The Patriarch of Antioch is the highest ranking hierarch in his Church.
I commemorate what Catholics call the ordinary, who is Metropolitan Philip, and his auxiliary for the Diocese of Miami. “Our father and Metropolitan Philip and our Bishop Antoun.” If I serve with Bishop Antoun the Auxiliary Bishop of Miami, he commemorates the Metropolitan and I commemorate Bishop Antoun during the Anaphora (the Canon of the Mass). During the Great Entrance, Bishop Antoun commemorates the Metropolitan. During the Great Entrance, the Metropolitan commemorates the Patriarch of Antioch. The Primate of an autocephalous Church commemorates the Primates of the autocephalous Churches in Communion with his Church. That means that His Beatitude John X, the present Patriarch of Antioch commemorates the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Primates of all the other autocephalous Churches in Communion with Antioch in order of their rank beginning with Constantinople followed by Alexandria and so on. I use the term Primate, because not all the heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches have Patriarchal rank. The Primate of the autocephalous Church of Greece is the Archbishop of Athens, for example. The only time that I would commemorate the Patriarch of Antioch would be if he were actually present.The Patriarch of Antioch is the highest ranking hierarch in his Church.
If you mean they commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople I’d be curious to know which bishops (outside Constantinople, and the 1/3 of Greece de jure, but not de facto, under his authority) follow this?
Or are you just trolling and trying to say that the Eastern Catholic Churches are also Eastern Orthodox?
This may be a little off-topic, but I’m reminded of the way of how some Anglicans call themselves “Anglo-Orthodox”; not only because in both cases the word “Orthodox” appears, but also because in both cases it’s only very small number of people who call themselves that. (Plus there’s some Anglicans who called themselves “Anglo-Papists” but that beside the point.)
There is a small group of continuing Anglicans here in Vicksburg that call themselves Anglican Orthodox. Their minister called me once after an article about my latest book appeared in the local newspaper and gave me third degree about what we beleive. They are anything but Orthodox. They are so Protestant that I would not have gone to their church when I was an Episcopalian because I was moderately High Church. They are Calvinists and believe that the bread and wind in the Eucharist are only symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. They also object to calling a priest Father and refuse to wear traditional Eucharistic vestments.
That is why I wrote “in Greek and Antiochian practice.” I am not sure what the other Orthodox, especially the Russians do. Antiochian practice is basically Greek, sometimes more Greek than Greek Orthodox Church in America. I once served at a Vespers with a Greek Orthodox Bishop on the throne, because the Pastor always presides and we had no deacon, I did the censing. After the service, the Greek Orthodox Bishop asked me where I learned how to serve. I told him that I am Antiochian. He told me that I serve more like a Priest in Greece than the Priests of the American Greek Orthodox Church do.
There are miscoceptions on both sides. Somewhere on this site, I read a critique of Orthodox theology compare to St. Thomas Aquinas. I did not recognize what the Catholic who wrote about us as an accurate description of what we actually believe.
What does the Catholic Church do if the Pope teaches heresy? Do not tell me that cannot happen, because the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the 6th Ecumenical Council which officially condemned Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy.Dearest Fr. John, bless,
I’m not sure I understand. As the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser asserted, the Ecumenical Council will always be the norm for promulgating the most solemn doctrinal decrees (i.e. dogmas) of the Church. I don’t know why you would think there is anything to “return to” as if Pastor Aeternus somehow cancelled the existence or utility of an Ecumenical Council.
I am afraid I am only intermittently involved in this thread. Could you please direct me to the posts that claim that the bishops only advise the Pope on a matter of doctrine, and that he can veto the bishops? Whoever stated that was simply wrong.
There are only two possible scenarios to consider here:
(1) One portion of the bishops is orthodox, and another portion heterodox. Whoever the Pope sides with is the orthodox group. In this instance, the Pope is actually making a judgment based on their teaching. Is that mere “advice?”
(2) All bishops are heterodox, and the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left. All the bishops advise the Pope on the matter, and the Pope decides to go against all their “advice” because they are all heterodox.
Scenario #2 cannot happen - it is simply impossible - as explained in the Petrine views thread, because there can never come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. Only scenario (1) is possible, and the Pope is constrained by Divine Law to make a decision in communion with those other orthodox bishops.
As far as an Ecumenical Council goes, the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser affirmed that all the bishops sit in judgment WITH the Pope, not that the Pope sits in judgment over all the other bishops. Even the old Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that in an Ecumenical Council, the ENTIRE college is infallible, not merely the Pope, so there is no way that it is all on the Pope’s say-so.
What the Catholic Church does affirm is that the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) is the only bishop in the college (whether dispersed or in the formal setting of an Ecumenical Council) whose consent is absolutely necessary. If bishop X from New York does not agree, that does not affect the validity of the doctrinal decrees of the council. But if the bishop of Rome, as head bishop, does not agree, then it does indeed affect the validity of those doctrinal decrees.
But the source of the misunderstanding might be the strange idea that the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council (or, alternately, in the whole world). Assuming he was the only orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council, then and only then would there be such a thing as a “veto power.” However, such a scenario is simply impossible, so I don’t know where this idea of a “veto power” comes from. If a Pope does not consent, it is only because there are OTHER bishops as well who do not consent. It is impossible that the doctrinal decision of the Pope is the ONLY decision that matters, since there will always be other orthodox bishops along with him. That being so, the Pope is constrained by divine law to make a decision in communion with those orthodox bishops.
Humbly,
Marduk
Can someone tell me exactly what Catholics mean when they refer to the Magisterium?
Fr. John, it’s not very nice to call me a troll when we’ve been having polite online conversation for months now. Eastern Catholic Churches can’t collectively be “also Eastern Orthodox”, because, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, some of the ECCs are of the “Oriental Orthodox” and “Church of the East” Tradition, and not EO-centric. So NO, I’m NOT saying that at all.The Patriarch of Antioch is the highest ranking hierarch in his Church.
If you mean they commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople I’d be curious to know which bishops (outside Constantinople, and the 1/3 of Greece de jure, but not de facto, under his authority) follow this?
Or are you just trolling and trying to say that the Eastern Catholic Churches are also Eastern Orthodox?
The Magisterium is the formal teaching authority of the Church which Christ entrusted to His Apostles and which they in turn entrusted to the bishops. In the modern context, the Magisterium is the collective teaching office of the Pope and all those bishops in communion with him.
You were not responding to Father John’s post - it was another Orthodox poster who suggested that you were trolling.
Indeed. I hadn’t heard of that particular parish (St. John’s?) before you mentioned it, but I’ve come across the denomination, the Anglican Orthodox Church. As a matter of fact, I remember thinking “Oh, an Anglo-Orthodox group” but then realizing that they aren’t. (Their use of the word “orthodox” in their name reminds me of the denomination of an old friend of mine, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.)
I made the comment, and I’m not Fr. John (I don’t want to besmirch his good name) and I’m not calling you a troll. I’m was asking for an explanation of your comment. Though I do see I did misunderstand somewhat. My apologies for that. I made a leap to the possibility that you were talking about the Pope as the highest hierarch. You’re right that the usual Orthodox practice isn’t to commemorate the primate of the Church.
Exactly. That’s the approach that I and many other Catholics believe we should use as well: keeping the “door open” to Orthodox who want to convert to Catholicism, but not pushing anyone to do so.
I won’t deny that that’s a little shocking, but keep in mind each group has its extremists. (Archbishop Ireland is an obvious LC example. Orthodox examples aren’t too hard to find.)
My point is that local usages, within EO, OO, RC, or EC, vary slightly for various reasons, and should not be a point of contention - it is what it is - but I see it being brought up as a reason against reunion - or a point against reuniting with RCs when OOs and even some EOs do the same - when it need not be at all. Let the commemorations be as they are, since they are so varied anyhow, based on different reasons, and doesn’t affect the faith, let them be.
Moscow (in general) considers the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics to both be heterodox (not orthodox). The Middle Eastern, Eastern Orthodox groups tend to consider the Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox separated from full Communion with each other.