I am considering the Orthodox Church

[josie_L]

It’s quite amusing that you go from what Gurney was talking about to phyletism.

Here is why I replied as I did to Gurney/Scott:

I remember reading the Hahn book, Rome Sweet Home, just like you said, and Hahn mentions the Orthodox for about ten seconds and how they’re too ethnic, etc. I remember rolling my eyes thinking how our local parish is completely DOMINATED by the Portuguese and Mexicans and the Irish, Italians, Filipinos, and other Anglos just are along for the ride…lol…too ethnic in the world of Orthodoxy but in Catholicism things aren’t? As Stephen A. Smith says on ESPN…puhhhhh leeze!

The reason I mentioned phyletism was to make Gurney/Scott understand that the ethnic comparisons he was making between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in no way equivalent, i.e., the Catholic Church is not plagued by ethno-phyletism (as defined in the article I quoted). In other words, “too ethnic” is not a characteristic I would apply to Catholicism.

That’s the entire point here: You began by responding to Gurney’s post by claiming that the homogeneity in Gurney’s Catholic parish is a result of the surrounding demography, to Orthodoxy organizing churches along national lines, to phyletism.

Actually, Gurney’s Catholic parish is not really homogeneous in that he mentions there are Portuguese, Mexicans, Irish, Italians . . . .etc.

What exactly does phyletism have to do with what is being seen in a parish, since you are implying that this is a reason for the “ethnic parishes” in Orthodoxy, versus the ethnic parishes of Catholicism simply being a product of the surrounding community.

That’s not what I was implying, in fact, I was trying to convey the fact that the issues of ethnicity in Orthodoxy transcends the local parish and affects the whole of Orthodoxy. My bringing up Catholicism was to make a distinction between the “micro” and “macro” levels regarding this issue.

And as mentioned before, phyletism is condemned by Orthodoxy as a heresy.

The problem with this statement is that it doesn’t take into consideration why phyletism took root in Orthodoxy, i.e., what is the cause? My answer to this question would be that in Orthodoxy there is this view of the Church as horizontal rather than vertical (structurally/ authoritively), that is, there is no universal primate to cohesively pull them together to avoid such pit falls. Please read the following:

There remains the fact, however, that in the words of a recent OCA theologian Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck (cf. his recent volume “His Broken Body”):

“Eastern Orthodoxy is plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal fluctuations - all factors which have crippled its apostolic energies.”

There is no indication, moreover, that the on-going fragmentation of the Eastern Orthodox communion into conflicting “autocephalous” (independent) Churches based on strong ethno-centric and nationalistic tendencies (stigmatized as “heretical” by Metropolitan Philip) can be reversed at all in the absence of a universal Primate whose authority is not from any Council or majority vote of his fellow Bishops but is derived from Christ Himself.

For his part, Fr. Cleenewerck goes far in his admission of the need to have a universal Primate in the Church since:

“the universal vocation of the Church is connected to a universal primacy that should neither be absolute nor empty… History shows that the Churches need some kind of international center or mechanism of unity and arbitration.”

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

Also, I would appreciate a response on the situation of overlapping jurisdictions in USA Catholicism (and presumably elsewhere), and whether this is an okay situation.

The overlapping jurisdictions in the U.S. is not a result of ethno-phyletism but rather of Eastern Churches who were once separated from but are “now” in FULL communion with Mother Church yet have retained their traditions and autonomy (these are not autocephalous churches). The situation of overlapping jurisdiction is therefore not grave because all are subject to the universal jurisdiction of the Pope (there are no rival patriarchs to contend with as is the case in Orthodoxy), i.e., it can be resolved.

 

[josie_L]

One guy with too much power.

Cordially,
Mick

This is an incorrect understanding of the papacy, may I please invite you to read this post from Marduk which will clarify the office of St. Peter:

Your interpretation of “universal jurisdiction” as putting “all the power of the Church in the hands of [one] man,” is seriously off base (forgive my forthrightness). That is not how the Catholic Church operates (though you may find some Latins proposing such an impossible scenario). First of all, if a certain region has a lawful bishop, V1 forbids the Pope from acting as if that bishop did not exist. In fact, V1 constrains the Pope to uphold and defend the prerogatives of that bishop. Secondly, it is Catholic dogma that not only is the papacy of divine institution, but also the episcopate. Having Faith in God that He will preserve His Church, there will never be a time when the only bishop left on earth is the Pope. Thirdly, and finally, you will notice that under the heading “Supreme Authority of the Church” in our Canons, the preliminary canon asserts “Just as, by the decree of the Lord, Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles for one College, so for a like reason the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, are united together in one.” The collegial character of Catholic ecclesiology is blatant and obvious. I do not know where you get the idea that “universal jurisdiction” is something akin to one-man rule.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431348&page=19

continuation . . .

I think you meant “no recourse from his decisions.” This is an example of the eisegetic mishandling non-Catholics often perpetrate against Catholic teaching (ie., taking little snippets out of context). This statement from the canons is based on the following Vatican 1 decree:

And because, by the divine right of apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the whole Church ,We also teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful; and that one can have recourse to his judgment in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision. Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff (as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) are from the straight path of truth.

A few things obtain from the true context of the statement you criticize:

(1) The “decision” of the Roman Pontiff is given as a response to an appeal to him as Supreme Judge of the Faithful. This is nothing more nor less than the canonical prescription of the Council of Sardica, affirmed by 2 Ecumenical Councils. I believe it also involves decisions regarding marriage issues by the Roman Rota. Non-Catholics who think this statement “no recourse from his decision,” is a prescription for the Pope to micromanage the Church and make any decisions he pleases, contrary to Tradition or local customs, and contrary to the prerogatives of local bishops, are simply wrong.

(2) Appeals to the Pope are governed by the canons, procedures which ensure that the prerogative of the local bishop, who is often the judge of first instance, is not demeaned.

(3) The statement “nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision” should not be understood to mean that the Pope is above reproach. A “judgment” is a formal juridical act. The statement is merely repeating what it states elsewhere – that a formal decision by the Pope on a matter that has been appealed to him is not subject to review. However, the Pope can certainly be admonished by his brother bishops (which has occurred many times in the history of the Church).

(4) In theory, an appeal to an ecumenical council is possible. What is forbidden is to assume that an ecumenical council without the Pope (“as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) can pass judgment on a papal judgment.

(5) Besides all this, Canon law forbids the Pope from issuing decrees that violate the rights of individuals.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431348&page=19

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

TheosisM;6479256:

The overlapping jurisdictions in the U.S. is not a result of ethno-phyletism but rather of Eastern Churches who were once separated from but are “now” in FULL communion with Mother Church yet have retained their traditions and autonomy (by autonomy I do not mean they are not subject to the pope). The situation of overlapping jurisdiction is therefore not grave because all are subject to the universal jurisdiction of the Pope (there are no rival patriarchs to contend with as is the case in Orthodoxy), i.e., it can be resolved.

It is awesome, ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, hits the nail on the head and has gone a long way to open up the integration of our missing lung. The more I read of Pope Paul VI’s writings the more I am really impressed… :clapping:

I would hope though that other RCC parishioners understand that we are charge with understanding our Eastern Brethren as well as bring our Orthodox brothers home. :hug3:

So far I really only see a couple of issues were our Orthodox brothers need help and that is in.

1. Nationalism
2. Contraception
3. Divorce
4. First among equals
5. Nicene Creed “and the son”

In my heart I know we MUST come together for the health of our entire catholic Church. This is not a wish, but a fact. Catholics, all rites are contraception and aborting in numbers that will soon see us as a minority religion. The scary part of this is that, although Catholics have been brutal in the past, we have been pacifists for hundreds of years. Other religions, and or paganism and atheism, that are on the rise are not so tolerant. :knight2:

When faced with annihilation I do not believe that Catholics will conform to Sharia law without bloodshed. :stretcher:

We need our Orthodox lung back. Moving should not so much be the concern so long as the “catholic” Church grows. Maybe in the reintegration the entire church will grow in better understanding of the different rites and be prepared for the coming age.

 

[John_Larocque]

From the James Likoudis link this stood out:

Constantinople’s claim to possess authority over Churches in the “diaspora” of Western Europe and North and South America has been based on its interpretation of the famous 28th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, a claim declared “completely fantastic” by another Orthodox Bishop, the canonist Peter d’Huillier in his book “The Church of the Ancient Councils”.

Interestingly enough, “Eastern Papalism” in the form of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s jurisdictional claims over North America (re: canon 28) is actually presented as an obstacle to Orthodox unity in North America. Canon 28 is being used to prop up, in effect, the universal jurisdictional authority of New Rome. These claims therefore can be seen as a threat to the unity of the church. For further reading, one can visit this article at the American Orthodox Institute:

aoiusa.org/2009/09/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

Metropolitan +Philip, the OCA and many others have resisted these claims, but they are no doubt a factor and a challenge.

 

[dzheremi]

While I make it an effort not to delve into internal affairs from those not in communion with the Pope, here is a sample from what I mentioned in passing to which you object to being untrue;

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
His Grace makes clear that while we accept the priests and lay people of these parishes as fully Orthodox** we are to avoid any activity which would tend to imply agreement with the formation of such parishes. The reason for this disagreement is twofold: it is both liturgically unsound and pastorally unwise. “Liturgically unsound because these rites are not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church in the West, but are primarily the result of 16th century Reformation or Counter Reformation debates; pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.” **

The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese **may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments. **

"2. Clergy of this Diocese **may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies. **

“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”
schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

**And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as “Eastern” and therefore “foreign to all the Western Christians have known” to quote the Edict?.., it is “eastern” in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed “Eastern”.

(and here comes the language bit that confuses the heck out of me?)

But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this “East” precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted?** to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .
These considerations, however fragmentary and incomplete,** lead to the following conclusion: I think that in the present situation of the Orthodox Church in America, the Western Rite, “facilitating conversion”, dangerously multiply spiritual adventures of which we had too many in the past, and which can but hinder the real progress of Orthodoxy in the West.**

These “LITURGICAL” conflicts are not my cup of tea, but it does keep me away from ever touching it. I don’t think Orthdoxy and Roman Catholicism schisms cut this deep as do Orthodoxy members between the East and Orthodox West?

Some of what you have quoted does no make sense, grammatically speaking. I don’t know if you edited it haphazardly or what, but I’ve read over the sentence following the bolded word “distorted?” above several times now, and…well, it’s not a sentence. I can’t make sense of what it is trying to say. As to the bit about a common language, I believe that must be meant metaphorically and not about a literal spoken language. The OCA parishes in my area are completely Orthodox and at long last in union with Moscow, and yet they use mainly English. In fact, the Western Church switched her liturgical language from Greek to Latin sometime in the fourth century or thereabouts (I think it was under one of the African popes, but I can’t remember which), yet we continued to be united with the Byzantine East for several more centuries after that, so this cannot be a legitimate criticism of the Orthodox. What the writing above seems to be referencing when it talks about Western-Rite Orthodoxy being suspect is that it is not a legitimate continuation of the Western spiritual tradition. To this end, I agree, since as far as I know the rite that is used in such parishes is some sort of modification of the Anglican form, and hence it can trace itself back to no later than the Reformation, not to earlier, organically evolved forms of the liturgy in the West (e.g., the Liturgy of St. John the Divine in England).

I am still not seeing anything in this that points to any lack of unity in faith.

 

[John_Larocque]

antiochian.org/western-rite

There’s some good essays here. Here’s a quote on the “Tridentine” liturgy.

The Tridentine Reform

From Lux Occidentalis, by Fr. John Connely
Used by permission.

One of the myths presently circulating about the Rite of St. Gregory the Great is that it is “Tridentine”—i.e., it is no older than the Council of Trent [1545-1563]. This criticism is made by those who know nothing about either this Rite or the Council of Trent or the Missal of Pius V [1570]. In fact, all that was done at Trent, liturgically speaking, was to standardize the worship of the West. This was done principally in two ways:

First, the Council (together with Pope Pius V) suppressed all Western Rites that did not have a continuous history of at least two hundred years. This effectively eliminated all but the Ambrosian Rite of Milan, the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, Spain, and the Gregorian Rite of the City of Rome itself, sometimes therefore called the Roman Rite. * Simple variations within the Roman Rite, such as existed among the Benedictines, Dominicans, etc., were permitted to remain, but have lapsed since the liturgical reforms of the 1960s.] In the 16th century the Gregorian or Roman Rite already had a continuous documented history of more than 1000 years. It therefore became the standard Rite of most of post-Schism Western Christendom. Session XXII [17 Sept. 1562] of the Council issued a series of definitions on the sacrificial doctrine of the Mass, but no change in the actual text of the Rite.

Secondly, the Council of Trent standardized the rubrics of the Gregorian Rite. This meant that when and how the celebrant and other ministers bowed, genuflected, turned to the faithful, etc., was no longer left to the whim or personal style of the individual clergyman. For the sake of propriety, detailed instructions about how to actually celebrate the liturgy were drawn up and imposed upon the whole of the Western Church. Most of these rubrics were not new inventions, however. They were mostly adopted from the customary rubrics of the cathedrals and parish churches of the City of Rome and its surrounding countryside towns and villages. This was logical because Rome was the de jure center of Western Christendom. Thus, by the 16th century even the rubrics already had a long and venerable history and were hardly an innovation of the Counter Reformation.

In the words of Fortescue:

"Essentially the Missal of St. Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the fourth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours."

The point is: the Rite of St. Gregory was not “created” by the Council of Trent. Furthermore, as used in Orthodox Christianity today, this Rite contains a few corrections and amplifications unknown to the earlier generations of Roman Catholics; these were imposed in modern times by the wisdom of the Orthodox Church in order to bring the Rite fully into harmony with the intent and current practice of Byzantine liturgical theology. With the exception of new Propers introduced to commemorate various saints of the post-schism Eastern calendar, the Rite remains essentially identical to that which was already ancient by the time of Trent.

Micahel Davies’ history of the Roman Rite also makes it abundantly clear that the Roman Missal is not some post-Reformation construction but consonant with the early versions of the Roman rite in use in Rome. The link is here:

latin-mass-society.org/msshst.htm

I can’t speak for the Rite of St. Tikhon, which has been described as an essentially modified version of the first BCP, with some Byzantinizations and borrowings from the Roman missal. I don’t know how faithful the first BCP is to the old Latin Sarum Rite.

 

[dzheremi]

I have heard the Rite of St. Gregory mentioned among those which are liturgically accurate, so far as ancient Western church worship is concerned. Is this what the Anglican use is based on? Much of the writing against the current form of the Western Orthodox seems to paint it as being of more recent vintage, and hence as though it essentially takes the content of the Anglican BCP, adds some “Orthodox” material, and presto…“Western Rite” Orthodoxy. If this is true, then I am also against it. The first BCP dates from no later than 1549. It is a product of the Reformation.

 

[John_Larocque]

The BCP is based on the old Sarum Rite, which is a variant of the Roman Rite and thus on a different historical trajectory than the 1962 Missal or it’s “Western-Rite” Orthodox variant found in the Antiochian church. Outside the Anglican communion, the Dominicans and the Carmelites had their own missal which bears a strong resemblance to the pre-Cranmer Sarum rubrics.

The first edition of the BCP actually predates Cranmer and was authorized by Edward XVI. Cranmer’s second edition was of a Reform bent. Of all the editions, the 1549 comes closest in English to what was in use in the Latin.

For a historical lesson on what Cranmer did to the Sarum Rite - and what Bugnini and the post-Vatican II “reformers” did to the Roman Rite, here is yet another essay courtesy of Michael Davies.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

According to traditionalist Catholic groups, the post-1970 reforms are a “protestant” reconstruction of the Roman Rite.

 

[dzheremi]

The BCP is based on the old Sarum Rite, which is a variant of the Roman Rite and thus on a different historical trajectory than the 1962 Missal or it’s “Western-Rite” Orthodox variant found in the Antiochian church. Outside the Anglican communion, the Dominicans and the Carmelites had their own missal which bears a strong resemblance to the pre-Cranmer Sarum rubrics.

The first edition of the BCP actually predates Cranmer and was authorized by Edward XVI. Cranmer’s second edition was of a Reform bent. Of all the editions, the 1549 comes closest in English to what was in use in the Latin.

So does this mean that the criticism of Schememann et. al. concerning the Western Rite Orthodox is essentially unfounded? Sorry, I’m not entirely sure what the lesson is in all this. For whatever its roots may have been, it seems clear that the BCP is not the “Sarum” rite (e.g., not liturgically sound, so far as pre-Schism rites are concerned), which is presumably why it is rejected by the Orthodox as an unsuitable template from which to fashion a “Western Orthodox” rite. At least that is how I have understood the Orthodox criticism of it.

For a historical lesson on what Cranmer did to the Sarum Rite - and what Bugnini and the post-Vatican II “reformers” did to the Roman Rite, here is yet another essay courtesy of Michael Davies.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

According to traditionalist Catholic groups, the post-1970 reforms are a “protestant” reconstruction of the Roman Rite.

Thanks for this link. Very informative. It is troubling indeed.

 

[JaredR]

If you do join the Orthodox community, I hope you are not disappointed when you learn that it too consists of human beings.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am still not seeing anything in this that points to any lack of unity in faith.

Hi dzheremi I may have missed your point somewhere but I was not discussing the “Faith” in particular, all Catholics Rites Both in Latin West and Eastern Orthodoxy possess the same Apostolic faith, with a minority of Orthodox Church’s not in communion with the Pope. I thought this was the end of story. Today we have, what is in question? are the new liturgies being introduced in the West by Orthodox Christians who are not able to commune with one another for reasons specified in the websites.Here is my quote in which you bolded as untrue; " many internal lack of communions among each other including lack of authority especially rejecting “Divine (infallible) authority”. I was not discussing the Catholic faith, but refusing to commune or placing restrictions to a communion is what blows me away from these disagreements.

I have to yield to offer any more unforgiving information, opinions or recommended sites to internal unresolved Orthodox divisions between East and West Orthodox topics, that incites divisions of languages and cultures in liturgies that I am not familiar with. I barely have enough time to share my Holy Apostolic Catholic faith here, than to research back into old files regarding Orthodoxy.

Have a wonderful resurrection day, and God bless you Peace be with you. I must go now and prepare my lamp and wait for the coming of the Lord.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6478523:

One guy with too much power.

Cordially,
Mick

This is an incorrect understanding of the papacy

No, it isn’t.

may I please invite you to read this post from Marduk which will clarify the office of St. Peter:

Thank you. I’ve been reading Marduk’s posts ever since I came to CAF in November 2008 and I’d like to take this opportunity to declare that I think he is probably one of the most knowledgeable Catholics on the forum. But he was formerly Orthodox and now he’s a Catholic so he’d hardly have the same view of the papacy as I have, would he?

And now I have to get ready for this evening. God bless you, josie L, and all the other posters on this thread.

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

In Christ,
Mick

 

[jam070406]

But he was formerly Orthodox and now he’s a Catholic so he’d hardly have the same view of the papacy as I have, would he?

Mardukm is a wonderful witness to the Faith. He is clearly a man that sought Truth and did it with an open heart and mind while shunning polemics and false caricatures of the Papacy.

 

[Hesychios]

Mardukm is a wonderful witness to the Faith. He is clearly a man that sought Truth and did it with an open heart and mind while shunning polemics and false caricatures of the Papacy.

Actually, most Catholics will not agree with his caricatures of the Papacy (a very small circle here do think like him, mostly eastern Catholics and mostly because of his posts). I have been reading him for years here, and I think Vatican Council I declared his personal views on Papal powers anathema. However, this thread should not focus on the personal interpretations of individual members, and is not about Marduk or me or you, but what we know to be claimed as published by the church itself in it’s canons and decrees.

If Catholics cannot agree on the Papacy, what are we to who are outside to think? I always go back to the official pronouncements of your church when I want to know what your church teaches because I cannot trust the various interpretations of individual Catholics.

 

[jam070406]

Actually, most Catholics will not agree with his caricatures of the Papacy (a very small circle here do think like him, mostly eastern Catholics and mostly because of his posts). I have been reading him for years here, and I think Vatican Council I declared his personal views on Papal powers anathema. However, this thread should not focus on the personal interpretations of individual members, and is not about Marduk or me or you, but what we know to be claimed as published by the church itself in it’s canons and decrees.

If Catholics cannot agree on the Papacy, what are we to who are outside to think? I always go back to the official pronouncements of your church when I want to know what your church teaches because I cannot trust the various interpretations of individual Catholics.

I think the point is… no Catholic views the Pope as a dictator, like those who like to toss out the word supremacy to imply such and give that false impression.

 

[John_Larocque]

are the new liturgies being introduced in the West by Orthodox Christians who are not able to commune with one another for reasons specified in the websites.

I believe, as far as OCA and the Antiochians are concerned, the answer is an unqualified “no”. My understanding is that any member in good standing in one parish (Western-rite or Byzantine) is a member in good standing in another. Is that not what being in communion means?

I do recall that - was it Metropolitan Sheptytsky - one of the future prelates of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was forbidden (except by special dispensation) to administer to communion to his parents because they were not Greek Catholic, but Latins, even though both were in “communion with Rome.”

 

[Hesychios]

I think the point is… no Catholic views the Pope as a dictator, like those who like to toss out the word supremacy to imply such and give that false impression.

That’s fair. Perhaps you are correct that no Catholic views the Pope as a dictator, or perhaps most Catholics do not view him as a dictator. (Orthodox need not concern themselves with that because we simply do not recognize his potential to be a dictator, whether he is perceived by his followers to be or not is thus irrelevant.)

But all church authority in the RCC emanates from his post as bishop of Rome, and is delegated to the respective prelates (this according to Catholic theory). Even patriarchates have their own authority delegated to them (in theory), although the Melkites (alone) seem to bristle at the concept every time they run up against it. The bishop of Rome does have (in a theory claimed as irrefutable dogma by the Catholic church) the potential to recall to his own chair the exercise of any power whatsoever in the church, anywhere at any time.

He cannot be recalled or deposed against his will for any reason whatsoever, and his judgment in any and all church matters is final if he declares it so.

Is anything I have stated so far incorrect?

If one is responsible for everything that happens, and is the source of all authority parceled out to all others in the organization, that one person carries the blame for everything that goes wrong too. In the words of 'give ‘em hell’ Harry S. Truman “the buck stops here”.

This is why the bishop of Rome (not merely the bishops of Armagh or Dublin) apologizes to the people of Ireland. He has to accept responsibility for what Papal appointed bishops do, or fail to do, in the course of exercising their offices.

This is also the justification for the Papal Infallibility theory. If the church itself is infallible and one person alone is responsible for everything, then that individual carries the infallibility of the church in his person, and he can even infallibly declare dogma upon his own authority in the name of the church, and he may do so even if no other bishop agrees.

This is why the Vatican Council of 1870AD tackled the issue of Papal Universal Jurisdiction first, and then Papal Infallibility. The one follows from, and is an aspect of, the other and not vice verse.

‘Supremacy’ is a word that did not arise in a vacuum. This word was introduced by your church to describe the powers of the bishop of Rome.

“… one flock under one supreme shepherd”

"… Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his … "

" … we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful … "

" … We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character … "

These are the formal declarations of the Catholic church under the Pope. When Orthodox speak of Papal Supremacy as an obstacle to Christian unity this is precisely where the term comes from.

 

[josie_L]

No, it isn’t.

So then can you please define the difference between primacy and supremacy?

Thank you. I’ve been reading Marduk’s posts ever since I came to CAF in November 2008 and I’d like to take this opportunity to declare that I think he is probably one of the most knowledgeable Catholics on the forum. But he was formerly Orthodox and now he’s a Catholic so he’d hardly have the same view of the papacy as I have, would he?

Of course, he wouldn’t but the point of his post was not to highlight his “opinion” but rather the role of the papacy within the CC as understood by Vatican I (and II) and the canons of the Church, i.e., his approach was objective.

And now I have to get ready for this evening. God bless you, josie L, and all the other posters on this thread.

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

In Christ,
Mick

God bless you too Mick and Happy Easter!

 

[josie_L]

Great post josie, be careful here, I introduced this in another thread and was accused of needing medication from Orthodox posters. I truly believe that most converts to Orthodox in the west are not aware of these border line heresies that they tread upon? among many other issues that are not discussed here.

Happy Pasqua

Sorry, I delayed my response to you but I would like to say “Buono Pasqua” and God bless you and your family Gabriel.

 

[josie_L]

That’s fair. Perhaps you are correct that no Catholic views the Pope as a dictator, or perhaps most Catholics do not view him as a dictator. (Orthodox need not concern themselves with that because we simply do not recognize his potential to be a dictator, whether he is perceived by his followers to be or not is thus irrelevant.)

But all church authority in the RCC emanates from his post as bishop of Rome, and is delegated to the respective prelates (this according to Catholic theory). Even patriarchates have their own authority delegated to them (in theory), although the Melkites (alone) seem to bristle at the concept every time they run up against it. The bishop of Rome does have (in a theory claimed as irrefutable dogma by the Catholic church) the potential to recall to his own chair the exercise of any power whatsoever in the church, anywhere at any time.

He cannot be recalled or deposed against his will for any reason whatsoever, and his judgment in any and all church matters is final if he declares it so.

Is anything I have stated so far incorrect?

Yes, it is in fact incorrect because you view the papacy as a political institution whereas we Catholics see it as a divine institution (based on Scripture and Tradtion), i.e., none of your misapprehensions of his supremacy/primacy can change that.

If one is responsible for everything that happens, and is the source of all authority parceled out to all others in the organization, that one person carries the blame for everything that goes wrong too. In the words of 'give ‘em hell’ Harry S. Truman “the buck stops here”

.

He does not parcel out authority to the bishops, i.e. the bishops have a God-given authority to tend and feed their flock, i.e., you are imposing your own understanding of what the role of the papacy is because you take snippets of our canons without viewing the whole.

This is why the bishop of Rome (not merely the bishops of Armagh or Dublin) apologizes to the people of Ireland. He has to accept responsibility for what Papal appointed bishops do, or fail to do, in the course of exercising their offices.

Yes, he has to accept responsibility but not sole responsibility, the bishops in question knew their duty to the flock they were tending, moreover, the Pope does not so much appoint bishops as he confirms decisions made.

This is also the justification for the Papal Infallibility theory. If the church itself is infallible and one person alone is responsible for everything, then that individual carries the infallibility of the church in his person, and he can even infallibly declare dogma upon his own authority in the name of the church, and he may do so even if no other bishop agrees.

The Church teaches that the magisterium (which would include the Pope) are infallibly protected, furthermore, the Pope although protected from teaching error cannot deviate from the deposit of faith, i.e., the Pope is bound by what he can or cannot say. Moreover, never in the history of the Church has a pope declared a dogma that wasn’t already discussed and debated ad naseum and/or generally accepted by the bishops. I think that the history of the CC proves that the papacy despite the immorality of some popes has thus far managed to avoid the pitfalls you mentioned, i.e., if the popes had as much power as you claim we would have lost the apostolic faith along time ago.

This is why the Vatican Council of 1870AD tackled the issue of Papal Universal Jurisdiction first, and then Papal Infallibility. The one follows from, and is an aspect of, the other and not vice verse.

Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not an innovation and if you choose to believe this then I guess I’ll have to requote the 4 (make it 5 pages) of Church fathers that implicitly or explicitly promote both.

‘Supremacy’ is a word that did not arise in a vacuum. This word was introduced by your church to describe the powers of the bishop of Rome.

“… one flock under one supreme shepherd”

"… Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his … "

" … we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful … "

" … We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character … "

I will pose to you the same question I did Mick:

I would like to know how you define primacy and supremacy because definition-wise they are similar?

Primacy: The state or condition of being prime or first, as in time, place, rank, etc., hence, excellency; supremacy.

allwords.com/word-primacy.html

These are the synonyms of “primacy” that I derived from a Thesaurus: supremacy, leadership, command, dominance, superiority, dominion, ascendancy, pre-eminence.

And can you at the same time define what primacy is in light of the quotes I posted on this thread (several pages back)?

God bless and Happy Easter!!