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

[Hesychios]

Still don’t see the problem,

The original question of this thread was specifically over the authority of the bishop of Rome in the eastern church context, not how good that is or how bad that is.

We cannot have anything like an honest discussion over it as long as one person is spreading his own interpretation in contradiction to what the church repeatedly states in all of it’s formal declarations.

If I have posted anything incorrect, please point it out. Is my interpretation correct, or is it not?

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios;7763354:

He has the absolute fulness of power.

That is absurd. …

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
Vatican Council 1870AD Session 4; Chapter 3:9

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance … but not the absolute fullness of this supreme power …: let him be anathema

Why do you pander such things?

 

[FredM]

From the code of canon law for the Eastern Churches:

TITLE III. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Canon 42 - Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

Chapter I. The Roman Pontiff

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 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45 - §1. 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.
§2. 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.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Now, some will say that this doesn’t really apply to them. Or, they will claim that this code was forced on them by Rome. But those that don’t understand like the terms “full” “supreme” “universal” “absolute” and “ordinary” are often know as Protestants.

 

[guanophore]

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance … but not the absolute fullness of this supreme power …: let him be anathema

I notice that you emphasize the former part, and ignore the latter:

"…in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world"
Context, context, context Michael!

I was listening to the News on the Eastern Church yesterday, and they were talking about the Church governance in China, and the government organized society of the Catholic Church, and government appointed bishops. This situation is exactly why such jurisdiction is needed, and to avoid what happened in Europe before the Reformation, where secular rulers were appointing bishops.

The successor of Peter is responsible for the care and feeding of God’s flock. Jesus was very clear on how the responsibility of leadership was to be exercised.

I will grant you we have had some immoral successors of Peter, and strongly urge that you be obedient to the Scriptures to pray for the leadership, so that the Church together will manifest God’s grace to all the world.

 

[malphono]

There a number of things I could say in this thread, but I doubt many would be particularly interested to hear it, so I’ll be brief.

As I see things, both Hesychios and mardukm are correct in what they’ve said, although to be sure, each approaches the matter from a different (some might say, opposing) perspective. Anyway, as is traditional for me in this forum, I agree with mardukm in principle in regard to the “High Petrine” view. As is somewhat non-traditional for me, I also agree with Hesychios, at least insofar as he says (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the “Absolute Petrine” view is sum and substance of Rome’s position. And therein lies the problem.

While the “High Petrine” view was the reality in the First Millennium, it has come to pass that neither the RCC nor the EO adheres to it now. (It’s really only the OO who continue to subscribe to the “High Petrine” view and, as Hesychios alluded to recently in another thread, perhaps that’s because they are non-Chalcedonian and consequently do not carry that baggage with them.) For their part, the EO have subscribed to the “Low Petrine” view, and the RCC to the “Absolute Petrine” view, arguments to the contrary by either side notwithstanding.

While it is, as mardukm has said here and elsewhere, possible to interpret RCC teaching as being in line with the “High Petrine” view and the First Millennium, the situation on the ground says something quite different. The very existence of the CCEO and the so-called Oriental Congregation are testament to that. While it is true that each Church has its “particular” law, those who contend that the CCEO was done “in concert” with the Eastern and Oriental Churches miss the point that it was written by order of Rome, not by request of the East and Orient. Whether there were Eastern & Oriental lawyers involved in the project is really immaterial. IOW, it seems to me that the situation on the ground in Rome is quite clear that the “Absolute Petrine” view is alive and well.

Sorry for the rant. Just my :twocents:

 

[Hesychios]

I notice that you emphasize the former part, and ignore the latter:

"…in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world"
Context, context, context Michael!

Well, what else is there? We are talking about the church, the question was about authority of the bishop of Rome over the Eastern Catholic churches. I answered the question in that context.

I quote the decreees of Vatican I directly, using your own church’s words, and you call it absurd.

You call me a panderer.

You are the one who should be paying attention to the context, not me.

Have a blessed Easter

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

There a number of things I could say in this thread, but I doubt many would be particularly interested to hear it, so I’ll be brief.

As I see things, both Hesychios and mardukm are correct in what they’ve said, although to be sure, each approaches the matter from a different (some might say, opposing) perspective. Anyway, as is traditional for me in this forum, I agree with mardukm in principle in regard to the “High Petrine” view. As is somewhat non-traditional for me, I also agree with Hesychios, at least insofar as he says (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the “Absolute Petrine” view is sum and substance of Rome’s position. And therein lies the problem.

I am not going to disagree with you here.

Marduk and I do have different perspectives…

The problem is, the formal documents of the church, the magisterial teaching of the church from the decrees of the council of 1870 support the Supreme Power (their words, mind you) of the bishop of Rome. Being dogmatic pronouncement from a dogmatic Council, they carry more weight in and of themselves than any other opinions or documents. They are actually considered dogmatic teaching.

Since Catholics themselves cannot agree on what this dogma of Universal Jurisdiction means it is left for the Supreme Pontiff himself to interpret it, not you or I.

It seems that he has done just that, with the CCEO canons 43, 44 et al. quoted above. We are reminded that there is no recourse to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, he has the final word.

Let me stress one thing…

Although I think I am right about this formal teaching of the Catholic church, I wish I were wrong. I wish it was not the formal teaching of your church. The powers the Ultramontanists claimed for the Papacy are in my opinion historically unsupportable, at best a mistake and at worst a lie, but that is what the fathers of the church claimed at Vatican Council I in 1870, and the church has no real work around. Roman Catholics have to defend it, it is what their own church teaches.

Somewhat ironically it is that kind of Papacy which I would convert to if I were going to convert, and if I did convert then I too would defend it because I believe it to be the true expression of the teaching of that church.

 

[guanophore]

Well, what else is there? We are talking about the church, the question was about authority of the bishop of Rome over the Eastern Catholic churches. I answered the question in that context.

I quote the decreees of Vatican I directly, using your own church’s words, and you call it absurd.

You call me a panderer.

You are the one who should be paying attention to the context, not me.

Have a blessed Easter

Michael

Please forgive me, Michael, you are right. I was not reading your post in context. Clearly you and your loved ones have been wounded by the proclomations of the Roman Pontiff. It is no wonder you have an authority problem with it. I pray for forgiveness and unity.

 

[malphono]

Although I think I am right about this formal teaching of the Catholic church, I wish I were wrong. I wish it was not the formal teaching of your church. The powers the Ultramontanists claimed for the Papacy are in my opinion historically unsupportable, at best a mistake and at worst a lie, but that is what the fathers of the church claimed at Vatican Council I in 1870, and the church has no real work around. Roman Catholics have to defend it, it is what their own church teaches.

I’m not so sure that the fathers of Vatican I were quite that hot-to-trot about the way it has come to be read. There was a lot of dissension and more than a little coercion involved. Nor can I say that the “Absolutism” that remains rampant is truly “Church teaching” but, as much as I wish otherwise, it is rampant and it is accepted, at least tacitly, by Rome, and is not going to go away on its own any time soon. In theory, the “High Petrine” view is certainly supportable even within the terms of Vatican I, (mardukm can speak to that far better than I), but unfortunately, it remains strictly theory.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I never said or implied any different.

Yes you did and do, as demonstrated by your statements below.

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.

Here is clear proof of that I have repeatedly stated in the past - that both Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine advocates (such as yourself) are concerned only about issues of control, and not about the welfare of the Church. It is not about who defers to whom, but about what is good for the Church - local or universal. It is simply false that the bishop must always defer to the Pope, and vice-versa. Our canons state that the local bishop, for the good of his local Church, can dispense his local Church EVEN FROM UNIVERSAL LAWS, AND EVEN FROM THOSE LAWS THAT ARE NORMALLY UNDER THE SOLE PURVIEW OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE (excepting the vow of celibacy). It is inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst, for Low Petrine advocates to complain about “control,” when your own position fails to find a viable solution. You can’t solve the pretended problem of “control” simply by replacing the Pope with another entity who “controls.” The only way to solve that issue is to get your mind out of the gutter mentality of “control.” When you start conceiving of “jurisdiction” in the sense of solicitude and care, instead of “control,” then and only then will these problems dissolve. Until then, your arguments are, as stated, inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

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.

Wrong, as demonsrated above.

We both know that the bishop of Rome codifies the canons,

Actually, many bishops were involved in the process. The bishop of Rome, as protos, confirms the final result. This happens in your Churches on the patriarchal level, as well.
Inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

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 …
Oh please. The EO have modified, do modify, and continue to modify the canons all the time. You do it through the principle “oikonomia.” Inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

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.

If you look at the history of the Canons, they were established to provide a rule for things that were disputed. What need was there for making Canons on something that no one disputed? The consistent practice of the early Church in relation to the bishop of Rome bears out the truth of our Canons.

Let’s not forget that your own Low Petrine view, which denies that there is no higher level of jurisdiction than the jurisdiction of the local bishop EXPLICITLY VIOLATES the Canons of the early Church. Inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

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.

I believe I asked for proof of this earlier. Can you please honor my request before repeating these baseless claims?

The Supreme Pontiff/bishop of Rome requires all of the church, eastern Catholic or western, to abide by his canons.

And this means no one in your own Church needs to abide by the Canons that your own Patriarch approves and confirms? Inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

For instance, in the CCEO under TITLE 3: Supreme Authority of the Church

And this is where we are at. Before continuing, I need to point out two things:

1. At least the Catholic Church fully understands and accepts that Canons can be modified to meet the needs of the Church. The EO, on the other hand, pretend that the ancient Canons can never be changed, but feel free to violate or change or add to it anyway.

CONT’D

 

[mardukm]

CONT’D

1. In an earlier post (I forget if it was in this thread), you stated that what High Petrine advocates believe is based on considerations outside of what V1 stated. I responded by saying that all we believe are and can be obtained from V1 itself period (the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the Decrees themselves, the Official Relatio, the comments of the Majority Party Fathers of the Council, both during and immediately after the Council). The reason that we sometimes utilize sources outside of V1 is because it is the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates themselves who force it. Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates are easily refuted with contextual onsiderations from the Council itself. Failing to prove anything from V1 itself, it is the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates who themselves try to appeal to outside sources; High Petrine advocates are obligated to respond - this current consideration of the canons being case in point. But Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates utilize the same exact rhetorical errors when utilizing these outside sources - namely, eisegesis. They (you) take little snippets out of the Canons, devoid of any context, and build a straw man caricature out of thin air.

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.

Can you please explain the point of bringing up this canon? Do you bring it up because of the clause “which he can always freely exercise?” I have refuted the Absolutist and Low Petrine understanding of this phrase many times in the past. I know you were privy to those posts, yet you never responded. Would you like me to repeat the refutation here?

Canon 45

1. 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 )

As stated earlier, since you (apparently) hold to a Low Petrine paradigm, it is difficult for you to understand how levels of episcopal jurisdiction function and function well in the Churches which accept that patristic standard (primacy does not even really exist in the Low Petrine paradigm, except in an ineffectual, honorific sense).

A metropolitan has primacy of ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his Metropolitan See in each and every Diocese.
A Patriarch has primacy of ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in his Patriarchal See in each and every diocese.
The Pope has primacy of ordinary jurisdiction (or, rather, solicitude) in the universal Church in each and every diocese.
None of these facts violates the principle that ONLY the local bishop has ordinary, immediate, AND PROPER jurisdiction in his local diocese.

1. 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.

A wonderful expression of the High Petrine view in our Canons. What are your issues with this Canon?

1. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

This is a perfect example of the typical eisegesis that Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates utilize to build their straw man caricature. This canon is a direct reference to the Vatican Decree on the primacy. This statement is utilized in the context of an appeal to the Pope. This is nothing more than a restatement of the canons of Sardica. Brother Michael, I would ask you - What other recourse or appeal do the canons of Sardica (which were affirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, your own Council of Trullo, and the Seventh Ecumenical council) provide, after appeal to the bishop of Rome? This canon of the Catholic Church has affirmed nothing novel - it is your complaint that violates the ancient canons. Inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

As I noted earlier, the Absolutist and Low Petrine exaggerations of the papacy are based on nothing more than myopic little snippets of texts. As brother Guanophore stated earlier, context, context, context.

Canon 46

1. In exercising his office (munus)** the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops** who aid him in various ways …

A wonderful expression of the collegial nature of the Petrine office. What is the issue?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I know I used the phrase “inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst” several times during my last two posts. To be perfectly clear, I am referring to the arguments, not you personally. Neither am I assuming that you yourself are the source of these arguments. Some may not distinguish the two, but I personally do. I do have a great amount of respect for you, and have nothing against you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[guanophore]

Here is clear proof of that I have repeatedly stated in the past - that both Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine advocates (such as yourself) are concerned only about issues of control, and not about the welfare of the Church.  It is not about who defers to whom, but about what is good for the Church - local or universal. It is simply false that the bishop must always defer to the Pope, and vice-versa.  Our canons state that the local bishop, ***for the good of his local Church***, can dispense his local Church **EVEN FROM UNIVERSAL LAWS, AND EVEN FROM THOSE LAWS THAT ARE NORMALLY UNDER THE SOLE PURVIEW OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE** (excepting the vow of celibacy).  It is inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst, for Low Petrine advocates to complain about "control," when your own position fails to find a viable solution.  You can't solve the pretended problem of "control" simply by replacing the Pope with another entity who "controls." The only way to solve that issue is to get your mind out of the gutter mentality of "control." When you start conceiving of "jurisdiction" in the sense of solicitude and care, instead of "control," then and only then will these problems dissolve. Until then, your arguments are, as stated, inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

Thank you for this clarification. This concept of control and “force” is what I referenced earlier as what he was “pandering”. The care of the flock of God is not about control and forcing, but about shepherding, guiding, and protecting. Jesus said He would not leave us orphaned. This means He will never leave His flock without recourse. The only reason that someone would object to having a place where the “buck stops” is if they are unwilling to accept the direction of the shepherd. This is really a trust issue. If a person cannot trust God enough to work through the authority He has appointed, then one has a problem with one’s relationship with God, not the position of the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

A wonderful expression of the ***collegial*** nature of the Petrine office. What is the issue?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you nailed it Marduk. It is fear. Fear of being controlled, inability to trust God to work through the authority.

I have been studying the lives of the saints, East and West. I note that all of them had issues with the clerics in authority over them. Some of them were excommunicated, banished, forbidden to do what they beleived they were called to do. In EVERY case, when the faithful yielded to the temporal authority of the bishop, God blessed them, and their ministry.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

:clapping: :tiphat:

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.

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

Marduk highlighted some of the little distortions in your otherwise solid examples. I want my response to take a broader route…

The implication you seem to be drawing - and please correct me if this is a straw man - is that all authority in the Catholic Church is, ultimately, merely an extension of papal authority.

That conclusion is wrong, both theoretically and practically, for a simple reason:

even in light of what you said, the fact remains that even the staunchest Latin Catholic knows that there are some things the pope can’t do. He can’t undo the infallible and authoritative teachings of an ecumenical council - he’s bound by them. He can’t undo infallibly declared papal dogmas like the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin (1854) or her Assumption (1950). He can’t dogmatically define that the papacy constitutes a Sacramentally distinct tier of Holy Orders, because the Catholic Church already authoritatively and infallibly holds - and always has - that there are only three: deacon, priest, and bishop.

To use even clearer - and consciously hyperbolic examples - he can’t decide that baptism is to be done with beer rather than water, or that cheese and milk are to be used for the Eucharist in place of some kind of wheat bread and grape wine.

Now, let’s get back to ecumenical councils that the Catholic Church considers infallible, like Vatican I. As posters like Marduk have consistently made clear, Vatican I in context (not to mention Vatican II) teaches that even the pope’s plenary jurisdiction over the entire Catholic Church - and his ordinary and immediate authority over every part of it - does not give him the authority to impede the proper authority of local bishops.

If any given pope does so, he will have seized an authority that even the dogma of papal supremacy denies him - and it will be self-evident that he will have done so.

Not all ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church is an extension of papal authority.

A Supreme Pontiff made the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, and he can dissolve it.

Not on a mere whim. If there were some pressing reason it desperately needed to be totally dissolved (what a bizarre scenario), then yes, either the Supreme Pontiff or an ecumenical council would be the one to do it. But Pope Benedict XVI does not have the authority to wake up tomorrow and say, "I feel like dissolving the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, and so for no other reason I shall."
First Vatican Council:

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.

Yes. But none of that means he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason. That would be an improper and inaccurate interpretation of the above selection.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Let me ask you: whose interpretation of Catholic teaching is less likely to be incorrect: that of, in this case, a couple Latin Catholics (including me) and a couple eastern Catholics (Marduk, theistgal, etc.), or that of a member of the Orthodox Church?

This reminds me of when I was on CARM years ago and Matt Slick, a Protestant fundamentalist, kept insisting that he knew Catholic teaching better than we Catholics did…

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”).

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.

Even before I knew about the teaching of Vatican I’s Decree on the Primacy, I basically understood exactly that - though in less specific terms - simply through an exposure to the history of the Catholic Church.

I wish Absolutist Petrine advocates and eastern Orthodox alike would just accept that Catholic history in action essentially proves the interpretation Marduk has here articulated to be the one actually intended by the Catholic hierarchy - including the Supreme Pontiff.

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.

I feel exactly the same way.

The problem is we have one horse saying something totally different from every other horse in the herd.

You’re mistaken, josephdaniel. I and plenty of other Latins on this forum agree with Marduk, as do others I know, and my own theological education growing up as a Latin Catholic - with very little exposure to the East - has consistently taught me that which Marduk simply articulated for me more precisely.

I guarantee you - based on the Catholic Church’s history and way of functioning - that the pope and the bishops in communion with him - both in the past and now - share and have taught the interpretation Marduk has here articulated.

That is, at least, what my experience as a Latin Catholic leads me to believe.

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.

At the risk of degenerating into caricature… this is my impression too.

the “Absolute Petrine” view is sum and substance of Rome’s position. And therein lies the problem.

While the “High Petrine” view was the reality in the First Millennium, it has come to pass that neither the RCC nor the EO adheres to it now.

I’m not an eastern Catholic, so my experience on this matter doesn’t count for much, I admit.

That said, I’m genuinely surprised that you feel that way, malphono. It seems to me that many of the eastern Catholic churches - at least those with a patriarch - really do run themselves without any papal interference. How is that not equivalent to the first millennium practice?

I don’t want to imply that I’m arguing with you. I’m only a Latin who has had wonderful brotherly relations with the few eastern Catholics I’ve been blessed to meet and worship with throughout my life - in my case, Melkites and Romanian Catholics.

So I expect to learn a lot from your reply and your experience, and I’m genuinely sorry that your experience has been that the Catholic Church does not live up to the High Petrine ideal.

At least the Catholic Church fully understands and accepts that Canons can be modified to meet the needs of the Church. The EO, on the other hand, pretend that the ancient Canons can never be changed, but feel free to violate or change or add to it anyway.

Yes, I’ve always found that quite strange and puzzling.

 

[guanophore]

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

Such a statement is not consistent with the Scriptures, or the Teachings of the Church. The Scripture is clear that all authority comes from God. They are also clear that Bishops have certain requirements and duties. The Pope is not at liberty to change the Deposit of Faith.

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

Out of love for Christ, and for the flock, does not the Apostle teach “submit yourselves to one another”?

You use a lot of words about force, control and so on, such as “compel”. Why does love not compel, instead of fear? God has not given us a spirit of fear. Where then does it originate?

He hires them, he fires them.

I am surprised to hear this from a non-Protestant. This is a very secular attitude about service to God. The Apostles taught that the office of bishop is a calling - a vocation, and that it needed to be discerned, and the candidate must meet certain criteria, and responsibilies. It is not “job”.

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

You really portray the direction of the successor of Peter as being whimiscal, impulsive, and arbitrary. I think this attitude says more about you than it does about the Pope.

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.

I am looking forward to some evidence that supports these claims.

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

I had to laugh at this one. No one can “force” any such thing. Over the millennia, the successors of Peter have urgently pressed into service, or directed the ordained to serve in capacities they would rather not. Many of the monastics that preferred the monastery or hermitage were “drafted” into service to meet the needs of the Church. In no case can anyone be “forced” to serve God, or His flock. This is just a mischaracterization of the facts.

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

One begins to wonder about your own personal relationship with your father, or what father figure in your life instilled such attitudes.

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

You may not understand this, but all those who are baptized into Christ are adopted as sons and daughters. In such a case, we ALL have recourse to Him, and to His Mother, and to the myriad of Saints who have gone on before us. If a person in authority over us makes a decision regarding us that we don’t like, or don’t want, then we have recourse to God, who honors obedience, even when it appears to carry one aside from one’s divine course.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

The very existence of the CCEO and the so-called Oriental Congregation are testament to that. While it is true that each Church has its “particular” law, those who contend that the CCEO was done “in concert” with the Eastern and Oriental Churches miss the point that it was written by order of Rome, not by request of the East and Orient. Whether there were Eastern & Oriental lawyers involved in the project is really immaterial. IOW, it seems to me that the situation on the ground in Rome is quite clear that the “Absolute Petrine” view is alive and well.

I do not disagree with your mitigated position, for I am not a cradle Catholic, and you have more direct experience with the Latin Catholic Church than I could ever have. I trust that you have good and valid reasons in your personal belief that the Catholic Church is more “Absolutist Petrine” in praxis.

As you know, I do partially agree with you as far as the Oriental Congregation is concerned.

I would debate you, however, on the issue of the CCEO. I’m not sure if you know this, but the desire to have an updated Code of Canons, separate from the Latins, was expressed by our own Eastern and Oriental bishops at Vatican 1. What we have today in the CCEO is the fruit of the labors and prayers of our non-Latin hierarchs for over 100 years.

Here are portions of a speech given by Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans at the First Vatican Council during the discussions on Canon Law:
“Perhaps the illustrious consultors thought that there is little or no difference between the laws, customs, rites of the two Churches. But in reality they differ as far as the rising of the sun is from its setting…In things of Faith, whatever may be decreed by the Council will be accepted as a matter of course; but concerning canons of discipline the like cannot be said. The Orientals are so tenacious of their ancient discipline that even small things cannot be changed without tumult and scandals and danger to souls…As the practical solution…the Oriental bishops consider any disciplinary canons of the Council, and compose a corpus of canon law for the Eastern Churches, combining these canons with the old canons and constitutions of those Churches, this new code to be submitted for approval to the Council.”

As we know, the Code of Canons was never properly formulated by V1. The Church did this progressively, and we have the fruits of this labor in the 1917 and 1983 Latin Codes, and the 1990 Eastern Code.

It should also be noted that since 1955, the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Pontifical Commission for the Eastern Code have all been Oriental Catholic bishops (Maronite, Syro-Malabar, and Armenian; one of the Vice-Presidents was a bi-ritual Latin bishop).

There is much more to say on our Eastern Code, to demonstrate its truly collegial formulation, but it would probably be outside the bounds of the OP.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

As a Latin Catholic, I wish to also lend my full support to brother Marduk and the other proponents of the high pretrine view. Sadly, there are many within and without the Latin Church who mistakenly view Catholic bishops as mere deputies or assistants of the Holy Father; the Church’s official teaching and constant tradition, however, clearly demonstrates this notion to be false. In Latin theology, every bishop, whether Western or Eastern, is a vicar of Christ in his own right; many non-Catholics take issue with the title vicar of Christ when applied to the Pope of Rome, but fail to realize that this title, more broadly, is also proper to his brother bishops. Certain posters on this thread fail to understand, as Marduk has so clearly articulated, a proper understanding of primacy and levels of jurisdiction. From a Catholic perspective, there is absolutely no contradiction between the idea that the local bishop is a vicar of Christ in his own right, with inalienable divine prerogatives, and that he also, when appropriate, owes obedience to the Bishop of Rome. This obedience, within the limits of the canons, to the Pope no more undermines his own Christ given authority than does the submission of an EO bishop to the greater authority of an ecumenical council…

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

The problem is, the formal documents of the church, the magisterial teaching of the church from the decrees of the council of 1870 support the Supreme Power (their words, mind you) of the bishop of Rome. Being dogmatic pronouncement from a dogmatic Council, they carry more weight in and of themselves than any other opinions or documents. They are actually considered dogmatic teaching.

The real problem is that you only take myopic little snippets of the Decrees and our Canons, and build a horrendous caricature of a straw man out of it. That’s like a strict Monotheist (like Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) criticizing Christians by quoting our Creed. He will claim, “Your Creed states the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Therefore you are not monotheists, but polytheists.” You appeal to the context of the FULL teaching of the Church, not to mention the concept of consubstantiality within the Creed itself. But he will not listen to you; he feels justified in his caricature because he has managed to quote a little snippet of a dogmatic statement from the Church.

That is exactly what you are doing, brother Michael.

Since Catholics themselves cannot agree on what this dogma of Universal Jurisdiction means it is left for the Supreme Pontiff himself to interpret it, not you or I.

None of the Roman Pontiffs since V1 have ever interpreted the V1 Decrees according to the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates. Why should our current Pope do otherwise?

It seems that he has done just that, with the CCEO canons 43, 44 et al. quoted above. We are reminded that there is no recourse to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, he has the final word.

All you have done is demonstrated that you have acted like the strict Monotheist misinterpreting the Creed to suit his own polemic against orthodox Christianity.

Let me stress one thing…

Somewhat ironically it is that kind of Papacy which I would convert to if I were going to convert, and if I did convert then I too would defend it because I believe it to be the true expression of the teaching of that church.

Can you explain this? All your comments demonstrate a Low Petrine understanding of ecclesiology. For example, you could not even conceive of the propriety of the phrase “primacy of ordinary jurisdiction,” which applies to all head bishops. Have I been wrong in assigning to you a belief in the Low Petrine view? By your current statement here, are you admitting the error of the Low Petrine view, and the correctness of the High Petrine view? If so, I gladly stand corrected.

Blessings,
Marduk