Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

That depends on who defines what “High Petrine” means.

That will be mardukm who came up with the term.

 

[jam070406]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9458723&postcount=320

Note: Akin names the source, for the definition of infallibility which is a direct quote from the document that defined the dogma… ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

The terms and conditions required for an infallible statement by the pope, were there in the link provided .

Nobody says it does.

Re: the definition of infallibility, see the words it starts out with? It doesn’t stop with “teach and define”…right? There is more to the definition…right? I highlighted the words previously so they won’t be missed but I also added the conditions also. Those are the words Akin draws attention to that trigger, which makes the point that the Church makes, in defining an infallible statement. They are not Akin’s words. The CC used and emphasised those words and conditions in defining the dogma.

Now re: canonizations, he focuses on those same words from the Vatican definition, used by the pope in that link, to make an infallible statement regarding a person’s canonization.

The pope said

"we declare and define that Bl. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Edith Stein, is a saint and we enrol her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated in the whole Church as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM

Do you see the language the pope used there?

He declares, defines, decrees, that on this matter of faith, it is to be held by the whole Church that this person is a saint.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM
With the words the pope used there, declaring a matter of faith for the entire Church, do you honestly think this would be reversed?

I didn’t say that.

I wrote re: teach and define *"Those words trigger an infallible statement **when ***the pope defines a doctrine on faith and morals, intended for the entire Church. "

See the difference? I gave the important conditions the Church uses in the definition.

The words teach and define alone without the conditions mentioned, is not the definition.

I finished my point by saying

*Therefore Akin is quoting the Church and is not speculating, and he gives multiple examples where that language and circumstance was used. *

In the example mentioned, do you doubt the pope’s intentions given the words he used

The definition is clear. Sticking with the definition as it is written, prevents confusion.

No body said that… Why invent things that aren’t there?

The purpose of definitions is to define terms and conditions that make something clear. Without definitions, people don’t have constraints in thought, and ultimately can’t comunicate an idea effectively. They go off on all kinds of rabbitt trails.

Akins point is, papal infallibility has been used far more than some people believe

The point Akin makes is, infallible papal statements are defined by the terms and the language of the dogma. When those are met, then we have an infallible statement. And that has happened more than twice in history, which is Akin’s point

This presents a problem. A poster presented a link that shows the same sort of language from Papal encyclicals that encouraged the killing of heretics. I am unable to locate the link or names of the encyclicals. It seems the modern Church has back peddled on what, given above, would be defined as infallible statements.

 

[Hesychios]

Pope sacks bishop

Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese. They have no authority in anyone elses diocese. If the pope replaces a bishop for a grave matter, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.
[catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/)

In the early church, the synod would handle such a matter. One does not need a Pope to keep the house clean.

 

[steve_b]

This presents a problem. A poster presented a link that shows the same sort of language from Papal encyclicals that encouraged the killing of heretics. I am unable to locate the link or names of the encyclicals. It seems the modern Church has back peddled on what, given above, would be defined as infallible statements.

Before making the claim it seems you need to find the encyclical 1st…true?
papalencyclicals.net/all.htm

 

[steve_b]

In the early church, the synod would handle such a matter. One does not need a Pope to keep the house clean.

That’s not how Jesus saw it.

 

[Trebor135]

This presents a problem. A poster presented a link that shows the same sort of language from Papal encyclicals that encouraged the killing of heretics. I am unable to locate the link or names of the encyclicals. It seems the modern Church has back peddled on what, given above, would be defined as infallible statements.

Exsurge Domine?

 

[jam070406]

Exsurge Domine?

Yeah, thanks. Was it you that previously provided that link discussing this?

 

[Trebor135]

Yeah, thanks. Was it you that previously provided that link discussing this?

No.

All I find in my link archives about Exsurge Domine is this thread.

 

[steve_b]

This presents a problem. A poster presented a link that shows the same sort of language from Papal encyclicals that encouraged the killing of heretics. I am unable to locate the link or names of the encyclicals. It seems the modern Church has back peddled on what, given above, would be defined as infallible statements.

Now that an encyclical has been named, that you think is the one encouraging the killing of heretics, please quote from the text where that encouragement is found so we can discuss.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

[jam070406]

Now that an encyclical has been named, that you think is the one encouraging the killing of heretics, please quote from the text where that encouragement is found so we can discuss.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Naw, upon reading it I don’t think that was one of the documents mentioned in the link I saw. It had quotes from two different ones. I can’t find the thread that the link was in.
Never mind. Sorry, carry on.

 

[Trebor135]

Naw, upon reading it I don’t think that was one of the documents mentioned in the link I saw. It had quotes from two different ones. I can’t find the thread that the link was in.
Never mind. Sorry, carry on.

Are you sure?

Pope Leo X declares, “Some of [the] errors [which we wish to condemn] we have decided to include in the present document”, one of them being this statement ascribed to and/or proffered by Luther:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s not how Jesus saw it.

You don’t speak for Jesus.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You don’t speak for Jesus.

According to Catholic dogma, if he gets elected Pope, he will be.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, but for all the reasons we’ve discussed, quoting it selectively can still give a false impression. People also ought to read, in conjunction with it, this passage from the document:
*
“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 honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.’”*

I don’t see how that differs from what I said. I never said that the Pope usurps a Local Ordinary, although he could if he wanted to. But the Pope having universal ordinary power is equal to the Local Ordinary. He doesn’t detract from his authority, they just both have the same authority in the same diocese.

Thus Vatican I is also clear that the pope is to exercise the Church’s supreme authority in ways that support and confirm his brethren rather than in ways that displace or belittle them and their also divinely established authority.

But he can do this even without universal ordinary authority.

Notice also that it says bishops hold the authority of the Apostles “by appointment of the Holy Spirit.” If the document reflected an absolutist view, it probably would never admit that but would claim that they hold their authority “by appointment of the Supreme Pontiff.”

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Pope anyway.

Honestly, we all know what would happen if some pope tried to do something like that. I think the context of the recent conciliar teachings that discussed and clarified papal and episcopal authority - Vatican I and Vatican II - make it perfectly clear that, as reflected in the Pastor Aeternus quotation above, the pope must exercise the Church’s supreme authority in a way that supports and confirms his brothers, that he can exercise his supremacy personally but never unilaterally.

The extreme hypothetical of the pope attempting to abolish the Byzantine Rite thus has only one possible outcome if the pope persists: the eastern Catholic churches break communion with him due to his self-evidently unjust interference. A clearer instance of the head imposing its arbitrary will on a completely unsuspecting body couldn’t be found.

And this happened around 1054

Two thoughts:

(a) Even though your “pope attempts to abolish the Divine Liturgy” example is obviously extreme and unrealistic, I still think it’s a useful example, because it reminds me of Pope St. Victor I’s attempt to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor for refusing to celebrate Easter on a Sunday. Other bishops corrected Pope St. Victor, who backed off because he realized that this was not a valid use of his authority, since it didn’t respect the collegial nature of the divinely established episcopate.

I think the same goes for our hypothetical attempt to abolish the Byzantine Rite today. Obviously that would be an abrupt and unilateral instance of the head attempting to impose its will on an unwilling body. I do not fear that such would be self-evidently invalid.

The Pope has abolished many Liturgies at Trent. What if the Pope says, “for the unity of the Church and the universal expression of our faith, there will be one Liturgy for all.” It has happened before, it can happen again. Didn’t the cleanup of Trent happened before any reunification with any Eastern Church?

(b) I still say the pope can’t “micromanage the dioceses.” A particularly diocesan matter belongs to the proper authority of the local bishop alone. If he is impeded - goes into a coma, commits heresy like that Australian bishop in Steve’s article above, etc. - then the pope can act.

But again there is no historical precedence to this. The Coptic Pope didn’t accept the canons of Chalcedon. Why didn’t the Pope depose him and replace him when he acted “heretically”?

The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated in 1054. Why wasn’t he deposed and replaced by the Pope?

I could be wrong, but I certainly think the High Petrine view, a.k.a. classical Ultramontanism, acknowledges that the pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction. That still doesn’t give him the right to impede the proper authority of local orthodox bishops, or to act out of accordance with the collegial nature of the College of Bishops.

Well, the Pope will always act for the entire Church. I mean, even is we assume that an anti-Pope took the seat and went on a rampage, why just mess with one diocese? Why not mess with the entire Church?

Fair enough. I personally do not struggle to believe that Latin Christianity has the orthodox faith.

Great points.

Unfortunately I do not share this view. I’m still trying to discern if the beliefs shared by Catholics today a result of poor catechesis or if it is really indeed the teaching of the Church. It seems the Western faith is very Protestantized and Reformed.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

ConstantineTG, I am going to ask a very rude, and possibly personal, question, so forgive me. But:

In reading this thread, I feel you sympathize more with the Orthodox and agree more with the Orthodox…so why are you Catholic?

I sincerely apologize if you find this offensive, and of course you don’t need to answer. I’m just wondering.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, I am going to ask a very rude, and possibly personal, question, so forgive me. But:

In reading this thread, I feel you sympathize more with the Orthodox and agree more with the Orthodox…so why are you Catholic?

I sincerely apologize if you find this offensive, and of course you don’t need to answer. I’m just wondering.

It is not a rude question but an honest one. Something that I am asking myself.

Here’s the thing, how many of us really accept this position about the Pope because we are thoroughly convinced that it is the correct position? I lived my life as a Roman Catholic and accepted it without question. I was brought up with it. I became Eastern Catholic 2 years ago. People then floated this idea that the Pope was not as authoritative as the RCs say he is. So I accepted that idea as well. Then I was asked by an Orthodox priest about what do I believe about the Pope. So I told him this Eastern point of view which seems to disagree with the RC point of view. He told me to be honest about it. If the Pope teaches that he is such, and Eastern Catholics believe him to be something else, then why and how are we in communion with him? We are not being honest to the Pope, we are not being honest to ourselves. So thus this thread. I want to know what people think and what we should think about it. And perhaps in the end I accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and be a happy and stronger Catholic. Or I don’t and I leave for the Orthodox Church. But there is no in-between. We as Eastern Catholics shouldn’t pretend there is such a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position. We are either one or the other.

 

[Trebor135]

The Pope has abolished many Liturgies at Trent. What if the Pope says, “for the unity of the Church and the universal expression of our faith, there will be one Liturgy for all.” It has happened before, it can happen again. Didn’t the cleanup of Trent happened before any reunification with any Eastern Church?

The Mozarabic rite comes to mind; I’ve read that its use was suppressed by the Latin Catholic Church and this form of Liturgy is now relegated to just one diocese of Spain. A tragedy. (Here’s a video of a baptism celebrated according to the Mozarabic rite at a Spanish Orthodox(!) parish.)

 

[Peter_J]

It is not a rude question but an honest one. Something that I am asking myself.

Here’s the thing, how many of us really accept this position about the Pope because we are thoroughly convinced that it is the correct position? I lived my life as a Roman Catholic and accepted it without question. I was brought up with it. I became Eastern Catholic 2 years ago. People then floated this idea that the Pope was not as authoritative as the RCs say he is. So I accepted that idea as well. Then I was asked by an Orthodox priest about what do I believe about the Pope. So I told him this Eastern point of view which seems to disagree with the RC point of view. He told me to be honest about it. If the Pope teaches that he is such, and Eastern Catholics believe him to be something else, then why and how are we in communion with him? We are not being honest to the Pope, we are not being honest to ourselves. So thus this thread. I want to know what people think and what we should think about it. And perhaps in the end I accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and be a happy and stronger Catholic. Or I don’t and I leave for the Orthodox Church. But there is no in-between. We as Eastern Catholics shouldn’t pretend there is such a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position. We are either one or the other.

Such a position surely does exist. It may be unusual, it may even be obviously wrong (since Rome and Orthodoxy both reject it), but to go so far as to say that such a position doesn’t exist is absurd, it seems to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly, it also only indicates and continues to confirm how easily a mind could be influenced. To what avail?

The “opinion” thus view of history one choose’s to uphold is just that. How does one claim an objective view of history with a bias view of history. Let me give you a good example of how history could be viewed and obviously is.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy&sa=U&ei=awLuT9uTMeW46QGxrqibCg&ved=0CBwQFjAC&sig2=pdDfXPySVAKMlQ_2E2HJIg&usg=AFQjCNHP3-tf0ds-MHQ2kdytCLZVzdmsDg

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Mozarabic rite comes to mind; I’ve read that its use was suppressed by the Latin Catholic Church and this form of Liturgy is now relegated to just one diocese of Spain. A tragedy. (Here’s a video of a baptism celebrated according to the Mozarabic rite at a Spanish Orthodox(!) parish.)

Why is it a tragedy? Church history documents this clearly. Where is the fault with Trent here? Trent confirmed what had been advised by many others for centuries. Liberty taken to change the mass is challenged and changed, thats all that happened.

There are few traces of the Old Spanish rite from the era before 711. The Verona Orationale is a collection of Office prayers that was brought to Italy for safekeeping during the Arab invasion. It must date from about 700, and it not only witnesses to the literary style of the rite but it also contains marginal cues of chant texts. An early chant manuscript is the Léon Antiphoner, a tenth-century copy of a seventh-century source, but a number of other chant manuscripts were made in the Visigothic kingdom from the ninth to eleventh centuries. The neumes, like Frankish neumes of the same period, cannot be deciphered, since there are no related manuscripts containing these chants in staff notation to assist in reading them.

The reconquest of Muslim Spain moved forward in the eleventh century, bringing French monks and bishops into Spain. When Toledo, the ancient capital, was captured in 1085, a French archbishop was installed in the see. The Old Spanish rite was abolished in favor of the Roman rite with its Gregorian chant. It became known as the Mozarabic rite because it continued to be used under Arab rule, and it also survived around Toledo.

After the reconquest was completed in 1492, Cardinal Jiménez of Toledo restored limited use of the old rite in a chapel of his cathedral. In 1500 and 1502 he published new editions of the chants as they were being sung from oral transmission, but there is a lack of resemblance between these editions and the medieval manuscripts, unreadable though they are. Fr. Jerome F. Weber

google.com/url?q=http://catholicrights.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-council-of-trent-was-about.html&sa=U&ei=MQvvT5ftOIrq6QHN8r2aBg&ved=0CCgQFjAF&sig2=kkl5byQPnQrTTD2fweyQbg&usg=AFQjCNGWkEWzuykyW4qmgpjC2KF00hZYFQ

One may argue post 1962 and have a stronger point. But Trent is correct here, one is opting for beauty but once again. Seems to be the resounding value upheld.