Papacy and Eastern Catholics

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, if those things aren’t written in stone (that is - the relative priority and extent of Patriarchal jurisdiction) then it is an administrative rather than a divine decree. Can the Pope change the administrative structure of the Church vis a vis the other Patriarchs per Vatican I? This is only true if the decree of Vatican I is in derogation of the Council of Florence. Assuming for argument that it is, and the the Pope could do such a thing unilaterally, then we have a Church administrative law.

Hypothetical: what if the Pope’s declares that the ancient privileges of the Patriarchates are dissolved. Further assume that this is a sinful and unjust proclamation of the Papacy. Certainly this is possible as we aren’t talking about infallibility on a matter of faith and morals. Now the Eastern Patriarchs have two choices: (1) adhere to the sinful and unjust proclamation of the papacy or (2) refuse to abide by the decision.

Now which of the two is the “more sinful” decision? This is why hypotheticals of the sort you offer aren’t very useful to understanding these issues. We seem to forget sometimes in the RCC that the Pope can be wrong.

I had chosen not to pursue this line of argument any further with Zekariya when it became apparent that we had functionally equivalent views of Papal authority.

As I see it, the answer to your question is simple. While said Eastern Patriarchs may personally judge the stripping away of their traditional rights as unjust and offensive, and while they may even judge the action to be personally sinful on the part of the Pope (though the same rules would apply as always when we are tempted to judge the morality of other people’s actions), they would be obliged to obey. A bad decision by a Pope would not be an excuse for schism. Really there is never an excuse for schism. And while the Pope may personally have sinned in making the proclamation the Patriarchs would not share in this sin by obeying. The only sin would be in any disobedience.

Also, the Eastern Patriarchs of course are monks so hopefully they understand the spiritual value of obedience, even and sometimes especially obedience in matters concerning which one personally disagrees.

 

[jimmy]

I had chosen not to pursue this line of argument any further with Zekariya when it became apparent that we had functionally equivalent views of Papal authority.

As I see it, the answer to your question is simple. While said Eastern Patriarchs may personally judge the stripping away of their traditional rights as unjust and offensive, and while they may even judge the action to be personally sinful on the part of the Pope (though the same rules would apply as always when we are tempted to judge the morality of other people’s actions), they would be obliged to obey. A bad decision by a Pope would not be an excuse for schism. Really there is never an excuse for schism. And while the Pope may personally have sinned in making the proclamation the Patriarchs would not share in this sin by obeying. The only sin would be in any disobedience.

Also, the Eastern Patriarchs of course are monks so hopefully they understand the spiritual value of obedience, even and sometimes especially obedience in matters concerning which one personally disagrees.

So in other words, the eastern Christians are obliged to obey the pope even if he demands the complete abrogation of tradition. The only sin would be in following tradition. In addition to this, latinization would be a good thing since it shows the obedience of the eastern churches to the pope.

 

[malphono]

So in other words, the eastern Christians are obliged to obey the pope even if he demands the complete abrogation of tradition. The only sin would be in following tradition.

Jimmy, what have you done?

 

[Zekariya]

So in other words, the eastern Christians are obliged to obey the pope even if he demands the complete abrogation of tradition. The only sin would be in following tradition.

I believe that there is no reason to worry about that. The pope will not forbid the use of the Eastern Rites. Also, the only reason that some sui iuris Eastern Churches would ever be disbanded would be to consolidate or to combine them with Orthodox counterparts.

Though this is not a question of divine law… I find this question to be similar to the “Can the pope decide to ordain women to the priesthood?” because it will never happen.

 

[malphono]

I believe that there is no reason to worry about that. The pope will not forbid the use of the Eastern Rites. Also, the only reason that some sui iuris Eastern Churches would ever be disbanded would be to consolidate or to combine them with Orthodox counterparts.

Though this is not a question of divine law… I find this question to be similar to the “Can the pope decide to ordain women to the priesthood?” because it will never happen.

FWLIW, I don’t think the two propositions are even remotely similar. In the the one, i.e, the priestess bit, is just plain contrary to Tradition, not to mention Scripture. The redefinition of that is one of the few rare thing that I applaud JPII for. The other proposition, however, in the view of the ultramontanist Latins, is “merely a matter of discipline” that the Pope can change as he pleases. Of course if any Pope ever tried it, he’d be faced with a schism (except maybe from the neo-Maronites but I digress), no question about that.

 

[Zekariya]

FWLIW, I don’t think the two propositions are even remotely similar. In the the one, i.e, the priestess bit, is just plain contrary to Tradition, not to mention Scripture. The redefinition of that is one of the few rare thing that I applaud JPII for. The other proposition, however, in the view of the ultramontanist Latins, is “merely a matter of discipline” that the Pope can change as he pleases. Of course if any Pope ever tried it, he’d be faced with a schism (except maybe from the neo-Maronites but I digress), no question about that.

I was trying to stress how unlikely this would be. I do know that one is divine law and the other is discipline.

 

[malphono]

I was trying to stress how unlikely this would be. I do know that one is divine law and the other is discipline.

Ah, but I think the second is more than mere discipline. It may not be Divine Law, but it IS Tradition.

 

[Zekariya]

Ah, but I think the second is more than mere discipline. It may not be Divine Law, but it IS Tradition.

And it is supported by the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I was trying to stress how unlikely this would be. I do know that one is divine law and the other is discipline.

Oh good, this was clarified before I got to it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Regarding whether distinctive parts of Eastern Catholicism are part of Tradition (using the conventional big-T/small-t distinction, though I’m the first to admit the line between them is not always as sharp was we sometimes pretend it is) I think there may actually be something to this. I believe Pope Benedict XVI said or wrote something about the Western and Eastern traditions being distinct and individually valid lines of transmission of Apostolic Tradition, or something along those broad lines (and either he or someone commenting on his words explained that this is why we cannot bud off new traditions of this sort in regions the Apostles did not reach). I wish I remembered it more distinctly and remembered the context.

In any case it’s a very advanced subject, and I for one am not ready to propose that a uniformly “Western” or “Latin” Church would possess the entirety of Apostolic Tradition. If it would not, then perhaps Papal infallibility might actually come into play in preventing any contemplated annihilation of Eastern Catholicism. I’m being purely speculative at this point. I was not contemplating anything near this level of extreme Latinization when I wrote of the Pope hypothetically taking away historic rights from the Patriarchs. I was thinking in terms of the process of appointing bishops or such comparatively mundane matters.

In any case the key thing to remember is that God never allows moral paradoxes to come about. Since schism is never justifiable, that means no situation can arise in which a person would be unable to remain in the Catholic Church without sinning.

 

[jimmy]

I believe that there is no reason to worry about that. The pope will not forbid the use of the Eastern Rites. Also, the only reason that some sui iuris Eastern Churches would ever be disbanded would be to consolidate or to combine them with Orthodox counterparts.

Though this is not a question of divine law… I find this question to be similar to the “Can the pope decide to ordain women to the priesthood?” because it will never happen.

I don’t think the pope will do it, but it does reveal the way they view tradition (and more to the point, the eastern tradition). As I said above, loyalty to the pope is prior to loyalty to tradition. It is possible to maintain the tradition, yet be a heretic/schismatic because by maintaining tradition you contradict the pope.

The west has lost a sense of tradition. I sympathize with the western traditionalists. I don’t think anyone would have said before VII that the pope can abrogate tradition, but now since they have changed their own tradition, our traditions have become expendable as well if the pope so desires.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, what have you done?

I guess I am guilty of being a traditionalist. I never would have considered myself one until now. I sympathize with the western traditionalists.

 

[tdgesq]

As I see it, the answer to your question is simple. While said Eastern Patriarchs may personally judge the stripping away of their traditional rights as unjust and offensive, and while they may even judge the action to be personally sinful on the part of the Pope (though the same rules would apply as always when we are tempted to judge the morality of other people’s actions), they would be obliged to obey.

I think it is much more complicated then that. Recall that the assumption here is that the Pope’s decision is in fact unjust, not merely that the East judges the decision to be unjust. Since we are dealing with mutable jurisdictional issues, this is open as possibility. And you are correct that they would be obliged to obey, but that is precisely what makes this scenario so hideous.

A bad decision by a Pope would not be an excuse for schism.

The hypothetical is that the decision would be manifestly unjust, and therefore sinful; not just a bad decision.

Really there is never an excuse for schism. And while the Pope may personally have sinned in making the proclamation the Patriarchs would not share in this sin by obeying. The only sin would be in any disobedience.

This is where we really depart in our positions on this. Presumably there would be a real moral consequence to the Eastern Bishops, other clergy and laity agreeing that the Pope could - say - replace all of their bishops with those from Rome. That the Pope commands it doesn’t suddenly make their decision in this regard morally neutral. Is obeying the Pope’s hypothetical unjust decree really a free pass for the Eastern Catholics to righteously annihilate their apostolic heritage? Unfortunately, there are cases where the only decisions available involve sin.

This is why I hate these types of scenarios. There are no winners; just anguish trying to decide whose act would be schismatic and what was less sinful under the circumstances.

 

[malphono]

The west has lost a sense of tradition. I sympathize with the western traditionalists. I don’t think anyone would have said before VII that the pope can abrogate tradition, but now since they have changed their own tradition, our traditions have become expendable as well if the pope so desires.

Indeed so. While even prior to that Council we were considered to be appendages, at least the West was aware of, and bound to, its own tradition and consequently left us more-or-less alone bound, as we were, to our own traditions. And I say that despite the latinizations. In our case, few of the “old” latinizations were directly imposed from without. ((And of course I speak as a Maronite – I won’t speak for others but, with the exception of the Syro-Malabars who were truly abused from without – it’s pretty much the same.) Now, though, the West has pretty much lost sight of things, and that despite the efforts of Benedict XVI.

I guess I am guilty of being a traditionalist. I never would have considered myself one until now. I sympathize with the western traditionalists.

:yup: Despite the fact that Latin trads sometimes go a bit, let’s say, “overboard” with some things, I have to agree with you in general. And precisely for the above reasons.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think it is much more complicated then that. Recall that the assumption here is that the Pope’s decision is in fact unjust, not merely that the East judges the decision to be unjust. Since we are dealing with mutable jurisdictional issues, this is open as possibility. And you are correct that they would be obliged to obey, but that is precisely what makes this scenario so hideous.

The hypothetical is that the decision would be manifestly unjust, and therefore sinful; not just a bad decision.

This is where we really depart in our positions on this. Presumably there would be a real moral consequence to the Eastern Bishops, other clergy and laity agreeing that the Pope could - say - replace all of their bishops with those from Rome. That the Pope commands it doesn’t suddenly make their decision in this regard morally neutral. Is obeying the Pope’s hypothetical unjust decree really a free pass for the Eastern Catholics to righteously annihilate their apostolic heritage? Unfortunately, there are cases where the only decisions available involve sin.

This is why I hate these types of scenarios. There are no winners; just anguish trying to decide whose act would be schismatic and what was less sinful under the circumstances.

This is the kind of moral paradox which cannot come about in a universe governed by a good God. We will never have a scenario in which every option available is sinful. To a degree this is the root reality behind both Papal infallibility and Papal universal jurisdiction. Papal infallibility is necessary if we are never to have a situation where it is impossible to avoid heresy because an error has been bindingly defined as a Catholic doctrine by one with whom one must maintain communion. And Papal universal jurisdiction is necessary if we are not to have a situation in which a person must choose between infidelity to the Church and schism. In both cases we probably have doctrines that were not explicitly known in the early Church, but which are necessary implications (to avoid precisely these kinds of moral paradoxes) of the primitive idea of the necessity of being in communion with the bishop of Rome.

 

[Zekariya]

I think that one problem is the modern view of the bishop of Rome and and his authority over the very tiny Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the bishop of Rome did NOT have the personal authority to disband the (back then, large) Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The pope could not decide unilaterally to interfere that severely with the East. There would have to be an Ecumenical Council to decide such issues just like they decided such things in the first 1,000 years of the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox would never seek reunion with Rome if the pope has the authority to disband or remove all Eastern bishops. The bishop of Rome did not personally remove the heresiarch Nestorius. The Third Ecumenical Council removed him. Why did all of the bishops across the world have to travel to Ephesus if the pope could merely speak a word to remove Nestorius?

 

[malphono]

I think that one problem is the modern view of the bishop of Rome and and his authority over the very tiny Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the bishop of Rome did NOT have the personal authority to disband the (back then, large) Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The pope could not decide unilaterally to interfere that severely with the East. There would have to be an Ecumenical Council to decide such issues just like they decided such things in the first 1,000 years of the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox would never seek reunion with Rome if the pope has the authority to disband or remove all Eastern bishops. The bishop of Rome did not personally remove the heresiarch Nestorius. The Third Ecumenical Council removed him. Why did all of the bishops across the world have to travel to Ephesus if the pope could merely speak a word to remove Nestorius?

Good points.

FYI, there was a most interesting thread here a few years back entitled [thread=349702]Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?[/thread]. It’s a long thread, but I think it’s worth at least skimming through. IMO, there a number of excellent posts there, some of which play directly to the matter at hand.

 

[Zekariya]

Good points.

FYI, there was a most interesting thread here a few years back entitled [thread=349702]Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?[/thread]. It’s a long thread, but I think it’s worth at least skimming through. IMO, there a number of excellent posts there, some of which play directly to the matter at hand.

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think that one problem is the modern view of the bishop of Rome and and his authority over the very tiny Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the first 1,000 years of the Church, the bishop of Rome did NOT have the personal authority to disband the (back then, large) Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The pope could not decide unilaterally to interfere that severely with the East. There would have to be an Ecumenical Council to decide such issues just like they decided such things in the first 1,000 years of the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox would never seek reunion with Rome if the pope has the authority to disband or remove all Eastern bishops. The bishop of Rome did not personally remove the heresiarch Nestorius. The Third Ecumenical Council removed him. Why did all of the bishops across the world have to travel to Ephesus if the pope could merely speak a word to remove Nestorius?

It’s a bit of a leap to go from the Pope not trying to do something to the Pope being unable to do it. The controversies that have happened over the centuries have sharpened our perception of what the Pope can and cannot do and to develop our understanding of aspects of the Papacy, such as infallibility, that were implicit rather than explicit in the earlier centuries of the Church.

Also, in any case the Pope should not act as an autocrat. An ecumenical council was appropriate for resolving the Nestorian crisis even if the Pope technically had the authority to deal with it himself. As a matter of comparison, the authority of the Papacy was quite well understood by the 16th century but the Council of Trent was still held to deal with Protestantism. All the more was a council appropriate in the more decentralized situation of the fifth century.

 

[Zekariya]

It’s a bit of a leap to go from the Pope not trying to do something to the Pope being unable to do it. The controversies that have happened over the centuries have sharpened our perception of what the Pope can and cannot do and to develop our understanding of aspects of the Papacy, such as infallibility, that were implicit rather than explicit in the earlier centuries of the Church.

Infallibility only applies to “doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”. The pope is not able to do anything and everything that he desires. Each sui iuris Church has certain rights which cannot be taken away by the pope.