Patriarchal Jurisdiction

[Formosus]

I don’t quite understand why an Ecumenical council is needed to raise a church to patriarchial status. Even the Orthodox Church does not hold such a view being that several newer Patriarchs have been elevated since the 7the council(or 9th).

 

[mardukm]

I don’t quite understand why an Ecumenical council is needed to raise a church to patriarchial status. Even the Orthodox Church does not hold such a view being that several newer Patriarchs have been elevated since the 7the council(or 9th).

I believe all Patriarchal jurisdictions in Eastern Orthodoxy were able to be granted without an Ecumenical Council because these new Patriarchal jurisdictions were ORIGINALLY in the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Patriarch which granted the new jurisdiction its independence, or in what that original jurisidiction regarded as its mission field. In the same way, the Pope has created patriarchal and metropolitan jurisdictions for the Eastern and Oriental Churches within his own Traditional patriarchal jurisdiction and in lands which were formerly regarded as Latin missionary fields.

The case of the UGCC is different. They are asking for Patriarchal status from the Pope. However, the Ukraine is not in the Traditional patriarchal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, so he has no canonical authority to do that. Long ago, when all non-Latin lands were regarded as mission fields, the Pope could well have accomodated the UGCC’s request. But in the present situation, Rome has consciously divested itself of the archaic paradigm that all non-Latin lands are mission fields for the Latin Patriarchate, and I’m certain the Holy Father is well aware of the circumstance.

The Syro-Malankara Church has also asked requested Patriarchal status. Their particular situation is a catch-22, as I already explained in an earlier post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

… If the bishops receive knowledge of the truth by listening to the pope …

Jimmy, how do you think Popes receive knowledge of the truth?

 

[Aramis]

The Ukraine also has no Catholic Patriarchs of that jurisdiction to grant recognitio to a brother patriarch from a daughter church.

In theory, the Syro-Malankara can get recognition from the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch; if both these patriarchs supported the petition, it would go a good ways towards advancing the case; bringing the other Syriac Rite patriarchs in favor would likewise make the case for papal recognition and elevation. Further, there is no singular Orthodox Patriarchate for the area (but more than one Catholicosate)…

Whereas the Ukraine has two large stable Orthodox Churches; the Canonical Eastern Orthodox Communion affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), and the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyiv Patriarchate. Plus the lesser schismatic Orthodox churches. The Muscovite Patriarch’s objection to it is a significant stumbling block, since it was used as a threat of reason to discontinue dialog with the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

In theory, the Syro-Malankara can get recognition from the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch; if both these patriarchs supported the petition, it would go a good ways towards advancing the case; bringing the other Syriac Rite patriarchs in favor would likewise make the case for papal recognition and elevation. Further, there is no singular Orthodox Patriarchate for the area (but more than one Catholicosate)…

I highly commend you for this point.:bowdown2: It is an option I did not consider. Since in the Catholic Church, we recognize that universal collegial decisions can occur even if the collegial decision is not made within an ecumenical council, then if enough Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs give support for the Syro-Malankara patriarchate, then with the consent of our head bishop (the Pope), then that would also be another valid way for that patriarchate to come about (yes, that was a run-on sentence ).

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[fwon2638]

The case of the UGCC is different. They are asking for Patriarchal status from the Pope. However, the Ukraine is not in the Traditional patriarchal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, so he has no canonical authority to do that. Long ago, when all non-Latin lands were regarded as mission fields, the Pope could well have accomodated the UGCC’s request. But in the present situation, Rome has consciously divested itself of the archaic paradigm that all non-Latin lands are mission fields for the Latin Patriarchate, and I’m certain the Holy Father is well aware of the circumstance.

Blessings,
Marduk

Would not it be possible that the Pope, as the head bishop, to grant patriarchal status to UGCC?

Francis

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Francis,

Would not it be possible that the Pope, as the head bishop, to grant patriarchal status to UGCC?

Nothing in our Canons, nor in custom or Tradition, would or could warrant this. As noted, custom grants that if the UGCC was within the Traditional patriarchal territory of the bishop of Rome, then this would be possible. But this is not so.

Of course, there is nothing that prevents the UGCC from self-recognition as a Patriarchate, and every member of the UGCC would view their Church as a Patriarchate. However, the only way the UGCC could have a UNIVERSALLY recognized Patriarchal status would be through an Ecumenical Council.

You’re probably asking yourself, “You said that if enough Patriarchs support a Syro-Malankara Patriarchate, and our head bishop consents, then the Syro-Malankara Patriarchate will have valid universal acceptance. Why can’t that be so for the UGCC?”

The situation with the UGCC is different from the Syro-Malankara for two reasons:

1. The Syro-Malankara hierarchy claim to have never left Roman Communion. In other words, it did not arise from a parent Church.
2. There is no conceivable opposition from local particular Churches which could block consensus for the creation of a Syro-Malankara Patriarchate (local Latin ordinaries would be the only roadblock, but support from the Latin Church’s patriarch would mitigate that impact).

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Would not it be possible that the Pope, as the head bishop, to grant patriarchal status to UGCC?

Francis

Canon Law says “Yes.”

Other practical matters add “… but it might not be good for the Church as a whole to do so right now.”

 

[rad]

Originally Posted by fwon2638
Would not it be possible that the Pope, as the head bishop, to grant patriarchal status to UGCC?

Nothing in our Canons, nor in custom or Tradition, would or could warrant this.

The Code of Canons of Oriental Churches in fact allows for just this.

Canon 57.1. “The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.”

The supreme authority of the Church is the Supreme Pontiff. Refer to the canons.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

The Code of Canons of Oriental Churches in fact allows for just this.

Canon 57.1. “The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.”

The supreme authority of the Church is the Supreme Pontiff. Refer to the canons.

If you’ll notice at the end of Canon 57, it distinctly enumerates the “Roman Pontiff” in the particular action covered in that last section of the canon. If the “supreme authority of the Church” in the first parts of the Canon simply meant “Roman Pontiff” it would have distinctly said so. The wording of the Catholic Canons is very precise, brother. Another canon (I forget which one) specifically asserts that the canons are to be interpreted STRICTLY, or, if there is a doubt, it is to be intereprted accoding to custom.

The simple fact of the matter is, the term “supreme authority of the Church,” FOR THE EASTERN OR ORIENTAL CHURCHES, NORMATIVELY means either the Patriarchal Synod, or the Ecumenical Council. Brother rad, we are not Latins. Please remember that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

The simple fact of the matter is, the term “supreme authority of the Church,” FOR THE EASTERN OR ORIENTAL CHURCHES, NORMATIVELY means either the Patriarchal Synod, or the Ecumenical Council. Brother rad, we are not Latins. Please remember that.

I gave you the canon from the Code of Canons of the** Oriental Churches **(NOT from the Latin Church.)

The supreme authority defined by the Canons of the Oriental Churches is the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. It is NOT a Patriarchal Synod or an Ecumenical Council.

CCEO

TITLE III. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Chapter I. The Roman Pontiff

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus)** he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.**

Canon 45 - §1. **The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies **and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Please note: these are the Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[mardukm]

I gave you the canon from the Code of Canons of the** Oriental Churches **(NOT from the Latin Church.)

The supreme authority defined by the Canons of the Oriental Churches is the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. It is NOT a Patriarchal Synod or an Ecumenical Council.

CCEO

TITLE III. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Chapter I. The Roman Pontiff

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus)** he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.**

Canon 45 - §1. **The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies **and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Please note: these are the Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Yes, I know.

If you read on, you will also note that the term “supreme authority in the Church (as a whole that is)” refers ALSO to the Ecumenical Council.

WITHIN a Patriarchate, the Supreme authority is, BY CUSTOM, considered to be the Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Yes, I know.

If you read on, you will also note that the term “supreme authority in the Church (as a whole that is)” refers ALSO to the Ecumenical Council.

It does not.

The readers are being led astray by this contention. The supreme authority for an ecumenical councul is not itself BUT only the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. Only he has the power to convene it and to ratify or discard whatever of its acts are pleasing or displeasing to him. NO supreme authority resides in an ecumenical council.

Here are the canon on this matter from the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches.

Canon 50 - §1. The college of bishops exercises power over the entire Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

§2. The college exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which action as such has been initiated or has been freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff so that a truly collegial act results.

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, in keeping with the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise collegially its function regarding the entire Church.

Canon 51 - §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.

§2. It is for the same Roman Pontiff to determine matters to be treated in a council and to establish the order to be followed in the same council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff the fathers of a council can add other questions, to be approved by the same Roman Pontiff.

Canon 52 - §1. It is the right and obligation of all and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops to participate in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.

§2. The supreme authority of the Church can also call others who are not bishops to an ecumenical council and determine what part they take in it.

Canon 53 - If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, it is interrupted by the law itself until a new Roman Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Canon 54 - §1. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated at his order.

§2. When the college of bishops takes collegial action in another manner, initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, in order for its decrees to have binding force, they need this same confirmation and promulgation.

WITHIN a Patriarchate, the Supreme authority is, BY CUSTOM, considered to be the Patriarch.

Wishful thinking? Canion law is needed to substantiate this.

 

[rad]

Yes, I know.

If you read on, you will also note that the term “supreme authority in the Church (as a whole that is)” refers ALSO to the Ecumenical Council.

You are misinterpreting the Canons and the readers may be misled by this contention.

The supreme authority for an ecumenical councul is not itself BUT only the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. Only he has the power to convene it and to ratify or discard whatever of its acts are pleasing or displeasing to him. NO supreme authority resides in an ecumenical council.

Here are the canons on this matter from the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches.

Canon 50 - §1. The college of bishops exercises power over the entire Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

§2. The college exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which action as such has been initiated or has been freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff so that a truly collegial act results.

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, in keeping with the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise collegially its function regarding the entire Church.

Canon 51 - §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.

§2. It is for the same Roman Pontiff to determine matters to be treated in a council and to establish the order to be followed in the same council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff the fathers of a council can add other questions, to be approved by the same Roman Pontiff.

Canon 52 - §1. It is the right and obligation of all and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops to participate in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.

§2. The supreme authority of the Church can also call others who are not bishops to an ecumenical council and determine what part they take in it.

Canon 53 - If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, it is interrupted by the law itself until a new Roman Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Canon 54 - §1. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated at his order.

§2. When the college of bishops takes collegial action in another manner, initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, in order for its decrees to have binding force, they need this same confirmation and promulgation.

WITHIN a Patriarchate, the Supreme authority is, BY CUSTOM, considered to be the Patriarch.

Wishful thinking? Canon law is needed to substantiate this.

 

[rad]

The “Supreme Authority” in the Catholic Church IS defined in the canons. The “Supreme Authority” is either the bishop of Rome in his specific role as Pope, OR the Ecumenical Council.

This is inaccurate. The canons assign no supreme authority to an ecumenical council. The supreme authority who must either ratify or discard an ecumenical council is only the Roman Pontiff. Ecumenical councils are always of secondary authority to the Pope. Please read the canons of both the Latin Church and the Oriental Churches since they both are identical in this matter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

You are misinterpreting the Canons and the readers may be misled by this contention.

The supreme authority for an ecumenical councul is not itself BUT only the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. Only he has the power to convene it and to ratify or discard whatever of its acts are pleasing or displeasing to him. NO supreme authority resides in an ecumenical council.

Here are the canons on this matter from the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches.

Canon 50 - §1. The college of bishops exercises power over the entire Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

§2. The college exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which action as such has been initiated or has been freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff so that a truly collegial act results.

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, in keeping with the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise collegially its function regarding the entire Church.

Canon 51 - §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.

§2. It is for the same Roman Pontiff to determine matters to be treated in a council and to establish the order to be followed in the same council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff the fathers of a council can add other questions, to be approved by the same Roman Pontiff.

Canon 52 - §1. It is the right and obligation of all and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops to participate in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.

§2. The supreme authority of the Church can also call others who are not bishops to an ecumenical council and determine what part they take in it.

Canon 53 - If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, it is interrupted by the law itself until a new Roman Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Canon 54 - §1. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated at his order.

§2. When the college of bishops takes collegial action in another manner, initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, in order for its decrees to have binding force, they need this same confirmation and promulgation.

Yes, brother rad. We already know you come from a position that considers an Ecumenical Council can be valid without its head. This is not the teaching of the early Church or the Catholic Church. So your (mis)interpretations will fall on deaf ears.

Wishful thinking? Canon law is needed to substantiate this.

Why don’t you do a poll. You can ask: Who here believes that within your Patriarchate, the supreme authority is the Patriarch or Patriarchal Synod?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This is inaccurate. The canons assign no supreme authority to an ecumenical council. The supreme authority who must either ratify or discard an ecumenical council is only the Roman Pontiff. Ecumenical councils are always of secondary authority to the Pope. Please read the canons of both the Latin Church and the Oriental Churches since they both are identical in this matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, how do you think Popes receive knowledge of the truth?

Are you asking my view of it or what I think of the western view of the pope? I reject this concept of the pope in which he is the standard of truth. I was simply explaining what the Vatican view boils down to.

 

[dvdjs]

Are you asking my view of it or what I think of the western view of the pope? I reject this concept of the pope in which he is the standard of truth. I was simply explaining what the Vatican view boils down to.

I asked, simply, what I asked, because the answer may be illuminating. In particular, it may help you to understand that you are by no means “explaining what the Vatican view boils down to”.

So I ask again: as you state a view that the bishops receive knowledge of the truth by listening to the pope, how do you think Popes receive knowledge of the truth?

 

[jimmy]

I asked, simply, what I asked, because the answer may be illuminating. In particular, it may help you to understand that you are by no means “explaining what the Vatican view boils down to”.

So I ask again: as you state a view that the bishops receive knowledge of the truth by listening to the pope, how do you think Popes receive knowledge of the truth?

The pope has a charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit that protects him from error. So when the pope defines something it is true. The councils ultimately boil down to the determination of the pope. Pope Leo’s Tome was infallible the council simply accepted it rather than deliberating over it. ‘Peter has spoken, case closed’ is the mindset. It is essentially through listening to the pope that the Church gains knowledge of the truth. The guidance of the Spirit for the rest of the Church seems to simply be that the Spirit guides the people to be obedient to the Pope rather than illuminating them of the truth.