Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[mardukm]

Indeed it is the job of the bishops. But even with all of the above, having “more clout” would only translate into even true semi-autonomy in the absence of Absolutism and all that goes with it.

I need a little more explanation on this comment.

I had to refresh myself on Pope S Victor, but while what you say is true, it is also true that the event occurred in the 2nd century, long before the “Absolutist” position was assumed by Rome.

As Bishop of Rome, Pope S Victor was fully within his rights to expect that the observance of Easter by any and all Christians in Rome follow Roman custom. It was the old principle of “one city, one bishop.” Sure, he wanted to standardize the observance, and the various provinces were asked to convene Synods, as was done in Rome, about the matter. Evidently, collegiality was still at work. Unless I missed it, I found nothing that gave the final result of the dispute, other than that the custom in Rome (and elsewhere) was finally adopted by the Province of Asia.

No. The issue of Pope St. Victor was that he threatened to excommunicate the Asian Churches who did not celebrate Easter on the same date as the Roman Church. The bishops of the Eastern Churches protested (together with some Western bishops, notably, St. Irenaeus), and he relented. That’s collegiality at work. The same thing occured with the Armenians (as the history from the Holy Etchmiadzin website indicated). The Pope wanted to impose a lot of changes to the Armenians, but the Armenian bishops would not accept it. The Pope had to resubmit his offer twice (3 times?) with lesser and lesser “conditions” - until finally, only the filioque condition remained. And a portion of the Armenians FREELY accepted it. If the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches were more self-aware of their own prerogatives, Latinizations could never have occurred, IMO. Sure, there were also strong, political factors at work. My point is that one can’t blame the papacy for everything. Collegiality has always existed in the Catholic Church, but both the Popes and his brother bishops (West, East, and Orient) don’t seem to have had a full realization of it until the 20th century.

BTW, when I stated “Let’s keep it in the family” earlier, my purpose was to indicate that even our Canon laws are no guarantee that any one Patriarch or bishop will not throw the whole Church into disorder. I mean, so what if they claim obedience to the Pope. Even the High Petrine view is no guarantee that disorder will not occur. In fact, any Church order that we possess is due to the volitional good will of ALL the bishops, not just the Pope. Sure it’s possible that the Pope may exceed his authority, but that is only as possible as any bishop exceeding his authority and throwing the Church into disorder (it’s possible since the Catholic Church admits that the authority of bishops is of DIVINE institution, just like the Pope’s). That’s the whole absurdity of a paradigm based on fear of hypotheticals.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Indeed it is the job of the bishops. But even with all of the above, having “more clout” would only translate into even true semi-autonomy in the absence of Absolutism and all that goes with it.

It’s simple really: Exit Absolutism, re-enter collegiality.

No. The issue of Pope St. Victor was that he threatened to excommunicate the Asian Churches who did not celebrate Easter on the same date as the Roman Church. The bishops of the Eastern Churches protested (together with some Western bishops, notably, St. Irenaeus), and he relented. That’s collegiality at work.

I’m not sure where the “no” comes from since we’re saying basically the same thing. Indeed, it was collegiality at work, no question about that. But you have to admit it was early on, and well before the “Absolutist” position was in the forefront.

In saying

As Bishop of Rome, Pope S Victor was fully within his rights to expect that the observance of Easter by any and all Christians in Rome follow Roman custom. It was the old principle of “one city, one bishop.”

I did not mean to say it was a good idea, but simply that he could do so since the bishop of a See is the bishop of a See. As the sole Ordinary, it seems to me that it was within his purview to try to standardize the date of the observance in Rome itself: doing the same outside the bounds of his own see is an entirely different matter, and that’s the one that was resolved by collegial action. (To further support the rights of bishops within their own territory, it does not appear that any other bishop tried to intervene within Rome itself: as I read the account, the only dissent was by local residents from the Province of Asia which resulted in a minor schism. That schism was healed when the Province of Asia ultimately did accept the change.)

The same thing occured with the Armenians (as the history from the Holy Etchmiadzin website indicated). The Pope wanted to impose a lot of changes to the Armenians, but the Armenian bishops would not accept it. The Pope had to resubmit his offer twice (3 times?) with lesser and lesser “conditions” - until finally, only the filioque condition remained. And a portion of the Armenians FREELY accepted it. If the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches were more self-aware of their own prerogatives, Latinizations could never have occurred, IMO. Sure, there were also strong, political factors at work. My point is that one can’t blame the papacy for everything. Collegiality has always existed in the Catholic Church, but both the Popes and his brother bishops (West, East, and Orient) don’t seem to have had a full realization of it until the 20th century.

Here, I’m using the “no” because I do not see this as quite the same for a couple of reasons: (a) by that point in history, the “Absolutist” view was in the forefront, and (b) there were, as you say, strong “political factors” at work. Rome’s intent was clearly to impose. That the Armenians refused to accept is to their credit. I suspect the reason behind the Roman retraction in its demands had more to do with political expediency than anything else, and so did the Armenian’s final assent to the textual imposition. My musing question from a few days ago still stands: I wonder what would have happened had the Armenians refused to accept even the textual addition?

BTW, when I stated “Let’s keep it in the family” earlier, my purpose was to indicate that even our Canon laws are no guarantee that any one Patriarch or bishop will not throw the whole Church into disorder. I mean, so what if they claim obedience to the Pope. Even the High Petrine view is no guarantee that disorder will not occur. In fact, any Church order that we possess is due to the volitional good will of ALL the bishops, not just the Pope. Sure it’s possible that the Pope may exceed his authority, but that is only as possible as any bishop exceeding his authority and throwing the Church into disorder (it’s possible since the Catholic Church admits that the authority of bishops is of DIVINE institution, just like the Pope’s). That’s the whole absurdity of a paradigm based on fear of hypotheticals.

Of course volitional good will is required. No question about that either. History abounds with cases where it was absent, and the effects were never good.

There’s one other thing I find interesting: despite Rome’s “Absolutist” tendencies, it seems to have followed Tradition (at least it did before 1860) in that it summoned a Council (and I’m not addressing here whether the later Councils were truly “Oecumenical” or not) to deal with major theological issues. It’s also interesting that neither of the last two Councils dealt with same, and despite the official apologetics, the reason behind, or necessity of, either is still a little murky to me.

 

[bobzills]

In saying I did not mean to say it was a good idea, but simply that he could do so since the bishop of a See is the bishop of a See. As the sole Ordinary, it seems to me that it was within his purview to try to standardize the date of the observance in Rome itself: doing the same outside the bounds of his own see is an entirely different matter, and that’s the one that was resolved by collegial action. (To further support the rights of bishops within their own territory, it does not appear that any other bishop tried to intervene within Rome itself: as I read the account, the only dissent was by local residents from the Province of Asia which resulted in a minor schism. That schism was healed when the Province of Asia ultimately did accept the change.).

So if a Roman Catholic is in Moscow, he then must observe Christmas and Easter on the days set by the russian Patriarch? I don;t think so.

 

[Seamus_L]

One of the ironies here, is that the Popes have been some of the best friends Eastern Catholics have had, and I’ve even heard a couple EC’s admit that. I also think that if you asked whether or not the Pope had the same authority in the East as he does in the West 30 years ago, you wouldn’t have too many people questioning the Pope’s authority and attempting to redefine it.

 

[Hesychios]

I will confine my comments to the Byzantine Ritual churches, which were the majority of EC’s in the USA for most of the last century.

One of the ironies here, is that the Popes have been some of the best friends Eastern Catholics have had, and I’ve even heard a couple EC’s admit that.

This is true in the sense that local Latin Catholics (priests and hierarchy in Europe or America) sometimes seemed bent upon destroying the eastern churches in their areas. The Popes intervened with their ultimate power to prevent that in many cases.

I think that is good, but one must be aware that these Popes were operating on a very practical level. They may have been willing to allow abuses in some cases while drawing the line on those which threatened a major loss to the church.

When the Venetians controlled Cyprus politically and militarily (In other words the Cypriots were Greek Catholics), it was easy for the Pope to bind these people to reciting the filioque and other western beliefs and practices. Later, when the western Catholic powers were removed from the scene virtually the entire church of Cyprus abandoned communion with Rome, probably due in large measure to those resented abuses. There should be a lesson in this, and the many other such historical examples. Much hard work over generations can be lost to the church by thoughtless and unnecessary abuse.

For another example closer to home: In the USA the local Latin bishops opposed the use of any liturgy but the Latin, and that according to the use at Baltimore. This is stated clearly in the acts of the synods and Councils of Baltimore. The Popes were content with this and approved of the acts of the Council of Baltimore as long as things seemed under control, the normal procedure being to refer Eastern catholics to Latin parishes.

When the Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholics erected parish buildings of their own, they technically violated canon law in disobedience. Everything that happened in those years was seen in this context. Rome was getting reports on this from each side in the crises, but supported the standing Latin hierarchy on principle even as Byzantine Catholics began to withdraw to the Russian Metropolia, renouncing the Papacy and Latin theology. Perhaps the numbers were small enough that the loss was considered tolerable.

Surprisingly, it was not until the Kingdom of Hungary complained that Rome acted to preserve, in America, the rights of the Eastern Catholics implied at Brest and Uzhorod. The concern there was that the local Eastern Catholics were being drawn to Orthodoxy inspired in large part by their own American cousins, and this was becoming a national security issue for the Austro-Hungarians, due to the proximity of the Russians (who could possibly exploit this disruption among the Greek Catholics).

I would call the actions of the Papacy “Enlightened Self Interest”. A major Catholic kingdom pressures Rome, and the Pope imposes upon the American Latin hierarchy an Apostolic Vicar in the form of Bishop Ortinskyj, thus effectively overriding Article 3 and Article 4 of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore.

The Eastern Rites finally had the recognition they desired, and technically had the right to legally follow their own tradition within the USA thanks to the intervention of the Pope. Still, bishop Ortinskyj had to ask for permission of each Latin ordinary to work with the Byzantine Catholics in each diocese.

I also think that if you asked whether or not the Pope had the same authority in the East as he does in the West 30 years ago, you wouldn’t have too many people questioning the Pope’s authority and attempting to redefine it.

I think you are correct.

I think that this is largely because the most Orthodox-leaning EC’s in America had left in two great waves: the 1890’s and the 1930’s. The remaining EC’s in America thirty years ago were the children of the most pro-Papal faction which resisted both of these movements. The EC’s three, four and five decades ago were truly representative of the Vatican I church.

 

[malphono]

So if a Roman Catholic is in Moscow, he then must observe Christmas and Easter on the days set by the russian Patriarch? I don;t think so.

That’s a different matter entirely: the first is due to the Gregorian vs Julian calendar and nothing else. The second is related, though perhaps a bit more complex, but even so is not irreconcilable: some of the UGCC observes the “old” calendar and it’s not a problem. (No doubt the MP would prefer to make a big deal out of both, but that’s their problem. I’m not going there.)

The long-ago days of “one See, one bishop” were also, of course, the long-ago days of One Church. A bishop was responsible to care for the needs of those in his See who observed different usages (e.g. a group of Copts living in Rome would have had a Coptic church with a Coptic priest, subject to the local Roman Ordinary. Similarly, a group of Romans living in Egypt would have a Roman church with a Roman priest, subject to the local Coptic Ordinary). The bishop was obliged to care for them as part of his charge, but would NOT have had any authority to abrogate their liturgical usage and force them to submit to another simply because they found themselves in Rome. It was never done. Had it been, it would have truly been an infringement of rights, and a clear violation of of the Apostolic Canons.

The example at hand is quite different: it merely concerns the date of celebration of a feast that is common to all Churches, and there the bishop could, in theory, have required an adjustment by those resident in his See who were from another place that followed a different reckoning. While I saw nothing about it in the story of Pope S Victor, given the “one See, one bishop” principle of the time, it’s very possible that the bishops of the Province of Asia did the same with the Romans resident there.

In any case, it’s a moot point now: the old principle of “one See, one bishop” no longer exists.

 

[mardukm]

It’s simple really: Exit Absolutism, re-enter collegiality.

I’m not sure where the “no” comes from since we’re saying basically the same thing. Indeed, it was collegiality at work, no question about that. But you have to admit it was early on, and well before the “Absolutist” position was in the forefront.

In saying I did not mean to say it was a good idea, but simply that he could do so since the bishop of a See is the bishop of a See. As the sole Ordinary, it seems to me that it was within his purview to try to standardize the date of the observance in Rome itself: doing the same outside the bounds of his own see is an entirely different matter, and that’s the one that was resolved by collegial action. (To further support the rights of bishops within their own territory, it does not appear that any other bishop tried to intervene within Rome itself: as I read the account, the only dissent was by local residents from the Province of Asia which resulted in a minor schism. That schism was healed when the Province of Asia ultimately did accept the change.)

OK.

Here, I’m using the “no” because I do not see this as quite the same for a couple of reasons: (a) by that point in history, the “Absolutist” view was in the forefront, and (b) there were, as you say, strong “political factors” at work. Rome’s intent was clearly to impose. That the Armenians refused to accept is to their credit. I suspect the reason behind the Roman retraction in its demands had more to do with political expediency than anything else, and so did the Armenian’s final assent to the textual imposition. My musing question from a few days ago still stands: I wonder what would have happened had the Armenians refused to accept even the textual addition?

(a) I think the fact that the Armenian bishops resisted the changes indicates that the acceptance of filioque was genuine and not politically motivated. Sure, there was political pressure from the Armenian King, but there was political pressure throughout, even when the bishops rejected the earlier offers.

(b) I agree that it was Rome’s intent to impose. My point is that he can’t do it, even at this stage when the “absolutist” mentality was taking hold, without the consent of his brother bishops.

(c) I will have to disagree that Rome’s retractions were politically motivated. I don’t see what political gain Rome could have gotten by a union with the Armenians. The Armenians needed it much more than Rome needed it, politically speaking. I think Rome wanted the union out of a genuine recognition of his obligation to work for the unity of the Church. I believe there was a genuine understanding on Rome’s part that there are certain things that really are not worth splitting the Church over. However, the way he went about it could have been handled better, and, in some instances, his handling of it was flat out wrong.

(d) What would have happened if even filioque was rejected? Optimist that I am , I would look at the best case scenario. The addition of the filioque was intended to ensure the orthodoxy of the Armenians regarding the theology behind filioque (the HS proceeds from the Father through the Son). Negotiations were obviously being held. I think more negotiations would have proven to Rome that the Armenians were thoroughly orthodox in the matter, and Rome would have relented even on that issue. Interestingly, at the Council of Florence, the Bull of Union with the Armenians contains the Filioque condition, but the Bull of Union with the Copts does not.

There’s one other thing I find interesting: despite Rome’s “Absolutist” tendencies, it seems to have followed Tradition (at least it did before 1860) in that it summoned a Council (and I’m not addressing here whether the later Councils were truly “Oecumenical” or not) to deal with major theological issues. It’s also interesting that neither of the last two Councils dealt with same, and despite the official apologetics, the reason behind, or necessity of, either is still a little murky to me.

Can you explain the statement “neither of the last two Councils dealt with same?” Thanks.

I would also like to discuss the meaning of the term “absolutist” in relation to the medieval history of the Church. I do not view the medieval Roman position as “absolutist.” I can’t think of a particular name for the medieval Roman position, but it is different from the absolutist position of modern Catholics in one important regard. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church considered itself the ONLY real Church. In that light, I do not see it as “absolutist.” I mean, on the principle that heretics have no ecclesiastical rights, then Rome’s paradigm during the Middle Ages cannot properly be called absolutist. Rome was constantly suspicious that those who were not Latin were heretics, or had heretical tendencies. In distinction, the Catholic Church today recognizes that it is a COMMUNION of real Churches. Nevertheless, there are some Catholics (particularly traditionalists) who view the bishop of Rome not merely as the supreme bishop, but rather as the absolute ruler of the Church whose will can negate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops in other Churches. I mean, if the Pope thinks that everyone who is not Latin is a heretic or has heretical tendencies, then it could well be argued that he was within his rights to impose and command (subjectively speaking, anyway). But what happens when the Pope admits that those who are not Latin are fully orthodox and Catholic? Does he still have the right to treat such people as if they had no ecclesiastical rights? I don’t think so. Do you see what I am getting at? What do you think?

Abundant blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Can you name ANY bishop who does not have “enlightened self-interest?” Can you name ANY bishop not willing to do what is best for the Church as a whole if he is able, and not just a particular local Church? Can you name ANY bishop willing to lose members of his Church? It seems to me what the Pope does for the Catholic Church is no different from what any other bishop is not willing to do. But the Pope’s job is even more complicated because he must think of the ENTIRE Church, and not just one, local Church. We must always pray for the Pope.

I would call the actions of the Papacy “Enlightened Self Interest”. A major Catholic kingdom pressures Rome, and the Pope imposes upon the American Latin hierarchy an Apostolic Vicar in the form of Bishop Ortinskyj, thus effectively overriding Article 3 and Article 4 of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Can you name ANY bishop who does not have “enlightened self-interest?” Can you name ANY bishop not willing to do what is best for the Church as a whole if he is able, and not just a particular local Church? Can you name ANY bishop willing to lose members of his Church? It seems to me what the Pope does for the Catholic Church is no different from what any other bishop is not willing to do. But the Pope’s job is even more complicated because he must think of the ENTIRE Church, and not just one, local Church. We must always pray for the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

You misread my intentions.

I was only laying out the facts, and no, I do not blame the bishop of Rome for having an enlightened self interest. It is the reality of the situation, how could it be otherwise?

Sometimes bishops have to close parishes or schools, reassign pastors and do other such things. People get hurt but the bishop does his job. Hopefully he does this impartially, but it is seldom seen as a fair decision to everyone impacted by it.

The relationship between the Eastern Catholics and the papacy has to be seen in this light. Some might suggest that the Papacy has always been a champion of Eastern Catholicism (against whom? Mostly against the actions of other Catholics) and others might believe that the Papacy has always been an adversary.

The truth is somewhere between these two extremes.
*
Michael*

 

[malphono]

(b) I agree that it was Rome’s intent to impose. My point is that he can’t do it, even at this stage when the “absolutist” mentality was taking hold, without the consent of his brother bishops.

OK, insofar as the Council of Florence was involved, I’ll concede that point.

(c) I will have to disagree that Rome’s retractions were politically motivated. I don’t see what political gain Rome could have gotten by a union with the Armenians. The Armenians needed it much more than Rome needed it, politically speaking. I think Rome wanted the union out of a genuine recognition of his obligation to work for the unity of the Church. I believe there was a genuine understanding on Rome’s part that there are certain things that really are not worth splitting the Church over. However, the way he went about it could have been handled better, and, in some instances, his handling of it was flat out wrong.

Of course Rome had political interests, and strong ones at that. Look at an old map, and notice that Armenia was wedged between three empires: Russian (and we know all about the tendencies there), Ottoman, and Persian, (and we know know where they stood, too), none of which were friendly. The reunion of Armenia would have provided a “friendly” presence in an otherwise hostile area. Interesting, though, that both sides had, to some degree, the same political interest.

(d) What would have happened if even filioque was rejected? Optimist that I am , I would look at the best case scenario. The addition of the filioque was intended to ensure the orthodoxy of the Armenians regarding the theology behind filioque (the HS proceeds from the Father through the Son). Negotiations were obviously being held. I think more negotiations would have proven to Rome that the Armenians were thoroughly orthodox in the matter, and Rome would have relented even on that issue.

You may be correct, but I doubt that Rome would have relented without getting at least one its own demands.

Interestingly, at the Council of Florence, the Bull of Union with the Armenians contains the Filioque condition, but the Bull of Union with the Copts does not.

Alright, but did not Rome in that same Bull of Union with the Copts require that they abandon the practice of neo-natal circumcision?

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation

Doesn’t exactly sound like a lot of respect for Coptic Tradition (actually Alexandrene Tradition in general) does it?

Can you explain the statement “neither of the last two Councils dealt with same?” Thanks.

Simple: neither of the Vatican Councils was convened to combat a heresy or any other theological issue that threatened the Church.

I would also like to discuss the meaning of the term “absolutist” in relation to the medieval history of the Church. I do not view the medieval Roman position as “absolutist.” I can’t think of a particular name for the medieval Roman position, but it is different from the absolutist position of modern Catholics in one important regard. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church considered itself the ONLY real Church. In that light, I do not see it as “absolutist.” I mean, on the principle that heretics have no ecclesiastical rights, then Rome’s paradigm during the Middle Ages cannot properly be called absolutist. Rome was constantly suspicious that those who were not Latin were heretics, or had heretical tendencies.

The definition of “Middle Ages” always presents a problem, but let’s say it this way: I agree with you in principle until at least the “late” Middle Ages (14th century). During that time, there was still even election of regional Primates, although the election of bishops increasingly passed to civil authorities. But as time passed, particularly after the final schism with Constantinople, “Absolutism” became ever stronger.

In distinction, the Catholic Church today recognizes that it is a COMMUNION of real Churches. Nevertheless, there are some Catholics (particularly traditionalists) who view the bishop of Rome not merely as the supreme bishop, but rather as the absolute ruler of the Church whose will can negate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops in other Churches. I mean, if the Pope thinks that everyone who is not Latin is a heretic or has heretical tendencies, then it could well be argued that he was within his rights to impose and command (subjectively speaking, anyway). But what happens when the Pope admits that those who are not Latin are fully orthodox and Catholic? Does he still have the right to treat such people as if they had no ecclesiastical rights? I don’t think so. Do you see what I am getting at? What do you think?

I sort of see your point, but it seems to me to revert right back to the sum and substance of your consistent position in this thread. The admission by a Pope “that those who are not Latin are fully orthodox and Catholic” ipso facto should deny him the “right” to “treat such people as if they had no ecclesiastical rights” but it’s highly doubtful that any proponent of Absolutism would accept that. Nor, in their view, would it bind a successor. Sadly, the Absolutist position is just that: Absolute. Tradition and precedent be damned.

 

[dvdjs]

Correct. And I would add that a main point of their argument is based on fallacious ad hominem reasoning. They cannot give me one simple example of an article which received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 and contained anything contrary to Catholic faith. This more or less proves my argument by induction. Every article which has passed the Catholic censorship is in fact in alignment with the official Catholic teaching. I then give you one article which states unequivocally that the Pope has the right to change the liturgy and it is said that this one article is mistaken. there is not one other article which is wrong, it is only this one which defeats the argument of mardukm which is wrong.
Ask yourself this question. Is it reasonable that every other article which has received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 gives the correct Catholic teaching on a subject, except for this one article which states that the Pope has the power to change the liturgy?

Your comment reflect a misunderstanding of ad hominem argumentation. Moreover,
your idea of a proof by induction is actually a nice example of a fallacious argument from silence. But all of this is really immaterial to this putative elephant problem. The key point has been addressed in earlier posts.

The impact of whatever authority exists in principle must be judged by practice. Otherwise we are precisely in the realm of creating stones too heavy to lift. And as we consider the exercise of authority, we see the immediate morphing from the absurd “throwing out the liturgy” to more modest alterations. Sadly, instead of honest argumentation in which this quick transition suffices demonstrates the absurdity of the OP is admitted, the sands shift and the modest is taken as evidence of the extreme.

And what of the context of Orthodox wariness? The historical absurdity of this sense has not been disputed. So, ah, what is the point of this discussion again?

 

[dvdjs]

… the Vatican took great offense when in the Soviet Ukraine, many Eastern Catholic Churches were required to follow the customs and practices of the Orthodox Church.

Bobzills:
Presumably anyone but an utterly souless creature took great offense. In fact, I take enormous offense at your characterization of the murderous liquidation of Greek Catholic Churches as a “requirement to follow customs…”.

 

[mardukm]

Correct. And I would add that a main point of their argument is based on fallacious ad hominem reasoning. They cannot give me one simple example of an article which received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 and contained anything contrary to Catholic faith. This more or less proves my argument by induction. Every article which has passed the Catholic censorship is in fact in alignment with the official Catholic teaching. I then give you one article which states unequivocally that the Pope has the right to change the liturgy and it is said that this one article is mistaken. there is not one other article which is wrong, it is only this one which defeats the argument of mardukm which is wrong.
Ask yourself this question. Is it reasonable that every other article which has received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 gives the correct Catholic teaching on a subject, except for this one article which states that the Pope has the power to change the liturgy?

There are books before 1950 (I’m sure) with a nihil obstat and imprimatur that teach the doctrine of purgatorial fire. But that has absolutely no relevance for Eastern and Oriental Catholics. And we reject that doctrine while yet being fully Catholics.

Can you answer how or why a nihil obstat and imprimatur on the CE obligates Eastern and Oriental Catholics on the point you keep bringing up like a broken record?

As brother dvdjs correctly pointed out, your argument from silence deserves no consideration.

 

[mardukm]

Of course Rome had political interests, and strong ones at that. Look at an old map, and notice that Armenia was wedged between three empires: Russian (and we know all about the tendencies there), Ottoman, and Persian, (and we know know where they stood, too), none of which were friendly. The reunion of Armenia would have provided a “friendly” presence in an otherwise hostile area. Interesting, though, that both sides had, to some degree, the same political interest.

I’ll concede this point, and a good one at that. For some wierd reason, I’d always imagined Armenia was on the west side of the Black Sea with the rest of Eastern Europe. Your comment caused me to look for Armenia on a map for the first time. Surprise, surprise! Thanks for the geography lesson!

You may be correct, but I doubt that Rome would have relented without getting at least one its own demands.

I would think just the admission of papal primacy would satisfy even the most power-hungry Pope.

Alright, but did not Rome in that same Bull of Union with the Copts require that they abandon the practice of neo-natal circumcision?

Doesn’t exactly sound like a lot of respect for Coptic Tradition (actually Alexandrene Tradition in general) does it?

For all the good it did him. In fact, unlike the Armenian legates, the Coptic legate did not have the authority to officially accept the decrees of the Bull. (The Catholic Church already had a long prior history with Armenia, but only sporadic relationship with the Copts). There was really no genuine discussion with the Copts before the Pope made the decree. The thing to point out, however (in support of the High Petrine/collegial view) is that the Bull admits that the decrees still required the approval of the Coptic hierarchy:

"The patriarch, fired with great zeal, ordered and commissioned him reverently to accept, in the name of the patriarch and his Jacobites, the doctrine of the faith that the Roman church holds and preaches, and afterwards to bring this doctrine to the patriarch and the Jacobites so that they might acknowledge and formally approve it and preach it in their lands."

So despite the high-brow language of the text, the Pope recognized the necessity of collegiality.

Simple: neither of the Vatican Councils was convened to combat a heresy or any other theological issue that threatened the Church.

Not from within the Church, true. I think the war being waged by the Vatican Councils was against forces from outside infiltrating her - namely, modernism.

I sort of see your point, but it seems to me to revert right back to the sum and substance of your consistent position in this thread. The admission by a Pope “that those who are not Latin are fully orthodox and Catholic” ipso facto should deny him the “right” to “treat such people as if they had no ecclesiastical rights” but it’s highly doubtful that any proponent of Absolutism would accept that. Nor, in their view, would it bind a successor. Sadly, the Absolutist position is just that: Absolute. Tradition and precedent be damned.

Indeed. Easterns and Orientals should work together to combat the absolutist tendencies within Catholicism. And I’m sure we have many orthodox Latin brethren on our side. To be sure, I would never side with liberal Catholics to weaken the hierarchical structure of the Church.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Not from within the Church, true. I think the war being waged by the Vatican Councils was against forces from outside infiltrating her - namely, modernism.

And latinization. The conciliar documents about the Eastern Churches make it clear that delatinization isn’t just a good idea, but a requirement, and that John XXIII wasn’t acting alone in calling for delatinization.

 

[mardukm]

And latinization. The conciliar documents about the Eastern Churches make it clear that delatinization isn’t just a good idea, but a requirement, and that John XXIII wasn’t acting alone in calling for delatinization.

Good point, brother. I sometimes imagine that latinization only refers to discplinary or small “t” traditions. But it indeed refers also to the theological heritage.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

And latinization. The conciliar documents about the Eastern Churches make it clear that delatinization isn’t just a good idea, but a requirement, and that John XXIII wasn’t acting alone in calling for delatinization.

At the present time the Church is calling for delatinization. But that means that in the past there was latinization. Why was there latinization in the past and if there was latinization in the past, how do we know that there will not be latinization sometime later on in the future?

 

[Seamus_L]

I personally don’t like the term Latinization, as I think it’s a definition steeped in exaggeration. The voluntary adoption of devotions that originated in the West, i,e Fatima, Sacred Heart etc hardly amount to a process of change. Anyway, as far as the Byzantines, I think the days of “Latinization” are clearly over, yet it’s remarkable how often the topic still comes up, or how how often I hear an Orthodox in Communion type repeat how “Rome has ordered us” to de-Latinize.

 

[Aramis]

At the present time the Church is calling for delatinization. But that means that in the past there was latinization. Why was there latinization in the past and if there was latinization in the past, how do we know that there will not be latinization sometime later on in the future?

Well, we now have a conciliar definition from an ecumenical council that each rite is to retain its unique character (Which is actually a refutation of several plenary councils’ decisions), and that catholics may change rites voluntarily.

That’s huge. Vatican II, permanently, due to its ecumenical status, sets aside the other rites as “not being reqired to become more like the Rite of Rome.”

 

[malphono]

I personally don’t like the term Latinization, as I think it’s a definition steeped in exaggeration. The voluntary adoption of devotions that originated in the West, i,e Fatima, Sacred Heart etc hardly amount to a process of change. Anyway, as far as the Byzantines, I think the days of “Latinization” are clearly over, yet it’s remarkable how often the topic still comes up, or how how often I hear an Orthodox in Communion type repeat how “Rome has ordered us” to de-Latinize.

Personally, I don’t like latinizations. The para-liturgical devotions mentioned are but a small part: in and of themselves they are harmless, and while one can say they were “voluntarily” adopted, the word “voluntary” here is loaded. Such devotions were unknown in the East and Orient until they were introduced by the Latin Church. Further, those devotions bespeak things that go much deeper.

In any case, yes, in most cases what are termed “latinizations” were adopted rather than imposed (although, as has been pointed out in this thread and others, there are cases of imposition), but that adoption was clearly influenced by Rome.

The word “Byzantine” does not describe a single entity: it is, rather, composed of a number of separate Churches which, although they share a common tradition, were latinized to different degrees at different times. Nor does “Byzantine” cover the entire spectrum: the Oriental Churches are equally venerable and have their own problems with latinization. Those problems are of varying degrees and are quite different from those of the Byzantines.

Just my :twocents: