a link to the page, then at least you will have proven you are not “insincere,” since it will demonstrate you are serious about actual dialogue, having actually taken the time to read the responses offered to you.

Blessings

 

[Seamus_L]

Unfortunately we now have people, particularly in the Melkite Church, making the claim that the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Seamus,

Unfortunately we now have people, particularly in the Melkite Church, making the claim that the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.

I’ve never heard that. Has any hierarch in the Melkite Church made the claim? I think such a statement may have to do with the difference in theological language and outlook between the Byzantine Tradition, and the dogmas which are couched in Latin theology and terminology. It doesn’t mean that the essence of those dogmas are not amenable to and consistent with Byzantine Tradition - it’s just that they are couched in terminology different from what Byzantines are familiar with. I’ll admit I’ve met one EC who feels that way, but I don’t think it is a general or majority view in the Melkite Church, much less a magisterial view.

In any case, your comment doesn’t really seem to have anything to do with this thread, which is concerning papal primacy, not papal infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

I have already told you that the Divine Liturgy is not a mere issue of discipline that the Pope has the authority to change. To Easterns and Orientals (as well as many conservative/traditional Westerns - which you are obviously not one), it is on the level of Sacred Tradition as one of the very vehicles of our Faith, and unless you can give a quote from the Vatican Council that permits the Pope to change or throw out Sacred Tradition, then your arguments are basically null and void.

Here is a specific example illustrating the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican to change the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Eastern Christian theological tradition considers illegitimate the alteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the interpolation of the filioque. Please see: David J Melling ‘filioque’ in Ken Parry, David J Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H Griffith & John F Healey, eds, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2001) 198-199. For Eastern Christian theologians, such an addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, approved by Ecumenical Council in 381AD and affirmed at a second such Council in 451AD, could only be made by Ecumenical Council. . The Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded at a synod in 1596, on the basis of the conditions set out by the Kyivan hierarchs the previous year. These conditions included the retention of the traditional Creed without the filioque. Supposedly there ws no obligation to observe Latin customs. However, at about 1692, Rome required the Ukranian Catholics to insert the filioque in their creed, which they did at that time, so that all the liturgical books contained the filioque clause, which was inserted over the objections of the Eastern clergy. Thus, the practice of reciting the Western form of the Creed, which contains the filioque, is nothing more than a practice which illustrates the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff to change or modify the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches as he sees fit.
Yes, of course, in recent years, as Rome has attempted to promote some sort of reconciliation with the Orthodoxy, the Creed has been restored to the wording it was supposed to have according to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

That was not bpbasilphx’s point of view.

The whole problem here is that you are a Latin who thinks that Liturgy is a mere discipline that can be changed easily. That you would compare it to the issue of celibacy demonstrates your ignorance on the matter. I have already told you that the Divine Liturgy is not a mere issue of discipline that the Pope has the authority to change. To Easterns and Orientals (as well as many conservative/traditional Westerns - which you are obviously not one), it is on the level of Sacred Tradition as one of the very vehicles of our Faith, and unless you can give a quote from the Vatican Council that permits the Pope to change or throw out Sacred Tradition, then your arguments are basically null and void.

Blessings

I am confused.

Does this mean, brother Marduk, that you believe that the Mass of Paul VI was a break with Sacred Tradition?

After all the liturgy of the Roman rite was changed quite clearly and quickly and there is no doubt that the ordinary form of Mass is the Missal of Paul VI. Further, the Mass was changed by authority of the Pope.

 

[bobzills]

After all the liturgy of the Roman rite was changed quite clearly and quickly and there is no doubt that the ordinary form of Mass is the Missal of Paul VI. Further, the Mass was changed by authority of the Pope.

Correct. The Mass was changed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul VI. And the Divine Liturgy of the Ukranian Catholic Church was modified by the Supreme authority and power of the Roman Pontiff over that Eastern Catholic Church in 1692 by requiring them to insert the filioque into the creed said at that Divine Liturgy.

 

[jimmy]

The pope has the authority to set up churches and to suppress them at will. He has ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely. [Canon 43 Eastern Code of Canons]’

There is no limitation or restraint on his authority. He does not have to consult the bishops. As canon 45.2 points out he has the choice to opperate collegially or personally. There is no necessity to even consider the thoughts of the other bishops. And as 45.3 points out there is no appeal against a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

As someone pointed out, you can take the suppression of the married priesthood in the eastern churches as an example of the fact that the pope can operate freely over the eastern churches.

Yes, the canons say that the popes authority asserts that of the bishop but the problem is that this is due to the fact that it subjects the local bishop to the pope rather than local secular leaders. As P. Benedict points out, the development of universal jurisdiction of the pope was to establish the seperation of Church and state. So the statement that the primacy of the pope confirms the authority of the bishop only points to the fact that he has authority over the bishop rather than local, secular leaders.

 

[bobzills]

The pope has the authority to set up churches and to suppress them at will. He has ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely. [Canon 43 Eastern Code of Canons]’

There is no limitation or restraint on his authority. He does not have to consult the bishops. As canon 45.2 points out he has the choice to opperate collegially or personally. There is no necessity to even consider the thoughts of the other bishops. And as 45.3 points out there is no appeal against a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

As someone pointed out, you can take the suppression of the married priesthood in the eastern churches as an example of the fact that the pope can operate freely over the eastern churches.

Correct.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The pope has the authority to set up churches and to suppress them at will. He has ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely. [Canon 43 Eastern Code of Canons]’

There is no limitation or restraint on his authority. He does not have to consult the bishops. As canon 45.2 points out he has the choice to opperate collegially or personally. There is no necessity to even consider the thoughts of the other bishops. And as 45.3 points out there is no appeal against a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

As someone pointed out, you can take the suppression of the married priesthood in the eastern churches as an example of the fact that the pope can operate freely over the eastern churches.

Yes, the canons say that the popes authority asserts that of the bishop but the problem is that this is due to the fact that it subjects the local bishop to the pope rather than local secular leaders. As P. Benedict points out, the development of universal jurisdiction of the pope was to establish the seperation of Church and state. So the statement that the primacy of the pope confirms the authority of the bishop only points to the fact that he has authority over the bishop rather than local, secular leaders.

This sound very orthodox, thank you jimmy.

 

[Harpazo]

Here is a specific example illustrating the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican to change the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Eastern Christian theological tradition considers illegitimate the alteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the interpolation of the filioque. Please see: David J Melling ‘filioque’ in Ken Parry, David J Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H Griffith & John F Healey, eds, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2001) 198-199. For Eastern Christian theologians, such an addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, approved by Ecumenical Council in 381AD and affirmed at a second such Council in 451AD, could only be made by Ecumenical Council. . The Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded at a synod in 1596, on the basis of the conditions set out by the Kyivan hierarchs the previous year. These conditions included the retention of the traditional Creed without the filioque. Supposedly there ws no obligation to observe Latin customs. However, at about 1692, Rome required the Ukranian Catholics to insert the filioque in their creed, which they did at that time, so that all the liturgical books contained the filioque clause, which was inserted over the objections of the Eastern clergy. Thus, the practice of reciting the Western form of the Creed, which contains the filioque, is nothing more than a practice which illustrates the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff to change or modify the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches as he sees fit.
Yes, of course, in recent years, as Rome has attempted to promote some sort of reconciliation with the Orthodoxy, the Creed has been restored to the wording it was supposed to have according to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Are not the Maronites a living witness to the overarching power of the papacy with it’s ability to toss out liturgies? If I remember correctly, in the 1500s, Latins burned Maronite liturgical texts and ordered their liturgy to look like a Tridentine Mass, but with an Aramaic consecration. To their credit, they have done some reforming of their liturgy, but the fact that it’s already happened and they’re still recovering should be evidence enough and makes any Orthodox wary of reunification, among other issues.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Here is a specific example illustrating the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican to change the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Eastern Christian theological tradition considers illegitimate the alteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the interpolation of the filioque. Please see: David J Melling ‘filioque’ in Ken Parry, David J Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H Griffith & John F Healey, eds, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2001) 198-199. For Eastern Christian theologians, such an addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, approved by Ecumenical Council in 381AD and affirmed at a second such Council in 451AD, could only be made by Ecumenical Council. . The Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded at a synod in 1596, on the basis of the conditions set out by the Kyivan hierarchs the previous year. These conditions included the retention of the traditional Creed without the filioque. Supposedly there ws no obligation to observe Latin customs. However, at about 1692, Rome required the Ukranian Catholics to insert the filioque in their creed, which they did at that time, so that all the liturgical books contained the filioque clause, which was inserted over the objections of the Eastern clergy. Thus, the practice of reciting the Western form of the Creed, which contains the filioque, is nothing more than a practice which illustrates the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff to change or modify the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches as he sees fit.

Is this really the best example you can find? The ecclesiastical Magisterium of the Ukranian Church was involved in the change. For your “absolute power” fantasy to have any merit, you have to give us an example of the Pope imposing a Liturgical change upon any Eastern or Oriental Church ON HIS OWN - SINGULARLY - PURELY BY HIS OWN DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY. Nice try, but no cigar.

Yes, of course, in recent years, as Rome has attempted to promote some sort of reconciliation with the Orthodoxy, the Creed has been restored to the wording it was supposed to have according to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

So you admit your fearmongering is baseless.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

I am confused.

Does this mean, brother Marduk, that you believe that the Mass of Paul VI was a break with Sacred Tradition?

After all the liturgy of the Roman rite was changed quite clearly and quickly and there is no doubt that the ordinary form of Mass is the Missal of Paul VI. Further, the Mass was changed by authority of the Pope.

As stated much earlier in the thread, the bishop of Rome AS PATRIARCH OF THE LATINS can do what is befitting for the good of the Latins Catholic Church as far as the Mass is concerned, and he can do this on his own authority.

However, the bishop of Rome does not have that same singular authority in regard to the Divine Liturgy among the Eastern and Oriental Churches. If he feels a change is necessary in the Liturgy of the Eastern and Oriental Churches, he MUST go through our Synods.

Does that explain it better?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Is this really the best example you can find? The ecclesiastical Magisterium of the Ukranian Church was involved in the change. For your “absolute power” fantasy to have any merit, you have to give us an example of the Pope imposing a Liturgical change upon any Eastern or Oriental Church ON HIS OWN - SINGULARLY - PURELY BY HIS OWN DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY. Nice try, but no cigar.

So you admit your fearmongering is baseless.

Blessings

The forced change from the married priesthood is a good example. The maronites are still not allowed to have a married priesthood.

The statements regarding the pope are pretty clear. All the official statements regarding the authority of Rome speak of an absolute power. None of them limit it. Maybe you can find some bishops or theologians who will speak of limits to the power, but you won’t find any official document limiting the power of the pope.

As stated much earlier in the thread, the bishop of Rome AS PATRIARCH OF THE LATINS can do what is befitting for the good of the Latins Catholic Church as far as the Mass is concerned, and he can do this on his own authority.

Your distinction between three offices of the bishop of Rome is a theologoumenon of modern theologians. It has no basis in magisterial documents.

However, the bishop of Rome does not have that same singular authority in regard to the Divine Liturgy among the Eastern and Oriental Churches. If he feels a change is necessary in the Liturgy of the Eastern and Oriental Churches, he MUST go through our Synods.

You are ignoring the canons. Our own eastern canons (particularly canon 45) speak of the fact that the pope can choose to act collegially or personally. He does not have to go through the synod if he does not feel that is his best option.

 

[marymol]

This thread has helped to clarify better the meaning of the persistent and biblical exhortation of Pope John Paul 11 - ’ Be not afraid ’ …

Is not the reason for the fear the focus on unintended matters, as has already been alluded to …

There is the biblical narrative of our Lord telling the disciples to be cautious of the leaven of fear/ lack of trust of the pharisees and they had misunderstood it to think that
He said this since they had not taken enough bread !

And He reminded them of the signs of multiplying the bread on previous occasions .

In the history of The Church too , esp. in relations between East and West , if we choose to trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding The Church , then the intended meaning of the Church’s teachings and its good fruit, does it not become pretty evident !

Pope Paul V1 , who is held up as the cause of the problems in liturgy ( not discounting the probable millions who are joyful that they can celebrate in the native langauges due to changes brought on by him ) has he not been the Holy Spirit led courageous Father that gave The Church the Humanae Vitae encylical and from what I have read up , he had to pretty much solely depend on the courage and strenght of the God given role of papacy to do so !

Pope John Paul 11 also carried out his role , in furthuring the truth in this area .

Could not Vat 1 and the definition of papal infallibilty in that council been the tool used by The Spirit just for this most important purpose !

The Church was prepared sufficiently with the concept of papal infallibilty so that when the showdown time came ,almost 100 years later , the powers be could know what they were dealing with !

And even the problems in liturgy , did Divine providence allow even that … just to show …
what really , really matters …unity and sanctity , at a heart level … in basics such as marriage , in the domestic church of the family … …

And that with enough efforts for fidelity in that area , enough efforts to truly seek His Kingdom … other things , such as beauty in Litury can be given back again , even if seemed taken away for a while ( again, many many out there very grateful to have Holy Mass , even in its simplest forms …)

And sadly, history bears witness to the other side too …countries left with rampant destruction of churches… …faith itself destroyed … when the leaven of fear /lack of trust came in … …

While love of the Liturgical Tradition is very critically important , trusting in Godly authority itself , is that too not very much our Tradition …Moses , at the Red Sea , with that rod raised up , asking the Israelites to pass …and Joshua …Bl.Mother …every Holy Mass and the miracle of the Eucharist …

St.John The Baptist, pray for us !

Pope John Paul 11, pray for us !

 

[SyroMalankara]

The forced change from the married priesthood is a good example. The maronites are still not allowed to have a married priesthood.

What are you going on about? The Maronite Church has nearly 50% married diocesan priests! catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5086

The statements regarding the pope are pretty clear. All the official statements regarding the authority of Rome speak of an absolute power. None of them limit it. Maybe you can find some bishops or theologians who will speak of limits to the power, but you won’t find any official document limiting the power of the pope.

Common sense dictates that if a Pope acts without the will of the people and breaks the Tradition of the Eastern Churches on a whim and without merit or explanation; the people will revolt and break Communion with him. This is a check and balance placed on the Church by the Holy Spirit - some call it the sensus fidelium - I call it common sense.

Your distinction between three offices of the bishop of Rome is a theologoumenon of modern theologians. It has no basis in magisterial documents.

You mean the Pope hasn’t always been 1) Bishop of Rome 2)Patriach of the Latins 3) Universal Primate??? This is news to 2000+ years of history and Tradition.

You are ignoring the canons. Our own eastern canons (particularly canon 45) speak of the fact that the pope can choose to act collegially or personally. He does not have to go through the synod if he does not feel that is his best option.

The Pope has a duty to preserve authentic Sacred Tradition, he cannot do otherwise. If you say he can, then what is to prevent him from erring in Faith and morals?

IN addition to this, the Canon that Mardukum is citing in the CCEO:
Canon 657

1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the

Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal

Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan

with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches

this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within

the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies. 2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the

case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

1. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended

even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to

establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an

attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, 1. 4. In

making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to

can. 40, 1.

 

[jimmy]

What are you going on about? The Maronite Church has nearly 50% married diocesan priests! catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5086

Yes, in Lebanon. But outside Lebanon there aren’t married priests.

Common sense dictates that if a Pope acts without the will of the people and breaks the Tradition of the Eastern Churches on a whim and without merit or explanation; the people will revolt and break Communion with him. This is a check and balance placed on the Church by the Holy Spirit - some call it the sensus fidelium - I call it common sense.

Rome has no concept of the sensus fidelium as you speak of it. If they revolt and break communion they are nothing but schismatics because Rome is the see of Peter.

You mean the Pope hasn’t always been 1) Bishop of Rome 2)Patriach of the Latins 3) Universal Primate??? This is news to 2000+ years of history and Tradition.

You know what I mean. It isn’t that confusing. If you are confused then read the statement again. I will add that Rome even rejects it because since it rejects ‘patriarch of the west’ as a title for the bishop of Rome it also makes sense that it rejects ‘patriarch of the Latins’.

The Pope has a duty to preserve authentic Sacred Tradition, he cannot do otherwise. If you say he can, then what is to prevent him from erring in Faith and morals?

Do you reject the canons I quoted above? The pope has no necessity to go through the synod.

 

[jimmy]

IN addition to this, the Canon that Mardukum is citing in the CCEO:
Canon 657

1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the

Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal

Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan

with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches

this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within

the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies. 2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the

case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

1. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended

even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to

establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an

attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, 1. 4. In

making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to

can. 40, 1.

If that is what mardukm is refering to then he is reading into the canon a meaning that is not there. Nowhere does it mention any requirement of Rome to go through the patriarchal synod. What it says is that liturgical books can be approved by the patriarchal synod, after the Apostolic See reviews it.