Orthodoxy

[ConstantineTG]

“And that is wrong. Like I said, if one lung schisms from the other lung, doesn’t that mean that the Body of Christ is suddenly out of breath? No. Even if there is only one orthdoox bishop standing, believing and teaching the truth, the Church of Christ is still whole in that bishop. Regardless of what Rite that bishop follows. The Two Lung theory is actually a great disservice to all Churches. First, Rome assumes she is equally important alone as all the 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Second, Rome admits that by herself she is incomplete.”

I’d like to hear a rebuttal to this.

It cannot be refuted. According to this: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm the local bishops only derive their authority from the Pope. So if a bishop is orthodox and the Pope is in heresy, guess what, the gates of hell has prevailed. Because the local bishop has no authority on his own to teach the true faith because he is at odds with the person who is the source of his authority, despite the heresy of that person.

 

[mardukm]

For someone who has never provided any magisterial source to all of his claims, you sure are adamant that this is the only way to prove something right from wrong. Yet you yourself has no proof offered.

Mentioning names of councils is not magisterial proof. I can say Council of Trent and make stuff up. Practice what you preach and back up your claims.

You made a claim 1st, so you provide your proof, and I’ll provide mine afterwards. That’s normally how it works.

I have proven my claims substantially. Can you substantiate that my claim is not true?

You have not provided a single EO source that denies that a pariticular Church that contains the fullness of the Church is not at the same time part of the universal Church.

Can you point me to a Latin local synod since Vatican II?

There have been a lot of episcopal conferences since V2. Who said that episcopal conferences were exactly like synods in all respects? Certainly not me. I know you have a habit of reading things into what people say.

Can you point me to a solid evidence that an Archbishop has oversight over a Suffragan diocese since Vatican II? Until you can refute these claims with magisterial evidence, YOU are the one who has proven nothing.

YOU made the claim 1st that an archbishop has no oversight over a suffragan diocese, where is your proof? I’ll provide proof from the CIC after you provide your proof (since you made the claim first). But I soundly suspect you will not have any proof to provide.

FALSE! Provide a magisterial source where it says that a Patriarch and a Metropolitan has Ordinary jurisdiction in a diocese under their oversight. C’mon mardukm, you keep asking for evidence yet you yourself has offered none. Where’s the proof?

CCEO, Canon 78: The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal.

Sorry I assumed I was speaking to an Eastern Christian who had knowledge of our Canons. My fault.

You mean this:
However, the jurisdiction proper to the bishops derives from the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff. It is contained in the supreme jurisdiction as the lesser perfection is contained in the greater.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm

It just proved my point. Thanks mardukm!

Proof beyond proof that the Bishops are under the Pope, and they merely have a subset of the jurisdiction of the Pope. Thus each particular Church is not a full Church but merely a piece of the entire Church.

Wow, all this time I thought you were against me. I didn’t realize you were actually helping me prove the truth I was talking about. Thanks again!

This the extent of your proof? A mere snippet completely devoid of its context? The document clearly states elsewhere:
“However, to say that the bishops’ jurisdiction comes down to them from the Sovereign Pontiff is not to say that it comes down to them by the mere will of the latter or in virtue of a free canonical provision. The power to bind and to loose committed to Peter alone, the supreme pastor of the Church, as in its source—“Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 19)—is, by a constitutional provision, to come down to the secondary pastors—“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven” (Matt. xviii. 18). The power of these last is doubtless derived, but they hold it by the express will of Christ. Their jurisdiction, although fully subordinated to that of the Sovereign Pontiff, belongs to them nevertheless by divine law, not merely by ecclesiastical law; in an ordinary and proper way, not in a delegated and vicarious way; as an indispensable degree of the hierarchy, not as an institution revocable by the Sovereign Pontiff. It is therefore impossible to imagine the Papacy without the episcopate; both institutions will endure as long as the Church endures, that is to say as long as the world endures.”

I have no error

As noted in the link above, not only does the Pope have equal authority to the local bishop, he has more authority because the local bishop only derives their authority not from God but from the Pope (in that same link posted above).

As the context of the document you quoted indicates, the authority of the local bishop IS from God and it is not something the Pope has the authority by mere will to revoke. It is “through the papacy” only in the sense that it can never be considered apart from the papacy. As the context of the document indicates, bishops hold their authority by the express will of Christ, NOT the express will of the Pope. The document considers the papacy more of a passive instrument of Christ than anything else. Your usual misrepresentations of Catholic ecclesiology are not appreciated. But I suppose it is allowed by the moderators because such nonsense obviously exists out there, and so it can be refuted here.

I have been spot on every time. I have substantiated my claim. Where are your links? Where are your magisterial documents?

Your own documents are enough. As usual, you only take little snippets to create your caricatures, but the very same documents always prove you wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You mean this:
However, the jurisdiction proper to the bishops derives from the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff. It is contained in the supreme jurisdiction as the lesser perfection is contained in the greater.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm

It just proved my point. Thanks mardukm!

Btw, how does this prove your baseless claim that each diocese has two bishops? Please respond or retract your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

“And that is wrong. Like I said, if one lung schisms from the other lung, doesn’t that mean that the Body of Christ is suddenly out of breath? No. Even if there is only one orthdoox bishop standing, believing and teaching the truth, the Church of Christ is still whole in that bishop. Regardless of what Rite that bishop follows. The Two Lung theory is actually a great disservice to all Churches. First, Rome assumes she is equally important alone as all the 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Second, Rome admits that by herself she is incomplete.”

I’d like to hear a rebuttal to this.

The purpose of the “two lungs” analogy by the Popes is to insist that the Churches must be united for the Church to function properly. A body with only one lung can function (as is proven by medical science, contrary to ConstantineTG’s ignorant claim that to have one lung means the body is suddenly out of breath). But the body will not be functioning to full capacity with only one lung. To be fully healthy, the body must function with both lungs.

I think the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs recognize this, at least as far as combatting the pressures of secular society on the Church. There have been several statements from the highest levels of the EOC on the matter. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches will be more effective if they act together as a bastion of Christian Truth against the world, than if they act separately. Would you agree with that?

Welcome to CAF, btw.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rosinante]

Btw, how does this prove your baseless claim that each diocese has two bishops? Please respond or retract your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

If he could prove thiat assertion, the Pope would have been joined as a defendant in virtually every civil litigation case ever brought against any Diocese and/or Bishop in the World.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[mardukm]

If he could prove thiat assertion, the Pope would have been joined as a defendant in virtually every civil litigation case ever brought against any Diocese and/or Bishop in the World.

VIVAT JESUS!

Great point!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hasire]

The purpose of the “two lungs” analogy by the Popes is to insist that the Churches must be united for the Church to function properly. A body with only one lung can function (as is proven by medical science, contrary to ConstantineTG’s ignorant claim that to have one lung means the body is suddenly out of breath). But the body will not be functioning to full capacity with only one lung. To be fully healthy, the body must function with both lungs.

I think the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs recognize this, at least as far as combatting the pressures of secular society on the Church. There have been several statements from the highest levels of the EOC on the matter. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches will be more effective if they act together as a bastion of Christian Truth against the world, than if they act separately. Would you agree with that?

Welcome to CAF, btw.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for the answer and yes I agree, but I misquoted, my bad.

I meant especifically this part:

“First, Rome assumes she is equally important alone as all the 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox Churches.”

and thanks

 

[mardukm]

I meant especifically this part:

“First, Rome assumes she is equally important alone as all the 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox Churches.”

I’m sorry I don’t have a response because I don’t quite understand what he is claiming.

If ConstantineTG is saying that the Church of Rome claims she is equally important as all the other Churches, I can agree with that, and I don’t see what there is to respond to. The Catholic Church teaches that all of the Churches in its Communion have equal dignity. We have head bishops at different levels of the hierarchy (i.e., Metropolitans, Patriarchs/Major Archbishops/Catholicoi, Pope) and in different particular Churches, and also a head bishop for the Church universal.

My only question is the word “alone” in the sentence. It doesn’t seem to quite fit into the rest of the sentence. I’m not sure what he means.

Perhaps he can explain when he has time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Not quite. There is no division in the Church into ‘parts’.

I fully agree. I’m just explaining it in the same language being used here. Human language is indeed oftentimes not sufficient to explain a Mystery. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Btw, how does this prove your baseless claim that each diocese has two bishops? Please respond or retract your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

Because it proves that a bishop is really powerless without the Pope. They are nothing but the extention of the Pope in a diocese. As the title of that section says, “The Pope’s Power Derived Immediately From Christ; That Of The Bishops, Through The Mediation Of The Pope.” So the Pope is not a rank of bishop, but that of something above a bishop. And that bishops have no authority by their own other than that the Pope gives them.

So really, the Pope si the Vicar of Christ and the Bishops are just vicars of the Pope.

Also if you read more on the page, it says “Their jurisdiction, although fully subordinated to that of the Sovereign Pontiff…”. It says plainly that they are not even the prime head of their jurisdiction as they are subject to the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Because it proves that a bishop is really powerless without the Pope.

Really? Explain then why the CC considers the Orthodox Churches to have true bishops and calls them “Churches.” These well-known facts (among many others) proves your opinion is pure fantasy.

They are nothing but the extention of the Pope in a diocese. As the title of that section says, “The Pope’s Power Derived Immediately From Christ; That Of The Bishops, Through The Mediation Of The Pope.”

Just another example of how you manage to impose your own opinions on everything that you read to create false caricatures. The title explicitly states that the power of the bishop is MEDIATED through the Pope, NOT that the Pope is the SOURCE of it. So if the Pope is not the source, how do you propose, as you stated above, that a bishop is really powerless without the Pope?

So the Pope is not a rank of bishop, but that of something above a bishop.

BISHOP of Rome.

The Pope is a bishop with more responsibilities, and greater consequent basic prerogatives in order to fulfill those responsibilities. These responsibilites and consequent basic prerogatives are divinely appointed. The prerogatives for the sake of those responsibilities have undergone development throughout the ages, and the way they have developed is an issue to non-Catholics, many non-Latin Catholics, and even some Latin Catholics.

Patriachs, metropolitans and other head bishops are also bishops with more responsibilites than other bishops, and greater consequent basic prerogatives in order to fulfill those responsibilities. The difference between the primacy of the Pope and the primacy of other head bishops is that the Pope’s was divinely instituted by Christ, while the primacy of other head bishops was ecclesiastically instituted by the Church.

And that bishops have no authority by their own other than that the Pope gives them.

You’ve given nothing to back this up except your opinion.

So really, the Pope si the Vicar of Christ and the Bishops are just vicars of the Pope.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia - “The pope is bound to establish bishops who enjoy genuine ordinary power in the Church (potestas ordinaria), and who are not merely his delegates or vicars.”

Second Vatican Council - “Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power…The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.”

Stop investing your time reading what non-Catholics say about the Catholic Church. It is not spiritually edifying to listen to lies.

Also if you read more on the page, it says “Their jurisdiction, although fully subordinated to that of the Sovereign Pontiff…”. It says plainly that they are not even the prime head of their jurisdiction as they are subject to the Pope.

We know that mayors and senators are subordinate to the President. The President of the United States has a plenary authority that other politicians do not possess. I guess in your own mind, mayors and senators and other politicians do not have real authority, just because their authority is subordinate to the President’s. You are obviously imposing an Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretation on that statement that it does not intend (nor in fact does the word “subordinated” in common parlance indicate a total lack of authority).

Every one of your responses has been refuted. Now, I ask again, if you cannot provide any valid reasons for your claim that each diocese has two bishops, have the decency to retract it.

Btw, was the document you quoted from EWTN a magisterial document? The link did not say. You boasted by your quotation of it that "this is what the Catholic Church teaches,’ but there was no indication in the document that it was from the Magisterium. It reads more like an opinion piece. Can you please provide the source of the document?

Blessings,
Marduk