Eastern Catholic papabili

[Peter_J]

He never implied it was. You’re right, the presence of eastern bishops and all that is not a formula for an ecumenical council.

Yes I suppose you’re right. But he did imply that the presence of Eastern Catholic representatives, and the invitation to EO bishops to attend, proves that Vatican I was an ecumenical council.

 

[Zekariya]

Every Eastern patriarch is the head of a sui iuris church.

I was referring to the lower bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

I was referring to the lower bishops.

So I see. However, I believe the post you were responding to was about patriarchs:

They don’t. They are by default in the highest order of cardinals, the cardinal bishops. But they don’t even get a titular suburbican see. Their own patriarchal church serves as their cardinalatial church.

 

[Zekariya]

So I see. However, I believe the post you were responding to was about patriarchs:

I see. Thanks.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’ve always wondered what would happen if an Eastern patriarch was chosen by the Holy Spirit to become the Pope.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes I suppose you’re right. But he did imply that the presence of Eastern Catholic representatives, and the invitation to EO bishops to attend, proves that Vatican I was an ecumenical council.

Hmmm… perhaps he did imply that. It is true, though, that the presence and participation - and even great influence in the case of the Melkite patriarch at Vatican II - of Eastern Catholic bishops means that it makes no sense to consider such a council to be a general council of the Latin Church.

But I don’t think that that necessarily makes such a council “ecumencial” - at least in and of itself.

We treat the term “ecumenical council” like it’s some kind of intrinsic reality, and it’s not. As Hesychios - I miss him around here - once said, the term “ecumenical council” simply used to mean an Empire-wide council of Church bishops.

But there is no Roman Empire anymore. What the term “ecumenical council” means, or what it could or should mean, in a post-Byzantine era, is something the Orthodox churches have not seen fit to address.

I don’t mean to imply that they should address it - I respect the discretion of their bishops and theologians on this topic. But criticizing the general western consensus that councils like Vatican I and Vatican II count as “ecumenical” in a way that implies their eastern interlocutors have a coherent definitional vision of their own, is just ridiculous.

In light of all that, I won’t insist that Vatican I and Vatican II are “ecumenical” councils (whatever that means these days for the Orthodox…). But what is obvious and important is this: whatever you want to call them, they are general councils of the entire Catholic Communion, and as such, their decisions and decrees are binding for all canonical members of the 23 self-governing Catholic churches.

I’ve always wondered what would happen if an Eastern patriarch was chosen by the Holy Spirit to become the Pope.

For one thing, it’d irritate the heck out of a lot of Eastern Catholics. I can’t say I blame them; they have pretty valid reasons for maintaining that the pope of Rome should be a Latin. I’ll disagree with those who go so far as to say that he should be a clergyman of the Roman province, though. Any Latin clergyman would be symbolically suitable.

Though of course I hope our new one has great love and respect for the East.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yes I suppose you’re right. But he did imply that the presence of Eastern Catholic representatives, and the invitation to EO bishops to attend, proves that Vatican I was an ecumenical council.

To clarify, I did not mean that. I was adressing the notion that the Pope could redefine Vatican I as a fallable local synod. When you started bringing up recipes I gave into the temptation to give smart alec answers to what I perceived to be your smart alec reply.

 

[malphono]

To clarify, I did not mean that. I was adressing the notion that the Pope could redefine Vatican I as a fallable local synod. When you started bringing up recipes I gave into the temptation to give smart alec answers to what I perceived to be your smart alec reply.

Forgetting the recipes (although I do like leeks) could he not? I mean really … according to Vatican I he can do just about anything.

In any case, and irrespective of the token ECC/OCC presence, Vatican I was, at least as I see it, a Western Council. It did not address anything (mater of faith or otherwise) that affected any other than the Latin Church. IOW, it was, again, at least as I see it, a local Western Council, not truly an Oecumenical one. Neither, for that matter, and yet again, at least as I see it, was Vatican II, and that despite “Orientalum Ecclesiarum” which I consider to be more pablum than anything else.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Forgetting the recipes (although I do like leeks) could he not? I mean really … according to Vatican I he can do just about anything.

In any case, and irrespective of the token ECC/OCC presence, Vatican I was, at least as I see it, a Western Council. It did not address anything (mater of faith or otherwise) that affected any other than the Latin Church. IOW, it was, again, at least as I see it, a local Western Council, not truly an Oecumenical one. Neither, for that matter, and yet again, at least as I see it, was Vatican II, and that despite “Orientalum Ecclesiarum” which I consider to be more pablum than anything else.

So whether or not the Pope has authority to make infallible definitions which bear upon the faith of the whole of Christs church only affects the west?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Forgetting the recipes (although I do like leeks) could he not? I mean really … according to Vatican I he can do just about anything.

You know that’s not true. Vatican I says he has universal jurisdiction that he can exercise at his discretion, which is far from the same thing as claiming that “he can do just about anything.”

You and I both know there’s a long laundry list of things he can’t do. He can no more overturn Vatican I than he can, say, Ephesus. And as for redefining its status, well, maybe he could do that, but these name games have no real substantive bearing anyway, for the reasons I spoke of above.

In any case, and irrespective of the token ECC/OCC presence, Vatican I was, at least as I see it, a Western Council. It did not address anything (mater of faith or otherwise) that affected any other than the Latin Church.

Oh, come on now, we all know that the papal dogmas most definitely affect everyone.

Also, the presence and participation of eastern Catholic bishops really does mean it can’t be merely a general council of the Latin Church. That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Please note that, per my above reply, that does not necessarily make Vatican I “truly Oecumenical.” I fully acknowledge that. But we ought to at least retire this logically twisted fantasy that the First Vatican Council was a general council of the Latin Church.

IOW, it was, again, at least as I see it, a local Western Council, not truly an Oecumenical one.

The more I learn about what it means for a council to be Ecumenical, the more I’m convinced that no one has a coherent definition. So I don’t really see what’s to be gained by debating something as arbitrary as whether a certain council “counts” as “Ecumenical.”

What matters is this: Vatican I is a general council of the Catholic Church. Bishops from multiple self-governing churches participated in it, and where its documents intend to proclaim authoritatively, they do so for all Catholics - Latin, Eastern, Oriental, and Persian.

Neither, for that matter, and yet again, at least as I see it, was Vatican II, and that despite “Orientalum Ecclesiarum” which I consider to be more pablum than anything else.

And what I just said applies to Vatican II as well - especially, if not more so. Eastern theology influenced it greatly - to the chagrin of the German contingent - and the Melkite patriarch in particular personally influenced the proceedings. Even in seemingly little things, like addressing the other Council fathers in French rather than in Latin.

 

[Peter_J]

To clarify, I did not mean that. I was adressing the notion that the Pope could redefine Vatican I as a fallable local synod.

Hmm… really splitting hairs now, aren’t you? That is to say, I don’t see what difference it would have made to this conversation if I had said “infallible council” rather than “ecumenical council”. :ehh:

 

[Peter_J]

For one thing, it’d irritate the heck out of a lot of Eastern Catholics. I can’t say I blame them; they have pretty valid reasons for maintaining that the pope of Rome should be a Latin. I’ll disagree with those who go so far as to say that he should be a clergyman of the Roman province, though. Any Latin clergyman would be symbolically suitable.

Though of course I hope our new one has great love and respect for the East.

Speaking for only myself, if an EC bishop did get elected pope, then I wouldn’t be especially bothered if he decide to accept. The only thing that bothers me is that some seem to think that we need an Eastern pope.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Hmm… really splitting hairs now, aren’t you? That is to say, I don’t see what difference it would have made to this conversation if I had said “infallible council” rather than “ecumenical council”. :ehh:

uch: How is use of the adjective “fallible” splitting hairs? It would have changed the emphasis, but not the meaning, of the sentence if I had merely said local synod. I think you need to take a step back and see who is splitting hairs.

 

[Peter_J]

uch: How is use of the adjective “fallible” splitting hairs? It would have changed the emphasis, but not the meaning, of the sentence if I had merely said local synod. I think you need to take a step back and see who is splitting hairs.

Not sure I understand you ; but in any case, I’ll be happy to amend my statement:

But he did imply that the presence of Eastern Catholic representatives, and the invitation to EO bishops to attend, proves that Vatican I was an ecumenical council.

to:

But he did imply that the presence of Eastern Catholic representatives, and the invitation to EO bishops to attend, proves that Vatican I was an infallible council.

 

[Peter_J]

Forgetting the recipes (although I do like leeks) could he not?

I’d have to disagree.

Incidentally, I’m remind of a conversation in A Man For All Seasons:

Cranmer: Then the matter is capable of question?
More: Certainly.
Cranmer: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty — and sign.
More: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?

 

[shawnbm]

Seeing the news, I’ve seen coverage about Latin papabili (like Cardinal Turkson). I’m wondering if someone like Major Archbishop Cleemis or Patriarch Rai are seen as papabili. o:

From what I’ve read from john Allen and others at new advent, both of those key members of the eastern “lung” of the Church are being considered very seriously. At the end of the day, our faith tells us there is a reason for certain events. This will be one of those occasions. We may not agree, but we will agree to obedience–within reason, of course. The Logos and Reason are o e and the same, after all.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hmm… really splitting hairs now, aren’t you? That is to say, I don’t see what difference it would have made to this conversation if I had said “infallible council” rather than “ecumenical council”. :ehh:

At least we all know what “infallible” means. As I keep emphasizing, it’s become clearer and clearer to me that no one really agrees on or even knows what makes a council “ecumenical.”

Speaking for only myself, if an EC bishop did get elected pope, then I wouldn’t be especially bothered if he decide to accept. The only thing that bothers me is that some seem to think that we need an Eastern pope.

Fair enough. That’s very open-minded of you.

I guess I wouldn’t really mind, either, but like I said, I do understand their reasoning: the pope has a number of roles, none of which is theoretically more important than the others - bishop of Rome, metropolitan of the Roman province, primate of Italy, Supreme Pontiff…

… since having an Eastern Catholic bishop or even patriarch elected pope of Rome would feel like a sensible symbolic fit with only that last role - Supreme Pontiff - I can see how it’s reasonable for Eastern Catholics to fear that an Eastern Catholic being pope would emphasize that last role to a far greater extent than the other roles, which would obscure the pope’s episcopal authority and may make him seem like nothing but some kind of ruling super-bishop.

One Eastern Catholic whom I don’t always agree with on another forum made a reasonable point when, for instance, he said, “The people of the Church of Rome deserve a full-time bishop.” Can’t argue with that.

I’d have to disagree.

Incidentally, I’m remind of a conversation in A Man For All Seasons:

Cranmer: Then the matter is capable of question?
More: Certainly.
Cranmer: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty — and sign.
More: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?

I definitely agree with you there!

 

[twf]

At least we all know what “infallible” means. As I keep emphasizing, it’s become clearer and clearer to me that no one really agrees on or even knows what makes a council “ecumenical.”

Fair enough. That’s very open-minded of you.

I guess I wouldn’t really mind, either, but like I said, I do understand their reasoning: the pope has a number of roles, none of which is theoretically more important than the others - bishop of Rome, metropolitan of the Roman province, primate of Italy, Supreme Pontiff…

… since having an Eastern Catholic bishop or even patriarch elected pope of Rome would feel like a sensible symbolic fit with only that last role - Supreme Pontiff - I can see how it’s reasonable for Eastern Catholics to fear that an Eastern Catholic being pope would emphasize that last role to a far greater extent than the other roles, which would obscure the pope’s episcopal authority and may make him seem like nothing but some kind of ruling super-bishop.

One Eastern Catholic whom I don’t always agree with on another forum made a reasonable point when, for instance, he said, “The people of the Church of Rome deserve a full-time bishop.” Can’t argue with that.

I definitely agree with you there!

I agree with you in principle - that the Pope’s position as bishop of Rome needs to be appropriately emphasized, as it is from this role that all the others flow…
That being said, the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops, as members of the apostolic college, share in responsibility for all the churches, even if their first responsibility is to their own particular church. This issue isn’t limited to the Pope of Rome…many of our bishops (especially cardinals) have various responsibilities in the Curia or at the national episcopal conference that take them away from local Church affairs. It is for this reason that larger dioceses typically have more than one bishop in residence - even if only one is canonically the Ordinary. The people of Rome have several full-time bishops caring for them if you count the Holy Father’s Cardinal Vicar and the other aux. bishops. Likewise, when the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto is in Ottawa (national episcopal conference responsibities) or Rome (Curia responsibilities), there are four more bishops back in Toronto caring for the faithful (canonically they are vicar generals but possess full episcopal character as aux. bishops).

 

[Crescentinus]

From what I’ve seen, there’s 4 Eastern Catholic patriarchs in the conclave, and it’s weird that Patriarch Shevchuk is not there.

 

[Amadeus]

From what I’ve seen, there’s 4 Eastern Catholic patriarchs in the conclave, and it’s weird that Patriarch Shevchuk is not there.

No, there are only 2 Eastern Patriarchs: the Patriarch of the Copts and the Patriarch of the Maronites.

The other 2 are the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars and the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malankaras.

All 4 were made Cardinals and, being under 80 years old, are participating in the conclave.

Under Church law, the College of Cardinals has the sole authority to elect the Pope.

So, it is not weird at all that Major Archbishop Shevchuk of the Ukrainians (canonically cannot be referred to as “Patriarch”) is not in Rome for the conclave simply because he has not been made a cardinal. Parenthetically, Major Archbishop Emeritus Lubomyr Cardinal Husar could have represented the Ukrainians in this conclave had he not turn 80 on February 26, 2013, two days before the retirement date of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)