Papal Claims 2

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Sorry I overlooked these posts of yours. They came when I was away, but I will address them now in this new thread…I’m starting this new thread because these original posts are buried deep within the original “papal claims” thread, and I don’t want to interfere in the existing flow of the thread.

883
“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

It looks to me like the Supreme Pontiff has a veto which cannot be overridden. His vote is equal to all of the other participants, plus one.

Canon 883 is simply the first part of Apostolic Canon 34. I need to ask why you feel Catholics should violate the prescriptions of the Apostles themselves. I can tell you right now we will not do it just to be in union with the EO. I’m sadly surprised you would expect us to.

Hesychios:

882
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Does everyone here agree with canon 882 and 883?

UNEQUIVOCALLY, I agree with Canon 883, and I pray every Catholic does. If the EO want to violate the Apostolic Canons, that is their business. But they shouldn’t expect us to follow them in that innovation.

With regards to Canon 882, I don’t see what the problem with it is. I suspect you feel it is a prescription for arbitrary power? Well, if that is the case, I have three responses for you:

1. Where is the word “arbitrary” in the canon?
2. I suspect you have never compared it to the Latin Canon 331? Please do so and get back to us on it. You may find a small but strikingly important difference.
3. Here is a commentary by a bishop Freppel of the Majority Party during Vatican I:
   “Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who has ever said that the Roman Pontiff should govern the Church according to his sweet will, by his nod, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without laws and canons? We all exclude mere arbitrary power; but we all assert full and perfect power. Is power arbitrary merely because it is supreme? Are civil governments arbitrary because supreme? Or a General Council confirmed by the Pope? Let all this confusion of ideas go!”

This is why the curia can codify the canons of the church. They do it in the Popes name, effectively overriding conciliar work and drafting updated canons without fear.

Yes, once again, Catholics proudly follow the prescription of Apostolic Canon 34. As HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory stated in the preface to the Canon, it was the fruit of a truly collegial effort. In a matter as important as the Code of Canons, we would not want to do it without the approval of the head bishop of the Church.

BTW, your statement seems to imply that the current Code violates some past Canon by an Ecumenical Council (if by “overriding conciliar work” you mean the work of an Ecumenical Council)? May I ask which one(s)?

This is why a Supreme Pontiff can issue a Motu Propio for instance. He does not answer to anyone, including past councils. He can do it because he has “a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Actually, that is blatantly wrong on two points. First, the Pope is bound by the decision of past Ecumenical Councils. The Vatican I Council Fathers stated that in their commentaries on the decrees. I’d rather listen to them than your own opinion/sources (if you don’t mind my saying so). Second, the Pope cannot issue a motu proprio that violates the inherent rights of an individual. I am not going to do your homework for you. You can read it in the Code yourself. (I’m not doing this out of ill-will; it’s just that I don’t have the time to look it up, but I have read it and it is there. I also presented it in the old “Papal Prerogatives” thread-poll. That is a 30-page thread, if you are willing to look it up in there). So your claim that he can issue a Motu Proprio by virtue of “a power which he can always exercise unhindered” is false.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

He does not require synodal approval, nor conciliar approval for any decision he may wish to make (on those matters that are proper to the operation of a Christian church), he can just do it.

That is simply not true. Synodal/conciliar, or collegial approval is ALWAYS involved on some level in the decisions of the Pope, even his dogmatic declarations. Permit me to explain:

In terms of his disciplinary prerogatives:
Synodal/conciliar/collegial approval is NOT necessary for the Pope’s decision to become law. But IT IS NECESSARY for the Pope’s decisions to take effect.

In terms of his doctrinal/moral prerogatives:
Synodal/conciliar/collegial approval is NOT necessary for the Pope’s decisions to be TRUE, because those UNIVERSAL doctrinal/moral decisions come from God Himself (see Numbers 16 and Acts 10 for examples of God’s order for the Church – i.e., that God speaks through ONE on universal matters). But IT IS NECESSARY in order to ensure UNITY in the truth within the Church.

That is the FULL force of Apostolic Canon 34 in effect within the Catholic Church.

tdgesq:

What has been provided to you is the claim that the decrees of a council cannot be ecumenical without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. Can you name a single ecumenical council that wasn’t approved by the Bishop of Rome?

Even under certain Eastern views of the Pentarchy, the affirmation of the Bishop of Rome is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council. Maybe you can explain how there can be such a council without the approval of Rome. Then again, maybe you can’t.

This is incorrect and I believe we have been through this before.

The Seven Councils were in full force and effect before the approval of the bishops of Rome. Canons the Popes are noted to disapprove of were in place anyway in the east. At least one Council (I forget which one) was held over the objections of a bishop of Rome.

They did not require his approval to be implemented in the East, the church did not wait for him.

If anything, the bishop of Rome as Primate of Italy needed to agree to implement those conciliar decisions within his own Metropolitanate, that is the extent of it.

Actually, brother Hesychios, what you have done is simply taken the unique circumstances of two of the Ecumenical Councils (the Second and the Sixth), and mistakenly assumed that they are the standard for the other Councils. That’s simply incorrect.

Your position fails rather badly on many levels:

1. It completely violates Apostolic Canon 34. The Bishop of Rome was always considered the head bishop in the Church. I hope you don’t mind that Catholic apologists should assume that the early Church followed the Apostolic Canons. In that context, it is simply impossible to believe that the Ecumenical Councils did not believe the confirmation of the Pope was necessary for its ecumenicity. As I stated before, if the EO want to violate the Apostolic Canons, that is their business. But they shouldn’t try to impose that innovation on the Catholic Church, much less impose that way of thinking on the Fathers (God forbid!).
2. How could an Ecumenical Council, by definition, even BE an “Ecumenical” Council without the participation and approval of the Western Patriarchate?
3. The confirmation of the Bishop of Rome was considered so important to the Church that during the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Council imprisoned Pope Vigilius, not permitting him to return to his See, until he gave his confirmation!
4. The Second Ecumenical Council was NOT considered “ecumenical” until it was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome during the time of the Council of Chalcedon. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus did not even consider it during its decrees, but appealed directly and only to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea.
5. Many of the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council were not accepted by the Latin Church, and have NEVER found acceptance. Those particular canons only had force in the Eastern Church. Your appeal to this is altogether strange. If the Easterns managed to enforce it on the Westerns without papal approval, then and only then will your claim have even a modicum of validity. Until then, it is, to put it mildly, rather strange to appeal to the circumstances of the Sixth Ecum to try to prove your point that the confirmation of the Pope was not necessary. The only burden of proof Catholics have is to show that ecumenicity required and is coincident with the confirmation of the bishop of Rome (normally with the other Patriarchs, of course). We’ve done that. We don’t need to prove the ecumenicity of something that was not accepted by the entire Church to begin with (i.e., certain canons of the Sixth Ecum).
6. The Council you think was held without the approval of the Pope was the Fifth ecumenical Council. Actually, it was at the Pope’s own behest that the Council was convened IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only disagreement was WHERE the Council was to be held.

I hope these facts have sufficiently answered the issues you have raised. If you have any other concerns, I hope you will give me the opportunity to discuss them with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Amadeus]

Interesting new thread!

However, it should be clarified at the outset that “882” and “883” as quoted and cited by Michael to be “Canon 882” and “Canon 883” is incorrect.

“882” and “883” correspond to Paragraphs 882 and 883 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cites various sources and references including the Latin Code of Canons, the Eastern Code of Canons, as well as papal and conciliar documents.

The Latin Code of Canons covers the hierarchical constitution of the (Catholic) Church, particularly with regard to the supreme authority of the Church, from Canon 330 through Canon 367.

The counterpart provisions in the Eastern Code of Canons are from Canon 42 through Canon 54.

 

[mardukm]

Interesting new thread!

However, it should be clarified at the outset that “882” and “883” as quoted and cited by Michael to be “Canon 882” and “Canon 883” is incorrect.

“882” and “883” correspond to Paragraphs 882 and 883 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cites various sources and references including the Latin Code of Canons, the Eastern Code of Canons, as well as papal and conciliar documents.

The Latin Code of Canons covers the hierarchical constitution of the (Catholic) Church, particularly with regard to the supreme authority of the Church, from Canon 330 through Canon 367.

The counterpart provisions in the Eastern Code of Canons are from Canon 42 through Canon 54.

OOPS!

 

[mardukm]

He does not require synodal approval, nor conciliar approval for any decision he may wish to make (on those matters that are proper to the operation of a Christian church), he can just do it.

That is simply not true. Synodal/conciliar, or collegial approval is ALWAYS involved on some level in the decisions of the Pope, even his dogmatic declarations. Permit me to explain:

In terms of his disciplinary prerogatives:
Synodal/conciliar/collegial approval is NOT necessary for the Pope’s decision to become law. But IT IS NECESSARY for the Pope’s decisions to take effect.

In terms of his doctrinal/moral prerogatives:
Synodal/conciliar/collegial approval is NOT necessary for the Pope’s decisions to be TRUE, because those UNIVERSAL doctrinal/moral decisions come from God Himself (see Numbers 16 and Acts 10 for examples of God’s order for the Church – i.e., that God speaks through ONE on universal matters). But IT IS NECESSARY in order to ensure UNITY in the truth within the Church.

That is the FULL force of Apostolic Canon 34 in effect within the Catholic Church.

I just wanted to clarify something about this portion of my post#2.

The discussion in this portion regards the Pope’s exercise of his unique Petrine authority, which, as stated, nevertheless ALWAYS possesses the element of collegiality, satisfying the prescriptions of Apostolic Canon 34. For certainly, the bishop of Rome is the head bishop regardless of whether it is within the setting of a Council or without.

To be clear, the above portion is NOT discussing the situation of an Ecumenical Council. In the setting of an Ecumenical Council, the authority of the body springs from the infallible COLLECTIVE authority of the bishops, and not just the authority of the bishop of Rome - with the bishop of Rome as the head bishop of course.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

There is something else I pray that one day you will be able to fully accept.

I am from the Oriental Tradition, not the Eastern. Orientals generally have a higher regard for the authority of the head bishop than Byzantines do.

It is simply not in the mindset of the Traditional Oriental to ever possibly conceive of a body of bishops without a head bishop, nor for that body to be considered without a head among its members. What occurred during Florence in the East, with the expulsion of the Patriarch and other bishops, even without the benefit of a council, by the will of the people would be inconceiveable among the Orientals.

Perhaps you are aware of the debacle among the Oriental Orthodox in Africa where the Eritrean bishops deposed its Patriarch. The Coptic Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox were up in arms! You just don’t do that within Oriental Orthodoxy.

And Perhaps you are aware of the debacle among the Syrian Orthodox, where its daughter Indian Church refused to recognize the authority of the Patriarch and declare independence. The rhetoric got to a point where the Mother Church was calling nationalism a heresy.

This is the AUTHENTIC Oriental Tradition. It is not “Roman.” It is simply the Tradition that has been handed down to us, as reflected even among our Assyrian brethren.

I hope you understand that, for I believe you were among those EO (if you were not, forgive me) who doubted my claim. when I first came onto this forum long ago, that the Oriental Orthodox have a different ecclesiological understanding than the Eastern Orthodox do.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Hesychios,

There is something else I pray that one day you will be able to fully accept.

I am from the Oriental Tradition, not the Eastern. Orientals generally have a higher regard for the authority of the head bishop than Byzantines do.

It is simply not in the mindset of the Traditional Oriental to ever possibly conceive of a body of bishops without a head bishop, nor for that body to be considered without a head among its members. What occurred during Florence in the East, with the expulsion of the Patriarch and other bishops, even without the benefit of a council, by the will of the people would be inconceiveable among the Orientals.

Perhaps you are aware of the debacle among the Oriental Orthodox in Africa where the Eritrean bishops deposed its Patriarch. The Coptic Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox were up in arms! You just don’t do that within Oriental Orthodoxy.

And Perhaps you are aware of the debacle among the Syrian Orthodox, where its daughter Indian Church refused to recognize the authority of the Patriarch and declare independence. The rhetoric got to a point where the Mother Church was calling nationalism a heresy.

This is the AUTHENTIC Oriental Tradition. It is not “Roman.” It is simply the Tradition that has been handed down to us, as reflected even among our Assyrian brethren.

I hope you understand that, for I believe you were among those EO (if you were not, forgive me) who doubted my claim. when I first came onto this forum long ago, that the Oriental Orthodox have a different ecclesiological understanding than the Eastern Orthodox do.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok Marduk, I got a side question for you.

Lately since looking at Eastern Catholicism, I’ve become aware of the differences between the Copts and the EO. Which has been a source of conversation, since my wife in the future unlike me very much wants to join the EO, while I am instead looking at the Maronites…

Anyway prior to that. In reading this web site of an online friend.

geocities.com/mfignatius/oo.html

I was conditioned to think of the Oriental and EO churches as Sister Churches. Almost the way East Catholics do with their equivalent nonCatholic Orthodox and Oriental Churches. Especially after reading things like the answers to the last two questions in the FAQ which describe the relationship between the Antiochians and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and the relationship between the Copts and the Greek Orthodox Church. I’ve actually been acustomed to thinking of Greek Orthodox Church as a sister or cousin church to the Coptic one because of the obvious hellenism of the Coptic church.

Anyway what is your thoughts on this? Are they related in a sister or cousin way by ethnicity. And more alike then common. Or do the differences make them much more distinct and different (like comparing the EO to the Assyrian Church of the East or Latin Catholicism)?

Up until recently, I would have said that the Copts were almost like the EO except for the number of counsils and a few other very specific things. But hearing you talk, it sounds like you see them as much more different then even I have depicted them recently (When arguing with my wife that when she nay sayed against EC conversion and made it sound like we have almost nothing different then the EO!).

Anyway let me know…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

Ok Marduk, I got a side question for you.

Lately since looking at Eastern Catholicism, I’ve become aware of the differences between the Copts and the EO. Which has been a source of conversation, since my wife in the future unlike me very much wants to join the EO, while I am instead looking at the Maronites…

Anyway prior to that. In reading this web site of an online friend.

geocities.com/mfignatius/oo.html

I was conditioned to think of the Oriental and EO churches as Sister Churches. Almost the way East Catholics do with their equivalent nonCatholic Orthodox and Oriental Churches. Especially after reading things like the answers to the last two questions in the FAQ which describe the relationship between the Antiochians and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and the relationship between the Copts and the Greek Orthodox Church. I’ve actually been acustomed to thinking of Greek Orthodox Church as a sister or cousin church to the Coptic one because of the obvious hellenism of the Coptic church.

Anyway what is your thoughts on this? Are they related in a sister or cousin way by ethnicity. And more alike then common. Or do the differences make them much more distinct and different (like comparing the EO to the Assyrian Church of the East or Latin Catholicism)?

Up until recently, I would have said that the Copts were almost like the EO except for the number of counsils and a few other very specific things. But hearing you talk, it sounds like you see them as much more different then even I have depicted them recently (When arguing with my wife that when she nay sayed against EC conversion and made it sound like we have almost nothing different then the EO!).

Anyway let me know…

Thank you for your question.

I responded to some of your concerns in the “My Witness” when we first initially made contact. It is the last post in the thread. I don’t know if you read it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3815653&postcount=24

I read the link to your friend’s website. Of note, as it relates to the particlar topic at hand, is his statement about the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. He states that this group must first let go of its heresies before being considered fully Oriental Orthodox by the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The “heresies” he speaks of is exactly one of the differences between the EO and OO - namely, nationalism in the context of ecclesiology - i.e., dividing up the Church strictly along national lines. I read a commentary once from a Syrian Orthodox priest indicating that the mindset of the schismatic portion of the Indian Malankara Church is not the way of the OO, but rather the way of the EO.

Anyhow, I would consider the EO my cousins in the Faith. I will post more as I have time. Thank you for your question.

Please do read the last post in the “My Witness” thread, and if you have already done so, and discussed it with your wife, please let us know what the result was/is.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

I read the link to your friend’s website. Of note, as it relates to the particlar topic at hand, is his statement about the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. He states that this group must first let go of its heresies before being considered fully Oriental Orthodox by the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The “heresies” he speaks of is exactly one of the differences between the EO and OO - namely, nationalism in the context of ecclesiology - i.e., dividing up the Church strictly along national lines. I read a commentary once from a Syrian Orthodox priest indicating that the mindset of the schismatic portion of the Indian Malankara Church is not the way of the OO, but rather the way of the EO.

I just wanted to add:
As you’ll notice, your friend uses the term “heresies” PLURAL. Aside from accusing the schismatic portion of the Indian Church of Nationalism, the literature I’ve read also accuses them of the heresy of denying the unique authority of St. Peter among the Apostles. It is the unique authority of St. Peter to which the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is appealing when he insists on the obedience of the Indian Metropolitan.

Blessings,
Marduk