Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[jimmy]

Faithful Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept that the Pope has the full plenitude of supreme authority in the Church. We just don’t believe that this translates to absolute nor unlimited power. If this means that he can exercise his prerogatives to violate the rights of his brother bishops, then he is in violation of the Vatican Councils. The rights of bishops are of DIVINE right, as equally as the rights of the Pope, Didn’t you know that?

In short, the Pope has absolutely no authority to violate the rights of his fellow bishops. A decree by the Pope which violates these rights HAS NO FORCE according to the Canons, so your fearmongering doesn’t disturb me one bit.

A bishop has no jurisdictional authority except through his communion with the pope. Maybe over the last century there has been a development of thought that allows the EO to have legitimate authority but the traditional understanding is that jurisdictional authority is granted by the pope. Outside of communion with Rome there is no jurisdictional authority (even if there is sacramental authority). So the rights of bishops are in context of the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. You can’t speak of the pope violating the rights of the bishops because their rights are always within the context of his authority.

 

[mardukm]

If the rights of the Eastern Byzantine Catholics were “preserved” by the Treaty of Brest, how come they were required to insert the filioque in the creed in direct violation of the first article of the Treaty: “1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

I think we’ll need to consult Father Deacon Diak on that. I don’t know enough about the topic, though I suspect that if the filioque was introduced, it was likewise by virtue of the participation of the Ukrainian hierarchy. Even today, there is a Ukranian version of the SSPX that seeks to preserve Latinizations (and have been excommunicated, IIRC).

And if their rights have been preserved, how come an Australian Ukrainian rite Catholic theologian, Dr Andrew Kania, has been criticising the cultural imperialism - of the Roman Church?
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=5446

He’s not talking about hierarchical imperialism, but a more insidious one among the masses and in the schools. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic. You’re just grasping at straws, Everytime you hear or read a complaint about Latinization, you myopically (and wrongly) think it is the Pope’s fault, when in fact, in the Western Church, the holy Father has been the primary defender of the rights of the Easterns and Orientals, for the past 50 years or so. Ask any one here.

 

[mardukm]

The Maronites were more than aware of the (alleged) monophysitism of the Syriac OC at the time: the aftermath of Chalcedon is what gave rise to the Maronite Patriarchate.

I was just about to ask if the Maronites consider themselves diophysite or miaphysite. That answers that. Thanks.

The parts of the books that were under scrutiny were the Anaphorae. There was no “wholesesale replacement” of the Liturgy. Rather, (a) specific words were, in fact, excised from, and replaced in, certain anaphorae (b) a few anaphorae (and they were not in common use anyway, so this particular item would not have caused much of an uproar) were suppressed due to Rome’s view that they were “tainted” by monophysitism, and (c) the rubrics and appearance of the Holy Qourbono were ultimately changed to make it look like the Roman Mass. That last is often mistaken for “wholsesale replacement” which is most definitely was not.

Thanks for the info. You’ve certainly got the most level-headed assessment of the matter I’ve ever heard or read.

The “disadvantage” had less to do with “unbroken communion” than with the fact that the Maronites were (and still are in a way) a subjugated community. Notice that what Rome did with the Chaldeans was quite similar, and in that case there was no claim of “unbroken communion” but the Chaldeans were (and remain) a similarly subjugated community.

In what way are the Chaldeans “subjugated?” And in what way do you feel the Maronites are “subjugated” even now? Is it an active subjugation, or more like a deep-seated Latinist mindset among the masses due to a long history of Latinization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

He’s not talking about hierarchical imperialism, but a more insidious one among the masses and in the schools. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic. .

No, the insidiousness that you are speaking of here has everything to do with the current topic. Just consider, for example, the insidious imperialism and the insidious latinisation of the liturgy which has taken place in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Ethiopian Eastern Catholic Church. What gives this insidious imperialism its support and weight except for the claim of Rome to the plenitude of jurisdictional supremacy?

 

[mardukm]

A bishop has no jurisdictional authority except through his communion with the pope.

Not true. The actual teaching of the Catholic Church is that a bishop has no jurisdictional authority except through his communion with the college of bishops (which, naturally, includes its head). If you check the canons, I believe that is exactly what it says.

Maybe over the last century there has been a development of thought that allows the EO to have legitimate authority but the traditional understanding is that jurisdictional authority is granted by the pope.

That’s only maybe 25% true. The traditional understanding is that a new bishop obtains his territorial jurisdiction from the Pope (by virtue of communion in the College of bishops). His power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is inherent in his divine office, obtained directly from God, not the Pope. Further, once he has obtained that territory, not even the Pope has the authority to take it away - short of heresy or a great scandal.

Outside of communion with Rome there is no jurisdictional authority (even if there is sacramental authority).

That’s simply not true. The papacy has consistently demonstrated that it understands and accepts the jurisdiction of the non-Catholic apostolic Churches, at least since Vatican 1, when Pio Nono invited the EO as full deliberative members of the Council. Recall also many years back when the Macedonian Orthodox requested full communion with Rome, and the Pope politely denied it, stating that they must first resolve the conflict of jurisdiction with their own jurisdictional heads first.

So the rights of bishops are in context of the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

Rather, the rights of bishops are in the context of their communion with the College of bishops - which indeed requires communion with its head (unless you want to deny the relevance of the Apostolic Canon 34/35 in the Church today, which is what all your comments seem to imply).

You can’t speak of the pope violating the rights of the bishops because their rights are always within the context of his authority.

Your statement can’t be true because at least as early as Vatican 1, the Pope recognized that his brother bishops have inherent rights that he is divinely obligated to uphold and defend.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

Thanks for the info. You’ve certainly got the most level-headed assessment of the matter I’ve ever heard or read.

Thanks.

In what way are the Chaldeans “subjugated?” And in what way do you feel the Maronites are “subjugated” even now? Is it an active subjugation, or more like a deep-seated Latinist mindset among the masses due to a long history of Latinization?

When I said “subjugated” I was referring to civil politics. If one looks at the current situation in Iraq, one can see that the Chaldeans (along with all Christians) are subjugated (yeah, even victimized). The situation is Lebanon is different, (which is why I worded it the way I did), but even there it’s not all roses. Historically, both communities (along with the SOC, the ACoE, the Armenians and, to a lesser extent, the Melkites and, to a far lesser degree, even the EO) were under the yoke of the Ottomans, and that means subjugated, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

One thing I neglected to mention earlier was Rome’s insertion of the infamous filioque among both the Maronites and Chaldeans (and later, the Syriac CC). I don’t know about the Chaldeans or Syriacs, but among the Maronites there was some objection, although in the end it was swallowed as part of the price of a “life line” to the outside world. The Chaldeans have recently abandoned it in favor of a return to the ancient formula. The Maronites, unfortunately, have retained it (although again there has been some rather loud grumbling about the matter). I’m not sure if the Syriac CC does likewise.

 

[mardukm]

No, the insidiousness that you are speaking of here has everything to do with the current topic. Just consider, for example, the insidious imperialism and the insidious latinisation of the liturgy which has taken place in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Ethiopian Eastern Catholic Church. What gives this insidious imperialism its support and weight except for the claim of Rome to the plenitude of jurisdictional supremacy?

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. First of all, the Ethiopian Catholic Church is ORIENTAL, not Eastern - her patrimony is from the ORIENTAL ORTHODOX, not the Eastern Orthodox. Here is the history of the Ethiopian Catholic Church.from their own website, which doesn’t exactly match your twisted version:
ecs.org.et/Church.htm#History

The case of Ethiopia is not exactly a case of Latinization. The first established missions were always intended to be Latin Rite. It’s just that some of the missionaries wanted to use some Ethiopian Orthodox customs, So it was really an “Ethiopiazation” of the Latin Rite, A lot of the supposed Latinization was due to the perceived heresy of monophysitism, but ever since the Christological agreements between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the latter 20th century, this Latinization has slowly, but surely been reversed. Further, there has always been a portion of the Ethiopian Catholic Church that was purely Latin, having obtained her members through missionary efforts among the non-Christian peoples (especially the southern areas). It has only been since 1995 that the Latin Exarchate was abolished, and both the Latin and Oriental members are under the omophorian of an Oriental Catholic hierarchy.

 

[jimmy]

Not true. The actual teaching of the Catholic Church is that a bishop has no jurisdictional authority except through his communion with the college of bishops (which, naturally, includes its head). If you check the canons, I believe that is exactly what it says.

Rather, the rights of bishops are in the context of their communion with the College of bishops - which indeed requires communion with its head (unless you want to deny the relevance of the Apostolic Canon 34/35 in the Church today, which is what all your comments seem to imply).

That is exactly what I am claiming, or atleast part of the canon. All that matters in the west now is that all bishops agree with the head bishop. The pope doesn’t have to act with the rest of the synod. They will follow his lead or they are schismatics/heretics.

 

[bobzills]

Recall also many years back when the Macedonian Orthodox requested full communion with Rome, and the Pope politely denied it, stating that they must first resolve the conflict of jurisdiction with their own jurisdictional heads first.

There was a political issue going on at the time according to which Macedonia claimed independence. As everyone knows, both Greece and Bulgaria claim Macedonia as their territory.

 

[bobzills]

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. First of all, the Ethiopian Catholic Church is ORIENTAL, not Eastern - her patrimony is from the ORIENTAL ORTHODOX, not the Eastern Orthodox. .

This is irrelevant to the question at hand because the Holy See’s Annuario Pontificio gives the following list of **Eastern Catholic Churches **with residence and of countries (or other political areas, consisting of more than country) in which they possess an episcopal ecclesiastical jurisdiction (date of union or foundation in parenthesis):

**Alexandrian liturgical tradition
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846) **Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595).
So the Ethiopian Catholic Church is in fact, an Eastern Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

That is exactly what I am claiming, or atleast part of the canon. All that matters in the west now is that all bishops agree with the head bishop. The pope doesn’t have to act with the rest of the synod. They will follow his lead or they are schismatics/heretics.

I can ALMOST D) forgive the Latins when they have that attitude since the Pope just happens to be their Patriarch also, so it might get a bit (or a lot) confusing for them sometimes.

However, I hope you’ll forigve me when I say that it’s just difficult to comprehend why you, a Maronite, has such a papalist understanding of the Church. I know that there are Latins who are papalist, but not all of them are. If you’ll recall the “Papal Prerogatives” poll, about 70% of the Latin Catholics that responded agreed with the position I and other Easterns and Orientals here are presenting.

And I don’t know how you can possibly claim that the Pope “doesn’t have to act with the rest of the Synod” or at least some portion of his brethren. Even that most papalist of documents Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops, a document that was prepared by many, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

The history of your own Church itself demonstrates that your statement “they will follow his lead or they are schismatics/heretics” is false. Didn’t you know that Patriarch Arida was elected against the wishes of the Vatican (I either read that somewhere or brother Malphono stated it)? Was the Maronite Church excommuncated? And don’t you know that even now, the Canons of the Eastern Church contains a provision for electing a Patriarch that has not been approved by the Pope?

I just hope, brother, that you can eventually join your Eastern and Oriental brethren who try to combat the papalist views of people like brother Bob.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There was a political issue going on at the time according to which Macedonia claimed independence. As everyone knows, both Greece and Bulgaria claim Macedonia as their territory.

So what?

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy,

I can ALMOST D) forgive the Latins when they have that attitude since the Pope just happens to be their Patriarch also, so it might get a bit (or a lot) confusing for them sometimes.

However, I hope you’ll forigve me when I say that it’s just difficult to comprehend why you, a Maronite, has such a papalist understanding of the Church. I know that there are Latins who are papalist, but not all of them are. If you’ll recall the “Papal Prerogatives” poll, about 70% of the Latin Catholics that responded agreed with the position I and other Easterns and Orientals here are presenting.

And I don’t know how you can possibly claim that the Pope “doesn’t have to act with the rest of the Synod” or at least some portion of his brethren. Even that most papalist of documents Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops, a document that was prepared by many, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

The history of your own Church itself demonstrates that your statement “they will follow his lead or they are schismatics/heretics” is false. Didn’t you know that Patriarch Arida was elected against the wishes of the Vatican (I either read that somewhere or brother Malphono stated it)? Was the Maronite Church excommuncated? And don’t you know that even now, the Canons of the Eastern Church contains a provision for electing a Patriarch that has not been approved by the Pope?

I just hope, brother, that you can eventually join your Eastern and Oriental brethren who try to combat the papalist views of people like brother Bob.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would like to join you in your position mardukm but my reading of the sources tells me that the ultramontanist or papalist perspective is the only one that is consistent with the sources.

I haven’t heard about the election of Patriarch Arida.

What canon hasn’t been approved by Rome? I haven’t heard of this either. The Code was promulgated by the Pope.

 

[bobzills]

So what?

The Macedonian Orthodox Church does not have recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. On July 19, 1967, the Macedonian Orthodox Church declared autocephaly from the Serbian church, a move which is not recognised by any of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as far as I know. The Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox church are prepared to recognize a autonoious church in Macedonia under the name “Ohrid Arhiepiscopy”, but they are not prepared to recognize the same church under the name “Macedonian Orthodox Church”., because each state, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, claims the territory of Macedonia for itself. So, they only want to deny the Macedonian name. They don’t want the Church to call itself Macedonian Orthodox Church. Nothing else. So I don’t see how this issue is relevant to this thread.

 

[mardukm]

The Macedonian Orthodox Church does not have recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. On July 19, 1967, the Macedonian Orthodox Church declared autocephaly from the Serbian church, a move which is not recognised by any of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as far as I know. The Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox church are prepared to recognize a autonoious church in Macedonia under the name “Ohrid Arhiepiscopy”, but they are not prepared to recognize the same church under the name “Macedonian Orthodox Church”., because each state, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, claims the territory of Macedonia for itself. So, they only want to deny the Macedonian name. They don’t want the Church to call itself Macedonian Orthodox Church. Nothing else. So I don’t see how this issue is relevant to this thread.

I was responding to brother jimmy’s claim that the Catholic Church does not recognize jurisdiction outside of the Catholic Church. Please stop with your senseless comments.

 

[malphono]

The history of your own Church itself demonstrates that your statement “they will follow his lead or they are schismatics/heretics” is false. Didn’t you know that Patriarch Arida was elected against the wishes of the Vatican (I either read that somewhere or brother Malphono stated it)? Was the Maronite Church excommuncated? And don’t you know that even now, the Canons of the Eastern Church contains a provision for electing a Patriarch that has not been approved by the Pope?

It wasn’t from me. Even I have never heard that, and considering that it was during the reign of PP Pius XI, I would doubt that it’s true. Mor Antonious Petrous (of thrice blessed memory) was duly elected by the Synod and I am totally unaware of there having been any problem with the “pallium” from Rome. Oh yes, he had some issues with Rome, but those came about in the dark days after the demise of PP Pius XI. (Ref: my earlier post)

 

[mardukm]

It wasn’t from me. Even I have never heard that, and considering that it was during the reign of PP Pius XI, I would doubt that it’s true. Mor Antonious Petrous (of thrice blessed memory) was duly elected by the Synod and I am totally unaware of there having been any problem with the “pallium” from Rome. Oh yes, he had some issues with Rome, but those came about in the dark days after the demise of PP Pius XI. (Ref: my earlier post)

Oh. OK. Then I must have read it in that “Maronites in History” book online. I will definitely have to find it now, so I can give you the full quote, and get your (name removed by moderator)ut on its trustworthiness. But perhaps by tomorrow, because I need to be off now?

Blessings

P.S. Once again, thank you so much for your scholarly knowledge of your Church.

 

[malphono]

Dear brother jimmy,

I can ALMOST D) forgive the Latins when they have that attitude since the Pope just happens to be their Patriarch also, so it might get a bit (or a lot) confusing for them sometimes.

More like a LOT confusing to them. I more-or-less understand where they are coming from, but of course never miss an opportunity to explain things a bit from an Oriental perspective.

However, I hope you’ll forigve me when I say that it’s just difficult to comprehend why you, a Maronite, has such a papalist understanding of the Church. I know that there are Latins who are papalist, but not all of them are. If you’ll recall the “Papal Prerogatives” poll, about 70% of the Latin Catholics that responded agreed with the position I and other Easterns and Orientals here are presenting.

It is often overlooked that the Maronite Church is (along with the rest of the Orient) Synodal in structure (i.e., “horizontal”) whereas the Latin Church is hierarchical in structure (i.e. “vertical”). And of course there is a world of difference between the two models. Could it be that fact is “misunderstood” because of history and Rome’s, let’s say, “influence” on the Maronites? I don’t know. What I do know is that, “Roman influence” (or subservience to Rome, take your pick) notwithstanding, even today the Maronite Church is Synodal.

 

[malphono]

Oh. OK. Then I must have read it in that “Maronites in History” book online. I will definitely have to find it now, so I can give you the full quote, and get your (name removed by moderator)ut on its trustworthiness. But perhaps by tomorrow, because I need to be off now?

I’ll hang in. That item will be an interesting read.

 

[mardukm]

I would like to join you in your position mardukm but my reading of the sources tells me that the ultramontanist or papalist perspective is the only one that is consistent with the sources.

So, assuming that even a majority of Latin Catholics don’t have a papalist position, you’ll still maintain your position? BTW, ultramontanist is not synonymous with papalist. Ultramontanism was actually the standard (i.e., moderate) view at V1. Papalism is defined as “An attitude toward Church teaching and life which exaggerates the Petrine ministry of the Pope, while ignoring the role of other bishops and what can be learned from the whole people of God.” Gerald O’Collins, S.J.,and Edward Farrugia, S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology. Paulist Press, 1991.

I haven’t heard about the election of Patriarch Arida.

What canon hasn’t been approved by Rome? I haven’t heard of this either. The Code was promulgated by the Pope.

I’ll get the quotes/references for you when I return tomorrow.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. With prayer, I still hope to convince you to come over to the Oriental understanding.