T
TrentCath
Guest
The word you’re looking for is binding not authoritative, only the Roman Catechism is binding however all catechisms have authority.
As for catechisms being superseded that’s a simplistic view of things.
- Status
As for catechisms being superseded that’s a simplistic view of things.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Steve,
The Pope has proper authority in (1) what pertains to the ENTIRE Church and (2) what pertains to his local diocese. He DOES NOT have proper authority in any other local jurisdiction. ONLY the local bishop has proper authority in his local diocese. That is the same principle applied to all levels of jurisdiction - e.g., a Patriarch has proper authority in what pertains to the ENTIRE Patriarchate and what pertains to his own local diocese, but the Patriarch does not have proper authority in any other local diocese.
Blessings,
Marduk
Yes, I said it was “enshrined” not “established.” I think your generally Absolutist Petrine mindset (which I gratefully notice has been mitigated somewhat since we first debated these matters many months ago) causes you to unjustifiably be suspicious of any statements coming from High Petrine advocates. I sometimes suspect you really do support the High Petrine view, but are so used to combatting the overly democratic excesses of Protestant ecclesiology that you automatically, perhaps unwittingly, align with excesses in the opposite direction to the Absolutist Petrine camp.
But that’s not the end of the story. Our Canons affirm, supported by the dogmatic and doctrinal principles established by V1 and V2, that whether personally or collegially, his decisions are CONSTRAINED AND LIMITED by considerations for the needs of the Church. But, contrary to our SSPX brother’s error, the Pope himself does not determine the needs of the Church. That is CLEARLY not what the canons say. The needs of the Church are determined COLLEGIALLY. The Pope himself determines ONLY whether he should address those needs in a personal or collegial manner. The Pope has absolutely no authority, according to Vatican 1, to go into a local diocese and say, “I know better than your own orthodox bishop.”
The Pope has proper authority in (1) what pertains to the ENTIRE Church and (2) what pertains to his local diocese. He DOES NOT have proper authority in any other local jurisdiction. ONLY the local bishop has proper authority in his local diocese. That is the same principle applied to all levels of jurisdiction - e.g., a Patriarch has proper authority in what pertains to the ENTIRE Patriarchate and what pertains to his own local diocese, but the Patriarch does not have proper authority in any other local diocese.
Rather, the Pope cannot exceed the authority that Pastor Aeternus dogmatically affirmed he possessed. We have our SSPX brother claiming that as a general principle the Pope’s authority extends beyond the purpose for which Christ established the Primacy - namely, the good of the Church. Do you support TrentCath’s error?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Steve,
As I read your statement below, I realized I am not exactly sure what the issue is between you and brother Alex. Can you explain? Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
As I read your statement below, I realized I am not exactly sure what the issue is between you and brother Alex. Can you explain? Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
So don’t come here in the Eastern Catholicism Forum and pretend that a catechism you deem authoritative among your group that is not in communion with the Catholic Church, is BINDING on Eastern and Oriental Catholics. The CCC does not support your Absolutist Petrine errors, but clearly supports the collegial ecclesiology of the Church.
According to the CCC, to which, if you were truly in the Catholic communion, you would adhere, IT BELONGS TO THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF ECCLESIAL MINISTRY THAT IT HAVE A COLLEGIAL CHARACTER, and
AS A MEMBER OF THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE, EACH BISHOP SHARES IN THE CONCERN FOR ALL THE CHURCHES.
Blesings,
Marduk
H
Hesychios
Guest
One might assume so, and perhaps members of the Curia at Rome and even the Pope himself expect them to, but it is far from clear that all (or even most) Eastern Catholics themselves are in agreement.
I am just going by what I see here in this section of CAF.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
The issue is much more complicated than this, as has been discussed for the past 28 pages. There are theological as well as liturgical differences between the East and the West, ones which fall under the mantle of acceptable disagreement on theological issues, like the disagreements between Franciscans and Dominicans and Jesuits on theology.
Our relationship to the councils is not the same as that of Roman Catholics, and therefore it is incorrect to say that “there is no difference at all”.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Just one last point before I go.
Steve is asserting that I am questioning the role of the pope in the Church because I said that it just might be that the pope’s involvement with the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium had more to do with the pope being the head of the Western Church and thus without his assent and participation, the councils could not be truly “ecumenical.”
Again, not because of papal infallibility or even the pope as the last court of appeal in these cases. But because of the need to have him at the table and assenting to the canons because without him and the Western Church the canons would not be truly for the entire church.
I’m sorry that that issue can’t be raised without cries of “heretic” or “schismatic” being issued in return.
Alex
Steve is asserting that I am questioning the role of the pope in the Church because I said that it just might be that the pope’s involvement with the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium had more to do with the pope being the head of the Western Church and thus without his assent and participation, the councils could not be truly “ecumenical.”
Again, not because of papal infallibility or even the pope as the last court of appeal in these cases. But because of the need to have him at the table and assenting to the canons because without him and the Western Church the canons would not be truly for the entire church.
I’m sorry that that issue can’t be raised without cries of “heretic” or “schismatic” being issued in return.
Alex
M
mardukm
Guest
I completely agree with you that in an Ecumenical Council, “papal infallibility” as defined by Vatican 1 is not active. As the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility asserts:
An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible. Further, according to the Official Relatio of V1: Decrees of Faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope. The reason of this is not the one…alleged in this ambo, as if the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church…The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, that is to the Apostles along with Peter
And I completely agree with you that in an Ecumenical Council, neither is the Pope’s role as final court of appeal an active principle. This is evident from the Official Relatio of Vatican 1: The most solemn judgment of the Church on Faith and Morals is, and always will be, the judgment of the Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the Catholic world sitting and JUDGING ALONG WITH HIM.
I have not read through your entire debate with brother Steve, but if he is denying what you have expressed, then he himself is not being faithful to the teaching of the Church.
Don’t be put off by the Absolutist Petrine excesses, brother. They are the ones who are in error. It’s telling that the schismatic SSPX hold to an Absolutist Petrine view, don’t you think?
Blessings,
Marduk
S
steve_b
Guest
If you’re still around, Here’s what you wrote
Here’s my response
Alex,
How did you get YOUR conclusion from what I said? I think you mistate, overstate, AND overreact. You say you’re in union with the chair of Peter? What does the chair of Peter mean to you? Is it just the Western Church?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I apologise and it is obvious my temperament is not for this forum.
Cheers,
Alex
Cheers,
Alex
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I believe what our dear brother, Alex, is trying to say is that just as a Council cannot be considered Ecumenical without the representatives/Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, so too it cannot be considered Ecumenical without the participation of the Western Church (the Pope of Rome being the Patriarch of the Western Church).
Please do not question brother Alex’s loyalty to Rome and to maintaining communion with the Church of Rome. You must understand how much Eastern Catholics, particularly Ukrainian Catholics, have suffered and continue to suffer for the sake of communion with Rome (and this suffering not only at the hands of our mother Orthodox Churches, but also at the hands of even the highest authorities in the Roman Church). Our loyalty to Rome has been proven by our many martyrs (some of the martyrs killed at the hands of Roman Catholics themselves). This should give you an idea of what the chair of Peter means to us.
S
steve_b
Guest
Yes
The pope is at the same time
- a priest,
- bishop,
- metropolitan or archbishop of the Roman province,
- Patriarch of the West,
- successor of Peter.
In essence, I felt Alex in our conversations was stopping at # 4. So I was pointing this out in the form of a question to him, challenging Alex not to forget Office #5 as it pertains to ecumenicity of a council… Office #5 is unique to the bishop of Rome. Therefore, I think Alex and many others, by ignoring #5 do the following in their thinking .
*In his role *- *as an ordained priest the pope has no more authority than any other priest; *
- *as bishop of a diocese he has no more authority over his diocese than another bishop over his own; and so forth. *
- One may, for example, compare on equal terms the pope as bishop with another bishop without denying the primacy-just as Peter identified himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1) without Peter denying his apostleship or being head of the Church, or the pope denying he is successor to St Peter…
- HOWEVER, by not considering the pope’s office as successor to Peter, and with universal jurisdiction, then the conversation stalls on the part of the one who argues the pope is merely patriarch of the West.
btw, as I understand, the popes never bought into the notion of patriarch. That was started by the East. And it got used so frequently it stuck.
PR:
In the past I asked Alex for particulars on this He didn’t respond on that, maybe he didn’t see the request. Until he mentioned it, I wasn’t familiar with either situation, particularly the later. Could you elaborate?
PR:
Again, could you give examples? I’m in the dark on this one.Our loyalty to Rome has been proven by our many martyrs (some of the martyrs killed at the hands of Roman Catholics themselves). This should give you an idea of what the chair of Peter means to us.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The last two issues are easiest to deal with. Especially during the communist regime in Russia many Ukrainian Greek Catholics who sought to maintain the purity of their rite and Church were martyred at the hands of Polish (Latin) Catholics because they were suspected of being “Russophiles”. Likewise, those Latinized/ing Ukrainian Greek Catholics were often martyred by the Russian Orthodox because they were held in high suspicion due to their loyalty to Rome. That being said, the martyrdoms were not necessarily sanctioned by the highest authorities in either Rome or Moscow. Still, it is a sad fact that they did occur.
With regards to the second to last issue, it’s no secret that the Pope himself will bend over backwards to placate Moscow, even at the expense of Ukrainian Catholics. The most blatant example is the refusal of Rome to recognize the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church as a Patriarch (despite the fact that the Ukrainians themselves do so).
As to the rest, I don’t think Alex’s point was that the Pope is not necessary for a council to be ecumenical. The Pope’s support and assent is indeed important and essential for a council to be ecumenical. But just because a council is supported by the Pope and given his assent does not de facto make a council ecumenical. Likewise, the fact that a council claims to be ecumenical doesn’t make it so (I’ve heard before of examples, but I don’t have them ready at hand). One of the biggest problems is that we don’t really know what constitutes an ecumenical council because those that are nearly universally recognized as ecumenical were convened, not by the Pope, but by the Emperor; in the East to boot.
Although Roman representatives attended, the Pope himself was absent. Does that make Nicea I through the last of the original 7 ecumenical Councils any less ecumenical? Rome herself would answer in the negative.
Alex very well knows and respects the role of the Pope in the Church universal. But he is also aware of those who greatly exaggerate the Pope’s role. The Papacy itself has been working for the last several pontificates to minimize its own role in the universal Church to better reflect the Papacy of the First Millennium, where the Pope pretty much acted as a court of final appeals. I recommend checking out Mardukm’s extensive analysis of the Absolutist, Low, and High Petrine views of the Papacy. They are unparalleled to date.
S
steve_b
Guest
Sorry to hear that. Did this have more to do with Russia invading it’s neighbors ergo Poles and Russians colliding, rather than anything religious between UGC and Polish Catholics?
PR:
absolutely
PR:
There must be an explanation…right?
PR:
speaking before the schism,One of the biggest problems is that we don’t really know what constitutes an ecumenical council because those that are nearly universally recognized as ecumenical were convened, not by the Pope, but by the Emperor; in the East to boot.
- if a pope didn’t convene a council
- and popes rarely attend councils anyway,
- there’s no set number of bishops that must attend a council, just that everyone is invited.
- nor is it realistic that everyone from everywhere be expected to attend
- some of those early councils, no one from the West was present
PR:
It’s much more likely people greatly under exaggerate the pope’s role. Especially those who have big issues with, or deny, papal primacy.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The problem here is that no one really knows what primacy means, not even the Pope. That is why the last several popes have called for a rethinking of the role of the Papacy wihtin the universal Church; and this especially concerned with issues such as universal primacy and supreme immediate and ordinary jurisdiction. It is also why the Popes have chosen the First Millennium as the model not only for unity, but for the exercise of the Petrine Ministry. So if both Popes and scholars are willing to rethink the role of the Papacy it seems that accusation of over- or under-exaggeration are not yet warranted.Sorry to hear that. Did this have more to do with Russia invading it’s neighbors ergo Poles and Russians colliding, rather than anything religious between UGC and Polish Catholics?
It’s really much more complex than that and seems to stem primarily from a lack of separation of Church and state. Under the communist regime one was Russian, therefore Orthodox. If one wasn’t Orthodox then one was held under great suspicion of not being loyal to the state. The same held for Polish Catholics. Eastern Catholics in Ukraine, since they are neither Roman Catholic nor “Orthodox” (in the sense of not being in communion with Rome) were particularly persecuted because it seemed nobody really fully understood where their loyalties were in regards to the state.
absolutely
There must be an explanation…right?
Sadly the “explanation” is nothing more than “ecumenical sensitivity”. Rome simply doesn’t want to create any further waves between it and Moscow. Sadly we have Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchates whose numbers could fit into a small room, but when it comes to the largest Eastern Catholic body in the world Rome refuses to recognize it as a Patriarchate. The Ukrainians, however, and I would guess the majority of other Eastern Catholics simply refer to the head of the Ukrainian Church as the Patriarch. Rome will eventually fall into line. Heck, I believe even a number of Ukrainian Orthodox refer to the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church as the Patriarch.
speaking before the schism,
So given that scenerio, what made certain early councils ecumenical, even when no one from the West was present?
- if a pope didn’t convene a council
- and popes rarely attend councils anyway,
- there’s no set number of bishops that must attend a council, just that everyone is invited.
- nor is it realistic that everyone from everywhere be expected to attend
- some of those early councils, no one from the West was present
Scholars, even Roman Catholic scholars, don’t seem to agree on what makes a council ecumenical and what doesn’t. It is widely accepted that just because a Pope may convene a council or assent to a council doesn’t make it ecumenical de facto. It is also widely accepted that universal reception is not necessarily necessary to make a council ecumenical. In fact, there are only three (or four?) councils that are universally recognized as being ecumenical by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. I am more and more coming to agree with a certain forum member that the question should not be whether or not a council is ecumenical, but whether or not it is orthodox. Remember, just because an Eastern Catholic may not accept such councils as Trent, Florence, Vatican I - II, etc. as ecumenical, doesn’t mean that we don’t believe they are not orthodox. Personally (and I am speaking for myself), I only believe that the first 7 of the councils are truly ecumenical, but I don’t believe that any of the “general synods of the West” (so called by Pope John XXIII or Paul VI) are heterodox, heretical or whatever when understood within their proper Latin context. They are fully orthodox councils within the Latin approach to the Faith. But they are limited by the narrow (i.e. Latin non-universal) framework in which they took place. So, is the notion of transubstantiation heretical? Of course not. But the definition arose out of issues stemming from the scholastic theology prevalent in the Latin Church. This is a theology that, in large part, simply never touched the East. Eastern Christianity has never deemed it necessary to define what happens to the “form” and “substance” of the bread and wine. It contents itself by affirming Christ truly present and leaving it at that.
It’s much more likely people greatly under exaggerate the pope’s role. Especially those who have big issues with, or deny, papal primacy.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Well, I admit that there’s always some difficulty/ambiguity due to the fact that much about those teachings was formulated in the west, from a western point-of-view. That means it’s not always clear what part of a description constitutes what is intended to be universally binding and what part is simply a western expression of the universal teaching.Dear Fone Bone,
I’ve read RC commentaries on Original Sin and purgatory - if someone could explain to me what the Latin Church of today really DOES believe about these two points, I would be very grateful!!
Alex
That said, this article about original sin is quite good (in my opinion), and as for purgatory, I think the conspicuous succinctness of what the most current Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter speaks volumes about just how simple the doctrine really is. I honestly believe that the fact that Orthodox pray for the dead means they believe everything the Catholic Church considers universally binding about the teaching, no matter how much of the western ideas/expressions of it they reject.
Of course; I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification, Cecilianus: that distinction is important!
But there is no authoritative list of which councils are ecumenical and which are not. Obviously no Catholic - western or eastern - can deny the teachings of, say, Vatican I and Vatican II. But that doesn’t mean eastern Catholics acknowledge those councils as ecumenical.
It seems the Melkites at least - and really many others as well - do not regard them as ecumenical. Unless Rome itself takes umbrage at this (and it doesn’t), doing so ourselves would simply be arrogance.
I’ll bet the pope and the Curia are well aware of where most eastern Catholics stand. The Melkites, for one, make no effort to hide their position on this matter (nor should they).
This issue simply demonstrates what I have often rediscovered as I learned more about my faith - the Catholic Church actually contains room for quite a bit of nuance and subtlety in her teachings. This does not surprise me, as it’s what I would expect from a truly Catholic - universal, worldwide - Church.
I’m confident that Rome does not view the question of the number of ecumenical councils as a problem for unity. Obviously, though, the orthodoxy of the content of these councils is of critical importance.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Philip, 
Everyone knew what an Ecumenical Council was.
It was empire-wide.
Obviously, it’s decisions could not be imposed upon churches outside the empire (such as in India and Abyssinia and Ireland), but they could be asked to approve it and adopt it for themselves and thereby maintain some consistency.
The thing is, in the early church no one questioned it.
Everyone knew what an Ecumenical Council was.
It was empire-wide.
Obviously, it’s decisions could not be imposed upon churches outside the empire (such as in India and Abyssinia and Ireland), but they could be asked to approve it and adopt it for themselves and thereby maintain some consistency.
H
hazcompat
Guest
If you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we are one. Take no offense.
peace
peace
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hi Philip,
Everyone knew what an Ecumenical Council was.
It was empire-wide.
Obviously, it’s decisions could not be imposed upon churches outside the empire (such as in India and Abyssinia and Ireland), but they could be asked to approve it and adopt it for themselves and thereby maintain some consistency.
That’s also a point that Fr. John Behr made in his talk at one of the Orientale Lumen Conferences in 2010. He also said that it’s one of the difficulties in discerning which councils are and are not ecumenical today, since a world-wide empire no longer exists.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
On the other hand, the people in Turkey that call themselves “Romans” and whom the rest of the world refers to as “Greeks” still think there is an empire - and their local bishop is still called the Ecumenical Patriarch.
- Status