H
Hesychios
Guest
That is correct.
The limits of this oversight in each case are set by the Supreme Pontiff himself.
How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?
- Status
The limits of this oversight in each case are set by the Supreme Pontiff himself.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Adrian,
Thank you for a very thoughtful explanation of your views. I learned a lot. Permit me to express my own position:
I do not believe that any autocephalous Church so-called is truly autocephalous. I believe there is only one truly autocephalous Church - the Catholic Church herself. The Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church is autonomous in relation to the one Catholic Church, and every other Patriarchate is autonomous in relation to the one Catholic Church. That the head bishop (i.e., Pope) of the Catholic Church is also the head bishop (i.e., Patriarch) of the Latin Catholic Church is a coincidental circumstance of history.
The reason I do not believe any autocephalous Church so-called is truly autocephalous is because each and every one of these autocephalous Churches so-called readily submits to a higher authority - the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council is the main organ of the one, true autocephalous Church which is the Catholic Church herself.
As far as my comments on the ROC, I was for the most part being cheeky. But I cannot deny that I do believe there is an element of truth to my cheeky comments. From what I know, there are many in the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) who see the MP as relating to other Churches in his sphere of jurisdiction in terms of monarchial control, instead of humble service.
I am especially critical of comments by our brother Michael on points that demonstrate to me an inconsistency in thought, and a lack of fairness in applying certain ecclesiological principles. For example, he remarks on the fact that the Pope must approve the Canons for the Churches. But we know that in any particular Patriarchal Church, the Patriarch’s approval is also necessary. Yet for some reason that I cannot fathom, everything is AOK when his Patriarch will approve his Church’s Canons, but when the Pope does the exact same action, it is all of a sudden the action of a dictatorial monarch that must be rejected. Another example is the issue of the ad limina visit. Etc. Etc. I’ve found very little merit and consistency in Orthodox criticisms of the papacy - part of the reason why I became Catholic.
Marduk
Thank you for a very thoughtful explanation of your views. I learned a lot. Permit me to express my own position:
I do not believe that any autocephalous Church so-called is truly autocephalous. I believe there is only one truly autocephalous Church - the Catholic Church herself. The Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church is autonomous in relation to the one Catholic Church, and every other Patriarchate is autonomous in relation to the one Catholic Church. That the head bishop (i.e., Pope) of the Catholic Church is also the head bishop (i.e., Patriarch) of the Latin Catholic Church is a coincidental circumstance of history.
The reason I do not believe any autocephalous Church so-called is truly autocephalous is because each and every one of these autocephalous Churches so-called readily submits to a higher authority - the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council is the main organ of the one, true autocephalous Church which is the Catholic Church herself.
As far as my comments on the ROC, I was for the most part being cheeky. But I cannot deny that I do believe there is an element of truth to my cheeky comments. From what I know, there are many in the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) who see the MP as relating to other Churches in his sphere of jurisdiction in terms of monarchial control, instead of humble service.
I am especially critical of comments by our brother Michael on points that demonstrate to me an inconsistency in thought, and a lack of fairness in applying certain ecclesiological principles. For example, he remarks on the fact that the Pope must approve the Canons for the Churches. But we know that in any particular Patriarchal Church, the Patriarch’s approval is also necessary. Yet for some reason that I cannot fathom, everything is AOK when his Patriarch will approve his Church’s Canons, but when the Pope does the exact same action, it is all of a sudden the action of a dictatorial monarch that must be rejected. Another example is the issue of the ad limina visit. Etc. Etc. I’ve found very little merit and consistency in Orthodox criticisms of the papacy - part of the reason why I became Catholic.
Abundant blessings,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.
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I believe the limits of this oversight were set by the Ecumenical Councils long ago, not by the Supreme Pontiff by himself.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Aramis
Guest
There are 6 different styles of governance…
Patriarchal Churches (6)
Major Archiepiscopal Churches (4)
Metropolitan Churches (3)
Episcopal Churches (3)
Exarchial Churches (4)
Ungoverned Churches (2)
Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal are almost identical… differing mostly in the method of election of the primate.
Metropolitan churches are ruled by their synods, with the partial exception of the Ruthenian Church… as not all the eparchies are part of the Metropolia. They have much more oversight from Rome, as well.
Eparchial Churches & exarchial churches have even more oversight…
And ungoverned churches are, simply put, anomalous.
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
AMEN!! He’s such a blessing. Thank God for Coptic Catholics.Thank you Marduk, you are a light of wisdom where there is dark ignorance.
-MontChevalier
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello Marduk.
NO, I was speaking of the whole conglomerate.
However, even in the Eastern Catholic churches, where one might think the power of the Supreme Pontiff is limited, it is not (in modern times).
A Supreme Pontiff made the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, and he can dissolve it.
By elevating a Coptic Catholic bishop in1895AD to the role of patriarch, a Supreme Pontiff started a new line of Patriarchs. Something of a gift, not a right.
By promulgating the CCEO in 1991AD, a Supreme Pontiff further set guidelines under which the patriarchs of Alexandria are to work.
If there is any question, or any dispute over any of the terms in the CCEO, or the bahavior or decisions of the Patriarch of Alexandria, a Supreme Pontiff will decide the matter.
Not for nothing does the Vatican Council of 1870AD state …
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema
Your dissembling aside …OOPS! So you were talking about the LATIN Catholic Church all along? You almost had us fooled!
NO, I was speaking of the whole conglomerate.
However, even in the Eastern Catholic churches, where one might think the power of the Supreme Pontiff is limited, it is not (in modern times).
A Supreme Pontiff made the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, and he can dissolve it.
By elevating a Coptic Catholic bishop in1895AD to the role of patriarch, a Supreme Pontiff started a new line of Patriarchs. Something of a gift, not a right.
By promulgating the CCEO in 1991AD, a Supreme Pontiff further set guidelines under which the patriarchs of Alexandria are to work.
If there is any question, or any dispute over any of the terms in the CCEO, or the bahavior or decisions of the Patriarch of Alexandria, a Supreme Pontiff will decide the matter.
Not for nothing does the Vatican Council of 1870AD state …
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema
I
Ignatios
Guest
Marduk, you haven’t learned that you’ll be better of if you stay out of the arena when confronting the Orthodox i.e. those who are correct in opinion or doctrine.
Thank you Hesychios for placing Marduk, again, under the light of Orthodoxy.
GOD bless.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
I do not conceive of you as a dishonest person, so I’ll assume your caricature of the Pope as someone who acts merely “if he so chooses” or merely “at his own discretion” is based on ignorance of the doctrines and praxis of the Catholic Church.
First of all, it was Coptic Catholics who, through delegation, REQUESTED the Pope to recognize their right of Patriarchal status. It was not, as you claim, a “gift” that he imposed on the Coptic Catholic Church. The Pope has always used his supreme authority in concert with, in response to, and according to the needs of the Church, not, as you pretend, merely by his own choosing or discretion.
Secondly, with regards to dissolving the Patriarchate. Again, if he does this, it will be according to the needs of the Church, not merely by his own choosing or discretion. Every Eastern and Oriental Catholic recognizes that non-Latin Catholic Patriarchates exist in extremis. Except for the Maronites, and perhaps the Melkites, we have an awareness that when reunion is achieved, we will be absorbed back into our Mother Churches. Further, if the Pope in Synod grants the UGCC Patriarchal status, I hope the ROC is humble enough to accept it and not use the occasion as a means to maintain disunity.
Thirdly, as already noted, all EO rhetoric against the papacy is at best inconsistent, at worst hypocritical. I cannot fathom how you can sit there in critical mode given the history of your own Church. At least the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate was not established through FORCE OF ARMS, unlike the Coptic EO Patriarchate. That’s a BIG log in the eye, brother.
“The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the pace of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power [of the bishops] is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated…”
As already stated, the Pope can only utilize his supreme authority for the service of local Churches IF AND ONLY IF the local resources have been exhausted, or the local authorities have been impeded. The section you quote ONLY means that IF AND ONLY IF the local authorities come to naught, it is the inherent right of the Pope to care for that local Church.
This is the way of it at every level of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church (and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well, for that matter). In the following explanation, please feel free to replace “jurisdiction” with “solicitude” (in the words of your own Fr. Schmemann), as it is actually more proper:
ONLY the local bishop has ordinary, immediate AND PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his local diocese/eparchy X.
CONTINUED
I do not conceive of you as a dishonest person, so I’ll assume your caricature of the Pope as someone who acts merely “if he so chooses” or merely “at his own discretion” is based on ignorance of the doctrines and praxis of the Catholic Church.
This demonstrates an ignorance of the history of my Church. At least, it means that you are not being dishonest about your presentation.
First of all, it was Coptic Catholics who, through delegation, REQUESTED the Pope to recognize their right of Patriarchal status. It was not, as you claim, a “gift” that he imposed on the Coptic Catholic Church. The Pope has always used his supreme authority in concert with, in response to, and according to the needs of the Church, not, as you pretend, merely by his own choosing or discretion.
Secondly, with regards to dissolving the Patriarchate. Again, if he does this, it will be according to the needs of the Church, not merely by his own choosing or discretion. Every Eastern and Oriental Catholic recognizes that non-Latin Catholic Patriarchates exist in extremis. Except for the Maronites, and perhaps the Melkites, we have an awareness that when reunion is achieved, we will be absorbed back into our Mother Churches. Further, if the Pope in Synod grants the UGCC Patriarchal status, I hope the ROC is humble enough to accept it and not use the occasion as a means to maintain disunity.
Thirdly, as already noted, all EO rhetoric against the papacy is at best inconsistent, at worst hypocritical. I cannot fathom how you can sit there in critical mode given the history of your own Church. At least the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate was not established through FORCE OF ARMS, unlike the Coptic EO Patriarchate. That’s a BIG log in the eye, brother.
The CCEO is indeed a guideline for the non-Latin Churches. And it was formulated and established, contrary to your insinuation, by the Pope IN COOPERATION WITH and FROM THE EXPRESS DESIRE AND AGREEMENT OF the non-Latin hierarchy. Further, each sui juris non-Latin Church has its OWN particular laws, and it is the prerogative and responsibility of each Church to interpret the CCEO according to those particular laws in order to preserve the Traditions and fulfill the needs of each sui juris non-Latin Catholic Church. You may want to take a look at our Canons 1 through 6.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Patriarchates govern themselves. The Supreme Pontiff has the right to intervene IF AND ONLY IF the Patriarchate has exhausted all its local resources, or its hierarchal authorities are impeded.
Not for nothing does the Vatican Council of 1870AD assert:
“The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the pace of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power [of the bishops] is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated…”
As already stated, the Pope can only utilize his supreme authority for the service of local Churches IF AND ONLY IF the local resources have been exhausted, or the local authorities have been impeded. The section you quote ONLY means that IF AND ONLY IF the local authorities come to naught, it is the inherent right of the Pope to care for that local Church.
This is the way of it at every level of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church (and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well, for that matter). In the following explanation, please feel free to replace “jurisdiction” with “solicitude” (in the words of your own Fr. Schmemann), as it is actually more proper:
ONLY the local bishop has ordinary, immediate AND PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his local diocese/eparchy X.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
His Metropolitan has ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in local diocese/eparchy X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude). BUT, he does have PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his entire Metropolitan See (or, iow, in matters that pertain to the entire Metropolitan See). This means that the Metropolitan does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs of diocese/eparchy X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded in his service to his diocese/eparchy.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop is impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the Metropolitan becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Metropolitan See, over which the Metropolitan has PROPER jurisdiction.
His Patriarch has ordinary jurisdiction in local diocese X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction in that local diocese. NOR does the Patriarch have PROPER jurisdiction in the Metropolitan See to which diocese X belongs. BUT, the Patriarch does have PROPER jurisdiction in his entire Patriarchate (iow, in what pertains to he entire Patriarchate). This means that the Patriarch does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs diocese X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded AND the local Metropolitan has been impeded.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop AND the Metropolitan are impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, AND the Metropolitan Church, of which the Metropolitan was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the PATRIARCH becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X AND the Metropolitan Church. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Patriarchate, over which the Patriarch has PROPER jurisdiction. This also assumes that the Metropolitan Synod has been impeded in some way and cannot elect a new Metropolitan.
That is the way it works in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church, which also adheres to a High Petrine model, has another level of jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) - the universal level. At this level, the head bishop is the bishop of Rome, and functions in the exact same way as each head bishop on the lower levels of jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude). To wit:
The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in local diocese X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in that local diocese. NOR does the Pope have PROPER jurisdiction in the Patriarchal See to which diocese X belongs. NOR does the Pope have PROPER jurisdiction in the Metropolitan See to which diocese X belongs. BUT, the Pope does have PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in the universal Church (iow, in what pertains to the entire Church). This means that the Pope does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs diocese X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded AND the local Metropolitan has been impeded, AND the Patriarch has been impeded.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop AND the Metropolitan AND the Patriarch are impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, AND the Metropolitan Church, of which the Metropolitan was head, AND the Patriarchate of which the Patriarch was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the POPE becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X AND the Metropolitan Church, AND the Patriarchal Church. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Church, over which the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction. This also assumes that the Patriarchal Synod has been impeded in some way and cannot elect a new Patriarch.
This is something that is alien to you as an EO because so many in your Church today promote the innovative idea that there is no greater level of jurisdiction above that of the local bishop (the Low Petrine view) - an innovation which you seem to have imbibed. So it is probably very difficult for you to conceive of or understand how Churches like the CC’s and the OOC’s, which fully accept the patristic standard and reality of levels of episcopal jurisdiction, can function, and function well. You are basing your criticisms on your innovative understanding of ecclesiology, so I hope you understand why, from my perspective as a Catholic AND an Oriental, they hold no merit whatsoever.
Blessings,
Marduk
His Metropolitan has ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in local diocese/eparchy X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude). BUT, he does have PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his entire Metropolitan See (or, iow, in matters that pertain to the entire Metropolitan See). This means that the Metropolitan does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs of diocese/eparchy X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded in his service to his diocese/eparchy.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop is impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the Metropolitan becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Metropolitan See, over which the Metropolitan has PROPER jurisdiction.
His Patriarch has ordinary jurisdiction in local diocese X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction in that local diocese. NOR does the Patriarch have PROPER jurisdiction in the Metropolitan See to which diocese X belongs. BUT, the Patriarch does have PROPER jurisdiction in his entire Patriarchate (iow, in what pertains to he entire Patriarchate). This means that the Patriarch does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs diocese X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded AND the local Metropolitan has been impeded.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop AND the Metropolitan are impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, AND the Metropolitan Church, of which the Metropolitan was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the PATRIARCH becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X AND the Metropolitan Church. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Patriarchate, over which the Patriarch has PROPER jurisdiction. This also assumes that the Metropolitan Synod has been impeded in some way and cannot elect a new Metropolitan.
That is the way it works in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church, which also adheres to a High Petrine model, has another level of jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) - the universal level. At this level, the head bishop is the bishop of Rome, and functions in the exact same way as each head bishop on the lower levels of jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude). To wit:
The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in local diocese X, but NOT PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in that local diocese. NOR does the Pope have PROPER jurisdiction in the Patriarchal See to which diocese X belongs. NOR does the Pope have PROPER jurisdiction in the Metropolitan See to which diocese X belongs. BUT, the Pope does have PROPER jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in the universal Church (iow, in what pertains to the entire Church). This means that the Pope does not and cannot normatively intervene in the affairs diocese X, but he can do so IF AND ONLY IF the local bishop has been impeded AND the local Metropolitan has been impeded, AND the Patriarch has been impeded.
NOTE: The reason this is possible and true is because by definition, a Church is a Church as such only when it has a bishop. When the local bishop AND the Metropolitan AND the Patriarch are impeded for some reason or other, then that local Church, of which he was head, AND the Metropolitan Church, of which the Metropolitan was head, AND the Patriarchate of which the Patriarch was head, temporarily loses its status as a distinct Church, and, in the absence of a co-adjutor bishop, the POPE becomes, BY RIGHT, the PROPER bishop of that diocese/eparchy X AND the Metropolitan Church, AND the Patriarchal Church. IOW, it is temporarily “absorbed” into the jurisdiction of the entire Church, over which the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction. This also assumes that the Patriarchal Synod has been impeded in some way and cannot elect a new Patriarch.
This is something that is alien to you as an EO because so many in your Church today promote the innovative idea that there is no greater level of jurisdiction above that of the local bishop (the Low Petrine view) - an innovation which you seem to have imbibed. So it is probably very difficult for you to conceive of or understand how Churches like the CC’s and the OOC’s, which fully accept the patristic standard and reality of levels of episcopal jurisdiction, can function, and function well. You are basing your criticisms on your innovative understanding of ecclesiology, so I hope you understand why, from my perspective as a Catholic AND an Oriental, they hold no merit whatsoever.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Nah! I’d rather listen to the horse tell about the horse, rather than let the cow tell about the horse. I trust the Decrees of the Vatican Council in their entirety, rather than the misinterpretations foisted on it by non-Catholics (and Absolutist Petrine advocates, for that matter) who take only myopic little snippets of those Decrees to pretend that they are justified in the creation of a straw man caricature that they can rail against at their pleasure.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
theistgal
Guest
As a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic, I have absolutely no quarrel or disagreement with anything in that statement, and wonder why you think any Catholic should disagree with it.
And thanks for putting it in red - much easier on my old eyes!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear theistgal,
I can’t entirely fault him for that (that is, only partially), because there are indeed some (even many) Latin Catholics who believe the Pope can do this. I debated a few of them in the Traditional Catholics Forum many months ago. By God’s grace, by the end of that debate, two or three of them conceded that the Pope acts not by his mere will or discretion, but always and only according to the needs of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
From his prior post, perhaps it is because he thinks it means that - contrary to the explicit teaching of Vatican 1’s Decree on the Primacy (which I quoted earlier) - the Pope can interfere in the affairs of local Churches, and depose and replace our bishops at his whim and fancy (in brother Michael’s own words, just because the Pope “chooses to” or at his mere “discretion”).As a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic, I have absolutely no quarrel or disagreement with anything in that statement, and wonder why you think any Catholic should disagree with it.
And thanks for putting it in red - much easier on my old eyes!
I can’t entirely fault him for that (that is, only partially), because there are indeed some (even many) Latin Catholics who believe the Pope can do this. I debated a few of them in the Traditional Catholics Forum many months ago. By God’s grace, by the end of that debate, two or three of them conceded that the Pope acts not by his mere will or discretion, but always and only according to the needs of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
LOL…I just realized that the best explanations I have ever heard on the role of the Papacy were given to me by a COPTIC Catholic. I guess it takes an Oriental Christian to cut through the misunderstandings held by Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics alike. Go figure!!!
Brother Marduk…your insights are so blessed and have helped my faith immensely as a Latin Catholic. Indubitably, you have done similarly for so many others.
Please consider, if ever the Lord grants you the time and energy, the thought of perhaps writing a book on this subject.
God’s rich blessings to you…I believe that you are a jewel in the crown of His Beatitude, Pope Antonios…and the Coptic Catholic Church as a whole.
Brother Marduk…your insights are so blessed and have helped my faith immensely as a Latin Catholic. Indubitably, you have done similarly for so many others.
Please consider, if ever the Lord grants you the time and energy, the thought of perhaps writing a book on this subject.
God’s rich blessings to you…I believe that you are a jewel in the crown of His Beatitude, Pope Antonios…and the Coptic Catholic Church as a whole.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
The problem is we have one horse saying something totally different from every other horse in the herd.
M
mardukm
Guest
The problem is we have one horse saying something totally different from every other horse in the herd.
Sheesh!! I sure feel that way sometimes!! But I feel I am in good company - including the early Church Fathers, and the Fathers of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
MontChevalier
Guest
Yeah, but have you read the recent article about what’s going on in Egypt?AMEN!! He’s such a blessing. Thank God for Coptic Catholics.
I would love to go and visit one of their churches in Egypt, but…
Apparently, there’s one political party in Egypt whom have taken it into mind to murder the rest of the Christians in Egypt. =/
So much for the left-wing’s words of “a reborn Egypt”.
I’m gonna have to add that you guys pray for our Christian brothers in Egypt. It’s just wrong what those Muslims are doing.
What is His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, going to do about this?
H
Hesychios
Guest
…
I never said or implied any different. The local bishop can do what is proper to his office, and the Pope can also do what is proper to the office. If there is a difference of opinion, the bishop will defer to his boss.
In spite of your insistence to the contrary, the Papacy controls the church, all of the church including the eastern particular churches. Any bishop who acts, ‘with proper authority’ acts because the Pope has allowed him to, or set up a delegated structure he allows to act.
We both know that the bishop of Rome codifies the canons, and the old canons of the church, when represented in the code, have been edited and redacted. For the most part these original canons are not present in the original form. The original canons hammered out in Council have either been interpreted and rewritten or ignored completely.
Here are the original canons from the Councils …
… a little messy, yes, a bit unstructured … one gets a sense for the organic nature how the church governed itself in the early centuries, for sure. One can imagine the fights in Council over even the wording used, all the sweating and the shouting …
Here are the canons of the CCEO, promulgated not by the eastern Catholic bishops, but by the Pope…
Nice and orderly. One gets the sense that a lot of candles were burned to the nub when this was put together, it is almost elegant.
I invite anyone to read them both, and compare them.
One thing we notice is that in the new canons promulgated by the Pope, there are very specific references to this power of his.
Somehow the early church didn’t mention this power of the bishop of Rome at all in the canons, but today, it’s right there for everyone to read. I am not surprised, since he wrote them himself, or they were composed by his assistants at the Vatican and approved by a bishop of the See at Rome. The Supreme Pontiff/bishop of Rome requires all of the church, eastern Catholic or western, to abide by his canons.
For instance, in the CCEO under TITLE 3: Supreme Authority of the Church
Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45
Marduk.
I never said or implied any different. The local bishop can do what is proper to his office, and the Pope can also do what is proper to the office. If there is a difference of opinion, the bishop will defer to his boss.
In spite of your insistence to the contrary, the Papacy controls the church, all of the church including the eastern particular churches. Any bishop who acts, ‘with proper authority’ acts because the Pope has allowed him to, or set up a delegated structure he allows to act.
We both know that the bishop of Rome codifies the canons, and the old canons of the church, when represented in the code, have been edited and redacted. For the most part these original canons are not present in the original form. The original canons hammered out in Council have either been interpreted and rewritten or ignored completely.
Here are the original canons from the Councils …
… a little messy, yes, a bit unstructured … one gets a sense for the organic nature how the church governed itself in the early centuries, for sure. One can imagine the fights in Council over even the wording used, all the sweating and the shouting …
Here are the canons of the CCEO, promulgated not by the eastern Catholic bishops, but by the Pope…
Nice and orderly. One gets the sense that a lot of candles were burned to the nub when this was put together, it is almost elegant.
I invite anyone to read them both, and compare them.
One thing we notice is that in the new canons promulgated by the Pope, there are very specific references to this power of his.
Somehow the early church didn’t mention this power of the bishop of Rome at all in the canons, but today, it’s right there for everyone to read. I am not surprised, since he wrote them himself, or they were composed by his assistants at the Vatican and approved by a bishop of the See at Rome. The Supreme Pontiff/bishop of Rome requires all of the church, eastern Catholic or western, to abide by his canons.
For instance, in the CCEO under TITLE 3: Supreme Authority of the Church
Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45
- The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus),** not only has power over the entire Church** but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. (hmmm … a primacy of ordinary power in each and every eastern Catholic diocese
) - The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
- There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
- In exercising his office (munus)** the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops** who aid him in various ways …
T
theistgal
Guest
Still don’t see the problem, unless it’s just a dislike for any kind of authority in general. I don’t know any long-running organizations that can survive too long without someone at the top making the hard decisions.
And the Orthodox have those too- they just have more than one; and when they disagree there’s no Pope to mediate so they just go out of communion with each other.
IMHO both systems have strengths and weaknesses- and of course it’s always easier to see the weakness in the other guy’s system than in your own.
And the Orthodox have those too- they just have more than one; and when they disagree there’s no Pope to mediate so they just go out of communion with each other.
IMHO both systems have strengths and weaknesses- and of course it’s always easier to see the weakness in the other guy’s system than in your own.
G
guanophore
Guest
That is absurd. Why do you pander such things? This statement says much more about your heart than it does answer the OP.
Proof that your previous statement is false.
Say if all the bishops were to fall into heresy. During the Arian controversy, 80% of local bishops around the world were Arian.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?
The authority given by Christ to Peter, passed on to his successors, is to feed and care for the flock, and strengthen his brethren. He can, and should, do these things whenever the flock is attacked by anyone.
It appears our brother Michael has some serious unresolved authority issues.
- Status