Latin Supremacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nanotwerp

Guest
I know that the Pope, being the Bishop of Rome, is supreme over the other bishops and patriarchates, but there’s one other thing along with that. The Pope, being located in the Vatican, near Italy, is under, along with most of the Western World, the Latin Rite. My question is, are the Eastern Catholic Rites equal with the Latin Rite superiority-wise? Would the Pope’s Church being in the Latin Rite make the Latin Rite superior? Or are they all even?

I really don’t get why there IS a Pope. I wonder why every bishop could be equal to each other. Not having a central authority would definitely aid to the ‘universal’ aspect of the Church.

Another question is, why do different rites have different beliefs? Example: One certain Eastern Catholic Rite believes in the archangel Uriel, but a pope at one time pretty much denounced Uriel as a saint, or even existing, for that matter. Shouldn’t every rite be unified in beliefs, but no so much in culture?
 
are the Eastern Catholic Rites equal with the Latin Rite superiority-wise?

From Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 3:

These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West . . . are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite . . . .

*Not having a central authority would definitely aid to the ‘universal’ aspect of the Church. *

Not really; actually, the opposite is true. Those who reject papal authority end up enslaved to the state or to the whims of some reformer, and they become less and less universal. Not to mention that they are divided. To be a universal Church, it must be one.

why do different rites have different beliefs?

Even within the same ritual Church there is room for disagreement on those matters on which the Church has not pronounced a judgment. And popes don’t always say things that are true. They are only infallible under very special conditions, and this is quite rare in their day to day life. That is not to say they are without divine aid the rest of the time. On the contrary, the Holy Ghost assists them in their ministry in general; but they do not always enjoy that highest degree of divine protection we call infallibility.
 
Nanotwerp said:
I really don’t get why there IS a Pope. I wonder why every bishop could be equal to each other. Not having a central authority would definitely aid to the ‘universal’ aspect of the Church.
Click to expand...
Jesus gave the keys of the church to Peter, not all of the apostles. The pope is Peter’s successor.
 
Jenny35 said:
Jesus gave the keys of the church to Peter, not all of the apostles. The pope is Peter’s successor.
Click to expand...
It’s a cute line to try to justify Papal supremacy, but there are three Petrine sees. Furthermore, any theologian of any tradition would say that Matthew 16:19 applies to all bishops - it’s what empowers the bishop with the authority to forgive and grant faculty to priests to forgive as well.

Now in a proper ecclesiology it should be obvious as to why a term with Latin supremacy is problematic but I’m quite frankly not interested in turning this thread into a hellfire storm so I’ll leave it to someone else. I will say that it is important to have a head, and while some Latins might try to discredit the Orthodox by claiming the synodal system lacks a central head Patriarchs do exist for a very particular reason.
 
MorEphrem said:
It’s a cute line to try to justify Papal supremacy, but there are three Petrine sees. Furthermore, any theologian of any tradition would say that Matthew 16:19 applies to all bishops - it’s what empowers the bishop with the authority to forgive and grant faculty to priests to forgive as well.

Now in a proper ecclesiology it should be obvious as to why a term with Latin supremacy is problematic but I’m quite frankly not interested in turning this thread into a hellfire storm so I’ll leave it to someone else. I will say that it is important to have a head, and while some Latins might try to discredit the Orthodox by claiming the synodal system lacks a central head Patriarchs do exist for a very particular reason.
Click to expand...
I think you might actually be on to something. I don’t really like the drama of arguments like this, but it can usually turn out to a nice revelation, in a sense.
 
Jenny35 said:
Jesus gave the keys of the church to Peter, not all of the apostles. The pope is Peter’s successor.
Click to expand...
According to members on this board, there is no such thing as papal succession, so your statement doesnt prove anything apparently.
 
Thorns said:
According to members on this board, there is no such thing as papal succession, so your statement doesnt prove anything apparently.
Click to expand...
Belonging to this site has unique challenges, that is for sure. Which is why I take breaks. Often extended.
 
 
40.png
Casilda:
Well that’s simply not true.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
Not really; actually, the opposite is true. Those who reject papal authority end up enslaved to the state or to the whims of some reformer, and they become less and less universal.
Click to expand...
Well that’s simply not true.
 
There are various papal quotes and even patristic quotes which do attribute a special primacy to the Church of Rome, but what people often fail to realize is that the Church of Rome, at least in this context, is the local diocese of Rome, the Pope’s diocese, and not the Latin Church as a whole. Theologically, every single diocese is a particular Church…thus the Catholic Church is a communion of well over 2000 particular Churches, but among them Rome (not the 2000 or so dioceses comprising the Latin Church) holds a primacy.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Well that’s simply not true.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that they are divided.

Want to explain who amongst the Orthodox bishops are canonical vs uncanonical? It drove me crazy trying to figure out if I was sitting under a ‘right’ bishop. He once was not and now is but other bishops still claim he is not. Really boggles your mind.
 
Casilda said:
Not to mention that they are divided.

Want to explain who amongst the Orthodox bishops are canonical vs uncanonical? It drove me crazy trying to figure out if I was sitting under a ‘right’ bishop. He once was not and now is but other bishops still claim he is not. Really boggles your mind.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t boggle your mind anymore than Old Catholic bishops or sedevacantist bishops. It’s very simply actually. Certainly no more difficult than figuring out who the canonical Catholic bishops are. If a Catholic bishop is in communion with the Pope he is canonical. That bishop commemorates the Pope every time he celebrates the liturgy.

For the Orthodox If a Primatial bishop is listed in the diptychs he is canonical and every bishop in communion with a bishop listed in the diptychs is canonical. Here is how it works. When a Patriarch celebrates the liturgy he commemorates the heads of all the other Orthodox Churches by name in order of precedence. When a non-primatial bishop celebrates the liturgy he commemorates the primate of his Church. When a priest celebrates a liturgy he commemorates his bishop and in the Russian tradtion the primate as well. Very easy to understand.
 
Seraphim73 said:
It shouldn’t boggle your mind anymore than Old Catholic bishops or sedevacantist bishops. It’s very simply actually. Certainly no more difficult than figuring out who the canonical Catholic bishops are. If a Catholic bishop is in communion with the Pope he is canonical. That bishop commemorates the Pope every time he celebrates the liturgy.

For the Orthodox If a Primatial bishop is listed in the diptychs he is canonical and every bishop in communion with a bishop listed in the diptychs is canonical. Here is how it works. When a Patriarch celebrates the liturgy he commemorates the heads of all the other Orthodox Churches by name in order of precedence. When a non-primatial bishop celebrates the liturgy he commemorates the primate of his Church. When a priest celebrates a liturgy he commemorates his bishop and in the Russian tradtion the primate as well. Very easy to understand.
Click to expand...
Question : Are both the Antiochan Orthodox Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate and all the clergy under them canonical or is only one of them canonical? I ask because the two churches are in schism from one another ans don’t commemorate each other…
 
Wandile said:
Question : Are both the Antiochan Orthodox Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate and all the clergy under them canonical or is only one of them canonical? I ask because the two churches are in schism from one another ans don’t commemorate each other…
Click to expand...
They are both canonical. They are not in schism. They are both in communion with every other canonical Church. Their clergy are barred from concelebrating with each other over a dispute. The faithful from both Churches can commune in each others temples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top