Invitation To All Latin Catholics

[mardukm]

Hello,

I am a Coptic Catholic, who translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 2 years ago.

Currently, there are two threads running in the Eastern Christianity Forum entitled “VATICAN I - Pope restricted?” and “Might Leave Catholic Church” where there is a discussion going on about whether or not the Pope can do anything he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants.

My position is that he cannot, and I have given reasons and some canons to prove my point. Our resident Russian Orthodox priest claims that he can, and he was likewise given canons, but no reasons to refute my position.

Now, he has claimed that since there haven’t been any Catholics around to corroborate my view in the threads (there have been two, actually), he is taking this as a sign that my viewpoint is wrong.

Can I trouble my Latin Catholic brothers and sisters, especially those with expertise or experience in Canon law, to provide your (name removed by moderator)ut in those threads? If you are interested (and I pray you are), please go to the “VATICAN I - Pope restricted?” thread here (preferable):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=148280

or the “Might Leave Catholic Church” thread, beginning with post #253 here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144647&page=11

Thank you so much. I invite all comments. If I am wrong in my viewpoint, I would appreciate any exhortations or criticism - but please give reasons for them. If you decide to give (name removed by moderator)ut, please read all posts first.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Currently, there are two threads running in the Eastern Christianity Forum entitled “VATICAN I - Pope restricted?” and “Might Leave Catholic Church” where there is a discussion going on about whether or not the Pope can do anything he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants.

As soon as we need to ask “does the Pope have the authority to do this?” then we are in crisis.

There are a few things which many leaders of organisations can do but the Pope can’t do. He cannot sack a bishop to improve his mangement structure, he cannot choose his successor, he cannot overrule the vision of the founder or change the constitution, he cannot dissolve the organisation, he cannot reverse the ruling of a predecessor. There are also plenty of things which Popes don’t do in practise and by convention.

However the Pope does have very substantial freedom to direct the Church. He is viceroy for an absolute monarch, after all.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malcolm,

As soon as we need to ask “does the Pope have the authority to do this?” then we are in crisis.

There are a few things which many leaders of organisations can do but the Pope can’t do. He cannot sack a bishop to improve his mangement structure, he cannot choose his successor, he cannot overrule the vision of the founder or change the constitution, he cannot dissolve the organisation, he cannot reverse the ruling of a predecessor. There are also plenty of things which Popes don’t do in practise and by convention.

However the Pope does have very substantial freedom to direct the Church. He is viceroy for an absolute monarch, after all.

Thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It helps, but to be more precise, the debate is whether the Pope can do whatever he wants, where he wants, and whenever he wants in ANY particular Church or eparchy. My view is that he cannot. Father Ambrose (the Russian Orthodox priest) says he can.

For example, if the Pope tells a bishop of an Eastern Church to change the language of the liturgy in his diocese/eparchy to Latin, Father Ambrose says the Pope can do this. My view is that the Pope is canonically restricted. I cited Canon 333 of the Latin Code, and its corresponding Canon 45 of the Eastern Code, where it is declared that the Pope has (only) ordinary authority in any diocese or eparchy, whereas the local bishop has full ordinary AND IMMEDIATE authority in his diocese.

If you can comment on that, I would appreciate it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Verbum]

Hi Marduk,

I came here at your invitation, and I am frankly surprised by this thread. Discussions take place at Ecumenical Councils. Strong opposite opinions are voiced. Injustices are committed. Backroom deals are made. It is all very human.

But the conclusions are inspired by the Holy Spirit and approved by the Pope.

In other words, the discussions are human but the conclusions are divine. Let us submit our hearts and minds.

Verbum

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

For example, if the Pope tells a bishop of an Eastern Church to change the language of the liturgy in his diocese/eparchy to Latin, Father Ambrose says the Pope can do this.

Just popping in to say that I NEVER said that. This example of the Pope’s power has not been raised.

My view is that the Pope is canonically restricted.

This is incorrect - we may read Canon 43 and also Canon 45 (CCEO)

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

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

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The teaching of Vatican I speaks of the universal authority of the Pope just as forcefully, if not more so,

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world… . .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.

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

 

[mardukm]

Just popping in to say that I NEVER said that. This example of the Pope’s power has not been raised.This is incorrect - we may read Canon 43 and also Canon 45 (CCEO)

You didn’t SAY it, but that is what you very well MEAN, correct?

“Yes” or “no” would suffice.

Watch this, folks. Father Ambrose is going to remain silent. And just to pretend that silence is not his best rhetorical weapon, he will probably answer.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

You didn’t SAY it, but that is what you very well MEAN, correct?

“Yes” or “no” would suffice.

Watch this, folks. Father Ambrose is going to remain silent. And just to pretend that silence is not his best rhetorical weapon, he will probably answer.

The example of the Pope instructing a bishop to use a particular language is entirely your own.

I would say that the bishop is, under obedience to the Vicar of Christ and his oath to him, required to be obedient. What would it mean for a bishop to disobey the Pope? How could he maintain a disobedience to the Pope without deposition?

Canon 333.3 (45.3 in Canons of the Eastern Churches) is clear:333.3 (45.3). There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P15.HTM

and

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P19.HTM

 

[mardukm]

The example of the Pope instructing a bishop to use a particular language is entirely your own.

See how Father Ambrose evades?

I would say that the bishop is, under obedience to the Vicar of Christ and his oath to him, required to be obedient. What would it mean for a bishop to disobey the Pope? How could he maintain a disobedience to the Pope without deposition?

See how Father Ambrose attempts to dress up his true intentions under nice language?

That is because I had already roundly refuted him three separate times for making horrendous claims like:

1. The infallible Magisterium of the Pope is his ALONE and not shared with any other successor of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church;
2. The Pope can impose a co-adjutor bishop on any diocese he so chooses with no respect for the local ordinary’s wishes.
3. An Ecumenical Council needs ONLY a Pope’s approval (i.e., the votes of any other member bishop don’t count at all).

All this in his attempt to prove that the Pope can do anything he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, with “NO RESTRICTIONS” on his power whatsoever. My fellow Catholics, THAT is the vision of the papacy Father Ambrose is claiming to defend against what he states are my own mischaracterizations.

Don’t listen to this fluffy language about mere “obedience.” Go to the link I provided in post #1, so you will see the ENTIRE context of the debate/discussion, and divine thereby this true intentions.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

See how Father Ambrose evades?

I have merely been honest and said that the example which you made up and which you implied came from me did not in fact come from me. Where’s the evasion? You are being unfair.

See how Father Ambrose attempts to dress up his true intentions under nice language?

Again, a rather icky comment and not deserving any response.

That is because I had already roundly refuted him three separate times for making horrendous claims like:

1. The infallible Magisterium of the Pope is his ALONE and not shared with any other successor of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church;

Please stop misrepresenting what has been discussed in another sub forum. We were speaking of the *Extraordinary Infallible **Papal *Magisterium and the *Ordinary Infallible **Papal **Magisterium *which is indeed exercised by the Pope personally and without the bishops. As the definition of papal infallibility puts it - non ex consensu ecclesiae. Do you want to challenge the actual definition?

1. An Ecumenical Council needs ONLY a Pope’s approval (i.e., the votes of any other member bishop don’t count at all).

The Pope has the authority to accept or reject a Council. He also has authority to exercise a line item veto. He has the authority to reject if he chooses every single item voted for by the bishops.

Go to the link I provided in post #1, so you will see the ENTIRE context of the debate/discussion, and divine thereby this true intentions.

You seem intent on disputing both Canon Law and Vatican I and reducing the authorioty of the Pope to less than full and supreme authority over the Catholic Church. You are reducing Christ’s own authority since, by Catholic lights, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and acts and governs in Christ’s name and with His potestas and authority.

 

[mardukm]

We were speaking of the *Extraordinary Infallible **Papal ***Magisterium and the *Ordinary Infallible **Papal ***Magisterium which is indeed exercised by the Pope personally and without the bishops. As the definition of papal infallibility puts it - non ex consensu ecclesiae. Do you want to challenge the actual definition?

I have explained this to you in the past, yet, typically, you did not respond, and again bring up your erroneous interpretations. The Magisterium of the Pope IS NOT HIS ALONE. IT IS THE MAGISTERIUM OF GOD SHARED BY THE ENTIRE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE OF WHICH THE POPE IS HEAD. I am not challenging non ex consensu ecclesiae. I am giving its proper context. What I am challenging is your horrendous misrepresentation that this means that the Papacy has no restrictions on the use of his prerogatives.

The Pope has the authority to accept or reject a Council. He also has authority to exercise a line item veto. He has the authority to reject if he chooses every single item voted for by the bishops.

The problem with your misrepresentation is that you do not provide any of the conditions and restrictions that should accompany such a statement. You want people to believe that the Pope can contradict Sacred Tradition if he so chooses. NO Catholic will believe your gross lie.

You seem intent on disputing both Canon Law and Vatican I and reducing the authorioty of the Pope to less than full and supreme authority over the Catholic Church. You are reducing Christ’s own authority since, by Catholic lights, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and acts and governs in Christ’s name and with His potestas and authority.

yada yada

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear brother Malcolm,

Thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It helps, but to be more precise, the debate is whether the Pope can do whatever he wants, where he wants, and whenever he wants in ANY particular Church or eparchy. My view is that he cannot.

He can’t. It might be convenient for Orthodox polemic against Catholicism if he could - but that does not make it the case that he can. The Orthodox seem to take a perverse delight in making the Pope as great an ogre as possible, so that they can be denounce him for being the greatest ogre that ever was. Unfortunately for them, the truth of the matter is a lot less hideous - his authority is very great, but it’s not unlimited.​

Father Ambrose (the Russian Orthodox priest) says he can.

For example, if the Pope tells a bishop of an Eastern Church to change the language of the liturgy in his diocese/eparchy to Latin, Father Ambrose says the Pope can do this. My view is that the Pope is canonically restricted. I cited Canon 333 of the Latin Code, and its corresponding Canon 45 of the Eastern Code, where it is declared that the Pope has (only) ordinary authority in any diocese or eparchy, whereas the local bishop has full ordinary AND IMMEDIATE authority in his diocese.

If you can comment on that, I would appreciate it.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Pope is not free to compel Catholics of non-Roman Rites to employ the Roman Liturgy. He is not Christ, but only one of His vicars.​

Neither can he abolish the episcopate - it is of Divine institution, & to abolish it would be to abolish his own status, which is that of a bishop with & for his brethren in the episcopate. He is not their lord, but the least of their servants.

The Pope’s “fullness of power” (which is full, supreme, & immediate over each & every single Catholic; this was defined as a dogma at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, & is a revealed truth for all Catholics of all Rites) is not a licence to dominate over the faith of others - he is supposed to shepherd the sheep, not fleece them. What you describe would be the sort of domination that Jesus explicitly forbade among His disciples; & what He said is rather more important than canon law, however venerable in age or authority. The CC might not be a democracy - but neither is it a Papal sovereignty; the pope is a servant, not a sovereign; the Church already has a Sovereign, Who is not going to die a second time.

Other bishops have a more restricted degree of authority - that apart, they and the Pope are sharers in & exercisers of the same God-given authority.

This Papal “fullness of power” is a support for, & does not usurp or make needless or replace that of the other bishops. It is one of the modes in which the Popes “strengthen [their] brethren”. It does not cancel out the authority of the ordinary of a Church; the ordinary is there for the sake of the function he exercises; the Pope has his fullness of authority for the benefit of the ordinary, of the particular churches (his own in particular), & of the Church Universal.

BTW - unfortunately for the Orthodox case against Rome, not everything is thought valuable only if it is taken from a legal source, rather than from one of a more theological nature. To read some Orthodox remarks, one might be forgiven for thinking that none of the Greek Fathers or Russian Synods would dream of lowering themselves by relying on canons. Do they think no RCs have heard of the canons passed by Nicea I ? Canon law is like anything else - it can be valued less or more than is healthy. That doesn’t explain Orthodox coyness on the subject; perhaps any silliness will do, provided it can be used against Rome.

Any use to you ?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael

He can’t. It might be convenient for Orthodox polemic against Catholicism if he could - but that does not make it the case that he can. The Orthodox seem to take a perverse delight in making the Pope as great an ogre as possible, so that they can be denounce him for being the greatest ogre that ever was. Unfortunately for them, the truth of the matter is a lot less hideous - his authority is very great, but it’s not unlimited. ## The Pope is not free to compel Catholics of non-Roman Rites to employ the Roman Liturgy. He is not Christ, but only one of His vicars.​

Neither can he abolish the episcopate - it is of Divine institution, & to abolish it would be to abolish his own status, which is that of a bishop with & for his brethren in the episcopate. He is not their lord, but the least of their servants.

The Pope’s “fullness of power” (which is full, supreme, & immediate over each & every single Catholic; this was defined as a dogma at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, & is a revealed truth for all Catholics of all Rites) is not a licence to dominate over the faith of others - he is supposed to shepherd the sheep, not fleece them. What you describe would be the sort of domination that Jesus explicitly forbade among His disciples; & what He said is rather more important than canon law, however venerable in age or authority. The CC might not be a democracy - but neither is it a Papal sovereignty; the pope is a servant, not a sovereign; the Church already has a Sovereign, Who is not going to die a second time.

Other bishops have a more restricted degree of authority - that apart, they and the Pope are sharers in & exercisers of the same God-given authority.

This Papal “fullness of power” is a support for, & does not usurp or make needless or replace that of the other bishops. It is one of the modes in which the Popes “strengthen [their] brethren”. It does not cancel out the authority of the ordinary of a Church; the ordinary is there for the sake of the function he exercises; the Pope has his fullness of authority for the benefit of the ordinary, of the particular churches (his own in particular), & of the Church Universal.

BTW - unfortunately for the Orthodox case against Rome, not everything is thought valuable only if it is taken from a legal source, rather than from one of a more theological nature. To read some Orthodox remarks, one might be forgiven for thinking that none of the Greek Fathers or Russian Synods would dream of lowering themselves by relying on canons. Do they think no RCs have heard of the canons passed by Nicea I ? Canon law is like anything else - it can be valued less or more than is healthy. That doesn’t explain Orthodox coyness on the subject; perhaps any silliness will do, provided it can be used against Rome.

Any use to you ?

Thank you SOOOO much for your (name removed by moderator)ut! It has been of great help. Actually, one of Father Ambrose’s arguments against my position is, believe it or not, the fact that no Latin Catholic has corroborated anything I’ve written.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I’m just going to pop in here and say that once the Roman Pontiff was the insurer of Holy Tradition. With the wholesale rejection of Holy Tradition by Vatican II Roman Catholics are pretty much left with the primacy of the Pope as their only guide.

I don’t believe this is historically valid so I’m leaving…

Peace and God Bless.

 

[jam070406]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I’m just going to pop in here and say that once the Roman Pontiff was the insurer of Holy Tradition. With the wholesale rejection of Holy Tradition by Vatican II Roman Catholics are pretty much left with the primacy of the Pope as their only guide.

I don’t believe this is historically valid so I’m leaving…

Peace and God Bless.

Chris,
could you elaborate on this alittle.

 

[jmcrae]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I’m just going to pop in here and say that once the Roman Pontiff was the insurer of Holy Tradition. With the wholesale rejection of Holy Tradition by Vatican II Roman Catholics are pretty much left with the primacy of the Pope as their only guide.

Do some reading. (I recommend Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Tradition, William Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, and The Documents of Vatican II, for starter.

Vatican II didn’t change anything except to put the Church’s teachings into positive language (those who do this will be saved) rather than the negative language of previous Councils (those who don’t do this will be outside of the ordinary means of salvation, and are operating outside of the Church).

I don’t believe this is historically valid so I’m leaving…

Where is there to go to? If the Church is lost, then we are utterly lost, since there is no other Church on this earth that has been authorized by Christ.

 

[jam070406]

Do some reading. (I recommend Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Tradition, William Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, and The Documents of Vatican II, for starter.

Vatican II didn’t change anything except to put the Church’s teachings into positive language (those who do this will be saved) rather than the negative language of previous Councils (those who don’t do this will be outside of the ordinary means of salvation, and are operating outside of the Church).

Where is there to go to? If the Church is lost, then we are utterly lost, since there is no other Church on this earth that has been authorized by Christ.

he’s going to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[chrisb]

Do some reading. (I recommend Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Tradition, William Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, and The Documents of Vatican II, for starter.

Grace and Peace jmcrae,

Yeah, I have these books and they are pretty good but I simply can’t hold to Roman Catholicism.

[qutoe]Vatican II didn’t change anything except to put the Church’s teachings into positive language (those who do this will be saved) rather than the negative language of previous Councils (those who don’t do this will be outside of the ordinary means of salvation, and are operating outside of the Church).

I can appreciate the apologetics but if you were to have told a Catholic from the turn-of-the-century that Limbo is wrong… unbaptized children go to heaven… individuals outside the Catholic Church can go to heaven… you’d have been laughed out of the Church.

Something has changed and it’s the Churches Theology. There is an effort to return to Patristic Theology and I applaud the effort but I also know who has held to Patristics (Holy Orthodoxy) from the beginning.

Where is there to go to? If the Church is lost, then we are utterly lost, since there is no other Church on this earth that has been authorized by Christ.

Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[jmcrae]

I can appreciate the apologetics but if you were to have told a Catholic from the turn-of-the-century that Limbo is wrong… unbaptized children go to heaven… individuals outside the Catholic Church can go to heaven… you’d have been laughed out of the Church.

It would depend on how well educated they were. Denzinger shows that Limbo has always been just a pious theory, and well educated Catholics have always known that.

Something has changed and it’s the Churches Theology.

Only the most simplistic person today would say that the unbaptized “go to Heaven.” We hope in God’s mercy, but we make no guarantees. Again, it’s the same idea, but just worded differently. They didn’t know what happens to unbaptized persons at the turn of the century any more than we do now.

I am under the impression that the majority of Orthodox churches don’t even believe in Original Sin itself, though, and that they even hope for the redemption of Satan, in the end. Is that not so?