Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?

[acanonlawyer]

I’d be interested to see what @acanonlawyer has to say about this.

About what, exactly? Long thread…not going to read it all. So, I’d appreciate a distillation of the controversy down to a question or two. I might get around to an answer next week. Thanks, Father.

Dan

 

[Dovekin]

There are a couple of questions that are about canon law:

1> For an Eastern Orthodox person to receive in a Latin rite church, he has to have a “proper disposition.” Does this mean he must accept:
a> the full supreme univeral authority of the Pope.
b> the distinction between mortal and venial sins.
If yes, what is the point of canon 844.3?

2> in interpeting canon 844, is it better to look at canonical tradition, ie 1917 canon law, or the modern Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (1993)?

The overarching discussion has been about two statements from Vatican 2. The Pope has full, universal, supreme authority and the Eastern Churches have the right to govern themselves. If you would like to resolve that one, I am sure everyone will be even more thrilled than we will be by your efforts on the other questions. For which we will be very grateful.

 

[Dovekin]

What do you think my point is?

You seem to be arguing against something different from what I have said. We are discussing exceptional circumstances, primarily how exceptional a circumstance must be.

Canon 844.3 is binding on Catholic ministers, saying when they may licitly give communion to members of Eastern Churches. It is not binding on the Orthodox because of canon 11. They are n no way in opposition to each other that I can see. How do you see them conflicting?

 

[Dovekin]

The standard for members od Eastern churches is “if necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests.” For most of us, necessity is the only relevant standard, but for some a genuine spiritual advantage may suggest intercommunion.

That is how I joined the conversation. I do not know what you would call that.

Isn’t the contradictory illicit? I have a hard time following what you are saying.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Has the orthodox church not itself made reforms to its liturgy? I am aware the Russian church did reform it’s liturgy not too long ago hence the term old Christians for those who refused the reforms.

I don’t see a reason why an ecumenical council or a synod can’t make reforms to the liturgy, heck I doubt the present liturgy is exactly the same with that used 1700 years ago over the years additions and distractions would necessarily have happened.

 

[Isaac14]

Has the orthodox church not itself made reforms to its liturgy? I am aware the Russian church did reform it’s liturgy not too long ago hence the term old Christians for those who refused the reforms.

I don’t see a reason why an ecumenical council or a synod can’t make reforms to the liturgy, heck I doubt the present liturgy is exactly the same with that used 1700 years ago over the years additions and distractions would necessarily have happened.

Not wanting to speak for AlNg, I’ll point out the original question at the top of this thread was if, in a reunited church, the Pope would have the power to unilaterally make changes to the Liturgy of Eastern Orthodox churches. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, especially as one who longs for restoration of communion, and who recognizes the Pope would have a unique role in a reunited church, I would have a very difficult time with the idea that changes can be made to the Liturgy from “outside.”

That’s not to say the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been static since the 4th/5th century - it obviously has evolved to meet the needs of each era and community. Indeed, the proper forum for such changes would be the local synod of bishops. Although it’s the same Liturgy, you would definitely notice differences in how it is celebrated in Greek church as compared to how it’s celebrated in a Russian church.

The changes made in 17th century Russia are a great example of what not to do - grossly simplified, these were top-down changes made by Patriarch Nikon, with the old ways being violently suppressed. The wounds of this still haven’t healed.

 

[steve-b]

If that is the case, why is it licit for Catholic ministers to administer sacraments to them? This is the question that has been asked repeatedly, and the response has not been adequate imo. steveb seemed to say “proper disposition” made the the canon moot, while you ignore the parts I’ve emboldened here:

I didn’t say that. I pointed out that when proper disposition is required to do something, that then is a personal characteristic that is needed, and one develops in themself, through proper knowledge and formation regarding what they are doing or going to do. Without that proper formation, how can one be expected to be properly disposed?

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thanks for the response, yes you are correct about the topic of the thread and my post is a response to another post that seem to say changes in liturgy are anathema.

I do agree that changes and reforms should begin from the local synod but as I said I see no reason why a larger council can’t do same.

Yes the reforms in Russia has its Low point as did the reforms the Vatican council approved, I believe those instances will stand as a lesson on how not to pursue reforms, which is why I believe nobody will be rushing to make such mistakes in a United Church. but even then I would not classify those reforms as been entirely from "outside ", the liturgy it seemed had some points needing reforms which many bishops recognized, the way those reforms were formed and Implemented left something to be desired

 

[Ubenedictus]

That would be his personal opinion as the Pope did judge cases of bishops not directly under him using that very provision of Sardica

 

[Dovekin]

Thank you for clarifying.

If proper disposition is dependent on “proper knowledge and formation,” does that mean only Catholics can receive Communion?

 

[steve-b]

Thank you for clarifying.

If proper disposition is dependent on “proper knowledge and formation,” does that mean only Catholics can receive Communion?

Said another way, are only Catholics to be properly formed and everyone else gets a pass?

 

[Dovekin]

I have already expressed my opinion, that the Orthodox and other Eastern churches do a good job of forming the proper disposition to receive the Eucharist. So your “another way”does not make much sense to me.

The way I asked it does not make much sense either. I asked it to show that your clarification is not different from my original statement of your position. If only Catholics can be properly disposed, then canon 844.3 is moot because no Eastern Christian could satisfy the requirements for the exception.

 

[Isaac14]

I do agree that changes and reforms should begin from the local synod but as I said I see no reason why a larger council can’t do same.

That certainly could be the case. In Orthodox-speak, the local synod would be constituted of the bishops of a single jurisdiction (in my case, the Orthodox Church in America). A larger council would involve the bishops of multiple jurisdictions.

 

[AlNg]

Said another way, are only Catholics to be properly formed and everyone else gets a pass?

The Orthodox Church is a bit far from here, so there are two Orthodox who live nearby the Byzantine Catholic Church and who regularly attend the Byzantine Catholic Church and are well known to the priest. They have Catholic relatives and there is no problem for them from the Catholic POV. Although, I don’t think that the EO Church approves of Orthodox taking Sacraments in a Catholic Church. Your interpretation of rules is stricter than is found in practice from the Catholic POV.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Then that can be the pattern for the future

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What people in this thread forget is that in unified Church, Pope could very well be Eastern-Rite, even formerly Orthodox Christian. After all Pope is not bound to the Latin Rite, or atleast not chosen specifically from it. If Eastern-Rite Christian became Pope, making him able to excercise his power to change eastern liturgy would actually make some sense too. Pope acts for the good of the faithful and the Church and from gifts of Holy Spirit- if Pope invokes Papal Infalliblity it is only through Holy Spirit- to claim Holy Spirit couldnt change eastern liturgy seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Proper disposition should come from within. I believe that if someone is in grave sin but receives Eucharist while not knowing it is wrong thing to do, that person is not in-fact sinning because of his lack of knowledge. Same would be said about people who had amnesia and can’t go to confession. If Orthodox Christians are properly disposed to the best of their conscience, I do allowing them to receive Eucharist means we give them choice- whether they do use it or not is their choice. After all, we don’t question everyone who comes to receive Eucharist whether he has confessed his mortal sins or not- we just suppose their conscience is clear enough to receive Our Lord.

 

[ziapueblo]

Although an Eastern Catholic Pope is possible I don’t see it as likely. The Pope is the bishop of Rome which is a diocese of the Latin Church. How could an Eastern bishop be the head of a Latin diocese? Maybe it’s possible.

ZP

 

[RyanBlack]

Although an Eastern Catholic Pope is possible I don’t see it as likely. The Pope is the bishop of Rome which is a diocese of the Latin Church. How could an Eastern bishop be the head of a Latin diocese? Maybe it’s possible.

Sure, it’s possible. The College of Cardinals could elect a bishop from among the Eastern Churches. However, upon becoming Bishop of Rome, he would effectively cease to be an Eastern bishop, unless, of course, he chose to abuse the powers of the office and suppress the Latin Rite and and impose one of the eastern rites on the Latin Church. This would be entirely non-sensical, an abuse of papal power, and no doubt, gravely sinful, just as it would be for a pope to impose the Latin Rite on the eastern churches. However, as some seem to delight in pointing out, a pope could do such a thing if he chose.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There are Latin Bishops who take care of Eastern-Rite faithful. I do believe Pope is omniritual by default. While he would be in care of Latin diocese he does not have to be specifically Latin-Rite. I don’t think canon law binds Pope with any rite, so he would be able to decide for himself the best solution to such situation. Historically (pre-schism), bishops would take care of all faithful in their diocese/eparchy, not just those of their own rite. Patriarchates worked same way too. Greek Popes were not uncommon, and many times defended Latin traditions even if they themselves came out of Greek one.

By the way, as I’ve been informed on this forum, in pretty recent times Eastern Cardinals were considered as real options for Papacy, but that might be just speculation.