Examining Orthodox Theology

[josie_L]

BZzzzt!

Wrong.

Other Apostolic churches do not have a theory of one unique human individual running the universal church. There never was a central administration of the church, not even in St Peter’s day.

If the eastern churches had a Pope-like authority, when there were schisms they would have propose one of their own to do the job. Not one change was made to eastern church governance, not one new canon was written, to account for a loss of a ‘Pope’.

This has only happened in the west, when there were two contending Roman Catholic churches, then three. Each had their own Pope, and each Pope had his own cardinals. They did not know how to function without one, and when there was uncertainty about who was the legitimate sole head of the church, the church split.

Obviously this was because by the 13th century the western churches had adopted the notion that they needed to have a Pope who ruled all the churches. The local synods in the west had lost their autocephaly, and the ability to govern themselves.

Papacy is not part of the collective experience of orthodoxy. It was not present at the time of the Chalcedonian controversy, because the pre-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox to Roman Catholics) did not inherit such a tradition.

It was not present in the 11th century because the Byzantines and their associated churches did not inherit such a tradition.

Both communions are running fine, just as they did before the separations.

Papacy, ie Roman Ultramontanist Papacy, did not exist in the early church, and never existed in the east. It is a completely western phenomenon, a unique theory which is unfamiliar to Apostolic Christianity.

Eastern Christian churches have a synodal form of government, and this has always been the way it works from the days pre-Edict of Milan. This was also the way the western churches governed themselves until the local synods in the west were suppressed.

I take it you still do not understand the Catholic position concerning the papacy, i.e., rooted in Scripture and Tradition (our deposit of faith). As such it is familiar to Apostolic Christianity, i.e., it is biblical and true (and it is only through such a lens that historical events within the Church can be interpreted). Moreover, even as far back as Clement we see the role of bishop of Rome in action within areas outside of his supposed jurisdiction. There is a plethora of evidence throughout history which signifies this, not including the countless appeals from all over the Church, bishops being reinstituted by letter outside of the pope’s supposed jurisdiction. . . etc. If it were as easy to deny the papacy as you make it seem, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Hesychios]

I take it you still do not understand the Catholic position concerning the papacy,…

I understand it very well.

I disagree with it because it can not be proven historically. There was no Ultramontanist Papacy in the early church.

Not even in the west.

Not even saint Peter did what the Pope claims to be able to do. He did not name all the bishops, he did not erect the dioceses. He did not codify the canons and regulate the liturgies. He did not send one Apostle this way and another that way, and the Apostles planted their own churches, naming their own bishops.

He did not run the church himself. No one person ever did that.

It was (a better term escapes me at the moment) a strategic partnership. The local churches were much more like a league, or even a confederation, than a streamlined top down organization. When they gathered in council it was by mutual consent that they reached agreements and tackled challenges.

Any reading of the early canons of the church (canons, by the way, which are no longer in force in the Roman Catholic church, they have been rubbed out and replaced by the code) will show how the church was organized.

All these theories about Peter and keys and exclusively only to Rome came later, when the faction at Rome was trying to justify an emerging dominance. It worked in the west, as the Roman synod took over everything the Saracens couldn’t get, absorbing the other churches in the west and suppressing their leadership.

The church of the city of Rome (not referring to the Roman Catholic church here, but the local church in the city of Rome) from ancient times was renowned for it’s orthodoxy and it’s holiness and it’s inspiration. No one will dispute that. The church was doubly blessed by the presence of the bones of both Saint Paul and Saint Peter, who were considered it’s two patron saints. Great things were expected of it, and by and large great leadership was found there.

But this has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction, which is a claim that the bishop of Rome literally administers the entire worldwide church. It was never like that, and now that the RC church is trying to live up to this flawed expectation it is encountering a multitude of problems. These issues are endemic, they are systemic problems.

If the RC church would return to the earlier Apostolic model of local synods naming their own bishops (among other things) a lot of the present problems could probably go away, if it isn’t too late.

If not, it will be more of the same. Myth or no myth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand it very well.

I disagree with it because it can not be proven historically. There was no Ultramontanist Papacy in the early church.

Not even in the west.

Not even saint Peter did what the Pope claims to be able to do. He did not name all the bishops, he did not erect the dioceses. He did not codify the canons and regulate the liturgies. He did not send one Apostle this way and another that way, and the Apostles planted their own churches, naming their own bishops.

But the authority to name bishops also exists in the Orthodox Churches. Although not in the universal level like the Catholic Church, but even Autocephally itself is a type of universalism that didn’t exist in the early Church.

He did not run the church himself. No one person ever did that.

Technically the Pope runs the Church with the Roman Curia. So it is not by himself, although the bishops there speak in behalf of him.

It was (a better term escapes me at the moment) a strategic partnership. The local churches were much more like a league, or even a confederation, than a streamlined top down organization. When they gathered in council it was by mutual consent that they reached agreements and tackled challenges.

But there too exists strong Patriarchs in Orthodoxy, like Russia.

Any reading of the early canons of the church (canons, by the way, which are no longer in force in the Roman Catholic church, they have been rubbed out and replaced by the code) will show how the church was organized.

The RC Church can make the same claim as the Orthodox Church that these canons are merely laid aside. Don’t forget that the Orthodox Church herself does not have all the canons in effect today.

All these theories about Peter and keys and exclusively only to Rome came later, when the faction at Rome was trying to justify an emerging dominance. It worked in the west, as the Roman synod took over everything the Saracens couldn’t get, absorbing the other churches in the west and suppressing their leadership.

The church of the city of Rome (not referring to the Roman Catholic church here, but the local church in the city of Rome) from ancient times was renowned for it’s orthodoxy and it’s holiness and it’s inspiration. No one will dispute that. The church was doubly blessed by the presence of the bones of both Saint Paul and Saint Peter, who were considered it’s two patron saints. Great things were expected of it, and by and large great leadership was found there.

But this has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction, which is a claim that the bishop of Rome literally administers the entire worldwide church. It was never like that, and now that the RC church is trying to live up to this flawed expectation it is encountering a multitude of problems. These issues are endemic, they are systemic problems.

If the RC church would return to the earlier Apostolic model of local synods naming their own bishops (among other things) a lot of the present problems could probably go away, if it isn’t too late.

If not, it will be more of the same. Myth or no myth.

Nothing to add to what I said above. Although the Orthodox Churches did one thing right in moving away from the traditional ecclesiology of the Church. That is the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized anything it has today. Which means the Orthodox Church can return to a Eucharistic Ecclesiology while the Roman Catholic Church cannot.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Funny you should bring up being a snob and relate it to yourself.

I’d like to think that I can admit my own faults sometimes.

Right and thats “YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE” which you somehow “confused” with me who “never” said; “Hey” you should go to an EO parish.]

No, you said one should go to an EC parish instead of going to an EO when one is considering the EO. And I said that is not a good idea coming from someone who is neither EC nor EO.

This reminded me of the time I was contemplating moving to Canada and people I know from the US are telling me that I should just go to the US instead. To them, Canada and the US is the same thing. But it is not. The same with the EC and EO. Not just because there is similarity in Liturgy and some traditions, doesn’t mean they are completely the same, with one being in communion with the Pope. There is more to both sides than just communion with the Pope. For people who think that the issue is merely being communion with the Pope, well, they have no clue what the issue really is.

Obviously I missed this or I wouldn’t have politely asked you TWICE now to “Show me”.

No offense but you are the one who missed it. I explained it a couple of posts back and when you replied “show me” the first time, you even deleted the part where I explained. Back read a bit and read everything I typed in. I took my time to type it in, at least grant me the courtesy of reading it. You don’t have to accept or agree to what I type in, just read it and you can respond with something better than “show me” when I already have.

Yes what? I asked you to supply me a a DL schedule for every Orthodox Chruch in the “WORLD”?

Show me the post then where I specifically asked for this.

One in your area would have ended the conversation and been polite, which you took to a completely different level with “What am I suppose to do. supply every DL schedule worldwide!”

You said I do not know the situation of every Orthodox parish.

And are you stereotyping me as a Canadian who should just be politely backing out of conversations? First, I’m not born nor raised in Canada. Second, thinking Canadians are that way shows a lack of knowledge about Canadians.

Let me run this conversation by you again, I stated " The Church is the most important aspect of “CHRISTianity” You thought I needed a spelling lesson to begin with in the name “Jesus Christ” which if I spelled wrong, please show me where.

Jesus Christ and the Church are still two different things. Church is from the Greek Ecclesia which means a gathering. The Church, while referred to as the mystical body of Christ, is the believers united in Christ. Without Christ, there would be no Church. But the Church is not only Christ.

Then YOU concluded no its not, Jesus Christ is. Which I see as seperating Christ from His Church for no good reason. Why would you even make such a comment…oh right to dismiss the idea that Daily Mass and the CC is of value. Which is what we were talking about, and to somehow think your are upholding the EO postion by doing so. That “is” the context of this conversation in case your having trouble following along.

True enough Christ cannot be separated from His Church. But the Church is not just Christ, the believers have to be there. The bond of Christ to His Church is like a man to his wife. A man cannot marry himself or cannot be in a marriage alone. The Church isn’t Christ alone, but rather all of us in Christ. So Christ is still more important than the Church. The Church wouldn’t exist without Christ, but Christ exists without the Church (the Church only existed from Pentecost 33AD).

Consider yourself refuted; “Christian meditation performed in the presence of the Eucharist ‘outside of Mass’ is called Eucharistic meditation”

Consider yourself not refuting me at all. I said I am open to be refuted by evidence, which you did not provide any. Fancy play on semantics is not evidence.

However, this wasn’t the issue we were speaking about. Your comment was in relation to what “could-not” be done in NORTH AMERICA, in relation to the “Mass” since they were not available daily in your area. Which BTW I don’t believe and that certainly is not indictive of North America. We we speaking about the “Daily Mass” .

No, I was not speaking about just Mass. I the problem in North America is that the Liturgical experience begins and ends with Mass. Not that the Mass is bad nor is it insufficient. But there has always been a variety of Liturgical services available to give “flavor” to the spiritual experience of the people. Because we are afflicted with sin we need the diversity in spiritual experience to wake our physical selves up to the spiritual realities.

I mean, even monks in communities do more than just Mass all day.

As far as being a Travel Expert perhaps you can venture out into your own area and see what is offered by the CC.

Done that a long, long time ago.

Sacrament is an aid thus it does do something, You stated it does “Nothing” by itself.

No, I did not say that. I said it “accomplishes” nothing. Big difference. To accomplish something means to complete something. Sacraments aid us in a very long process (perhaps for some it may indeed be very short). To say it “accomplishes” sort of gives the impression that there are spiritual guarantees such as entering heaven.

Very Good! It aids in the process, so it does do something thus it does “accomplish” something. You stated it does “nothing by itself”. Which I simply stated is “incorrect” and as we now see you agree.

No, you owe me an apology. This is what I said:

It doesn’t accomplish something by itself, but rather they are steps in a lengthy process of achieving Theosis.

Nowhere did I said it does “nothing by itself”. Look up my original reply, I said it “It doesn’t accomplish something.” I did NOT say it “does nothing by itself”. In fact, I didn’t even use the word “nothing” anywhere! Huge difference, and you are putting words into my mouth.

You seem to have an issue with the Catholic Daily Mass and seem to want to downplay its significance. Why is that, and why not just get straight to the point here?

I do not have a problem with it. I just said that the spiritual experience is dry in North America because all you can attend is Mass. There’s nothing wrong with that, but its dry because there’s nothing else but that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But the authority to name bishops also exists in the Orthodox Churches. Although not in the universal level like the Catholic Church, but even Autocephally itself is a type of universalism that didn’t exist in the early Church.

Autocephally is an imperfect administrative superstructure which arose from the precedent of arranging synods along civil lines (as per apostolic canon 34) along with the consequences of the dissolution of the empire, leading to synods being drawn along national lines. It is not ideal, but we unfortunately have to deal with it.

But there too exists strong Patriarchs in Orthodoxy, like Russia.

Yes and no. It might not be so much that the Patriarch of Russia is too strong as it is that his synod is large and thereby highly influential. How this problem might be avoided while still maintaining the principle of drawing up synods along civil lines has not really been thought out, I suppose.

Nothing to add to what I said above. Although the Orthodox Churches did one thing right in moving away from the traditional ecclesiology of the Church. That is the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized anything it has today. Which means the Orthodox Church can return to a Eucharistic Ecclesiology while the Roman Catholic Church cannot.

While eucharistic ecclesiology is regarded as a sort of ‘ideal’ these days, I think it would be more helpful to think of eucharistic ecclesiology as a guideline or canon if you will, to help inform the Church as it inevitably restructures itself to face the challenges posed by a new and changing world, which differ significantly from either those posed by the first three centuries after Pentecost or those posed by the world of the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Autocephally is an imperfect administrative superstructure which arose from the precedent of arranging synods along civil lines (as per apostolic canon 34) along with the consequences of the dissolution of the empire, leading to synods being drawn along national lines. It is not ideal, but we unfortunately have to deal with it.

Yes and no. It might not be so much that the Patriarch of Russia is too strong as it is that his synod is large and thereby highly influential. How this problem might be avoided while still maintaining the principle of drawing up synods along civil lines has not really been thought out, I suppose.

While eucharistic ecclesiology is regarded as a sort of ‘ideal’ these days, I think it would be more helpful to think of eucharistic ecclesiology as a guideline or canon if you will, to help inform the Church as it inevitably restructures itself to face the challenges posed by a new and changing world, which differ significantly from either those posed by the first three centuries after Pentecost or those posed by the world of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I guess my point was, and this is what I took from the book The Primacy of Peter, is that the Orthodox shouldn’t be overly critical of the Roman Church’s universality because such ecclesiology exists in the Orthodox Church today. I guess the only two things that Orthodoxy can really knock on Primacy according to Rome is universal ordinary jurisdiction and the fact that the Papacy was dogmatized. Everything else exists in one form or another in the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I guess my point was, and this is what I took from the book The Primacy of Peter, is that the Orthodox shouldn’t be overly critical of the Roman Church’s universality because such ecclesiology exists in the Orthodox Church today. I guess the only two things that Orthodoxy can really knock on Primacy according to Rome is universal ordinary jurisdiction and the fact that the Papacy was dogmatized. Everything else exists in one form or another in the Orthodox Churches.

But it isn’t the concept of primacy per se which is the problem. It is the perceived misapplication of the concept which the Orthodox take issue with.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But it isn’t the concept of primacy per se which is the problem. It is the perceived misapplication of the concept which the Orthodox take issue with.

Yes, that is why I pointed out the two things that have been misapplied. One bishop having primacy over the entire Church isn’t any different from a Patriarch having primacy over the bishops in his jurisdiction. It’s just a matter of the autocephalous Churches agreeing to it. And I think the only reason it hasn’t happened in the Orthodox Church is a severe case of Papal-phobia. But universal ordinary jurisdiction is something that is completely foreign to this concept. Also dogmatizing it which, first, means you can’t reverse it. Second, requires something that is a administrative and political development and ascent of faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, that is why I pointed out the two things that have been misapplied. One bishop having primacy over the entire Church isn’t any different from a Patriarch having primacy over the bishops in his jurisdiction. It’s just a matter of the autocephalous Churches agreeing to it. And I think the only reason it hasn’t happened in the Orthodox Church is a severe case of Papal-phobia. But universal ordinary jurisdiction is something that is completely foreign to this concept. Also dogmatizing it which, first, means you can’t reverse it. Second, requires something that is a administrative and political development and ascent of faith.

Yes, that would be an accurate summation of the issue, I think.

 

[cmforte]

I wonder if any Protestants are reading this thread and laughing or at least just scratching their heads? This whole argument over who runs what. It reminds me of the following Scripture:

Biblegateway.com New American Standard Bible:

1 Corinthians

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all [e]agree and that there be no [f] divisions among you, but that you be [g]made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, **that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” **13 [h]Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 [j]I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized [k]in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in [l]cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

And:

Mark 9

33 They came to Capernaum; and when He [t]was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another **which of them was the greatest. 35 **Sitting down, He called the twelve and *said to them, “ If anyone wants to be first, **he shall be last of all and servant of all.” **36 Taking a child, He set him [v]before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 “ Whoever receives [w]one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

lB]Dire Warnings

38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is [x]for us. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink [y]because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

To me, a valid priest/Bishop is one who is ordained via Apostolic succession, and since the RCC and the Orthodox churches were started by the Apostles and contain Apostolic succession, I accept them all as legitimate and equal churches. Sure, I know some fellow Catholics will jump on me for this…“but they don’t recognize the primacy or supremacy (however you want to put it) of the Pope, of the successor to Peter!!” (Yet, isn’t the Pariarch of Antioch also a successor to Peter?) In the long run, though, does that really matter? Argueing over who runs what? Even the Apostles themselves, the very ones we’re argueing over, argued about this, as shown above!! Until Jesus put them right!! So why not celebrate and share our similarities? Our faiths? Our love? I also know about some of our minor theological differences, but we still have more in common than not, and the Catechism states:

l**Catechism of the Catholic Church**

**IParagraph 3. THE CHURCH IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC

II. THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?**

838 **“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”**322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 **With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”**324
-Chris

 

[Hesychios]

Technically the Pope runs the Church with the Roman Curia. So it is not by himself, although the bishops there speak in behalf of him.

I see this pointed out a lot, as if this is a mitigating detail.

A Curia is nothing more than the staff of a bishop. It has no authority of it’s own. Christ did not give the power to bind and loose to any curia, yet they exercise this ‘Petrine Ministry’.

This power, which has been stripped from the local synods and individual bishops, has been delegated to office staffers, because no one man could ever run a church the way Pope’s claim Christ wanted him to run it.

The thing to do is take this authority out of the hands of the curia in Rome (the parallel hierarchy), and put it back into the local synods where it belongs. But Roman Catholic theology will not allow this.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Autocephally is an imperfect administrative superstructure which arose from the precedent of arranging synods along civil lines (as per apostolic canon 34) along with the consequences of the dissolution of the empire, leading to synods being drawn along national lines. It is not ideal, but we unfortunately have to deal with it.

Yes and no. It might not be so much that the Patriarch of Russia is too strong as it is that his synod is large and thereby highly influential. How this problem might be avoided while still maintaining the principle of drawing up synods along civil lines has not really been thought out, I suppose.

While eucharistic ecclesiology is regarded as a sort of ‘ideal’ these days, I think it would be more helpful to think of eucharistic ecclesiology as a guideline or canon if you will, to help inform the Church as it inevitably restructures itself to face the challenges posed by a new and changing world, which differ significantly from either those posed by the first three centuries after Pentecost or those posed by the world of the Eastern Roman Empire.

All interesting points. One could argue that the Catholic Church tackled similar problems in different ways. One could also say that challenges of governance exit in the modern context that neither a centralized or quasi-decentralized model can fully address.

This is honest dialogue, and allegiances and belief aside, we could likely all agree and recognize that there are pros and cons to the status quo on both sides - Catholic and Orthodox.

Further, I have long believed that the insistence on refering to norms of the first millenium must be tempered with the realities of the third millenium. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion and suggestion.

 

[manualman]

I agree that it is a silly idea.

…
In order to make it work, a lot of people have to be ‘delegated’ with Papal authority. This can at times seem like a separate parallel hierarchy.

But that’s how it is today in the western church.

No, it’s not. Local bishops and national bishop’s conferences are not simply ‘delegated’ their authority by the pope. That you would insinuate it to be so given your level of education calls into question either your communications skills or your integrity.

As for the Vatican congregations, it’s disingenuous to describe these congregations as ‘running’ the church either. You seem uninterested in comprehending the difference between power and headship, perhaps because it undercuts your position rather badly.

Clearly we have differences, but that’s hardly justification to exagerrate, distort or purposely obfuscate the situation to make your opponent look bad and yourself look better. You’ve been around long enough to know better. And I should know better by now than to expect constructive discussion on catholic / orthodox threads here (and by no means are the problems limited to your side of the Bosphorus).

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the long run, though, does that really matter? Argueing over who runs what?

For Catholics, it does. Not believing the Pope is the successor of Peter and because of it he is the supreme ruler of the earthly Church having the universal ordinary jurisdiction in all Churches means you are anathemized and kicked out of the Church. Thus you are going to hell if you are a Catholic that does not believe this. This is according to the Apostolic Constitution called Pastor Aeternus.

Wait a minute, why did this thread devolve into the Papacy again? We already have another thread for that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, it’s not. Local bishops and national bishop’s conferences are not simply ‘delegated’ their authority by the pope. That you would insinuate it to be so given your level of education calls into question either your communications skills or your integrity.

Actually the local bishop’s conference can only do as much as the Pope will let them. If you look for example at the GIRM, there are only certain sections where the episcopal conference are given the authority to make a decision and implement in their territories. Everything else is a directive by the Pope through his curia.

As for the Vatican congregations, it’s disingenuous to describe these congregations as ‘running’ the church either. You seem uninterested in comprehending the difference between power and headship, perhaps because it undercuts your position rather badly.

But they are. They have power over the bishops. They can tell bishops what to do. The Code of Canon Laws and the Code of Canons for Eastern and Oriental Churches, guess where they come from? This is not something the bishops of the respective Churches came up with.

 

[cmforte]

For Catholics, it does. Not believing the Pope is the successor of Peter and because of it he is the supreme ruler of the earthly Church having the universal ordinary jurisdiction in all Churches means you are anathemized and kicked out of the Church. Thus you are going to hell if you are a Catholic that does not believe this. This is according to the Apostolic Constitution called Pastor Aeternus.

Wait a minute, why did this thread devolve into the Papacy again? We already have another thread for that.

Simply not believing something doesn’t get you “kicked out of the church.” If that was so, then Nancy Pelosi, and a quite a few other Democrats, would have been kicked out already. It takes action, an act of some leader, I don’t know if a Bishop can do it on his own, or if only the Pope or Curia can, to excommunicate a person. If a Bishop tries to “kick me out,” well, basing this on their thought processes wth other decisions, like, say, how they handled pedophile priests, then I wouldn’t care less. Which is sad, btw…how the Church leadership has lost its moral credibility because of the sex scandal. I don’t revel in that kind of thinking at all. On the contrary, it greatly disappoints me.

-Chris

 

[ConstantineTG]

Simply not believing something doesn’t get you “kicked out of the church.”

That is what Pastor Aeternus said. Whoever so says that the Pope is not this and that, let him be anathema.

If that was so, then Nancy Pelosi, and a quite a few other Democrats, would have been kicked out already.

Well, the Apostolic Constitution said "let him be anathema. Since Nancy Pelosi is a “she”, she gets a free pass. Who said women aren’t given rights in Church?

Did Pelosi deny the authority of the Pope in the Church directly?

It takes action, an act of some leader, I don’t know if a Bishop can do it on his own, or if only the Pope or Curia can, to excommunicate a person.

Excommunication and anathema are two different things. I am not sure if people would have to be declared anathemized to be in that state.

If a Bishop tries to “kick me out,” well, basing this on their thought processes wth other decisions, like, say, how they handled pedophile priests, then I wouldn’t care less. Which is sad, btw…how the Church leadership has lost its moral credibility because of the sex scandal. I don’t revel in that kind of thinking at all. On the contrary, it greatly disappoints me.

Indeed.

 

[cmforte]

Did Pelosi deny the authority of the Pope in the Church directly?

Every time she denies and violates an official teaching of The Magisterium, like on abortion that the RCC calls a “non-negotiable,” she is, in effect, denying the authority of the Pope.

By the way, I do believe the Pope has authority. I just think that Jesus wouldn’t want us to get so hung up on it that it causes division and strife. For the sake of peace and unity, I believe the Pope should accept the title of “First among Equals” as it concerns the eastern Orthodox Churches, and be the Supreme Pastor of the Western churches (and of the Eastern ones that are currently “in communion” with the Papacy), the Patriarch of the West. He can still hold the “keys” as the successor to Peter, but just administer or apply the “keys” in a different way, at least as it concerns Orthodox christians.

-Chris

 

[ConstantineTG]

Every time she denies and violates an official teaching of The Magisterium, like on abortion that the RCC calls a “non-negotiable,” she is, in effect, denying the authority of the Pope.

Um, no. Defying and denying are two different things. Please read Pastor Aeternus to understand what denying papal authority means.

By the way, I do believe the Pope has authority. I just think that Jesus wouldn’t want us to get so hung up on it that it causes division and strife. For the sake of peace and unity, I believe the Pope should accept the title of “First among Equals” as it concerns the eastern Orthodox Churches, and be the Supreme Pastor of the Western churches (and of the Eastern ones that are currently “in communion” with the Papacy), the Patriarch of the West. He can still hold the “keys” as the successor to Peter, but just administer or apply the “keys” in a different way, at least as it concerns Orthodox christians.

-Chris

The Pope can’t do that because the Pope’s position in the Church has been dogmatized. To forgo a dogma means forgoing a basic tenet of faith.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Actually the local bishop’s conference can only do as much as the Pope will let them. If you look for example at the GIRM, there are only certain sections where the episcopal conference are given the authority to make a decision and implement in their territories. Everything else is a directive by the Pope through his curia.

Yet that doesn’t stop some conferences from ignoring instructions and directives from Rome nonetheless. In that regard, it is interesting that one can view the ways in which, say, liberal forms of expression of Liturgy could actually be sanctioned or permitted, at the very least. If one looks to Rome faithfully, it is clear that such things should not be taking place. Liturgical dance (a recent, active thread) is a good example. While Rome made it clear that it is not acceptable in Western culture, including America, the USCCB nonetheless has deferred the matter, calling instead for an “anthropological analysis”.

The irony is that such “variation” from expected norms at a local level actually confirms that bishops and conferences can exert more independence than some would otherwise argue and admit, and these instances very much impact the public image of the Church at large.