Patriarchal Jurisdiction

[Aramis]

With all due respect to the Syro-Malabar Church, I remain of the opinion that, as with the Ukranian GCC, the status-quo is fine.

With the UGCC one has both the EO question and the matter of autocephaly (at least the EO would probably consider the erection of a Patriarchate to be the same) to consider, neither of which bear on the Syro-Malabar Church.

Prior to the formal union, the latter was historically tied to the the ACoE. Seleucia-Ctesiphon was never officially raised to the rank of “patriarchate” by an Oecumenical Council, although after the separation from Antioch, the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon did assume the title “Patriarch.” It all leaves the Syro-Malabar Church in a rather unique situation, being the “daughter” of a Church which was not itself raised to a Patriarchate, so it (the “daughter”) has no claim whatsoever to the title.

The Major Archbishop enjoys a position equivalent to that Patriarch, the only practical difference being the title itself. I really see no reason for Rome to change this. Were Rome to do so, such action would likely be perceived by the OOC, EOC, and ACoE as being usurpatory of the prerogatives of an Oecumenical Council. From what I can see, the only real purpose served would be that of “politically correctness” which is something that I have never supported.

Rome can always amend its own “order of precedence” to officially equate Major Archbishops and Catholicoi with Patriarchs, but the artificial establishment of a patriarchate for the sole purpose of “political correctness” to me seems ludicrous.

Catolicoi are treated as Patriarchs under the current canon law; they are not distinguished from other patriarchs.

 

[malphono]

Catolicoi are treated as Patriarchs under the current canon law; they are not distinguished from other patriarchs.

One thing I’m not is a canon lawyer, so I’ll take your word for it, and thank you for the enlightenment.

 

[Amadeus]

Catolicoi are treated as Patriarchs under the current canon law; they are not distinguished from other patriarchs.

It is not treated as such by the Latin Code of Canons.

So, where does the CCEO treat “Catholicoi” as equivalent to “Patriarch?”

Perhaps, the title “Catholicoi” may be lumped with the title “Major Archbishop” instead?"

The CCEO treats only the titles "Patriarch, " “Major Archbishop,” “Metropolitan,” etc., in descending order.

 

[gthever]

I may be wrong on this issue, but doesn’t the Pope have to confirm the election of a new primate in the Major Archepisocal churches while with Patriarchal Churches elect their primates without any interference from Rome. Once elected, doesn’t the new Patriarch/Catholicos extend full communion to the Bishop of Rome?

 

[malphono]

I may be wrong on this issue, but doesn’t the Pope have to confirm the election of a new primate in the Major Archepisocal churches while with Patriarchal Churches elect their primates without any interference from Rome. Once elected, doesn’t the new Patriarch/Catholicos extend full communion to the Bishop of Rome?

Technically, yes, I believe that’s true, but it does not seem to be the case in fact. Patriarchal Churches do indeed elect their Patriarchs in Synod, but as far as I am aware, Rome still reserves unto itself the right of conferring the pallium which really means acceptance and confirmation of the election. I don’t know if there has been a case where that confirmation was withheld, but in theory, at least, it could be. (Unless, of course, it was a Synodal election in which Rome interfered, and that I am familiar with. In such case, Rome’s candidate was elected or appointed (depending on the particular circumstances), so the acceptance/confirmation was, of course, automatic.

 

[Diak]

But anyway, it’s only my opinion, and apparently it’s not widely shared in this forum.

Possibly not, and many Orthodox do support (in the case of the UGCC) recognition of the Patriarchate. The creation of a new Latin canonical term for our hierarchs also doesn’t bode well in the shaking off of “latinizations”. If a particular Church has the organization in place, and the will of her hierarchy and people, why not let it?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I don’t disagree. By co-terminus I was refering to the fact that the authority of both is universal, supreme and full. But as I mentioned in my last post, the authority of the council seems to boil down to the authority of Rome. It seems that a council is ultimately just an expression of Romes authority. Karl Rhaner tried to answer this question in his commentary on chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium but I don’t think he is very successful. Yes you are correct with all your statements about the restrictions on an Ecumenical Council. This is probably the biggest issue I have with communion with Rome. The authority of the bishops has become a delegated authority through the development Romes authority.

In my estimation, the difference between the supreme authority practiced by the Pope ex cathedra, and the supreme authority practiced by the Ecumenical Council is that the involvement of the Pope’s brother bishops is informal in the former, and formal in the latter.

In your estimation, there is no difference.and it is all about the Pope.

Would it be correct to say that your biggest issue with Rome is its adherence to the apostolic canon, which demands the consent of the head bishop? Please consider the following question: Do you have a problem with the apostolic canon (#35 in Greek, #34 in Latin)? If so, I can’t discuss it further. If not, what makes you think the prescriptions of the apostolic canon is any DIFFERENT from the prescriptions of the Catholic Church regarding an ecumenical council with the Pope as its head? I am eagerly awaiting your response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Deacon Diak,

If a particular Church has the organization in place, and the will of her hierarchy and people, why not let it?

I support SELF-establishment. But would you agree that the only authority that can OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE such an establishment outside of that jurisdiction is an Ecumenical Council? What I mean is that for OTHER particular Churches to accept or recognize the self-establishment, an Ecumenical Council is required. Perhaps the Pope understands this to be the case. So it is not as if he is withholding recognition - it is simply that he knows such recognition can only come about in the extraordinary forum of an Ecumenical Council.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

It is not treated as such by the Latin Code of Canons.

So, where does the CCEO treat “Catholicoi” as equivalent to “Patriarch?”

Perhaps, the title “Catholicoi” may be lumped with the title “Major Archbishop” instead?"

The CCEO treats only the titles "Patriarch, " “Major Archbishop,” “Metropolitan,” etc., in descending order.

Catolikos is absent from the CCEO; examine the alphabetical word lists.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_FAC.HTM
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_FA4.HTM

Several publications make no distinctions between the Catolikosi and the other patriarchs. The Church Visible, for one.

 

[malphono]

…

Diak:

If a particular Church has the organization in place, and the will of her hierarchy and people, why not let it?

I support SELF-establishment. But would you agree that the only authority that can OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE such an establishment outside of that jurisdiction is an Ecumenical Council? What I mean is that for OTHER particular Churches to accept or recognize the self-establishment, an Ecumenical Council is required. Perhaps the Pope understands this to be the case. So it is not as if he is withholding recognition - it is simply that he knows such recognition can only come about in the extraordinary forum of an Ecumenical Council. …

Very good, Marduk. Aside from the “self-establishment” (and I think I understand where you’re coming from with that), it’s pretty much where I was going.

The idea of “self-establishment” seems to be pretty much the current situation in the UGCC, and that’s fine. I have no argument with the UGCC (or any others’) internal matters.

It’s certainly not my intention to offend Diak or anyone else, so I won’t belabor the point. That said, I still do not believe the arbitrary and unilateral establishment by Rome of a “patriarchate” would be proper. As I see it, it’s for an Oecumenical Council of the Universal (here meaning United) Church to address. Again, just my opinion, and from here on in this thread, this Oriental is keeping mum about matters Slavic.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Amadeus,

His singular approval, motu proprio or as recommended by an Ecumenical Council, is required for the creation of a patriarchate.

I don’t understand the highlighted portion. Why would the judgment of an Ecumenical Council merely be a recommendation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

In my estimation, the difference between the supreme authority practiced by the Pope ex cathedra, and the supreme authority practiced by the Ecumenical Council is that the involvement of the Pope’s brother bishops is informal in the former, and formal in the latter.

In your estimation, there is no difference.and it is all about the Pope.

Would it be correct to say that your biggest issue with Rome is its adherence to the apostolic canon, which demands the consent of the head bishop? Please consider the following question: Do you have a problem with the apostolic canon (#35 in Greek, #34 in Latin)? If so, I can’t discuss it further. If not, what makes you think the prescriptions of the apostolic canon is any DIFFERENT from the prescriptions of the Catholic Church regarding an ecumenical council with the Pope as its head? I am eagerly awaiting your response.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I don’t have a problem with the 34th apostolic canon. First of all it is not about infallibility. Second, the pope does not require the consent of the college of bishops. It is not implicite in his ex cathedra statements. As Lumen Gentium says, along with Vatican I, the Pope does not need the consent of the college of bishops to define a doctrine ex cathedra or to use his universal jurisdiction. The authority of his declarations are ‘ex sese’.
And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith[Lumen Gentium 25].
Many bishops wanted to say that the pope had to listen to the college of bishops but it was rejected. His authority is full, universal and supreme over the whole Church. You might think that since they established the synod of bishops in 1965 then that means that the authority of the bishops is also shown. But the bishops have only an advisory role at these synods, not a voting authority. National councils have no authority to bind. They can only offer statements in which there can be some form of a moral union over.

Apost. Canon 34 on the other hand says that the head bishop is not to act apart from the bishops. The synods of the Eastern Churches follow this canon much more closely because the patriarch does not act apart from the body of bishops. The early Church had no concept of a bishop whose authority was so overarching that in all matters they must submit to them. The 34th ac never implies or hints that the head bishop has ‘universal, full, and supreme’ authority over the whole patriarchate.

The reason for the consent between the patriarch and the body of bishops in the canon is for the sake of unity so that the Trinity will be glorified. The unity that is espoused by the Roman Pontiff basically boils down to a submission of the whole Church of will and intellect to the Roman Pontiffs decissions.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

No, I don’t have a problem with the 34th apostolic canon. First of all it is not about infallibility. Second, the pope does not require the consent of the college of bishops. It is not implicite in his ex cathedra statements. As Lumen Gentium says, along with Vatican I, the Pope does not need the consent of the college of bishops to define a doctrine ex cathedra or to use his universal jurisdiction. The authority of his declarations are ‘ex sese’.
And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith[Lumen Gentium 25].
Many bishops wanted to say that the pope had to listen to the college of bishops but it was rejected. His authority is full, universal and supreme over the whole Church. You might think that since they established the synod of bishops in 1965 then that means that the authority of the bishops is also shown. But the bishops have only an advisory role at these synods, not a voting authority. National councils have no authority to bind. They can only offer statements in which there can be some form of a moral union over.

Apost. Canon 34 on the other hand says that the head bishop is not to act apart from the bishops. The synods of the Eastern Churches follow this canon much more closely because the patriarch does not act apart from the body of bishops. The early Church had no concept of a bishop whose authority was so overarching that in all matters they must submit to them. The 34th ac never implies or hints that the head bishop has ‘universal, full, and supreme’ authority over the whole patriarchate.

The reason for the consent between the patriarch and the body of bishops in the canon is for the sake of unity so that the Trinity will be glorified. The unity that is espoused by the Roman Pontiff basically boils down to a submission of the whole Church of will and intellect to the Roman Pontiffs decissions.

Your most recent comments in the “Let’s talk about primacy of honor” thread indicate you DO have a problem with the apostolic canon. Until you can accept the fact that the consent of the head bishop is necessary, then it seems we are at an impasse.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy,

Your most recent comments in the “Let’s talk about primacy of honor” thread indicate you DO have a problem with the apostolic canon. Until you can accept the fact that the consent of the head bishop is necessary, then it seems we are at an impasse.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t have a problem with AC 34, although I might have a problem with your interpretation of it. History doesn’t agree with this idea that the pope can simply veto canons or councils. As I mentioned on the other thread I have a problem with the authority of the Church being reduced to the authority of Rome.

 

[malphono]

… Apost. Canon 34 on the other hand says that the head bishop is not to act apart from the bishops. The synods of the Eastern Churches follow this canon much more closely because the patriarch does not act apart from the body of bishops. The early Church had no concept of a bishop whose authority was so overarching that in all matters they must submit to them. The 34th ac never implies or hints that the head bishop has ‘universal, full, and supreme’ authority over the whole patriarchate.

The reason for the consent between the patriarch and the body of bishops in the canon is for the sake of unity so that the Trinity will be glorified. The unity that is espoused by the Roman Pontiff basically boils down to a submission of the whole Church of will and intellect to the Roman Pontiffs decissions.

No argument from me, but I will make an observation: whereas the structure of the various Eastern and Oriental Churches was and is Synodal in character, that of the Roman Church is (or at least has become) hierarchical. Therein lies the major difference. The “hierarchical method” inevitably causes problems when used outside the Western Patriarchate, but many years of experience tells me there is nothing to be done for it. Rome is what she is, and what the East has to say (the whole “multiple lungs” thing notwithstanding), is not going to change that. All together, it seems to me that it rather brings us back again to the discussion of primacy. I have my position on that issue, but it will remain in pectu so-to-speak, at least in this forum.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Apost. Canon 34 on the other hand says that the head bishop is not to act apart from the bishops. The synods of the Eastern Churches follow this canon much more closely because the patriarch does not act apart from the body of bishops. The early Church had no concept of a bishop whose authority was so overarching that in all matters they must submit to them. The 34th ac never implies or hints that the head bishop has ‘universal, full, and supreme’ authority over the whole patriarchate.

The reason for the consent between the patriarch and the body of bishops in the canon is for the sake of unity so that the Trinity will be glorified. The unity that is espoused by the Roman Pontiff basically boils down to a submission of the whole Church of will and intellect to the Roman Pontiffs decissions.

I know a lot of what we are discussing is based on our personal interpretations. Here is how I interpret your comments:

You are saying that:

1. Our bishops are too dumb to realize whether what the Pope teaches is orthodox or not;
2. Our bishops agree with the Pope ONLY because Catholic canon SUPPOSEDLY says (according to you) that they HAVE to;
3. Our bishops are too lazy to do their own research in order to make a truly informed, conscientious decision to agree with what the Pope teaches;
4. Our bishops are just mindless drones who, when informing their consciences, ONLY and ALWAYS refer to what the Pope says, and do not at all make independent study of Sacred Tradition;
5. Christian obedience is based on mere submission, and not love or conscientious and informed agreement.

If you are not claiming any of these things, then please demonstrate why anyone should believe your argument that our Faith is based on what the Pope says and what he says ALONE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

You are saying that:

1. Our bishops are too dumb to realize whether what the Pope teaches is orthodox or not;

No, their intelligence is irrelevant because what the pope teaches is orthodox no matter what. He is infallible. It doesn’t matter what they say or think, the popes word is infallible.

1. Our bishops agree with the Pope ONLY because Catholic canon SUPPOSEDLY says (according to you) that they HAVE to;

They agree with him because he is infallible and can’t err and therefore they are just informing their consciences of the truth.

1. Our bishops are too lazy to do their own research in order to make a truly informed, conscientious decision to agree with what the Pope teaches;

That is exactly what they are doing by simply agreeing with the pope. They make a truely informed, conscientious decision to follow the popes words because it is absolutely impossible that he err.

1. Our bishops are just mindless drones who, when informing their consciences, ONLY and ALWAYS refer to what the Pope says, and do not at all make independent study of Sacred Tradition;

Independant study is done in order to defend the statements of the pope or to back them up. There can be no criticism of the pope because he is infallible.

1. Christian obedience is based on mere submission, and not love or conscientious and informed agreement.

I haven’t made a contrast between these. You are changing the discussion and making it about conscience when conscience has nothing to do with it. By making it about conscience you only affirm what I am saying; namely that the popes statements are infallible because they are written by the pope and because he is protected. And consequently the bishops only accept what the pope says because he said it, not because of the meaning of the words he actually uses.

If you are not claiming any of these things, then please demonstrate why anyone should believe your argument that our Faith is based on what the Pope says and what he says ALONE.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have demonstrated it. You can read the documents and see what it says. The popes authority is layed out clearly in them. This discussion is getting no where and I have a feeling that we are speaking past eachother.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

This discussion is getting no where and I have a feeling that we are speaking past each other.

At least we all now know what you think of our Eastern and Oriental Fathers (that is, our bishops). I can’t say I agree with you. I guess I have more respect for them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

At least we all now know what you think of our Eastern and Oriental Fathers (that is, our bishops). I can’t say I agree with you. I guess I have more respect for them.

Blessings,
Marduk

Why are you making this about respect? It is a question of epistemology. If the bishops recieve knowledge of the truth by listening to the pope then how is it disrespectful to say it openly? That is what it seems that papal infallibility comes down to.

If you want to speak of respect, then yes I respect them all. I especially respect those fathers who stand for their tradition in the face of opposition like Patriarch Gregorios or Bishop Zhogby.

 

[mardukm]

Why are you making this about respect? It is a question of epistemology. If the bishops recieve knowledge of the truth by listening to the pope then how is it disrespectful to say it openly? That is what it seems that papal infallibility comes down to.

If you want to speak of respect, then yes I respect them all. I especially respect those fathers who stand for their tradition in the face of opposition like Patriarch Gregorios or Bishop Zhogby.

You have explicitly portrayed our bishops as mere lapdogs of the Pope whose sole interest is to preserve a monstrous, centralized version of our Church.

I, on the other hand, view our bishops as genuine preservers of Sacred Tradition who agree with the Pope NOT out of mere blind submission to the fact of his infallibility, but because of their informed, independent and conscientious study of Sacred Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk