Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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.

That is the GENERAL background of it, true - it grew out of the Middle Ages when the Pope was trying to combat caeseropapism. But what makes you think that that is the ONE and SOLE and IMMEDIATE impetus for every statement on the primacy from Vatican I? In fact, the Vatican Council specifically mentions that tension between Church and State (I quoted the section in a previous post). But THAT section (that I quoted) is where you will find a discussion on the relationship between Church and State. The section you are referring to (the one on the Pope not standing in the way of the prerogatives of his brother bishops) has nothing to do with Church and State, but is SPECIFICALLY concerning the relationshp between the Pope and his brother bishops. It should be noted that the Section that deals with the relationship between the Church and State comes AFTER this Section dealing with the relationship between the Pope and his brother bishops. I mean, you are obviously fond of taking the “obvious” meaning of the texts. If the purpose of the text on the relationship between the Pope and his brother bishops was really only about protecting the bishops form the State, then WHY IS THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH THE PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE POSSIBLY STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE PREROGATIVES OF HIS BROTHER BISHOPS? Why didn’t the text rather say, “The power of the State is far from standing in the way of prerogatives of the bishops?”

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

Ordinary and immediate, but to be exercised in an extraordinary manner, with a divine OBLIGATION to respect, uphold, and defend the prerogatives of his brother bishops. Don’t chop up the texts to make it mean what you want. Take the FULL context, please, and more than that, do so with a mind towards the context of Sacred Tradition.

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.

Like I said, I can understand that there is a conflict in you, having grown up around Latins, and having imbibed a Latin understanding of the Church. But many of us EC’s and OC’s simply don’t have that conflict (or at least not much) nor that Latin understanding. I don’t feel exasperated at all explaining to you my point of view. If you are exasperated, I think it’s because you are trying to impose your experience on every else. I respect your position. But I simply don’t believe it is a sufficient basis to engage in fearmongering that could cause people to be biased and prejudiced against the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

So exactly what about the Canon given by brother SyroMalankara causes you to think that the Pope has a SINGULAR authority to change the Liturgy of an Eastern or Oriental Church?

 

[mardukm]

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

Merci beaucoup, mon frere. That’s a great article on the reality of distinguishing the Patriarchal role of the bishop of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

Let’s imagine what could have occurred if the Ukrainians were united in asserting their rights per the Treaty. The Pope would have had to back down. Obviously, this cannot by any means be taken as an example of absolute power by the Pope. The Pope has been compelled to change his mind several times in the history of the Church, don’t you know?

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.

The Orthodox belief is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That is the Faith that the Easterns asserted in the Treaty. Get it right. It is a modern EO polemical innovation that rejects even “through the Son.”

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.

No one is minimising it. The insertion of the filioque was a mistake that the hierarchs of the Ukranian Church agreed to. Currently, the situation is being corrected. What I’m proposing is to focus on the present, instead of promoting a fearmongering over the past.

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.

I believe a person not prejudicially pre-disposed to view the papacy as possessing absolute power will agree that the what we have right now is objectively sufficient for the cause of reunion as far as assuaging the fears of absolute power. It is only people like you who are making the matter more difficult. Amidst the growing respect the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are getting within the Catholic Church as a whole, your statements only fuel fear, not hope. I urge you to work for unity instead of division.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bpbasilphx]

What I’m proposing is to focus on the present, instead of promoting a fearmongering over the past.

---

**Very good, Mardakum!

When I listened what the Eastern Catholic churches were actually saying in the person of their leaders such as Patriarch Lubomir and Abp. Elias Zoghby, I realized that I had a moral imperative to end my independent status, as what they said was what I believed.

And that’s why I have the signature line I do.**

 

[mardukm]

What I’m proposing is to focus on the present, instead of promoting a fearmongering over the past.

---

**Very good, Mardakum!

When I listened what the Eastern Catholic churches were actually saying in the person of their leaders such as Patriarch Lubomir and Abp. Elias Zoghby, I realized that I had a moral imperative to end my independent status, as what they said was what I believed.

And that’s why I have the signature line I do.**

God bless you abundantly, brother. Your own attitude humbles me tremendously.

 

[malphono]

SyroMalankara:

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.

Sadly, that’s true. As I recall, the Roman-issued “prohibition” on ordaining married men expired some time ago and was not renewed. The Maronite bishops in the US remain reluctant to ordain married men simply because they fear to go in the face of the Latin Church. I’ve no idea of the position taken by other Maronite bishops in the diaspora.

SyroMalankara:

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…

I’m a bit at sea here. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

SyroMalankara:

however, the Maronites have themselves chosen to “modernize” their liturgy before correcting latinizations… not by Rome’s doing…

Oh yes. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations that are consuming the Maronite Church are, most unfortunately, all the doing of the so-called “liturgical commission.”

SyroMalankara:

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.

Yes, but the very idea of being an “appellate authority” is power above and beyond that of the Synod.

I have to add here that Rome has more than once interfered directly in the prerogatives of the Synod, in particular to Patriarchal elections. Meaning that there have been cases where there was no election; rather, the Patriarch was appointed by Rome.

 

[marymol]

Apologies for the digression !

The referral to the ’ broken treaty ’ ( how ironic that it is about The Holy Spirit , the agent of unity !) helped to make sense of yet another biblical scene , about the apparent ’ broken promise ’ if it could be so called , when the so called brothers of our Lord come to ask Him if He is not going ’ up’ to the Festival ( of Taberncales ) .

Could The Holy Spirit , in and through our Lord have arranged such a scenario , just to deal with this particular sitaution too … fears from seemingly broken trust …

Our Lord , who came to reveal The Father …‘if you have seen Me, you have seen The Father …’ a world that has yearned to behold The Father …and to have recieved that Fatherly Love ,from and through the Trinitarian relationship would have been the remedy for much of its evils …

The old Nestorian/Aryan roots and its fears , to see the Oneness in The Father and The Son …and the contaminating influence from those around who bring their violent antipathy towards The Incarnate Love of The Father , the Onensee of The Trinity … is that still playing out …

One courageous step ahead , in line with The Shepherd , may be would have broken the fears …yet , it was not to be so …and the Mercy of The Father … has it not spoken through The Spirit …and His Voice . - ’ let it be ’ … the fear is too much …
Come , O Holy Spirit !

 

[SyroMalankara]

I have to add here that Rome has more than once interfered directly in the prerogatives of the Synod, in particular to Patriarchal elections. Meaning that there have been cases where there was no election; rather, the Patriarch was appointed by Rome.

Unfortuately, sometimes the Patriarchal Synod could not resolve internal conflicts - sometimes for years at a time - the Popes sometimes “urged” the selection process to resolve and when it didn’t, the Pope has the duty to uphold the Apostolicity and Catholicity of the sui iurus Churches… however, this doesn’t usually mean the Patriarch is appointed - the Synod sends the Pope three names, the Pope confirms one, the Synod agrees, and he is recognized - the new Patriarch-elect with full personal and Synodal authority renews Communion with the Pope for the process to become complete.

 

[malphono]

Unfortuately, sometimes the Patriarchal Synod could not resolve internal conflicts - sometimes for years at a time - the Popes sometimes “urged” the selection process to resolve and when it didn’t, the Pope has the duty to uphold the Apostolicity and Catholicity of the sui iurus Churches… however, this doesn’t usually mean the Patriarch is appointed - the Synod sends the Pope three names, the Pope confirms one, the Synod agrees, and he is recognized - the new Patriarch-elect with full personal and Synodal authority renews Communion with the Pope for the process to become complete.

Yes, I know, and that’s somewhat related to the case of the recent election of the Syriac CC Patriarch, where the Synod failed to even convene for more than a year.

But what I am looking at are those cases where Rome has directly appointed a Patriarch. One in particular that comes to mind was a case when the Synod met for precisely 1 day before Rome interfered.

There are still others where Rome has sent the name of it’s favored to the Synod for confirmation. No discussion, no real election. Simply Synodal confirmation of Rome’s will.

 

[ronyodish]

Hi,

I haven’t posted in a while.

My take on papal supremacy is one of service. The Pope is supreme in order to serve all of Christianity, to keep all Christians in a bond of communion and peace. He does not serve only his diocese, and not only his patriarchate, but that his service extends to all Christians everywhere.

I don’t see supremacy in terms of dictatorial or tyrannical control, rather, I see it as universal service, or a universal presidency in charity. I see it as a necessity to keep everyone in a bond of unity. I see primacy and supremacy in the same light, an act of service, the “greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11). I see it as “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32), not enslave or harm your brethren, and not only these brethren over here, or those brethren over there, but all the brethren everywhere, all the faithful of Christ.

This is how I see it:

I see my own bishop as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within his own eparchy.

I see my own patriarch as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within his own patriarchate.

I see the Pope of Rome as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within the universal Church everywhere, of all races and traditions.

I believe this is how the Catholic Church teaches about itself, and how the Pope of Rome views himself.

Now, going back to the original question: Could the Pope throw out the Divine Liturgy? A question to that question is: Would this be an act of service on the part of the Pope? My answer is no, it would not be an act of service, rather, it would harm those faithful to whom the service pertains. Therefore, I would say no, the Pope can not throw out the Divine Liturgy, because he is bound to keep the words of Christ to serve and strengthen the brethren.

In history, there arose times when what should have been an act of service, instead, manifested itself in a very different light. This is what HH. John Paul II said to HH. Dimitrios I of Constantinople, and as written in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (par. 95). In other words, there were times, when the Pope failed to exercise his mandate and ministry to universal service, particularly in regards to unity among Christians, but such failures does not obliterate his responsibility to universal service, his calling to serve all the brethren. In other words, the papal ministry is irrevocable, it is intrinsic to the life of the universal Church. The universal Church, however, must always pray to the Father that Peter may not fail, that he may continue to strengthen the brethren.

Throwing out the Divine Liturgy would be a failure on the part of the Pope to uphold his ministry of strengthening the prerogatives of his brethren, but I believe the prayers of the Church on behalf the Pope are quite effective before God, and I trust those prayers will protect the Pope from derailing his ministry . The Pope may be involved in an organic development or growth to the Divine Liturgy from time to time, and there may be a shedding of accumulated local inorganic innovations to the Divine Liturgy from time to time, but the Pope will not simply throw out the entire Divine Liturgy, because that is not part of his ministry, not part of his calling in the protection of the rights and prerogatives of his brethren.

God bless,

Rony

 

[mardukm]

Yes, but the very idea of being an “appellate authority” is power above and beyond that of the Synod.

Surely, the Holy Fathers at Sardica, as well as the Ecumenical Councils that confirmed its canons, realized this. So it should not seem that shocking, should it? I’m not going to complain against the authority of the Ecumenical Councils.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

But what I am looking at are those cases where Rome has directly appointed a Patriarch. One in particular that comes to mind was a case when the Synod met for precisely 1 day before Rome interfered.

There are still others where Rome has sent the name of it’s favored to the Synod for confirmation. No discussion, no real election. Simply Synodal confirmation of Rome’s will.

Can you be more specific, please? I think this might have occured when a Patriarchate was FIRST established. But I don;t think there’s really anything objectionable about that. So I’d be interested to see the exact circumstances you are talking about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rony,

WELCOME BACK!!! I am really happy to see your handle again. Will you be joining us regularly, or are you on break? I hope it;s the former.

Your post is right on.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

Hi,

I haven’t posted in a while.

My take on papal supremacy is one of service. The Pope is supreme in order to serve all of Christianity, to keep all Christians in a bond of communion and peace. He does not serve only his diocese, and not only his patriarchate, but that his service extends to all Christians everywhere.

I don’t see supremacy in terms of dictatorial or tyrannical control, rather, I see it as universal service, or a universal presidency in charity. I see it as a necessity to keep everyone in a bond of unity. I see primacy and supremacy in the same light, an act of service, the “greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11). I see it as “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32), not enslave or harm your brethren, and not only these brethren over here, or those brethren over there, but all the brethren everywhere, all the faithful of Christ.

This is how I see it:

I see my own bishop as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within his own eparchy.

I see my own patriarch as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within his own patriarchate.

I see the Pope of Rome as being supreme, having the highest responsibility to serve, within the universal Church everywhere, of all races and traditions.

I believe this is how the Catholic Church teaches about itself, and how the Pope of Rome views himself.

Now, going back to the original question: Could the Pope throw out the Divine Liturgy? A question to that question is: Would this be an act of service on the part of the Pope? My answer is no, it would not be an act of service, rather, it would harm those faithful to whom the service pertains. Therefore, I would say no, the Pope can not throw out the Divine Liturgy, because he is bound to keep the words of Christ to serve and strengthen the brethren.

In history, there arose times when what should have been an act of service, instead, manifested itself in a very different light. This is what HH. John Paul II said to HH. Dimitrios I of Constantinople, and as written in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (par. 95). In other words, there were times, when the Pope failed to exercise his mandate and ministry to universal service, particularly in regards to unity among Christians, but such failures does not obliterate his responsibility to universal service, his calling to serve all the brethren. In other words, the papal ministry is irrevocable, it is intrinsic to the life of the universal Church. The universal Church, however, must always pray to the Father that Peter may not fail, that he may continue to strengthen the brethren.

Throwing out the Divine Liturgy would be a failure on the part of the Pope to uphold his ministry of strengthening the prerogatives of his brethren, but I believe the prayers of the Church on behalf the Pope are quite effective before God, and I trust those prayers will protect the Pope from derailing his ministry . The Pope may be involved in an organic development or growth to the Divine Liturgy from time to time, and there may be a shedding of accumulated local inorganic innovations to the Divine Liturgy from time to time, but the Pope will not simply throw out the entire Divine Liturgy, because that is not part of his ministry, not part of his calling in the protection of the rights and prerogatives of his brethren.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

Can you be more specific, please? I think this might have occured when a Patriarchate was FIRST established. But I don;t think there’s really anything objectionable about that. So I’d be interested to see the exact circumstances you are talking about.

Blessings,
Marduk

Most definitely NOT at the establishment of Patriarchate. One case in point was in 1955 when, upon the demise of HB Mor Antonious Petrous (Arida) (of thrice blessed memory) Rome appointed a successor. No election. Rien. Nada. Zilch.

 

[malphono]

Surely, the Holy Fathers at Sardica, as well as the Ecumenical Councils that confirmed its canons, realized this. So it should not seem that shocking, should it? I’m not going to complain against the authority of the Ecumenical Councils.

Blessings

An “appellate authority” in the matter of a dispute, yes. But in the matter of local governance? I think not.

 

[mardukm]

An “appellate authority” in the matter of a dispute, yes. But in the matter of local governance? I think not.

Well, it could be a dispute about local governance, and that would obviously fall under the Pope’s appellate authority. Take, for instance, the Meletian Schism. St. Basil appeals to Pope St. Damasus to rule on the dispute. St. Basil even asks Pope St. Athanasius himself to appeal to Damasus to resolve the issue.

In fact, that’s the whole point of Sardica - that BISHOPS can appeal to the Pope. Where bishops are involved, I think we should expect that a controversy over governance would cross the Pope’s doorstep once in a while.

Of course, sans a dispute, there really should be no reason for the Pope to get involved, I wholeheartedly agree.

Blessings.

 

[ronyodish]

Dear brother Rony,

WELCOME BACK!!! I am really happy to see your handle again. Will you be joining us regularly, or are you on break? I hope it;s the former.

Your post is right on.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Thank you my Coptic brother in Christ! I’m on the summer break, and will be contributing in more postings, God willing. I’m done with my program (I was doing masters in theology), and hopefully I’ll contribute more in the upcoming months.

Take care, and God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

Well, it could be a dispute about local governance, and that would obviously fall under the Pope’s appellate authority. Take, for instance, the Meletian Schism. St. Basil appeals to Pope St. Damasus to rule on the dispute. St. Basil even asks Pope St. Athanasius himself to appeal to Damasus to resolve the issue.

In fact, that’s the whole point of Sardica - that BISHOPS can appeal to the Pope. Where bishops are involved, I think we should expect that a controversy over governance would cross the Pope’s doorstep once in a while.

Of course, sans a dispute, there really should be no reason for the Pope to get involved, I wholeheartedly agree.

Blessings.

Yes indeed, and the key here is that bishops may appeal. That is very different from unilateral intervention.

 

[Diak]

Sorry I missed this earlier.

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.

No change or modification has ever been ordered by Rome to the original articles of the Union of Brest. The articles were accepted as written by Rome, and praised in subsequent Magisterial documents. The bishops in Rome immediately after the Union did say the Creed on at least one occasion publically with the addition to show that it was not in and of itself a heretical addition, basically as polite gesture. They were not ordered to do so by anyone.

Prayer books with the approval of Rome contain the Creed without the addition from the time of the Union until today, so the notion that the Pope can change whatever he wants in a capricious manner is nonsensical. The late Holy Father ommitted the addition to the Creed on several occasions when serving with Eastern Catholic hierarchs.

Generally when Rome approves of a liturgical document for Eastern Churches, it is done to restore more authentic traditions that the particular Churches have allowed to become latinized themselves (the books of the Ruthenian Rescension and the* Instruction *are cases in point).

Since an immemorial eucharistic Liturgy of the Church cannot contain a serious defect of faith or morals by virtue of its accepted and approved use, no Pope would ever do such a thing as the poster seems to be implying. I’m not sure why this is even being discussed.
FDRLB