Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mikee

The bishops’ authority being “immediate” is not something new from Vatican II. It’s actually found in many theology books that deal with this subject before the Council.

Suffice it to say “immediate” does not denote that the bishops’ jurisdiction derive directly from God.

I have no problem with this. But it is my understanding that this definition derives from THE VERY FACT that the power comes directly from God. In any case, how do you propose that the definition maintains if they must go through the Pope?

You have to be careful here. The clause “should the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it” does not limit the Pope’s power, rather it explains the reason why he may use it. Otherwise, who gets to decide what is useful for the Church and the faithful if there is a dispute between the Pope and the Bishop?

I can accept that definition, but only in addition to the understanding that it is ALSO a limit to what the Pope can do in relation to the bishops. Otherwise, we need to grant that the Pope has the authority to do something contrary to the needs of the Church, and I don’t think any one here (maybe polemic non-Catholics) will agree to that.

Sorry, not by divine law, but by divine right

Understood. I might be able to agree with you if it were not for the infallible and canonical fact that the Pope has a DIVINE OBLIGATION to uphold and defend the ordinary and immediate power of the bishop. I do not see how a divine right that has a possibility of confuting the divine obligation can exist.

Notice there that the power of jursidiction passes through the Roman Pontiff and not simply in virtue of ordination to the episcopacy. And this is clearly logical when you think about it. Any cleric can be validly ordained a bishop (they are, in fact, ordained in the Old Catholic sects, sedevacantist groups, and six were ordained in the SSPX ), but these bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction because they do not have --at least the tacit-- approval of the Roman Pontiff.

And such is the case even with the exceptions where bishops are licitly ordained without papal mandate. They can never be licitly ordained against the will of the Pope.

Ad apostolorum principis was written before Vatican II. Vatican II, upon the calls of many bishops, both East and West, a call that resounds with the voices of the Vatican I Fathers, set out to defend the prerogatives of the Patriarchs.

Thus, your quote should only be taken in reference to the Latin Church. The right of confirmation of bishops of Eastern/Oriental Patriarchal Churches belongs to that Eastern/Oriental Patriarch ALONE.

In any case, it is actually by virtue of the very fact that the POWER of jurisdiction derives directly from God that we have non-Catholic apostolic Churches recognized by the Catholic Church as Churches. The EXERCISE of this power is nil in the Catholic Church, but it exists nonetheless.

Thank you for this great discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

As mentioned earlier, I have all the canons I want to present in relation to our discussion. However, I am having a harder time getting the corresponding numbers from Eastern Code. It was easy for the Latin Code since I have it in book form, but I only have the Eastern Code online (and the canons are singularaly segregated into separate pages).

Unfortunately, I must be away for the next 4 - 5 days. Thank you for your patience, and I will have those canons for you when I return - conceivably by next Tuesday.

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

It is ALSO a limit to what the Pope can do in relation to the bishops.

So when the Pope errs, WHO is going to be the one to not only tell him, but to enforce an action against his error? And if NO ONE, then the limit is nothing but words…

Otherwise, we need to grant that the Pope has the authority to do something contrary to the needs of the Church, and I don’t think any one here (maybe polemic non-Catholics) will agree to that.

That is the conclusion that you are trying to avoid, no doubt, and there are other equally appalling ones, yet IF you are a Papal Authoritarian, then you MUST give the pope infallibility, and THEN you must be under his authority, and there can be NO authority over him…

Which is why OUR authority is Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit working through the Whole Catholic Church, rather than through just one authoritarian bishop…

Arsenios

 

[anthony022071]

That’s all the canons claimed.

And it was a wrong-headed claim.

The issue of spiritual authority over the entire Church is projection on your part. It’s neither our, nor the Fathers fault that you can think of Church governance only in terms of V I papacy.

The Eastern church fathers acknowledged the spiritual authority of the pope over the entire church many times over. Vatican 1 only made official what Eastern saints and clergy freely admitted in their letters.

I also recall you being repeatedly told there that, like papal primacy, there is no scriptural basis for it (for instance scripture not stating Peter was ever in Rome, as opposed to Antioch). It is the creation of the Church and her canons, which is fine with us, but you have problems with this fact.

There’s plenty of scriptural basis for papal primacy.

catholic-legate.com/articles/papacy_joseph.html

catholic-legate.com/articles/tract9.html

bringyou.to/apologetics/debate14.htm

 

[Aramis]

Arsenios:

If the college of Cardinals believes that the Pope has left the Church, either by death, incompetence, or apostasy, then they elect a new one. At least, historically that’s what happened. Hence the Avignon Anti-popes.

This would happen by the Camerlengo calling the cardinals to meet.

Or, as with the East deserting after Florence, by simple refusal to adhere, until the non-pope resigns or dies.

If they’re off by enough, some radical will assassinate them.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Eastern church fathers acknowledged the spiritual authority of the pope over the entire church many times over.

There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Catholic Church in the East was larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain faithful to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

I can accept that definition, but only in addition to the understanding that it is ALSO a limit to what the Pope can do in relation to the bishops. Otherwise, we need to grant that the Pope has the authority to do something contrary to the needs of the Church, and I don’t think any one here (maybe polemic non-Catholics) will agree to that.

Like I said, we have to be careful here.

Picture the following scenario: a controversy arises within the Church because a heretical bishop is starting to preach heresy and his teaching is gaining great influence (to let this hit more closer to home for you, let’s say this hypothetical bishop preaches among other things that the eastern churches need to be suppressed and assimilated into one rite, the Roman rite). Now, the Pope decides to use his supreme authority by taking action – formally taking the bishop out of office along with the ordinary jurisdiction he has in his diocese. The bishop rebels; protesting that he is doing God’s work for the good of the Church and hence the Pope needs to uphold and defend his office, and since the Pope doesn’t, the Pope is ignored. Pretty soon, the bishop gains a great number of followers. So according to this hypothetical scenario, who is the ultimate arbiter of how the bishop exercises his ministry, and who is the ultimate arbiter of what’s good for the Church? I think we agree agree the Pope is. But according to the bishop’s argument, he is doing God’s work for the good of the Church and hence the Pope has no right to interfere. And hence a vicious circle ensues. Do you see what I’m trying to get at here?

mardukm:

Ad apostolorum principis was written before Vatican II. Vatican II, upon the calls of many bishops, both East and West, a call that resounds with the voices of the Vatican I Fathers, set out to defend the prerogatives of the Patriarchs.

Before we accept the excuse that “it-was-before-Vatican-II-so…”, let’s see where the actual documents of Vatican II corrected Pius XII. Because as far as I know this doctrinal question of whether the bishops’ ordinary jurisdiction derives directly from God, or through the Roman Pontiff, was never even considered by the Council Fathers as up for discussion.

mardukm:

Thus, your quote should only be taken in reference to the Latin Church. The right of confirmation of bishops of Eastern/Oriental Patriarchal Churches belongs to that Eastern/Oriental Patriarch ALONE.

In any case, it is actually by virtue of the very fact that the POWER of jurisdiction derives directly from God that we have non-Catholic apostolic Churches recognized by the Catholic Church as Churches.

Here are Pope Pius’ words again: “Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” Am I right in understanding that you see this to apply only to Latin rite bishops?

 

[anthony022071]

I was pointing out that Anthony seems confused on this: at once he dismisses the claim that Rome approved Constantinople I because Rome’s legates were there, he says legates don’t count.

I didn’t say that legates don’t count,I said that they don’t participate in a council the way that bishops do. The legates don’t vote,they represent the authority of the pope,carry out papal directives,and report the proceedings of the council back to the pope.

Then he says that Rome presided over Chalcedon because Rome’s legates were there, and they evidently count. Which is it?

Yes,the pope did preside over Chalcedon by way of the legates,and the council recognized that.

“For you showed us benevolence in presiding over us in the persons of those who held your place *, as the head over the members”.
(synod of Chalcedon to St. Leo. Ep. xcviii, PL. liv, 951. Mansi vi, 147) *

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Btw, I think it was alleged on this thread that the East quivered at the pope of Rome’s veto of Constantinople I and Chalcedon’s canons on the EP, and did not give the EP 2nd place in the canons until after 1054. To that:

Council in Trullo (Quinisext) (692), c. 36.

RENEWING the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/balsamon-cpl.html

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Catholic Church in the East was larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain faithful to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?

Indeed - Why indeed? What cause indeed?

And the falsehood of the claim of Papal Authority over the Whole Church comes ever so clearly into view… The Church indeed did NOT regard Rome as having universal jurisdiction and authoritarian rule over the Church Catholic… This falsehood is only maintained at the expense of the painfully obvious FACT of the schism… It was contested by NONE in the East… Not ONE Bishop suggested that the East should in any way RETURN to the SUBMISSION to the POPE… That never happened… And the rest is but ecclesiological lawyering of excerpted proof-textings that give the appearance of truth to that which is false… That is what lawyers do…

Arsenios

 

[anthony022071]

There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Catholic Church in the East was larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

I’m not sure about that.
At the time of the schism,the western church consisted of Italy,France,Northern Spain (central and southern Spain having been taken over by the Muslims),Germany,Austria,Belgium,
the Netherlands,Denmark,Sweden,Norway,
England,Scotland,Ireland,Bohemia,Croatia,the principality of Poland,the kingdom of Hungary.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain faithful to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?

That’s like asking why the Protestants in Germany threw off obedience to the pope,when the Germans had been loyal to the pope up until the time of Martin Luther. It’s a matter of rebellion stemming from nationalistic impulses. And I’m not sure that every bishop in the East threw off obedience to the pope.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose;2779179:

There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Catholic Church in the East was larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

I’m not sure about that.

Yes. a week back someone (a Catholic gentleman) posted a graph which showed that the Eastern Christians were more numerous than the Western.

 

[ForeverAdam]

There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Catholic Church in the East was larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain faithful to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?

Excellent observations, Father. It is similar to why nobody who denied papal infallibility in the Latin Church prior to 1870 was branded a heretic for doing so. If papal infallibility was really an already held belief of the Latin Church (and not a mere opinion) before 1870, then those who denied this teaching would have suffered the same fate as the Albigenses, Henricians and the Protestants who denied already-held teachings and were openly condemned prior to any proclamation of dogma. However, those who denied papal infallibility didn’t suffer this fate. This fact speaks volumes of the new nature of the papal infallibility teaching. There are lots of things that a false doctrine can do to the Church that it is attacking. However, there is one thing that it cannot do. It cannot brand the opposition as “heretics” until it gets official approval from the Church it seeks to control. This is exactly what we see in the lack of condemnation given to those of denied papal infallibility prior to 1870. This reveals that the history of the papal infallibility dogma has all the marks of a false doctrine, not an already held teaching of the Church. And if its history looks like that of a false doctrine, it isn’t a big leap to admitting that it actually is one.

God bless,

Adam

 

[anthony022071]

Yes. a week back someone (a Catholic gentleman) posted a graph which showed that the Eastern Christians were more numerous than the Western.

I doubt we have accurate population statistics from all of Western and Eastern Christendom from that period. Who was keeping count of the number of Christians in the East and West?

 

[dvdjs]

Yes. a week back someone (a Catholic gentleman) posted a graph which showed that the Eastern Christians were more numerous than the Western.

No.
I posted the graph. I also posted a comment that pointed out some of the errors that you make in over-interpreting the graph as showing that the Eastern Christians were more numerous than the Western at your rather arbitrarily selected time of the schism. An acceptable interpretation of the data shown is that ca. 1054 the number of Eastern and Western Christians was very nearly the same. This is not rocket science.

As to your specific question, I think that anthony022071 makes the obvious reply. Shortly after the excommunications, the political dimension were connected to the enthronement of Latin Patriarchs in the Holy Land after its liberation from the Muslims by the crusaders. Initially there had been reluctance to join in the excommunications. After the erection of dual Patriarchates, the path that history would take was fairly obvious - at least in the short term.

At the present time, in the territory of the Antiochian and Jerusalem churches, there is a hefty majority of Christians in communion with Rome over the Eastern Orthodox. In Alexandria, the communions are about equal in size (and dwarfed by the OO communion). It is singularly the daughters of the EP that remain steadfast in their infidelity to Rome.

 

[anthony022071]

It is similar to why nobody who denied papal infallibility in the Latin Church prior to 1870 was branded a heretic for doing so.

• Opatatus (c. 367 A.D.):
  “In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] — of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner… Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
  (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2)
• Socrates Scholasticus (c. AD 380-450), a Greek Church historian in Constantinople:
  “…the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
  (The Ecclesiastical History 2, 8, NPNF2, 2:38)
• Signatories of the “Formula of Hormisdas” (519 AD) to restore union after the Acacian Schism (484 AD):
  “[We agree that] in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. . . . We receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo . . . and, as we have said, we follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. Therefore, I hope that I may deserve to be with you [Pope Hormisdas, r. 514-523] in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which Communion is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. And I promise that in the future I will not say in the holy Mysteries the names of those who are banished from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree with the Apostolic See.”
  (Cf. Adrian Fortescue, The Eastern Orthodox Church [London: Catholic Truth Society, 1925], pp. 85-86; as cited in Jaki, S. Eastern Orthodoxy’s Witness to Papal Primacy [Port Huron, MI: Real View Books, 2004], p. 21f.**)
• Patriarch Mennas (ca. A.D. 536-552; d. A.D. 552), commemorated in the West on August 25, in his own sentence against Anthimus at a council in Constantinople (ca. A.D. 536):
  “Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the apostolic throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”
  (Mansi 8: 968-70, as found in “Keys Over the Christian World”; author Scott Butler).

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I doubt we have accurate population statistics from all of Western and Eastern Christendom from that period. Who was keeping count of the number of Christians in the East and West?

Posted by DVDJS

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5191/graphstatisticsschismdv9.gif

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Posted by DVDJS

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5191/graphstatisticsschismdv9.gif

Well, it looks like the EOs were more in 1054, and they were even-steven in around 1125, and the EOs have been in decline ever since…

But this sorry RC quibbling about this matter of exact census counts in no way detracts from Fr. Ambrose’s observation that IF the Eastern Churches were in fact in obedience as a matter of course to Rome who exercised jurisdiction over them, as the RC posters on this board are ever so persistent in affirming, then why oh why were there not ANY followers from the Eastern Churches who followed Rome in the split?

I would even settle for a long argument/discussion on the part of the East over whether or not they should CONTINUE their obedience to Rome, but there is nothing…

Nothing at all…

Because there WAS NO OBEDIENCE to Rome…

Rome never did have jurisdiction over the Church…

Rome as these posters understand her in the first millennium is but a product of vain imaginings…

Arsenios

 

[anthony022071]

That graph is misleading in the first place because it distinguishes Orthodox from Catholic from the years before the schism. If whoever made that graph doesn’t even understand that there was no entity called the Orthodox Chuch prior to the schism,then their statistics are probably not trustworthy either. Who was conducting census throughout the whole of Christendom at that time? Who was keeping count of all the Christians? What records and documents from that time were used to make those estimates?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

At the present time, in the territory of the Antiochian and Jerusalem churches, there is a hefty majority of Christians in communion with Rome over the Eastern Orthodox.

Not so at all.

"According to the data published by the [Vatican] Central Office of Statistics of our Secretary of State, on 1 January 2000 there were 117,000 Catholics in Israel and the Palestinian Territories out of a population of 6.1 million inhabitants. We know besides that there are a considerable number of other Christians, primarily of the Greek-Orthodox Patriarchate.

vatican.net/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011213_sodano-holy-land_en.html

Thanks to the Russian immigration to Israel, 1 in every 5 Israelis is now… Russian !!

The situation is looking rather optimistic, at least for the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. A web search will turn up information on the growing number of Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land and the concern it is causing to the Israeli Knesset.

“The Russians Are Coming” to rescue the Holy Land?

weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/494/op1.htm

There have been significant changes to Israeli religious demographics over the last 10 years, thanks to the influx of more than 1 million Russians. One in 5 Israelis is now Russian, 20% of the population. A proportion of these are Jews by ancestry but Russian Orthodox Christians by religion.

Today new Orthodox churches are being built throughout Israel and even on the kibbutzim! The Russians and the Arabs are brother Orthodox in Israel and together they will bring a new springtime of Christianity to the Mother Church of Jerusalem.

"I was recently given two startling pieces of information by a visiting Palestinian friend from Jerusalem. One was that there were several Russian Orthodox Christian churches being built in the southern Israeli town of Beersheba…

"Just as remarkable is Lustick’s observation that a significant number of the newcomers had registered themselves either as Christians or persons of no religion at all. As a result of this situation, the Russians, or to put it another way, non-Arab Christians are the fastest growing Israeli religious community and now constitute 8-9 per cent of the non-Arab population of the state… "
weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/494/op1.htm

One factor with which the Jerusalem Patriarchate will have to come to terms in the near future is the large numbers of Russian Orthodox who are now part of its flock. These are Jews genetically and Orthodox Christians religiously. Jerusalem has set up a church department for the Russians but it seems inadequate for the numbers of Russians involved. In the years ahead the character of the Patriarchate will be altered by the Russian Orthodox influx.

Another article:

portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=33276

Last wave of immigration sharply increased
the number of secret Orthodox Christians in Israel

Although official statistics indicate that the number of Christians in Israel is constantly decreasing, in reality, EAI data shows that there is a large number of secret Christians among the Jews who arrived from Russia and Ukraine between 1989-1993.

Thus, the research conducted among 86,000 new immigrants in 1999 demonstrated that approximately 53% of them cannot be considered Jews in accordance with Judaic law. Available data suggest approximately 400,000 “unregistered Orthodox Christians” arrived with the last wave of immigration.