Do you agree with the fact the Sui Iuris Churches need approval from the Pope of Rome to appoint their own bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Medical_Student
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What about the treatment from Rome is it that they object too?

Are they treated differently from say Latin bishops?

In my own experience, the orthodox, like the Protestants, reject the papacy as such & are usually unlearned about the historical view of their own pre-schism saints on the papacy. They usually reject papal supremacy & that’s why you see the eastern churches are so wedded to the specific nationality.
 
Cassianus said:
What about the treatment from Rome is it that they object too?

Are they treated differently from say Latin bishops?
Click to expand...
Seems to me we should be “treated differently” by virtue of the very fact that we are Churches in our own right. Being in communion with Rome doesn’t, in and of itself, mean being subservient to Rome.
 
Cassianus said:
In my own experience, the orthodox, like the Protestants, reject the papacy as such & are usually unlearned about the historical view of their own pre-schism saints on the papacy. They usually reject papal supremacy & that’s why you see the eastern churches are so wedded to the specific nationality.
Click to expand...
They do not reject papal supremacy, but an absolute supremacy as, if not understood, as exercised by the pope. While to a certain extent tainted by a complicated history, with egregious mistakes committed by both the East and the West, it should not be dismissed outright. Methinks that that’s why both BXVI (v. bit.ly/1KetN0e) and FI hinted at, in a way limits to papal supremacy, as accepting both developments of this doctrine as it’s historically existed. But this is way above my paygrade to argue.

Pax Christi
 
Augustine said:
They do not reject papal supremacy, but an absolute supremacy as, if not understood, as exercised by the pope. While to a certain extent tainted by a complicated history, with egregious mistakes committed by both the East and the West, it should not be dismissed outright. Methinks that that’s why both BXVI (v. bit.ly/1KetN0e) and FI hinted at, in a way limits to papal supremacy, as accepting both developments of this doctrine as it’s historically existed. But this is way above my paygrade to argue.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
The OCA website expresses it this way:The bottom line is that, during its 2000 year existence, the Orthodox Church had not been subject to the administrative authority of the Pope of Rome, and this is borne out in the extant decrees of the early Church councils. These councils, while acknowledging the Pope as the “first among equals,” in no way envision the Bishop of Rome’s “primacy of honor” as a “supremacy of jurisdiction.”

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-pope-christian-unity

Catechism of The Catholic Church **882: **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
 
Keep in mind though that papal supremacy has not been declared dogmatic. Not that it isn’t, but that, as I said, current popes have hinted at some flexibility.

PS: I wish I were better at googling to provide a link to this, which you might interpret better than me.

Pax Chirsti
 
Augustine said:
Keep in mind though that papal supremacy has not been declared dogmatic. Not that it isn’t, but that, as I said, current popes have hinted at some flexibility.

PS: I wish I were better at googling to provide a link to this, which you might interpret better than me.

Pax Chirsti
Click to expand...
The Church did declare papal supremacy as a dogma of faith:

Vatican I: Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
  1. And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
  2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
  3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50].
  4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
  5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51]
  6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
  7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
  8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
  9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of** faith and morals**, but also in those which concern the** discipline and government** of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
 
Cassianus said:
What about the treatment from Rome is it that they object too?

Are they treated differently from say Latin bishops?

In my own experience, the orthodox, like the Protestants, reject the papacy as such & are usually unlearned about the historical view of their own pre-schism saints on the papacy. They usually reject papal supremacy & that’s why you see the eastern churches are so wedded to the specific nationality.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a bunch of polemics. Even Roman Catholic scholars will admit that the institution of the papacy (in its modern sense with universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility) is the result of a long process of doctrinal development. The Orthodox simply challenge the validity of such developments, which is only natural, seeing as how a different process of development of ecclesiastical polity played out in the East.
 
Why should they be able to appoint bishops without the Pope’s approval if the latin Church can’t do the same either?
 
Igypop83 said:
Why should they be able to appoint bishops without the Pope’s approval if the latin Church can’t do the same either?
Click to expand...
Simple, the Pope has 3 roles - Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the Latin Church, and Pope of the Universal Church. When appointing Bishops in the Latin Church, he is acting as it’s direct head. The Eastern Churches have their own direct Head Patriarchs/Archbishops Major/Metropolians/etc.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Simple, the Pope has 3 roles - Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the Latin Church, and Pope of the Universal Church. When appointing Bishops in the Latin Church, he is acting as it’s direct head. The Eastern Churches have their own direct Head Patriarchs/Archbishops Major/Metropolians/etc.
Click to expand...
CCEO details the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and patriarchs:

Canon 45
  1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
  2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
  3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 56
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.
 
Igypop83 said:
Why should they be able to appoint bishops without the Pope’s approval if the latin Church can’t do the same either?
Click to expand...
No one has suggested that Coptic Catholics can appoint a bishop without consulting their Patriarch.
 
Augustine said:
I stand corrected. 👍

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
If it’s any comfort, I tend not to accept what I read on the internet, by default. 🙂

Plus, I think it would be great if the Orthodox agreed with “Papal Supremacy” (or should I say if “Papal Supremacy” agreed with the Orthodox).
 
Cassianus said:
What about the treatment from Rome is it that they object too?
Click to expand...
Hi again. (I haven’t been on this thread in a week or so. I just caught up.)

One aspect (I won’t attempt to say how big or small) is, if you will, the perception of a bait-and-switch. Our forebears of a few centuries past became Catholic with certain understanding(s) of how things were going to be …
 
Peter_J said:
Hi again. (I haven’t been on this thread in a week or so. I just caught up.)

One aspect (I won’t attempt to say how big or small) is, if you will, the perception of a bait-and-switch. Our forebears of a few centuries past became Catholic with certain understanding(s) of how things were going to be …
Click to expand...
Peter, I could be wrong, but somehow I rather doubt they “understood” that every aspect would be ruled by Rome in detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top