Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[SyroMalankara]

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

Fiction. But hypothetically speaking, even if it were the case that in Latin territories, Maronite priests were forced to be unmarried - how is that changing Eastern theology? Eastern theology admits both married and celibates to priesthood - in LATIN territory, the Latins - at one time - preferred celibates to be sent to THEIR areas… today, that preference is no longer being enforced by the Latins and the Pope knows it.

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.

Sure Rome does - why do you think liberal American Churches are not being excommunicated left and right, and why is it that the SSPX and Rome are in reconciliation talks? Why do the Pope and Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox have agreements on Intercommunion for marriages, funerals, and other familial events?

You know what I mean. It isn’t that confusing.

No, I know what you think; I think your are incorrect in your interpretation - I say let your bishop interpret the Canons, not you. Quoting Canon after Canon like legal text is the first mistake.

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’.

You are interpreting the actions of the Pope - he has never stated why he removed the title - you assume it is because “Rome rejects” it. There are dozens of other, more theological reasons - anyone well versed on Joseph Ratzinger as a theologian would pick on these:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

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

Do you reject that the sui iurus Churches, their Holy Father, their Patriarchs, their Major Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity have a duty to preserve authentic Sacred Tradition as handed to them by the Apostles through heir Fathers - as recognized by the Universal Church through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother 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]’

Huh? Where do you get that from Canon 43? I think there are two problems with your claim:

1. the canons likewise give Patriarchs this competence within their own Patriarchal jurisdictions. So this is certainly not a unique prerogative of the Pope.
2. The Canons explicitly assert that the “Supreme authority of the Church” is NOT exclusively equated to the “Roman Pontiff.” Yet you seem to fail to distinguish between the term “Supreme authority of the Church” and the term “Roman Pontiff” when used distinctly within the Canons.

I don’t recall ANYWHERE in the Eastern Code where it says the “Roman Pontiff” can set up and supress Churches, but I do recall that it states that “the Supreme authority of the Church” has that prerogative.

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 far as Canon 45.2, you’re imposing a meaning on it that is beyond the scope of Sacred Tradition. As brother Syro-Malankara pointed out, you must take that into account in interpreting the Canons. Besides, you are not distinguishing between the exercise of authority from the normal means by which that authority is exercised comes about. A perfect example is in the past two ex cathedra decrees (the Marian dogmas). Though the authority utilized in those instances was singular, the whole decision-making process (the means) was completely collegial. There is no basis for fearmongering as far as Canon 45.2 is concerned.
As far as Canon 45.3, there are two circumstances when that canon becomes relevant. First, “sentences” only come about through tribunal action. This is based simply on that most ancient of Canons from Sardica which recognized the univeral appellate authority of the Pope. “Sentences” (i.e., discplinary decrees") are handed down through a long process that involves many levels of the hierarchy, and is not a purely singular papal act. Once again, as brother Syro-Malankara pointed out, you must take into account Sacred Tradition in interpreting these canons, and there is no occasion in our Tradition where the Pope hands out “sentences” on his mere whim and fancy. He did not do so in the history of the Church, and he won’t do it now. Again, no basis for fearmongering here.

Second, “decree” is a specific term defined by the Code of Canons, and the Code defines a decree as an administrative act according to the norm of law. There is no norm of law in the Catholic Church - in its history or in the present - where the Pope has the authority to act arbitrarily. Again, no basis for fearmongering here.

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.

Baloney (forgive my exasperation). That was a rather unique circumstance involving Easterns in the Traditional territory of the Patriarch of the Latins. There was a lot more involved than just the mere discpline of the Eastern Churches. The Catholic Church herself was struggling to establish and hold on to its very identity - nay, its very existence - in a basically anti-Catholic country where Catholics could not even hold office (targeted along with blacks and jews by the Klu Klux Klan). The celibate priesthood was part of the UNIQUE identity of the Catholic Church in the U.S. in the sea of Protestantism. I am very sympathetic to the Eastern Byzantines in that period of history and would not want it to occur again, but to say that this matter of mere discipline is enough to break the unity of the Catholic Church (recall the lessons of history with the Easter controversy) , to say that the mere discipline of a few trumps the very existence of the Catholic Church itself in an area where her celibate priesthood was derided and mocked in a sea of Protestantism, to use that unique and singular period in American history to promote fearmongering that might drive people away from the Catholic Church, is, IMO, rather selfish and divisive. You can’t use this exception as the rule to give in to fearmongering.

In any case, as I stated before, I don’t believe you can compare the mere discipline of celibacy to the Sacred Tradition of the Divine Liturgy.

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.

That doesn’t even make sense. The Vatican Council states specifically “far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction [of] the bishop…” The purpose is NOT, as you claim, for protection against the secular power, but rather, as a protection of the encroachment of the Pope’s own prerogatives on the prerogatives of his brother bishops. Show us where that section of V1 even mentions the secular power.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Fiction. But hypothetically speaking, even if it were the case that in Latin territories, Maronite priests were forced to be unmarried - how is that changing Eastern theology? Eastern theology admits both married and celibates to priesthood - in LATIN territory, the Latins - at one time - preferred celibates to be sent to THEIR areas… today, that preference is no longer being enforced by the Latins and the Pope knows it.

You can call what ever you want a fiction but it doesn’t change the facts. The fact is that outside the patriarchal territory, married priests are not allowed. You can speak to some of the other Maronites on the forum if you like.

We are speaking about universal jurisdiction. The fact is that Rome has decreed that one of our traditions should be suppressed because the west might find it confusing and they could do it with others if they felt it was necessary.

Sure Rome does - why do you think liberal American Churches are not being excommunicated left and right, and why is it that the SSPX and Rome are in reconciliation talks? Why do the Pope and Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox have agreements on Intercommunion for marriages, funerals, and other familial events?

OK then we might as well reject humanae vitae because the sensus fidelium says it is ok. We might as well say that abortion is up for debate because the faithful are fifty/fifty on it Rome does not change her views because the faithful don’t accept what she says.

No, I know what you think; I think your are incorrect in your interpretation - I say let your bishop interpret the Canons, not you. Quoting Canon after Canon like legal text is the first mistake.

Maybe we should all just shut up and leave all the theology to the bishops. But then our discussions would be without words.

You are interpreting the actions of the Pope - he has never stated why he removed the title - you assume it is because “Rome rejects” it. There are dozens of other, more theological reasons - anyone well versed on Joseph Ratzinger as a theologian would pick on these:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

Do you reject that the sui iurus Churches, their Holy Father, their Patriarchs, their Major Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity have a duty to preserve authentic Sacred Tradition as handed to them by the Apostles through heir Fathers - as recognized by the Universal Church through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?

Sure but the heirarchy ends with the pope, not with the patriarchal synod. The authority of the synod is with the approval of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

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

This has already been addressed in my previous post.

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.

I gave you a whole slough of canons “limiting” the authority of the Pope. Since no one who holds your position seems to want to take the time to read the “Papal Prerogatives” thread, let me give you a link to the page where those canons are given in that thread -
It is on page 16 of the Papal Prerogatives thread, beginning with post #231: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2813118&highlight=derogatory#post2813118

Once again, let me point out that these canons are not really “limiting” the authority of the Pope. It is simply that the Pope really does not have the absolute power that you and a few others keep pretending he has. IOW, you can’t “limit” what is not there to begin with.

Besides, the statement from V1 regarding the Pope’s divine obligation to preserve and defend the prerogatives of his brother bishops is clearly a powerful “limitation” on this fanastic absolute power that the Pope supposedly possesses. If you read the “Vatican 1” thread, you will also find a statement by the Swiss Bishop’s Conference, immediately on the heels of Vatican 1, approved by Pio Nono himself, which detailed a bunch of “limitations” on the authority of the Pope.

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

You’re kidding right? How about the witness of Sacred Tradition? You can’t tell me or anyone here that this distinction (between the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latins, and the bishop of Rome as Pope of the Catholic Church) was not real and true in the Church of the first millenium.

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.

Already explained in the previous post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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 !

AMEN and AMEN!!! Preach it, sister! Fearmongering does not become a Christian.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

WHOA there, brother! Just because the Pope reviews it, then that gives you a basis to claim he has absolute power?

Please read the Canon more carefully, it is NOT the Pope that approves the Liturgy - IT IS THE SYNOD. At best, the Pope reviews the Liturgy (exactly as the Canon states), and then submits suggestions if he thinks there is a change that needs to be made. But it is in the competence of the Synod of the particular Church and it alone to APPROVE the Liturgy.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

The ecclesiastical Magisterium of the Ukranian Church was involved in the change.

Of course they were. They were required to insert the filioque over their objections and over the solemn promises made to them in 1596. The Pope exercised the power of his supremacy and made the decision as to what should be in the creed as said in thie Divine Liturgy.
Anyone who is familiar with the Orthodox theology would know that the Orthodox reject the filioque and that they regard the requirement that they recite the filioque in their creed as unacceptable and besides as an enormous earthshattering bombshell which would blow away, wreck and destroy their deeply held belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Catholics may see fit to minimise the resentment that the Orthodox have over the latinisation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but unfortunately, I do not beleive that the Orthodox see things that way. I do not believe that they are going to go for any reunion with the Roman Church until and unless the Roman Church modifies the wording and description that we see in Vatican I concerning the supreme primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[bobzills]

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. .

He has done it already in 1692. It is true that there were those who then left for the Orthodox Churches.

 

[bobzills]

Do you reject that the sui iurus Churches, their Holy Father, their Patriarchs, their Major Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity have a duty to preserve authentic Sacred Tradition as handed to them by the Apostles through heir Fathers - as recognized by the Universal Church through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?

Many things thought to be of Sacred Tradition have already been thrown out.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy

Huh? Where do you get that from Canon 43? I think there are two problems with your claim:

1. the canons likewise give Patriarchs this competence within their own Patriarchal jurisdictions. So this is certainly not a unique prerogative of the Pope.
2. The Canons explicitly assert that the “Supreme authority of the Church” is NOT exclusively equated to the “Roman Pontiff.” Yet you seem to fail to distinguish between the term “Supreme authority of the Church” and the term “Roman Pontiff” when used distinctly within the Canons.

I don’t recall ANYWHERE in the Eastern Code where it says the “Roman Pontiff” can set up and supress Churches, but I do recall that it states that “the Supreme authority of the Church” has that prerogative.

The Roman Pontiff is the supreme authority of the Church. An ecumenical council also has this power when approved by the Roman pontiff. But the thing is that the Roman Pontiff determines the authority of a council.

The west has had this debate before about what is higher, the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. It was determined that the Pope is the highest authority in the Church and that no council, even if all the bishops gathered, could depose a pope because the Pope is the successor of Peter and therefore he has the prerogative of confirming the council. If he does not confirm it then it has no authority.

As far as Canon 45.2, you’re imposing a meaning on it that is beyond the scope of Sacred Tradition. As brother Syro-Malankara pointed out, you must take that into account in interpreting the Canons. Besides, you are not distinguishing between the exercise of authority from the normal means by which that authority is exercised comes about. A perfect example is in the past two ex cathedra decrees (the Marian dogmas). Though the authority utilized in those instances was singular, the whole decision-making process (the means) was completely collegial. There is no basis for fearmongering as far as Canon 45.2 is concerned.

I am reading the canon as it is stated. We can read around it so that it has no meaning but that would be dishonest.

Baloney (forgive my exasperation). That was a rather unique circumstance involving Easterns in the Traditional territory of the Patriarch of the Latins. There was a lot more involved than just the mere discpline of the Eastern Churches. The Catholic Church herself was struggling to establish and hold on to its very identity - nay, its very existence - in a basically anti-Catholic country where Catholics could not even hold office (targeted along with blacks and jews by the Klu Klux Klan). The celibate priesthood was part of the UNIQUE identity of the Catholic Church in the U.S. in the sea of Protestantism. I am very sympathetic to the Eastern Byzantines in that period of history and would not want it to occur again, but to say that this matter of mere discipline is enough to break the unity of the Catholic Church (recall the lessons of history with the Easter controversy) , to say that the mere discipline of a few trumps the very existence of the Catholic Church itself in an area where her celibate priesthood was derided and mocked in a sea of Protestantism, to use that unique and singular period in American history to promote fearmongering that might drive people away from the Catholic Church, is, IMO, rather selfish and divisive. You can’t use this exception as the rule to give in to fearmongering.

North America is not the traditional territory of the Latins.

The existence of the Catholic Church was not threatened in North America. The Catholic Church was 25% of the population since the mid 19th century. There was no fear of the extinction of the Catholic Church in the west.

So the married priesthood of the eastern churches is not part of the identity of the Catholic Church?

In any case, as I stated before, I don’t believe you can compare the mere discipline of celibacy to the Sacred Tradition of the Divine Liturgy.

The west views liturgy as discipline. I think Cardinal Ratzinger, now P. Benedict, mentions this in one of his interviews. It was published as God and the World I think. The west has changed their liturgy, what is to keep our liturgy from being changed?

That doesn’t even make sense. The Vatican Council states specifically “far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction [of] the bishop…” The purpose is NOT, as you claim, for protection against the secular power, but rather, as a protection of the encroachment of the Pope’s own prerogatives on the prerogatives of his brother bishops. Show us where that section of V1 even mentions the secular power.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is right out of Joseph Ratzinger’s book The Nature and Mission of Theology. The seperation of Church and state was the purpose for the development of universal jurisdiction.

Yes, the bishop has ordinary power in his diocese but so does the pope. The popes power is ordinary and immediate over every church.

These discussions are exasperating for me because it seems to me that you interpret the magisterial statements concerning Romes authority in a way that makes them meaningless. It might say that Rome has universal jurisdiction but you interpret that to mean that he has authority over his patriarchate or you interpret it in a limited sense even though they have denied all limitation.

 

[bobzills]

OK then we might as well reject humanae vitae because the sensus fidelium says it is ok. We might as well say that abortion is up for debate because the faithful are fifty/fifty on it Rome does not change her views because the faithful don’t accept what she says…

Yes. the sense of the faithful is quite high in favor of artificial birth control. I don;t see where it makes sense to rely on the sense of the faithful in this matter.

 

[bobzills]

The The west has changed their liturgy, what is to keep our liturgy from being changed?.

This is why the Orthodox will not submit to any reconciliation with Rome at this point in time.

 

[jimmy]

WHOA there, brother! Just because the Pope reviews it, then that gives you a basis to claim he has absolute power?

Please read the Canon more carefully, it is NOT the Pope that approves the Liturgy - IT IS THE SYNOD. At best, the Pope reviews the Liturgy (exactly as the Canon states), and then submits suggestions if he thinks there is a change that needs to be made. But it is in the competence of the Synod of the particular Church and it alone to APPROVE the Liturgy.

Blessings

I wasn’t claiming that. What I was saying is that to assert that this canon means that the pope must go through the synod is to read into it a meaning that is not there.

 

[bobzills]

I am reading the canon as it is stated. We can read around it so that it has no meaning but that would be dishonest.

You are right again. According to some of the Catholics here, the Orthodox are expected to read around all of the declarations on Papal Supremacy and to interpret them in a sense totally different from what they say. I doubt that the Orthodox will buy this line of argumentation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You can call what ever you want a fiction but it doesn’t change the facts. The fact is that outside the patriarchal territory, married priests are not allowed. You can speak to some of the other Maronites on the forum if you like.

I have no need to, I know more than one married Maronite priest outside Lebanon. One priest’s ordination was done on a 4 day “vacation”, and he has been “on loan” to his US diocese permanently and he has no choice of being “recalled”.

I’m not even going to bother getting into the Ukrainians and Melkites because they don’t even bother with the vacation charade.

We are speaking about universal jurisdiction. The fact is that Rome has decreed that one of our traditions should be suppressed because the west might find it confusing and they could do it with others if they felt it was necessary.

Rome hasn’t spoken on this matter in decades - in regard to the Maronites in the US, it is the local bishop who has bound himself, or perhaps sees himself as bound, in this regard - not Rome or the Pope. On the other hand, regarding REAL Tradition, Rome has asked openly and countlessly that the Maronite Church cease latinizing and return to authentic Tradition - Roman Curia had even assisted in promulgating a more authentic liturgy… however, the Maronites have themselves chosen to “modernize” their liturgy before correcting latinizations… not by Rome’s doing…

OK then we might as well reject humanae vitae because the sensus fidelium says it is ok.

You are again confusing doctrinal matters with disciplinary matters - celibacy on Latin territory decades ago (not relating to the Maronites, by the way) has little in comparison to the consistent teaching of the Church on the purpose and sacredness of sexuality.

We might as well say that abortion is up for debate because the faithful are fifty/fifty on it

???

Rome does not change her views because the faithful don’t accept what she says.

How and why do you equate unrelated matters - this is like supporters of womyn priestess who rattle on about how they should be ordained since the Latin Church now prays in the vernacular…

Maybe we should all just shut up and leave all the theology to the bishops. But then our discussions would be without words.

At least speak from a learned position, and not spout opinion as fact - despite the quoting of Canons and Conciliar statements out of context and outside the Full Tradition…

Sure but the heirarchy ends with the pope, not with the patriarchal synod. The authority of the synod is with the approval of Rome.

Circular argument - the protestants say that the Church’s authority is from the Bible, since the Bible mentions the church… obviously we disagree… The sui iuris Churches are all equally Catholic, the Pope as Universal Primate has a duty to protect and preserve them equally - as Head and Father of the Latin Church, the Pope has direct and final authority. For the Eastern Churches, Patriarch or Major Archbishop and his Synod has direct and final authority; the Pope acts indirectly and as appellate authority, finality being a function of Universality.

 

[jimmy]

You’re kidding right? How about the witness of Sacred Tradition? You can’t tell me or anyone here that this distinction (between the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latins, and the bishop of Rome as Pope of the Catholic Church) was not real and true in the Church of the first millenium.

It is one office. To distinguish three offices has no basis in tradition. It is a modern theologoumenon.

 

[mardukm]

He has done it already in 1692. It is true that there were those who then left for the Orthodox Churches.

Yeah, and many in the Orthodox Churches have done the same. So what basis is there for this fearmongering that you like to espouse? Please resopnd.

 

[mardukm]

It is one office. To distinguish three offices has no basis in tradition. It is a modern theologoumenon.

That’s the whole problem. Since you can’t distinguish what the bishop of Rome does JUST for the Latin Church from his role as Pastor of the universal Church, then you think that what the Latins do is the sole determiner of what is good for the Church.

This was the way the Latins USED to think, and they have changed it as a whole in the past century. And the Pope has been the singular defense of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches for even far longer than that, which (with a very, very few exceptions) you cannot deny.

Many of us Eastern and Oriental Catholics don’t have the same internal conflicts that you do. We don’t define ourselves in terms of the Latins. Since you grew up around Latins, you probably experienced this tension much more, so your viewpoint is understandable, Let me relate to you my own experience of prejudice while I was growing up. I grew up in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood in southern California, with a different “look” than others. My best friends were one black person, one white person. We were “different” and we were often the butt of demeaning jokes. Though I also had one very good Mexican friend, most of the Mexicans were rather mean (as far as young people percieve it anyway). I could have easily grown up with distrust and fear of Mexicans, and if I did, I would be sowing mistrust and fear against Mexicans right now. But by the Grace of God, I did not grow up that way and was able to put behind me the bad experiences.

Your personal experience can’t be used as the norm to incite fear and distrust of the Catholic Church (much less the papacy). That would be wrong and unChristian.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is one office. To distinguish three offices has no basis in tradition. It is a modern theologoumenon.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_fr.html

 

[mardukm]

The Roman Pontiff is the supreme authority of the Church. An ecumenical council also has this power when approved by the Roman pontiff. But the thing is that the Roman Pontiff determines the authority of a council.

No he doesn’t. It is a collegial body with a collegial authority, not a singular authority. The infallibility of the Council derives from God himself, not the Pope - likewise, the infallibility of the Pope is derived from God himself, not the Council. Infallibility is not within the Pope’s or the Council’s authority to grant - it is God’s and God’s ALONE.

The west has had this debate before about what is higher, the Pope or an Ecumenical Council.

Show us the decree that states “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.” That is an exaggerated opinion. AFAIK, the Church teaches that the Pope and the Ecumenical Council are on the same level.

It was determined that the Pope is the highest authority in the Church

No, it says that the Pope is the highest SINGULAR authority in the Church. There is also the Ecumenical Council, and our Canons state that the collegial authority of an Ecumenical Council is EQUAL to the singular authority of the Pope.

How that necessarily translates to “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council” in your mind is, I’m afraid, beyond my capability to imagine.

and that no council, even if all the bishops gathered, could depose a pope because the Pope is the successor of Peter and therefore he has the prerogative of confirming the council. If he does not confirm it then it has no authority.

That’s a run-on sentence of ideas if I ever say one. The prerogative of the Pope to confirm a Council is a sure and solid fact and teaching of Sacred Tradition (evinced as early as the Apostolic Canon 34/35) which you cannot impugn in any way. Such confirmation was considered so important to the early Church that at one point, the Pope was held against his will until he conceded to the wishes of the Emperor to condemn the Three Chapters in Council - everyone recognized that until the Pope confirmed his brother bishops, the teaching would have no universal authority in the Church, . The issue of a Council judging a Pope is a separate issue that came about WAAAY later, distinct from the solid Sacred Tradition on papal confirmation of a Council. It’s just pure fantasy for you to claim that the necessity of papal confirmation came about AS A RESULT of the issue on whether a Council can judge the Pope.

The problem here is that you have imbibed a very Latin view of the Church, and feel compelled to rebel against it. I, and others here, have not grown up that way. So we feel secure in our identities as both Eastern or Oriental AND Catholic, and don’t feel like we have to rebel against anything.

I am reading the canon as it is stated. We can read around it so that it has no meaning but that would be dishonest.

The Canon has a LOT of meaning in a collegial context. Just because it does not align with your Latin understanding does not make it any less meaningful.

North America is not the traditional territory of the Latins.

Aside from portions of Alaska, OH YES IT IS.

The existence of the Catholic Church was not threatened in North America. The Catholic Church was 25% of the population since the mid 19th century. There was no fear of the extinction of the Catholic Church in the west.

You tell that to the individual Catholic on the street who could not even hold public office just because they were Catholic. You tell that to a Catholic in the southern U.S. who experienced persecution from the Klu Klux Klan just for being Catholic.

So the married priesthood of the eastern churches is not part of the identity of the Catholic Church?

Of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Church, yes. But not of the Latin Catholic Church at that time.

But let me turn this question around for you - is the celibate priesthood SOOOOO foreign to the discipline of the Eastern and Oriental Churches that it’s temporary and local imposition could be a cause for breaking the unity of the Church? It’s not that I’m not sympathizing with what occured to Eastern Catholic in the U.S. It’s just that it was in the past, and remains in the past, whereas the current reality is something ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. So there is no basis for fearmongering.

The west views liturgy as discipline. I think Cardinal Ratzinger, now P. Benedict, mentions this in one of his interviews. It was published as God and the World I think.

But that is not how the East or Orient views it. And if Vatican I has anything to say about it, then the Pope would not have the authority to make such changes in OUR Liturgym since he is bound by Vatican I to respect, uphold, and defend the prerogatives of his brother bishops in the East and Orient.

The west has changed their liturgy, what is to keep our liturgy from being changed?

Seriously, absolutely what business is it of yours WHAT the Patriarch of the Latins does in HIS Church?

CONTINUED