How Much is Rome Worth To You?

[jimmy]

Why the Oriental Orthodox Church? They are heretics for only accepting the first three Ecumenical Councils.

Yet, amazingly that fourth council condemned them for a heresy which they didn’t even hold. No, they are not heretics and Rome recognizes this. Recently there was a signed agreement between Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria on the Christology of Christ. It affirms that the statement of the Oriental Orthdox, that there is ‘one incarnate nature of the divine logos’ is not heretical. They were not Eutychians.

Further, as a Maronite, my tradition is not that much different from theirs to start with. The Maronite tradition is a west Syriac tradition like that of the Syriac Orthodox who are Oriental Orthodox. We share many of the same saints and the same translation of the scriptures(the peshita). We have a similar approach to life.

 

[Alethiaphile]

No one ever said that the Catholic Church couldn’t error in pastoral decisions. We are talking about doctrine here though. The Church cannot teach error because as Christ said, “[The Holy Spirit] will guide you into all truth” and as paul says, the Church is, “The pillar and foundation of truth.”

The western church is not The Church. Joe

 

[holdencaulfield]

The western church is not The Church. Joe

What is your religion? Your profile says orthodox-catholic what is that do you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church? Besides your shouldn’t just drop in like that. If you have something to contribute, do so.

 

[Sanctus]

The western church is not The Church. Joe

The Latin Rite is, though, the ‘Mother and teacher of all the rites’

 

[jimmy]

The Latin Rite is, though, the ‘Mother and teacher of all the rites’

That is complete nonsense and it contradicts the Vatican II council. Read Orientale Ecclesiarum. All Churches are equal. The western Church is nothing but one of the many Churches.

 

[Sanctus]

That is complete nonsense and it contradicts the Vatican II council. Read Orientale Ecclesiarum. All Churches are equal. The western Church is nothing but one of the many Churches.

Ahhh…but even a cursory read of other councils and papal documents shows the contrary…

Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches…

–‘Quo Primum’ Pope St. Pius V

CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches…

–Canon’s and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Decrees on Baptism

Neither assuredly does the Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all other churches, observe aught in administering this unction,–as regards those things which constitute the substance of this sacrament,–but what blessed James has prescribed

–Canon’s and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Extreme Unction

Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained

–Canon’s and Decrees of the Council of Trent: On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.

I could go on and on and on…but that wouldn’t serve any purpose…the issue I think you are taking is that of dignity, consequently, this is the issue that Orientalium Ecclesiarum addresses.

Now…Orientalium Ecclesiarum assures that all rites are of the same dignity. Literally:

These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity…

–Orientalium Ecclesiarum

This does not contradict the Motherly nature of the Roman Church as it relates to the other churches.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t care what Quo Primum or Trent say on the issue. Pius V and the other popes previous to the 20th century had a latin superiority complex that is about as bad as any Jew telling Paul that the Gentiles must follow the Jewish law.

To call the Roman Church the mother of all churches is antihistorical. The mother of all churches is Jerusalem. Read Acts. Jerusalem was the first church so it is the mother of all churches.

 

[Sanctus]

I don’t care what Quo Primum or Trent say on the issue. Pius V and the other popes previous to the 20th century had a latin superiority complex that is about as bad as any Jew telling Paul that the Gentiles must follow the Jewish law.

This makes about as much sense as a Roman saying I don’t care what Vatican II says on the issue because the papacy had lost much of its power from collegiality.

In all honesty, as Catholics, instead of dismissing statements from holy Popes as having a superiority complex; and saying that we don’t care what ecumenical councils have to say (remember these are binding on the consciences of all Catholics not just Western or Eastern). We should see the motherly nature of the Roman Church as stemming from the Petrine ministry. Christ, in his divine wisdom, chose Peter…who went from Antioch to Rome-the ‘Center of the World’, to convert the world. The Roman Church thus sprung from this ministry with due reverence to other sees. This is why our Holy Father, as the Vicar of Christ discharges his office with due prudence and a deep understanding and study of local cultures. This is not a competition between the rites but the Church, as a family has a Mother. That is the Roman Church. Just as we would not say a mother has more human dignity than her child we do not say the Roman Church surpasses the Eastern Churches in dignity. The Motherly relationship, however remains intact

 

[jimmy]

You seem to not understand that the Eastern Churches don’t see things like you do. We do not see the Pope as the sole authority. We see all Churches as equal and having an equal voice. We do not speak of Rome as the voice of the whole Church. Rome was simply wrong with its superiority complex. It is that simple. They now recognize that all Churches are equal and they have said so. Vatican II is just as authoritative as Trent and more so than Pius V. It specifically says all Churches are equal.

We should see the motherly nature of the Roman Church as stemming from the Petrine ministry.

Antioch and Alexandria have a petrine minsitry as well.

The Roman Church thus sprung from this ministry with due reverence to other sees. This is why our Holy Father, as the Vicar of Christ discharges his office with due prudence and a deep understanding and study of local cultures. This is not a competition between the rites but the Church, as a family has a Mother. That is the Roman Church.

The Eastern Churches disagree with your whole premise. All bishops share in the authority of Peter. Antioch and Alexandria both have the same succession from Peter that Rome has.

Pius V and the other popes before the 20th century did not have a perception of the eastern churches where they could say the eastern churches had equal dignity. It was under the pope of Romes authority that the Maronite liturgical books were burned in the 16th century. They did not see us as having equal dignity. They saw us as subjects who must conform to their traditions.

 

[yeshua]

This is why our Holy Father, as the Vicar of Christ discharges his office with due prudence and **a deep understanding and study of local cultures. **

Developmental discipline.

The papacy has had to learn how to operate, as history has recorded the many mistakes and blatantly awful decisions of Popes in their actions with the churches that used to exist independent of Rome in the West, and of course the interactions with various Eastern and Oriental churches.

As a historian, I do not see this as a viable argument for the motherliness of Rome.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Peter_J]

The Latin Rite is, though, the ‘Mother and teacher of all the rites’

Seems like an important enough issue to have its own thread. (I also included a poll.)

Blessings,
Peter.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Seems like an important enough issue to have its own thread. (I also included a poll.)

Blessings,
Peter.

Shouldn’t this poll be restricted to actual Eastern Catholics?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

 

[Peter_J]

Good idea.

poll version 2

 

[Sanctus]

You seem to not understand that the Eastern Churches don’t see things like you do. We do not see the Pope as the sole authority. We see all Churches as equal and having an equal voice. We do not speak of Rome as the voice of the whole Church. Rome was simply wrong with its superiority complex. It is that simple. They now recognize that all Churches are equal and they have said so. Vatican II is just as authoritative as Trent and more so than Pius V. It specifically says all Churches are equal.

Please do not assume I do not have a history with the Eastern Churches. I do. Since you admit that Vatican II and Trent are of the same authority then you must admit the statements of the Mother nature of the Roman Church. To do so would be denying the Holy Spirt and the authority of an Ecumenical Council, which, you are free to do…but you will cease to be Catholic. Now to throw around a superiority complex of Rome is to paint with a broad broad brush and is simply not a historical absolutism. Read Fr. Jean Charbonnier…he relates several historical instances of the Divine Liturgy being offered for the Pope by Syriac Christians in the 9th-11th centuries. As for all churches being equal…they are…in dignity. But they do not all fulfill the same role–in primacy.

From the Melkites (my church 1/2 of the time):

That direct successor, the Patriarch of the West, is the “first among equals”. “Equals” are the other Patriarchs, one of which is The Patriarch of Antioch . (The Patriarch of Antioch is also a direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter, but he is not "in the primacy".)

Antioch and Alexandria have a petrine minsitry as well.

Yes they do…in the apostolic sense as the relationship of the bishops to peter…but they do not share in the petrine primacy…

Again, from the Melkites:

“Pope” is the title given to the Patriarch of the West (the Holy See of Rome) as the direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter “in the primacy”.
Currently, the Patriarch of the West has three separate positions with defined authorities and responsibilies: Pope (the world), Patriarch of the West (the Western Church), and Bishop of Rome (the Holy See of Rome). At one time, the Pope wore a triple crown to represent each of the three positions.

The Eastern Churches disagree with your whole premise. All bishops share in the authority of Peter. Antioch and Alexandria both have the same succession from Peter that Rome has.

Not in primacy…they are equal in episcopal dignity…but not in the roles they fill in the church. The Antiochian and Alexandrian patriarchs do not have the same succession in primacy as the Bishop of Rome.

Pius V and the other popes before the 20th century did not have a perception of the eastern churches where they could say the eastern churches had equal dignity. It was under the pope of Romes authority that the Maronite liturgical books were burned in the 16th century. They did not see us as having equal dignity. They saw us as subjects who must conform to their traditions.

Quite frankly, this is ridiculous. I will address this later, but now I must go work on my dissertation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think a more important question would be how much are we worth to Rome.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Seems like an important enough issue to have its own thread. (I also included a poll.)

Blessings,
Peter.

Good idea.

poll version 2

Shouldn’t this poll be restricted to actual Eastern Catholics?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

Moderator Note:
This question was divided between two threads. In order to keep the conversation in one place, the two poll threads were merged into one thread for Eastern Catholics and non-Eastern Catholics. Please continue that conversation here.

 

[Alethiaphile]

What is your religion? Your profile says orthodox-catholic what is that do you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church? Besides your shouldn’t just drop in like that. If you have something to contribute, do so.

I am presently officially Catholic but am on my way towards Orthodoxy. I consider that when I become Orthodox, I will be no less “Catholic”, so I stick by my label.
I did contribute; I responded to a post, and that seems to have spawned a discussion in and of itself. Sorry you don’t seem to care for my contribution. Joe

 

[jimmy]

Sanctus, do you really wish to quote the Melkites? That is just an internet site, do you wish to know what the Melkite bishops think think? You wouldn’t be too happy with it considering your arguement. Read about the Zoghby Innitiative. Read what the Melkite Patriarchs have said in recent decades about the relationship between the Patriarch and the Pope.

 

[guanophore]

The Latin Rite is, though, the ‘Mother and teacher of all the rites’

No. In fact, the Latin Rite was one of the last Rites to develop. The Church began in Jerusalem, and spread East first, to Antioch, and Alexandria. Since Rome was the source and center of persecution against Christians, the Churches furthest away from the Empire had more freedom to worship and develop.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Sanctus,

I think the problem here is that you perceive “primacy” as a merely SINGULAR authority. “Primacy” is a COLLEGIAL authority. So says Apostolic Canon 34. Further, if you check your Latin Canons under “Supreme Authority,” you will find the entity of the Ecumenical Council (naturally with the Pope as its head, never acting without him or above him).

I’m NOT saying that the Pope needs the approval of his brother bishops for him to possess or exercise his unique Petrine prerogatives as confirmer of the brethren and of the universal laws of the Church. But I AM saying that the Pope is DIVINELY AND CANONICALLY obligated to involve his brother bishops in everything he does that will affect the ENTIRE Church.

The fact is, the charism of infallibility is:

1. NOT inspiration, so the Pope must necessarily use the rather mundane means of episcopal support in the process of formulating infallible declarations;
2. Possessed by ALL bishops in certain circumstances. In such circumstances when the Pope’s brother bishops are invested with the self-same infallibility as the Pope, his brother bishops (ALONG WITH the Pope) possess the primacy, or, rather, the supreme authority.

Well, that’s my two cents. I won’t be back for at least another two weeks.

Blessings,
Marduk