Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Carefree_T]

Carefree T;9447428:

They may not be run by “absolute dictates” from Rome, but I have an honest question: are the synodal elections of patriarchs in the Eastern Catholic Churches approved by the Pope of Rome for final “vesting” (or approval, or “okaying,” or however the greater-educated might put it?) If they are, and must be, then that presents a challenge to pre-schism ecclesiology and eventual reunion. We (the Orthodox) would never accept the action of the Patriarch of Rome accepting or

denying the appointing of the bishops when said bishops are not within the See of the Patriarch of Rome. Our bishops are our business! If our local synod approves a patriarch, we do not in any way need the Patriarch of Rome to approve it, because the Holy Spirit approved it beforehand!
It depends.

If a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a major archepiscopal church, then yes, the pope does get to accept or approve the appointment of that synod’s head bishop.

If, however, a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a patriarchal church, then no, the pope does not confirm the appointment of the patriarch. He is simply notified of the result.

There are more patriarchal eastern Catholic churches than major archepiscopal ones.

As Vico pointed out, though, in the event of reunion we would not expect the Orthodox to conform to the existing ecclesiastical structure; it would be worked out anew.

Interesting, thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I was previously under the impression that all the Eastern Catholic Churches had to have the elections of their patriarchs approved by the Pope of Rome. Is there anything official that states that the current Roman ecclesiastical structure will be reworked at reunion to establish one that’s more akin to the pre-schism situation? Does that assertion have any bearing on whether or not the Roman Catholic doctrines would then be expected to be held by all the churches?

And what exactly is “the existing ecclesiastical structure” and why would it have to be reworked if the Pope of Rome doesn’t approve the appointment of the patriarchs of churches in communion? Does the Pope approve other synods, local or “ecumenical?” I’m not trying to bait, I’m honestly uninformed, so thanks for your patience.

It just seems to me that if Rome doesn’t have to approve the appointment of eastern patriarchs, bishops and synods that reunion is easily possible if the Orthodox can accept the Roman doctrines as legitimate in the West and if the Roman church can not require adherence to those doctrines by the eastern churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet everybody seems to know of the statement around here.

I’m only thinking out loud on this, but I think then Card Ratzinger, meant that statement to be a provacative exercise to get the East into a different dialogue. I think he knew of what he was advancing as a conversation starter. I think he also knew it would be an eye opener or he wouldn’t have suggested it. Did the East investigate that suggestion back when it was suggested? Things didn’t seem to advance…right? …why?

Well, I can guess why it hasn’t advanced. Its mainly because the West doesn’t want to relinquish universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope. Perhaps when Cardinal Ratzinger is suggesting to “return to Papal authority as it was in the First Millennium,” he is speaking of it from the Catholic point of view which is what it is today. Of course the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, to say otherwise is to admit Vatican I introduced new doctrine and therefore heretical. I doubt then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually suggesting that we reverse Vatican I. He is endorsing that we take a look at the First Millennium and believe in the interpretation of Vatican I that it has always been like this since the beginning.

I think we have to be more specific when we talk of “Eastern Churches”

All Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, are affected by it.

I’ve quoted this many times already. This applies to Eastern Churches in union with the pope. If they don’t agree to this then they aren’t in union with the pope, and they aren’t Catholic

It does affect the Orthodox if both sides desire unity.

(all emphasis mine)

"The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church."

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

And I am not denying that. Again, my point is we either accept this as it is stated. If we do not, then we should think why we are Catholic. We cannot accept a position other than this one and remain Catholic. It does not make sense.

Who said anything about compromising the truth?

Well, each side has a stand that is completely the opposite of what the other side has. How do you give way then? One has to compromise their beliefs and admit they were wrong for the last 1000 years. Do you think that will happen? It is about compromising the truth, or at least the truth that each side holds on to.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You can by being vague. I expect to see vague statements in the SSPX agreement with Rome, for example.

I heard an SSPX priest who is against the Society’s reconciliation with Rome give an analogy that went something like this (major paraphrase coming):

Imagine one person likes light bulbs and one hates light bulbs.

• The one who likes light bulbs says let’s write a statement that says we like light bulbs.
• The one who hates light bulbs, says no way. I hate light bulbs and I’m not going to agree to such a statement.

So then they come to an agreement. They will write a statement that says they both are near light bulbs.

The first party still likes light bulbs. The second party still hates light bulbs, but they are reconciled under the banner of being near light bulbs. LOL.

So yeah. Vagueness is the key and “clarification”. I dont’ see any other way of going back on those Vat I statements.

Vagueness is one sure way to make sure nothing happens. The Orthodox are specific which things they want taken out. The Vatican cannot be vague about it. They cannot be, “yeah, we won’t revoke Vatican I but let’s just pretend it is not there.” Actually, if this is the solution the Vatican has for the SSPX, then I’m afraid I cannot have faith in the Papacy. Peter is supposed to be the Rock, yet the Vatican opts to be vague? That is a gateway to heterodoxy.

Catholics will have to “budge” quite a bit, if we decide to become Orthodox. (Of course, Orthodox will have to “budge” quite a bit, if they decide to become Catholic.)

You are correct. One side has to budge. It cannot be a compromise. Do we admit that we are both wrong and the solution is somewhere in the middle? In my office that is sometimes how we settle things, but what we are taking here are basic tenets of the faith. Can you imagine the repercussion of both sides admit to be wrong? The neo-Arianists (LDS, SDA, JW) will have a field day! They will say they are right about the Great Apostasy all along given that both sides admitted to be wrong about the faith. And worse, many people will buy it. And given that both sides admit to error, its not far off that the neo-Arianists are right, at least in this aspect. But the conclusion here is that this scenario will never happen. Only one side will have to budge, or no sides budge and this is how Christ will see us at His return.

I agree with everything you said. Nevertheless, I think Orthodox fears of the Pope exercising undue authority over the East are overblown, because the current status is itself insurance against future union-destroying actions.

The Orthodox doesn’t fear it. They believe the Pope never had such jurisdiction. So why should they go along with something that is not part of the faith?

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting, thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I was previously under the impression that all the Eastern Catholic Churches had to have the elections of their patriarchs approved by the Pope of Rome.

There are six patriarchal Synods. The protocol seems to be that after election the patriarch symbolically asks the Pope at Rome to receive him in communion.

Canon 72

1. He is elected who obtains two-thirds of the votes, unless particular law establishes that after an appropriate number of ballots, at least three, an absolute majority of the votes suffices, and the election is to be conducted according the norms of can. 183, 3-4. 2.** If an election is not successful within fifteen days from the opening of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, the matter devolves to the Roman Pontiff.**

If I remember correctly, when the most recent vacancy came up in the Chaldean Catholic church, the synod was deadlocked for some reason or could not convene and the Pope intervened. I am not exactly sure what the Supreme Pontiff actually did in his intervention. Someone here probably remembers that.

Canon 76

1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches. 2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77

1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law. 2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

This seems to indicate that the Patriarch is checked until the Supreme Pontiff approves. As Metropolitan of the synod he cannot convene his fellow bishops without papal approval.

Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases. 2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

This is the famous restriction to home territories, the actual formal limits of which are determined by the Pope.

Another interesting canon …

Canon 81
Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case the Apostolic See has directly communicated it.

I don’t really know why they bothered to mention it at all.

Is there anything official that states that the current Roman ecclesiastical structure will be reworked at reunion to establish one that’s more akin to the pre-schism situation?

I don’t think so. No prior commitments.

Does the Pope approve other synods, local or “ecumenical?”

A church has to be at least a Major Metropolitanate or Patriarchate to be considered a synod. That would be eight altogether, I think, perhaps nine.

All of the other Sui Iuris churches have all of their bishops appointed for them by the Supreme Pontiff. That would probably be fourteen churches, I think. Some of them have no bishops, the faithful in that case are usually under the care of Latin bishops, unless other arrangements have been made.

 

[Carefree_T]

Papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction were defined as such by the First Vatican Council, which is considered an ecumenical council. If a pope can undo an ecumenical council, then all the others - Nicaea I, Ephesus, etc. - are dispensable, too. But they’re not dispensable… so neither is Vatican I.

Only one patriarch of the five presided over Vatican I, so it was not ecumenical and it is only a local synod of the western church binding only to the Church/Patriarch of Rome’s jurisdiction. It likewise should not be taken as any more binding than just that in reunion. Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc. were convened with the Whole Church and decided by the same, so of course they aren’t “dispensable,” especially not dispensable by only the Patriarch of Rome.

There are six patriarchal Synods. The protocol seems to be that after election the patriarch symbolically asks the Pope at Rome to receive him in communion.

Canon 72

1. He is elected who obtains two-thirds of the votes, unless particular law establishes that after an appropriate number of ballots, at least three, an absolute majority of the votes suffices, and the election is to be conducted according the norms of can. 183, 3-4. 2.** If an election is not successful within fifteen days from the opening of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, the matter devolves to the Roman Pontiff.**

If I remember correctly, when the most recent vacancy came up in the Chaldean Catholic church, the synod was deadlocked for some reason or could not convene and the Pope intervened. I am not exactly sure what the Supreme Pontiff actually did in his intervention. Someone here probably remembers that.

Canon 76

1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches. 2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77

1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law. 2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

This seems to indicate that the Patriarch is checked until the Supreme Pontiff approves. As Metropolitan of the synod he cannot convene his fellow bishops without papal approval.

Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases. 2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

This is the famous restriction to home territories, the actual formal limits of which are determined by the Pope.

Another interesting canon …

Canon 81
Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case the Apostolic See has directly communicated it.

I don’t really know why they bothered to mention it at all.

I don’t think so. No prior commitments.
A church has to be at least a Major Metropolitanate or Patriarchate to be considered a synod. That would be eight altogether, I think, perhaps nine.

All of the other Sui Iuris churches have all of their bishops appointed for them by the Supreme Pontiff. That would probably be fourteen churches, I think. Some of them have no bishops, the faithful in that case are usually under the care of Latin bishops, unless other arrangements have been made.

Thank you for all that material! I’ll consider all of the implications for myself, for it’s a lot to consider.

 

[Peter_J]

A church has to be at least a Major Metropolitanate or Patriarchate to be considered a synod. That would be eight altogether, I think, perhaps nine.

There are ten that are Patriarchal or Major Archepiscopal actually. (Well, eleven if you count the Latin Church.) I think the term synod can also be applied to a metropolia, but I could be wrong.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Actually, probably all that is necessary to bring confidence into a possible reconciliation is for the Pope to admit he does not have universal jurisdiction.

you use the word ‘admit’, a catholic would say or imagine you are saying, ‘the pope should deny his universal jurisdiction’.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

But the Byzantine Christians were in great danger of being overrun by the Muslim Ottomans, and the emperor was hoping that if the Orthodox hierarches reached an agreement with their Latin Catholic counterparts to heal the separation, he would receive sufficient aid from the Western Christians to defend against the menace at his doorstep. So, the delegates from the East at the Council of Florence were in a very tight spot, whether because of pressure from the emperor or dread about the demise of their Christian state–the only bulwark standing in the way of their subjugation to Islam. I would not take the assent of those Orthodox hierarches to Latin Catholic doctrines as holding much water given the dire political circumstances they and their coreligionists were facing back home.

so in essence you are saying the orthodox lied in doctrinal matters to secure military aid.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

That is problematic, to say the least. If the infallibility of councils was recognized before the councils came to a conclusion, why did so many feel free to contradict them? Furthermore, what about the curious case of Chalcedon, where the council rejected the use of the formula ‘from two natures’, while the next ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople, allowed for the formula ‘from two natures’ to be used? Which of these was infallible, the first in rejecting the formula, or the second in conditionally accepting the formula?

i dont really understand this arguement (sorry for drawing you back) so the council arent infalliable? That mean anyone can accuse those councils of heresy, i guess the protestant are already doing it.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

If Pope Benedict XVI were at this moment assumed into heaven and by some unusual turn of events I found myself taking his place, I would seriously consider making a proclamation along the following lines:

Most respected fellow disciples of Christ under the guidance of the divinely esteemed Church of Rome:

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition inform us of the gravely sinful and harmful nature of schism. This most humble pope of Rome are painfully aware of this fact on account of the numerous divisions among the Apostolic Churches which arose in and around the years 424, 451, and 1054. I have come to see that, in order for the two lungs of the Church–the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches–to be reunited, we will have to reexamine a few points, for the Lord prayed for us to be one as he and the Father are one, and the will of God must always trump the whims of man.

By my supreme authority as the successor of St. Peter the Apostle in his most splendid chair, and the chief shepherd of the Church, and the most humble Vicar of Christ on Earth, I declare, define, say, and proclaim that the doctrines of the filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, and papal infallibility are no longer to be considered articles of Catholic faith. By the selfsame authority, I pledge that no more ex cathedra statements will proceed from the Apostolic See other than those necessary to remove all obstacles which stand solidly and unmovingly in the way of the reunion of the ancient Churches. Moreover, I bind firmly all my successors in the name of Jesus Christ to this promise which I have solemnly made.

May Our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and protect you and keep you in all ways comprehended most deeply by the omniscient mind of God, and may Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary pray unceasingly for your welfare and salvation now and until the hour of your departure into the next world. Amen.

Thank you.

It isn’t that easy… which is the problem. The hypothetical encyclical above is a pipe dream.

If someone has thought of a silver-bullet solution to end the Great Schism between East and West, the Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have come into full communion with each other by now.

after that proclamation is made there will be about 10000 catholics, what a joke! The filioque, papal infalliabity and jurisdiction, when the filioque is proclaim heresy then about 70% of the latin father will be heretic, when the pope proclaims in a statement that papal infalliability is wrong, then catholic would assume that he has erred, well be the time that statement has been made im sure the pope would be labeled ‘anti-christ’.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

But Vatican II emphasized episcopal collegiality, while Vatican I stressed papal supremacy.

How would turning back the clock to 1960 alleviate the damage done in 1870 and thereby facilitate East-West reunion efforts?

no damage was done in 1870, the council defined papal authority and vat 2 completed it work by defining the authority of the council.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Well, if the Vatican says its optional which would facilitate the return of the SSPX into the RC fold, then its optional. Then I wonder who would adhere to it then?

it wont happen, a council cant be optional.
Ubenedictus

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So things like “universal ordinary jurisdiction” doesn’t mean absolutist?

I don’t think so… but this may indeed signal what we both began to suspect before we finished our respective replies: that we’re talking past each other and simply using terminology differently; in other words, disputing about words as Saint Paul warns against.

The pope’s ordinary universal jurisdiction still doesn’t give him, in matters that pertain to particular churches *other *than the Diocese of Rome, the proper authority that the local bishop possesses. Although I don’t have access to a copy in English of the papacy’s official interpretation of Vatican I, I’ve still been able to read large chunks of it because posters like Marduk have quoted it at length on this forum, and it actually specifically rules out that the pope has this proper authority anywhere except in matters that pertain to the Church (or the Latin Church) in general, and in the Church of Rome itself.

The practical consequences of that distinction are that, because the pope can’t impede the proper authority of a local bishop, we have an ecclesiology in which the head (the pope) and the body (the bishops in union with him) must act in agreement with each other, unlike in neo-Ultramontanism, in which the pope can, at will and in any matter, force his will on the body unconditionally, and unlike in the “Low Petrine” view, in which the body can act without the consent and approval of the head.

Or, as I said in another thread in response to somebody’s asking if “bishop of bishops” is an appropriate description of the pope:

*"I wouldn’t say that. I find it misleading. To me such a title - “bishop of bishops” - would imply that the pope’s universal authority relates to the authority of other bishops in the same manner in which other bishops’ authority relates to the authority of their priests.

"And that is false. It is neo-Ultramontanism and is often called the Absolutist Petrine view in this forum.

"A priest’s authority is entirely dependent upon that of his bishop, who can micromanage whatever he wants within his diocese, to whatever extent he wants. On the other hand, a bishop’s status as the proper Ordinary of his church (diocese) is not something that has its origin or validity in papal delegation. The episcopate is of divine establishment as much as the papacy is, and it is the episcopate that the Church Fathers - think St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, etc. - identify as basically the crowning feature of authority in the Catholic Church.

“The pope of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter, is the head bishop for the entire Catholic Church. His authority over the Church is supreme, universal, ordinary, and his by virtue of the Church’s divine constitution, but he is not the default authority in a place where the Christian faithful are united around the Eucharistic table under a different bishop.”*

I know you’ll probably say, Constantine, that if the pope oversteps these theoretical boundaries today, who is going to stop him? And I suppose in theory there really wouldn’t be anyone who could; still, I admit I do trust our Holy Father’s dedication to the true collegial ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as enshrined in the Vatican Councils. So I guess that’s something I don’t fear.

As regards the eastern Catholic churches, things like Latinization that still plague you never come from Rome anyway, which would have you be fully eastern just as the Second Vatican Council wished.

Still, if Eastern Churches are sui juris, why are our bishops subject to the Pope the same way as Roman bishops?

Are they subject to the pope in the same way Latin bishops are? I’ll grant that for the Metropolitan or eparchial eastern churches, such is probably the de facto case. But - and this is an honest question; I’m not a member of these churches, so I don’t know - wouldn’t a pan-diocesan issue in the Melkite Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc., be handled in synod and its solution confirmed by the patriarch or major archeparch?

So the truth is subject to a matter of a survey based on Orthodox Christians you know? The truth is in the paper. It doesn’t work that way.

Of course, I acknowledge this. I was just surprised that you thought Pope Benedict XVI personally holds the neo-Ultramontanist view. Maybe that’s not what you meant; either way, such a claim is quite a stretch.

The documents in Vatican I say what the extent of the powers the Pope has. Whether he exercises them or not does not change the fact of the matter. As I have already proven with links to the Vatican website, the Pope has clearly stated that just because he doesn’t exercise a certain power doesn’t mean he doesn’t wield it.

Yes, very true. But even in theory he’s not allowed to impede the proper authority of a local orthodox bishop.

Then what does?

The neo-Ultramontanist minority at Vatican II objected even to the Council’s acknowledgement that there is a “College of Bishops” in whom the supreme authority of the Church lies. They thought that to speak of them as a group in any meaningful, objective sense is to obscure the supreme authority of the papacy, and they essentially regarded the other bishops of the Catholic Church as no more than the pope’s deputies, whose authority derives from him alone and who do not possess, by virtue of their episcopal status, any divinely established, inviolable rights.

That is the “Absolutist Petrine” view. I am confident that consistent Catholic teaching is rather that each bishop, by virtue of his episcopal status, exercises true and inviolable headship in his diocese. Not only is he the successor to the Apostles, but as St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches us, is as God on earth. The pope is to the other bishops what Saint Peter was to the other Apostles, not what a bishop is to his priests.

Yet we have many who make the claim, “we are not under the Pope, we are in communion with him.” That is autocephaly.

I don’t necessarily think that claim constitutes a claim to autocephaly. I think they’re just trying to emphasize that the pope is not the default authority in their church, which is governed by their bishops and synods (unless it’s an eparchial or hierarchy-less eastern Catholic church, like the Russian Catholic Church). I think they do this because many Catholics still have this inaccurate idea that the pope calls all the shots from above, and that his orders are carried out by local bishops. They want to ensure that people understand this is not supposed to be the case.

But that is what looks like where we are headed right now. Frankly, I will be disappointed if the Pope does so on the account of the SSPX. My discernment between the Catholic and Orthodox Church might hinge on something that has nothing to do with the Eastern Churches. That is how this SSPX thing turns out. Not that I’m going to leave the Catholic Church on the account of the SSPX, but how this is handled will to me signal the integrity of the Papacy. From the beginning I don’t even know why we are negotiating with the SSPX. They should be excommunicated and only received back if they accept everything about the Church today, no ifs, no buts. Anyway, I can go on about this for hours, I’ll just have to wait and see how this goes.

Oh, I agree. I don’t understand why Rome babies the SSPX. In light of Summorum Pontificum and the FSSP, we don’t need what the SSPX has to offer. Their dissent is tiresome, and I wholeheartedly concur, Constantine, that it would certainly be appropriate if Pope Benedict simply said, “When you guys are ready to accept Vatican II without equivocation, we’ll be here to regularize you. See you then.”

I totally agree with that. But hey, we’re not the ones getting exemptions from Church councils here. Thus my sentiments above.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I see.

It’s interesting how we were able to back away from dogmatic declarations of papal infallibility and supremacy.

We did?

Was that “clarified” in Vat II documents?

Indirectly, I think. Because of the arrival of Italian troops, Vatican I wasn’t formally finished and closed. Vatican II chose to elaborate on Catholic teaching concerning bishops, which Vatican I couldn’t get to before it closed. The true nature and extent of episcopal authority, now clarified and explained by Vatican II, helped put papal authority in its proper context.

Well, if the Catholic hierarchy desires reunion with the Orthodox Churches, it’s going to have to budge on a few matters.

Of course.

But Eastern Catholics are expected to hold that the theology behind the filioque is orthodox, even if they are not obliged to recite the term in the Nicene Creed.

True. They are also not expected or required to teach about the Trinity by means of the theological terminology according to which the filioque makes sense.

In other words, as far as the papacy is concerned, it’s entirely correct and praiseworthy for eastern Catholic churches to teach about and speak of the Holy Trinity in exactly the way the Orthodox do. The only difference is, eastern Catholics mustn’t regard the way the Latins teach it to be heretical. But they needn’t teach about it the Latin way at all; in fact, they shouldn’t. It’s not a legitimate part of eastern Christianity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

A decent number of Orthodox, including on CAF, disagree that, “[p]roperly interpreted, it refers to the same Trinitarian faith that the Creed sans-filioque refers to”. And they don’t all simply have an axe to grind with the Latins.

Yes, I’m aware of that. I respectfully acknowledge their position as a popular one within the Orthodox churches, and I know that it doesn’t indicate that they “have an axe to grind.”

I am just guessing here, but I don’t think reconciliation will come about through one all-encompassing meeting of the minds as a single Council. Most especially because the Latin church has enough bishops and abbots and other voting hierarchs that just putting them together in one place would swamp the proceedings.

In other words … if two groups meet in a binding assembly with one group having 3000 members while the other has 450, there will not even be dialog necessary. Just one vote and it’s all over, the smaller group would never agree to that ‘steamroller’ kind of Council.

Likely selected representatives of both parties will meet and hammer out some kind of agreement, which would go back to both parties separately for review and possible ratification in their own assemblies convened at a separate time and place. The back and forth could take years.

We have not even come close yet, all the dialog so far for the last forty years has been mostly discussing terminology and describing beliefs. The danger that we could be talking passed one another is huge. Once we really understand one another there is a great big process of sorting out what can be compromised on from what can not.

Then, after the inevitable impasse, everyone will go back and see if maybe they didn’t actually mis-understand one another after all …

I think it will take many decades, if ever.

Great points. I think your description of the necessary process is very realistic.

Interesting, thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

You’re welcome.

I was previously under the impression that all the Eastern Catholic Churches had to have the elections of their patriarchs approved by the Pope of Rome.

I don’t want to deceive you: I admit that there’s a lot of papal oversight that goes on in the Catholic Church today. What I said about the patriarchal Catholic churches is true; that said, of the twenty-two eastern Catholic churches in existence, only six are patriarchal and thus operate with that true level of autonomy. The “major archepiscopal” churches I mentioned above are, if I recall correctly, four in number. And the other twelve eastern Catholic churches are either run by synods whose metropolitan is appointed directly by the pope, exist solely as individual eparchies, or even operate under the local Latin bishop.

So the situation is far from ideal, and the current structure of the eastern Catholic churches is not designed to be permanent. Rather, it’s designed so that they can easily be folded back into their Orthodox mother churches in the event of reunion.

Is there anything official that states that the current Roman ecclesiastical structure will be reworked at reunion to establish one that’s more akin to the pre-schism situation?

Not that I know of, but I think we can assume it’ll be worked out anew. It’s literally inconceivable that the current structure of patriarchal vs. major archepiscopal vs. metropolitan vs. individual eparchies vs. no hierarchy structure of the eastern Catholic churches is something the Catholic hierarchy would want to sustain. It’s only that way now because our churches are still in schism from each other.

Does that assertion have any bearing on whether or not the Roman Catholic doctrines would then be expected to be held by all the churches?

It’s a related matter, and a very complex one. In theory, we must all hold to the same faith and dogmas, but beliefs and theology can differ, and the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox beliefs and theology to be, well, orthodox.

In practice, working all this out will be difficult, though, because there will be disagreements over what counts as “dogma” and what counts as mere “belief” or “theology.”

And what exactly is “the existing ecclesiastical structure” and why would it have to be reworked if the Pope of Rome doesn’t approve the appointment of the patriarchs of churches in communion?

I was referring not to the structure of the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches, which is pretty good, but rather to the structure of, for instance, an eastern Catholic church like the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, which is governed by a four-bishop synod - covering the entire United States - whose metropolitan is appointed directly by the pope.

That’s the sort of structure that would be re-worked. In no reunion scenario would the pope be appointing metropolitans for other autonomous churches.

Does the Pope approve other synods, local or “ecumenical?” I’m not trying to bait, I’m honestly uninformed, so thanks for your patience.

I’m not sure; perhaps Vico can answer you. My guess is that he does not approve synods of a church that has its own metropolitan, patriarch, etc.

The pope does, however, approve the decrees and canons of ecumenical councils, just as he did in the first millennium. In the Catholic Church papal approval is considered necessary for a council to be truly ecumenical, as - to paraphrase Apostolic Canon 34 - the head and the body must not act without the other.

It just seems to me that if Rome doesn’t have to approve the appointment of eastern patriarchs, bishops and synods that reunion is easily possible if the Orthodox can accept the Roman doctrines as legitimate in the West and if the Roman church can not require adherence to those doctrines by the eastern churches.

Wow! Thank you for your optimism!

Well, I can guess why it hasn’t advanced. It’s mainly because the West doesn’t want to relinquish universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope. Perhaps when Cardinal Ratzinger is suggesting to “return to Papal authority as it was in the First Millennium,” he is speaking of it from the Catholic point of view which is what it is today. Of course the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, to say otherwise is to admit Vatican I introduced new doctrine and therefore heretical. I doubt then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually suggesting that we reverse Vatican I. He is endorsing that we take a look at the First Millennium and believe in the interpretation of Vatican I that it has always been like this since the beginning.

Exactly.

That doesn’t mean that Roman primacy couldn’t be exercised the way it was in the first millennium rather than the way it’s exercised now. If we actually believe that Vatican I did not “introduce new doctrine” then its seeds should be implicitly present in any number of first millennium teachings and actions. Perhaps, for instance, it would be enough if the Orthodox would assent to the Formula of St. Hormisdas, or to what St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian said about the Church of Rome.

There are ten that are Patriarchal or Major Archepiscopal actually. (Well, eleven if you count the Latin Church.) I think the term synod can also be applied to a metropolia, but I could be wrong.

I think you’re right, but Hesychios probably excluded the “metropolitan churches” due to the fact that papal oversight is much greater for them, as the pope appoints the metropolitan.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Any reunion would have to take place at an ecumenical council, which would produce canons regulating the union, which could not simply be dispensed by a Pope at his whim.

But even so, if the Pope in theory wields universal, immediate, and ordinary power, and purports to exercise it in the would-be Orthodox Catholic churches in violation of the canons laid down at the reunion council, wouldn’t the solution be to break communion with the Pope? i.e., return to what is now the status quo? And if the Pope were unilaterally changing the canons or otherwise violating the reunion council decrees, wouldn’t he be the schismatic, even according to (current) Catholic ecclesiology? I will admit to not understanding Catholic ecclesiology enough to say whether it is even possible for the Pope to be a schismatic (in contrast to a heretic, which apparently the Pope can theoretically be, for example an iconoclast Pope).

In any case, the reunion council, if it were approved by all the bishops of the East and West, and received the assent of the Pope, should be no more dispensable to the Latin Church than the Councils of Nicea or Chalcedon. So that should be guarantee enough that the Pope would not run roughshod over Eastern churches and traditions. And if not, there is always the “emergency exit” of once again severing communion. I don’t think any higher “guarantee” is possible, nor is it sought within the current Orthodox communion; for example, what “guarantees” do you have that the EP won’t attempt to legislate for other churches? (No offense toward the EP intended, just an example.)

ha! Here comes the problem of the century, the orthodox believes that the aim of the union is to distroy their traditions. This is where the orthodox usually puts it and frankly i think it is an over-exagerated concern.
Ubenedictus

 

[Hesychios]

you use the word ‘admit’, a catholic would say or imagine you are saying, ‘the pope should deny his universal jurisdiction’.
Ubenedictus

What you are suggesting is the Pope would lie for the sake of unity.

What I am suggesting is the Pope should admit the truth for the sake of unity.

Big difference.

 

[jam070406]

So things like “universal ordinary jurisdiction” doesn’t mean absolutist?

Regardless, the Pope still can interpret it one way or another even though we “thought” it was clear.

Still, if Eastern Churches are sui juris, why are our bishops subject to the Pope the same way as Roman bishops? Those who claim the High Petrine view claim to the contrary. I’m just stating the simple fact here that such a view is a figment of one’s imagination.

So the truth is subject to a matter of a survey based on Orthodox Christians you know? The truth is in the paper. The paper says absolutist. And the Orthodox Christians I know say as such. So what know? Its an Orthodox Chirstians you know vs. the Orthodox Christians I know? He says, she says? It doesn’t work that way. The documents in Vatican I say what the extent of the powers the Pope has. Whether he exercises them or not does not change the fact of the matter. As I have already proven with links to the Vatican website, the Pope has clearly stated that just because he doesn’t exercise a certain power doesn’t mean he doesn’t wield it. And I compared it to nuclear weapons. Why don’t we feel safe that China, North Korea etc. has nuclear weapons? They haven’t used it. Only the US has used nuclear weapons, we should feel safe if Pakistan or whoever has them because they haven’t used it.

Because the Pope takes charge of the daily life of the Church. For one thing, this is unprecedented. It was never done in the early Church.

Then what does?

Yet we have many who make the claim, “we are not under the Pope, we are in communion with him.” That is autocephaly. I’m just stating the facts here, I’m not trying to say being under the Pope is bad. I’m just saying, we should call it as it is.

But neither is it the High Petrine view. Unless we are understanding the High Petrine view differently. Maybe we need a recap of the three views, and perhaps there are a few more levels in between.

The language of the papal bull still points to an absolutist view. The Pope not exercising the authority fully doesn’t change the fact. Again, he has a loaded gun. Not using it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. He can still pull it out and shoot people later if he changes his mind.

But that is what looks like where we are headed right now. Frankly, I will be disappointed if the Pope does so on the account of the SSPX. My discernment between the Catholic and Orthodox Church might hinge on something that has nothing to do with the Eastern Churches. That is how this SSPX thing turns out. Not that I’m going to leave the Catholic Church on the account of the SSPX, but how this is handled will to me signal the integrity of the Papacy. From the beginning I don’t even know why we are negotiating with the SSPX. They should be excommunicated and only received back if they accept everything about the Church today, no ifs, no buts. Anyway, I can go on about this for hours, I’ll just have to wait and see how this goes. September seems to be the new deadline in this long, drawn-out drama.

I totally agree with that. But hey, we’re not the ones getting exemptions from Church councils here. Thus my sentiments above.

The SSPX are not exempt from councils. The ambiguous wording of some texts has been twisted by liberals to give meaning that does damage to the Faith. This is what they object to. There are those that spout error and use VII as the excuse. The SSPX acknowledges that this needs to dealt with. As does the Pope. That is why he is reaching out to them. Your opinion of the SSPX is just that, your opinion. Thank God Pope Benedict doesn’t share it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX are not exempt from councils. The ambiguous wording of some texts has been twisted by liberals to give meaning that does damage to the Faith. This is what they object to. There are those that spout error and use VII as the excuse. The SSPX acknowledges that this needs to dealt with. As does the Pope. That is why he is reaching out to them. Your opinion of the SSPX is just that, your opinion. Thank God Pope Benedict doesn’t share it.

Well, I do hope he shares my opinion about then especially with how they view the new Mass. If not, well, Lord have mercy on the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

You are correct. One side has to budge. It cannot be a compromise. Do we admit that we are both wrong and the solution is somewhere in the middle? In my office that is sometimes how we settle things, but what we are taking here are basic tenets of the faith. Can you imagine the repercussion of both sides admit to be wrong? The neo-Arianists (LDS, SDA, JW) will have a field day! They will say they are right about the Great Apostasy all along given that both sides admitted to be wrong about the faith. And worse, many people will buy it. And given that both sides admit to error, its not far off that the neo-Arianists are right, at least in this aspect. But the conclusion here is that this scenario will never happen. Only one side will have to budge, or no sides budge and this is how Christ will see us at His return.

Good post. Many people think that it’s unrealistic to expect just one side or the other to admit to being wrong, but not to expect both sides to admit to being wrong. That’s a little odd.

 

[steve_b]

We must have very different bibles.

We have the same bible.