How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?

[UnityofTrinity]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

 

[Bev17243]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

Do you mean Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthdox? Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome as much as any other Catholics. Eastern Orthodox are not under the authority of Pope at all

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Do you mean Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthdox? Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome as much as any other Catholics. Eastern Orthodox are not under the authority of Pope at all

Eastern Catholicm but since they are sui juris, and have their own patriacrch.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Catholicm but since they are sui juris, and have their own patriacrch.

Not every sui juris has their own Patriarch. Some are governed by synods.

There’s a disagreement on how much authority a Pope wields, mainly because there hasn’t been an occasion that the Pope needed to assert himself. I believe that the Pope has a lot of authority, but would only exercise it as a last resort.

 

[kitkatty]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

Not all the Eastern Catholic churchs have the same patriarch because there are 22 seperate Churchs,and as Constantine said not all of those Church`s have their own Patriarch.

 

[ciero]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

To much!!

 

[Hesychios]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

The Pope of Rome has universal jurisdiction.

He has ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese everywhere in the world, regardless of rite or Particular church.

He has the absolute fulness of power.

 

[Seamus_L]

He doesn’t have the authority to force you to stay in the Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

He doesn’t have the authority to force you to stay in the Catholic Church.

… and he doen’t have the authority to force you to join.

 

[MontChevalier]

Not every sui juris has their own Patriarch. Some are governed by synods.

There’s a disagreement on how much authority a Pope wields, mainly because there hasn’t been an occasion that the Pope needed to assert himself. I believe that the Pope has a lot of authority, but would only exercise it as a last resort.

This is a very interesting thread, and I’m surprised it hasn’t sparked much interest.

What would require a “last resort” for the Pope to assert himself, I wonder?

That an eastern catholic church is under attack by Islamic forces? That these such churches are losing people? That some eastern catholic priest is murdered?

 

[mardukm]

The Pope of Rome has universal jurisdiction.

Just like a Patriarch has plenary jurisdiction in his Patriarchate, and a Metropolitan has plenary jurisdiction in his Metropolitan see. It doesn’t mean head bishops can impede the local, proper authority of local bishops.

He has ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese everywhere in the world, regardless of rite or Particular church.

But he does not have PROPER jurisdiction in every diocese everywhere in the world. Comparatively, a Patriarch has ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese in his Patriarchate, but he does not have PROPER jurisdiction in every diocese. A Metropolitan or Archbishop has ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese in his metropolitan or archepiscopal see, but he does not have PROPER jurisdiction in every diocese.

He has the absolute fulness of power.

Which is only ever exercised in communion with his brother bishops and can never be used to impede the local authority of his brother bishops, according to Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

… and he doen’t have the authority to force you to join.

Agreed. This is an important element in a proper understanding of papal primacy/supremacy. Primacy/supremacy on any level is established by potestas, but always maintained by auctoritas.

Instances of rebellion against the bishop of Rome in the first millenium do not contradict the Catholic teaching on the papacy as the principle of unity because papal primacy as an ecclesiological principle does not and cannot force anyone to do anything.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

What would require a “last resort” for the Pope to assert himself, I wonder?

That simply means that each sui juris Church has its own means of self-governance and self-correction (its head bishop in Synod). Only when these local resources have been exhausted, or these authorities have become impeded, does the Pope have a right to intervene.

As Vatican 1 teaches us, papal authority is not intended to impede the local authority of local bishops in their own jurisdiction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MontChevalier]

That simply means that each sui juris Church has its own means of self-governance and self-correction (its head bishop in Synod). Only when these local resources have been exhausted, or these authorities have become impeded, does the Pope have a right to intervene.

As Vatican 1 teaches us, papal authority is not intended to impede the local authority of local bishops in their own jurisdiction.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you Marduk, you are a light of wisdom where there is dark ignorance.

-MontChevalier

 

[Hesychios]

Which is only ever exercised in communion with his brother bishops and can never be used to impede the local authority of his brother bishops, according to Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, you can’t prove a negative.

In any case whatever, should there be a disagreement between a bishop and the Pope, even if it were to be a disagreement with every other bishop and the Pope, even if it only pertains to discipline or procedure, the Pope will always win. No matter what diocese.

The local bishop might be able to exercise his ordinary proper jurisdiction in his docese, like transfer a pastor or ordain clergy, but the Pope has all of the same rights within that same dioces. He can transfer a priest out of his assignment, undoing the work of the bishop, if he so chooses.

The authority of every other bishop, including patriarchs, is delegated by the Pope, the limits of these offices is determined by the Pope.

The governing canons of the church are written by the Pope, and edited by him.

So theoretically the Pope works in concert with the other bishops, in fact though they are compelled to work with him.

He hires them, he fires them.

He transfers the bishops around from diocese to diocese at his own discretion, and requires them to come to Rome ad limina.

He sets their retirement dates, forces bishops to leave their assignments when he is displeased with them and in all cases names their successors, or delegates that responsibility according to canons he writes, edits, deletes etc.

He also sometimes forces old bishops to keep working when they want to retire.

Even the Eastern Catholic churches are governed by canons he writes and/or approves for them, they are not exempt from the long reach.

From his judgments there is no recourse, regardless of the decision.

 

[ciero]

Well, you can’t prove a negative.

In any case whatever, should there be a disagreement between a bishop and the Pope, even if it were to be a disagreement with every other bishop and the Pope, even if it only pertains to discipline or procedure, the Pope will always win. No matter what diocese.

The local bishop might be able to exercise his ordinary proper jurisdiction in his docese, like transfer a pastor or ordain clergy, but the Pope has all of the same rights within that same dioces. He can transfer a priest out of his assignment, undoing the work of the bishop, if he so chooses.

The authority of every other bishop, including patriarchs, is delegated by the Pope, the limits of these offices is determined by the Pope.

The governing canons of the church are written by the Pope, and edited by him.

So theoretically the Pope works in concert with the other bishops, in fact though they are compelled to work with him.

He hires them, he fires them.

He transfers the bishops around from diocese to diocese at his own discretion, and requires them to come to Rome ad limina.

He sets their retirement dates, forces bishops to leave their assignments when he is displeased with them and in all cases names their successors, or delegates that responsibility according to canons he writes, edits, deletes etc.

He also sometimes forces old bishops to keep working when they want to retire.

Even the Eastern Catholic churches are governed by canons he writes and/or approves for them, they are not exempt from the long reach.

From his judgments there is no recourse, regardless of the decision.

Very true and well put Michael!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And I think you will find that EC bishops actually do LISTEN to the Pope when he speaks.

Not all Latin Bishops will do that, you know. There are those who seem to think that papal directives are open to interpretation . . .

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Well, you can’t prove a negative.

Sure you can.

In any case whatever, should there be a disagreement between a bishop and the Pope, even if it were to be a disagreement with every other bishop and the Pope, even if it only pertains to discipline or procedure, the Pope will always win. No matter what diocese.

When has this happened? Don’t mistake the CC for the ROC.

The local bishop might be able to exercise his ordinary proper jurisdiction in his docese, like transfer a pastor or ordain clergy, but the Pope has all of the same rights within that same dioces. He can transfer a priest out of his assignment, undoing the work of the bishop, if he so chooses.

I’m not aware of this line “if he so chooses” in our Canons. Can you please point it out?

The authority of every other bishop, including patriarchs, is delegated by the Pope, the limits of these offices is determined by the Pope.

I’ve never read these lines from any Magisterial source. Are you sure you are not exercising some sort of interpretative license on some other texts? What are these texts? Please quote them for us.

The governing canons of the church are written by the Pope, and edited by him.

Really? What is your source for this claim? Please quote it for us.

So theoretically the Pope works in concert with the other bishops, in fact though they are compelled to work with him.

Yes. Out of love and respect. Our bishops are not forced, like in the ROC.

He hires them, he fires them.

So local synods are not at all involved in the hiring and firing process? Where does it say this in our Canons, or is this some more interpretative license?

He transfers the bishops around from diocese to diocese at his own discretion

I can see that happening in the Latin Catholic Church. In other Churches - where’s the proof for your claim?

and requires them to come to Rome ad limina.

So what? How often do your hierarchs meet to discuss the state of your Church? Never? I’m glad we have such a holy Father in the bishop of Rome who cares about the whole Church, while apparently brother Michael’s own Patriarch doesn’t care enough about his own Church to find out about the state of his Patriarchate.

He sets their retirement dates, forces bishops to leave their assignments when he is displeased with them and in all cases names their successors, or delegates that responsibility according to canons he writes, edits, deletes etc.

Do you have proof for any of this?

He also sometimes forces old bishops to keep working when they want to retire.

And you are absolutely positive he does this without consulting the local Synod?

Even the Eastern Catholic churches

OOPS! So you were talking about the LATIN Catholic Church all along? You almost had us fooled!

are governed by canons he writes and/or approves for them, they are not exempt from the long reach.

Proof for this statement, please?

From his judgments there is no recourse, regardless of the decision.

How false this is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Augustus24]

I understand since they are sui juris, having their own governing body, bishops, and patriarch, how much authority does the Pope yields and when does an Eastern Church need the Bishop of Rome to be involved?

Different Sui Juris churches have different amounts of oversight by Rome.

Some have little, the churches with a patriarch have less, like the Armenian Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, The Chaldean Catholic Church, The Maronite Church and the Coptic Catholic Church. The Pope just needs to be informed of their choice of patriarch.

Others have more, the ones with major archbishops, the Pope has to approve the choice of archbishop, that is the Ukrianian Greek Catholic Church, The Romanian Catholic Church, the Syro Malabar and Malankara Churches.

Some are Metropolitan churches, where the Pope appoints the metropolitan bishop, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and the Ethiopian Catholic Church.

Lastly there are eastern Catholic churches oversaw by a Latin Rite bishop. The Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian and Italo Albanian and Slovak Greek Catholic Churches.

 

[JohnVIII]

…Don’t mistake the CC for the ROC…Our bishops are not forced, like in the ROC…

Brother Marduk, who are you referring to here by saying “ROC”? To me that means “Russian Orthodox Church”, but that wouldn’t fit the context of your comments.

---

The authority that the Pope has over the Eastern Catholic Churches depends alot on what the Eastern Catholic Churches really are, not what Eastern Catholics want to think they are. There’s already been countless threads on the authority of the Pope, why not look at the other side of the equation? If you can say with certainty exactly what EC Churches are, then you can then ask what relationship the Pope has with that.

I, by no means, am an authority on this matter, but I do have an opinion based on my personal experiences. I compare alot of Roman Catholic issues with my mainly Russian Orthodox experience. I see what seems to me to be about the same thing as Eastern Catholics within the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church). I’m thinking of what Russians call the “Old Believers”.

Rome is to Eastern Catholics is as Moscow is to the Old Believers. There are two kinds of Old Believes. There are ones that don’t have anything to do with Moscow because they think they have gone into heresy. Then there are those who have united to a Russian Bishop while at the same time being allowed to continue their older version of the Russian Divine Liturgy, as well as other customs and traditions. Are you beginning to see the parallel here?! Of course I am making a comparison with the Old Believers who have united with a Russian Bishop (the other Old Believers would parallel with the Eastern Orthodox).

The vast majority of Old Believers have lost any priesthood because when they went into schism from the Russian Church they didn’t manage to get any bishops to go with them, only priests. So after a few hundred years some of them made a deal with the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) to be under a Russian Bishop so that they can have priests who could then have the Old Believer style Divine Liturgies. Basically the only function of the Russian Bishop was to ordain priests! The Bishop did nothing else for them unless something came up that cause them to ask the bishop for some limited intervention. - Once again, sounds very similar to the relationship between the Pope and the Eastern Catholics, does it not!

So, what are these Old Believers Churches in union with the Russian Church? They are really a part of the Russian Church! From the earliest of times the Fathers of the Church have taught that you can not have a Church without a bishop. They are still Old Believers in terms of the customs and traditions, but as far as being a “Church”, the only “Church” they can be is the Russian Church. There cannot be two Russian Churches, so they MUST be, in terms of a Church, a part of the Russian Church!

Just how an autocephalous Church becomes such is a matter for another thread, but the Russian Church is one autocephalous Church, just as Constantinople is another autocephalous Church, just as Rome is an autocephalous Church. But for the Old Believers to likewise become an autocephalous Church would require something close to the authority of an Ecumenical Counsel, they are NOT an autocephalous Church, they can only be “a part of” one of the autocephalous Churches, and they are “a part of” the Russian Church. Even ROCOR never claimed to be anything more than “a part of” the Russian Church in accordance with ukase #362 from the Patriarch of Moscow.

Now let me conclude by paralleling this with the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m sure there will be plenty of “yes but…”'s from those of you who will not agree with me, but as I see it the Eastern Catholic Churches CANNOT be their own Churches. they can only be “a part of” the Roman Catholic Church (not just Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church). And as such their head bishop has to be the Pope (rather than their own local bishop). They are not autocephalous, but rather they are only autonomous. This means that they can act as independent Churches, but they are under the the jurisdiction of some autocephalous Church (in this case Rome).

This then is what I believe the are, a part of the Roman Church. As such, the Pope then has the same authority over them as any other part of the Church of the Romans. Now there are agreements in place were the Pope will let them function as they wish, autonomously, but agreements can always change.

Now, no doubt, someone will say that the Pope has the authority to create a new autocephalous Church. If this debate develops, I don’t know if I will comment on it or not, but interestingly enough Moscow likewise (at least once) claimed to have this authority, all on its own, to create a new autocephalous Church! Have you heard of the “Orthodox Church in America” (the “OCA”)? The OCA broke from their canonical jurisdiction under ROCOR in 1943 (I think it was). Then for a time they were just simply in schism. They did not wish to return under ROCOR to heal their schism so they approached Moscow and asked them if they would let them be under them, but still be able to act autonomously. But even though they never asked for autocephalousy (probably because no one even though that Moscow had the authority to grant autocephalousy) that is what Moscow did! They over-stepped their authority and granted the OCA autocephalousy! This is why, until this very day, there are differing numberings of how many canonical Orthodox jurisdictions there are in the world, because the autocephalousy of the OCA was never recognized by Constantinople or many other jurisdictions.

So, as I see it, the Eastern Catholic Churches are a part of the Roman Church. Rome cannot make them their own autocephalous Church unless this happens with the consent of all the Eastern Orthodox Churches.