PRIMACY - Revisited

[mardukm]

Hi All,

Since members can’t help invading the thread on “Papal infallibility” that I had started for an inquirer (sister NinjaSnark) with questions on the Primacy ( I say that very lightheartedly folks), and since the other inquirer (our brother Gregdaly) has not yet returned and started a thread on the Primacy, I thought I’d to so to save the integrity of that other thread.

If anyone has any questions on the Primacy, please ask them here.

I’ll start off light and respond to two posts from the other thread:

twf:

My archbishop encourages married men to seek ordination to the diaconate in service of the local church; the bishop of the neighbouring diocese ordains only celibate men to the diaconate in preparation for the priesthood.

Really? That’s odd. I was under the impression that it is a universal discipline of the RCC to allow married men to be ordained to the diaconate. Interesting.

Our canons specifically state that for the good of their flock, a local bishop can dispense from particular laws, universal laws, and even from laws directly established by the Roman Pontiff (not haphazardly, of course, but under certain conditions).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Pastor aeternus

This is referring to a sentence of the Apostolic See that has been passed AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE TO HIM AS THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, ACCORDING TO THE MOST ANCIENT CANONS OF THE CHURCH. It’s not referring to the normal legislative process of the Church, but the judicial process.

If you can cite a Canon from the early Church that indicates that there is another level of appeal after the bishop of Rome, please do so. Otherwise, if you have no patristic basis for your comments, then it would probably be best to just not say anything at all.

Was that explanation simple enough?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MrPip]

Hi All,

Since members can’t help invading the thread on “Papal infallibility” that I had started for an inquirer (sister NinjaSnark) with questions on the Primacy ( I say that very lightheartedly folks), and since the other inquirer (our brother Gregdaly) has not yet returned and started a thread on the Primacy, I thought I’d to so to save the integrity of that other thread.

If anyone has any questions on the Primacy, please ask them here.

I’ll start off light and respond to two posts from the other thread:

Our canons specifically state that for the good of their flock, a local bishop can dispense from particular laws, universal laws, and even from laws directly established by the Roman Pontiff (not haphazardly, of course, but under certain conditions).

Blessings,
Marduk

Given the post you are quoting, should we not distinguish between the permanent diaconate and the transitional diaconate here? What I mean is, the transitional diaconate is for men who are meant to progress to the priesthood, and must therefore, at least in the Roman Catholic Church, remain celibate. The permanent diaconate is for those men who will not become priests, and may therefore be married.

This being the case, could a bishop then dispense with the requirement that a transitional deacon remain celibate?

Or, am I missing something?

Blessings,
Jeff

 

[MrPip]

This is referring to a sentence of the Apostolic See that has been passed AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE TO HIM AS THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, ACCORDING TO THE MOST ANCIENT CANONS OF THE CHURCH. It’s not referring to the normal legislative process of the Church, but the judicial process.

If you can cite a Canon from the early Church that indicates that there is another level of appeal after the bishop of Rome, please do so. Otherwise, if you have no patristic basis for your comments, then it would probably be best to just not say anything at all.

Was that explanation simple enough?

Blessings,
Marduk

This got posted as I was writing my reply to your first post, so I didn’t see it. I think I’ve missed something here . Ooops.

Jeff

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jeff,

Please forgive me. I do not mean to be dismissive of your question. I hope someone will answer it, quickly and concisely.

For my part, I only want to focus on questions on the Primacy (plus tbh I’m not really well-read on the particular disciplinary laws of the Latin Catholic Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MrPip]

Dear brother Jeff,

Please forgive me. I do not mean to be dismissive of your question. I hope someone will answer it, quickly and concisely.

For my part, I only want to focus on questions on the Primacy (plus tbh I’m not really well-read on the particular disciplinary laws of the Latin Catholic Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

No problem! When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be a discussion on Primacy, as in the Primacy of Peter and his successors. But what you quoted in your first post threw me off–these days that’s not difficult to do . No foul, no harm .

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Mardukm:

The Pope himself does not have the authority to exercise the primacy in order to impede the rights of the local bishops. Rather, he has the authority to exercise the primacy to defend the rights of the local bishops. It is this exercise of the primacy - that purposes to defend the rights of the local bishops - that cannot itself be impeded.

That is not what the text says. It says
in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Exactly what part of this text you give causes you to believe that the Pope can impede the authority of local bishops in their own diocese, especially given the fact Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that the Pope does not have such authority.

Can you briefly cite a source that says the Pope only has such authority to defend the rights of the local bishops?

I never said that the primatial authority of the Pope is ONLY to defend the rights of the local bishops. The primatial authority of the Pope is utilized in other areas and other ways, as well. All I am saying is that if and when he exercises this primatial authority, it is not permitted to be exercised in such a way that impedes the authority of a local bishop in that bishop’s own diocese.

That is why, as noted earlier to brother Mickey, our canons state that local bishops have the prerogative, for the good of his flock, to dispense from particular and universal laws, and even from laws established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

If you want a source that states the primatial authority of the Pope is ONLY to defend the rights of local bishops, I can’t give you any. If you want a source that simply states the Pope does not have the authority to impede the authority of local bishops in their own diocese, but is instead to use his primatial authority to defend the local authority of his brother bishops, it’s in Pastor Aeternus. Other Catholics in the other thread also gave you quotes from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. I also gave a quote in that other thread from Pope Pius IX himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Pastor aeternus

What are you complaining about now?

The jurisdictional power of the Pope is described as EPISCOPAL because there was a debate at V1 about whether or not Papal Primacy made him more than a bishop - a completely different level of Holy Orders. The Neo-ultramontantists understood the papal office in that manner. The Council added that descriptive in order to refute that error. As others have pointed out in past threads, when a bishop becomes a Pope, there is no rite of consecration, for the very fact that being Pope is indeed not another level of Holy Orders. The office of Bishop is the highest level of Holy Orders, according to the divinely-established constitution of the Church. Some bishops also expressed the concern that adding the word “episcopal” would make it seem as though the Pope was also the proper Ordinary of any diocese, violating the ancient principle that each diocese only has one proper Ordinary. But, as explained above, that was not the reason that the word “episcopal” was added to the decree.

The jurisdictional power of the Pope is described as IMMEDIATE because it comes directly from God. The jurisdictional power of every bishop is also described as IMMEDIATE for the very same reason. This has been explained so many times before, and you can never offer a response to substantiate your purposeful misrepresentations of Catholic teaching about the papacy.:tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Some bishops also expressed the concern that adding the word “episcopal” would make it seem as though the Pope was also the proper Ordinary of any diocese, violating the ancient principle that each diocese only has one proper Ordinary. But, as explained above, that was not the reason that the word “episcopal” was added to the decree.

Thank you for clarifying that, Marduk - I actually had that same thought myself when I first saw that. But it makes sense now - it’s clarifying that the papacy is not another degree of Holy Orders.

I find it interesting that that was under discussion at an ecumenical council before Vatican II authoritatively clarified that the episcopacy itself is in fact the highest grade of Holy Orders and not simply a “loosing” of episcopal powers present after priestly ordination.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Exactly what part of this text you give causes you to believe that the Pope can impede the authority of local bishops in their own diocese, especially given the fact Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that the Pope does not have such authority.

Can you briefly cite a source that says the Pope only has such authority to defend the rights of the local bishops?

I never said that the primatial authority of the Pope is ONLY to defend the rights of the local bishops. The primatial authority of the Pope is utilized in other areas and other ways, as well. All I am saying is that if and when he exercises this primatial authority, it is not permitted to be exercised in such a way that impedes the authority of a local bishop in that bishop’s own diocese.

That is why, as noted earlier to brother Mickey, our canons state that local bishops have the prerogative, for the good of his flock, to dispense from particular and universal laws, and even from laws established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

Could you cite the part of Pastor Aeternus that states the Pope does not have that authority?

Case in point: Canon 758-3 of the Eastern Catholic Canon Law:

The particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed in admitting married men to sacred orders.

From here:

americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/1990_Code_of_Canons_of_the_Eastern_Churches.pdf

The “special norms established by the Apostolic See” (Rome) have often impeded Eastern Catholic Bishops from ordaining married men to the priesthood (depending on if the Bishop has the misfortune to have his Eparchy outside of the “homeland” of his Church). This canon does not suggest these “special norms” can be dispensed with by these Bishops but they are told it is “to be followed.”

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

This has been explained so many times before, and you can never offer a response to substantiate your purposeful misrepresentations of Catholic teaching about the papacy.

Brother Marduk,

Please forgive me. I haven’t followed these discussions for very long but this sort of language bothers me greatly (when others are told they are ‘purposely misrepresenting’ something). This sort of accusation is not conducive to good dialogue, IMHO.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Understood. I accept your exhortation. But please understand that brother Mickey has been around here FOREVER. In fact, his poster status is “Forum Master”!

These are matters that have been repeatedly debated with him, where he has been offered correction many times over, corrections to which he never gives a response, and then he simply repeats his misrepresentations later on.

When one initially comes to the table of dialogue, it is never presumed that misrepresentations are purposeful. There could genuinely be a lack of knowledge or misunderstanding about what the other party is trying to say. But there has got to be a point, after repeated corrections, when the misrepresentations can no longer be regarded as innocent or sincere misunderstandings, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

Please forgive me. I haven’t followed these discussions for very long but this sort of language bothers me greatly (when others are told they are ‘purposely misrepresenting’ something). This sort of accusation is not conducive to good dialogue, IMHO.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

When one initially comes to the table of dialogue, it is never presumed that misrepresentations are purposeful. There could genuinely be a lack of knowledge or misunderstanding about what the other party is trying to say. But there has got to be a point, after repeated corrections, when the misrepresentations can no longer be regarded as innocent or sincere misunderstandings, wouldn’t you agree?

Not really. Not meaning to belabor the point but I don’t think things can be that clear in this sort of discussion medium. I think Internet discussion posters are generally invincibly ignorant.

 

[gregdaly]

Marduk, thanks for starting this thread!!! You are addressing here the very concerns I had.

Exactly what part of this text you give causes you to believe that the Pope can impede the authority of local bishops in their own diocese, especially given the fact Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that the Pope does not have such authority.

For some reason, when you wrote that, something just clicked. So you are saying that the statement

in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise

must be taken in the context of the prior statement about the Pope not having the authority to impede the authority of local bishops?

For some wierd reason, I thought the document was saying, “Well, we believe right now that the Pope does not have the authority to impede the local bishop, but we are about to change all that with this new canon.”

OK. I can see exactly where you are coming from now. So what is written prior to the definition in Pastor Aeternus was a description - the context - of how the Definition is to be understood. I guess Beng confused me in that other thread with his saying that only the definition is infallible. He gave me the impression that only what is in the definition is what counts. You convinced me in that other thread that what is not in the definition is ALSO authoritative in the Catholic Church. I guess I just did not make the connection on this particular issue until now.

Once again, thank you.

OK, so you have convinced me the TEACHING is fine. But what about the PRACTICE. I think Peter Mogila has presented a valid point about the married priests. How do you respond to that? I know I said I want to base my decision about which Church to join on the evidence of its teaching, not on how well its members adhere to the teaching, but I think this issue of the Primacy is an exception. Unlike the other doctrinal issues, the practice of the Primacy must be in accord with the teaching on the Primacy for the teaching to be believable AT ALL. If people think I am being inconsistent here, that’s perfectly fine. I have to be sure in my own conscience about these matters.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Btw, Marduk, your explanations to Mickey on those other points were . I wonder if he has any responses. I have noticed lurking in other threads that when you and other Catholics answer his statements, he doesn’t really have a response, but only dismisses the Catholic answer without any reasons - he applies some particular adjective to the Catholic answers, but he never provides a reason to justify applying those adjectives.

I would probably agree with Peter Mogila that he is “invincibly ignorant.”

Btw, I don’t want to digress this thread, but can you explain really quickly what “invincibly ignorant” means? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

Btw, I don’t want to digress this thread, but can you explain really quickly what “invincibly ignorant” means? Thanks.

According to Catholic teaching, in layman’s terms, it simply means that someone has a sincere misunderstanding that is neither purposeful nor malicious.

On my end, I can cut brother Mickey some slack on the “sincere” and “malicious” part, but it is exceedingly difficult for me to believe his misrepresentations are not purposeful.

I’ll pray about it. Pray for me, as well, brothers Greg and Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NinjaSnark]

OK, so you have convinced me the TEACHING is fine. But what about the PRACTICE. I think Peter Mogila has presented a valid point about the married priests. How do you respond to that? I know I said I want to base my decision about which Church to join on the evidence of its teaching, not on how well its members adhere to the teaching, but I think this issue of the Primacy is an exception. Unlike the other doctrinal issues, the practice of the Primacy must be in accord with the teaching on the Primacy for the teaching to be believable AT ALL. If people think I am being inconsistent here, that’s perfectly fine. I have to be sure in my own conscience about these matters.

I totally agree with you, Greg. I see Primacy as something that must be aligned (at least recognizably, if not perfectly) in its practice as it is in its teaching. I don’t see that as inconsistent, because the concept of Primacy is an active thing, I think, that must be observed in action.

So, I see no inconsistency in your thought process, for it is my own.

God bless!

-Andrea

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk and others,

Please pray for me as well! These sort of forums have caused me some problems in the past and I’m working on not letting them do so again. I realize I do not have all the answers and I’m here to learn from my interactions with others here at CAF.

Let me also state that we Orthodox are not perfect and have our share of problems. Still, I love my Church despite these problems and believe it to possess, by virtue of the Eucharist we share around the Bishop, the fulness of the faith.

If I may, I would like to share this link to an Orthodox view of primacy as it could be exercised in a reunited Church. Not all (even of my fellow Orthodox) will agree, but I think it shows how many Orthodox think on the subject:

orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology

As to how primacy works in practice in the Catholic Church. First, I want to be charitable and recognize that there is much improvement in the past 50 or 60 years in starting to develop a collegiality, especially towards the Eastern Catholic Churches. I think Orthodox look to the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches to see how “the rubber meets the road” in the life of these Churches. Still, there is much room for improvement needed, especially if one considers the canons the Eastern Catholic Churches have to live under. Their Eastern Code is basically Latin in orientation. I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion too far from the points at hand but this is a subject that is far from satisfactory to many Eastern Catholics I know – even the most loyal ones to the ideal of the papacy.

As it stands, I don’t think any Orthodox would want to enter into union with Rome based upon the conditions stated in the Eastern Code of Canons as they would feel their traditional rights would not be recognized. Unfortunately, there are no efforts being made by Rome to revise the Eastern Code. I think if this were to happen and if Rome were to acknowledge more of the traditional rights belonging to Eastern Churches in its dealings with the Eastern Catholic Churches there might be more response by some Orthodox to ecumenical overtures.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Thank you for your contribution to this Forum. It is much needed. I will repeat that you are only one of 4 Orthodox persons I’ve met on the I-net with whom I can foresee having hours of pleasurable discussion without the usual recriminations attached to polemics.

The article to which you linked is fantastic. I am not sure if you are familiar with the distinctions between the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views that are regularly discussed here on CAF. Probably 95% of the Catholics (Latin, Eastern and Oriental) who regularly post here on the Eastern Catholicism Forum adhere to the High Petrine view, not the Absolutist Petrine view (you may have even noticed, if you have lurked here long enough, the debates - even heated ones - that have ensued between Latin Catholics of the Absolutist Petrine camp, and those Catholics who hold the High Petrine view). I note with great satisfaction the High Petrine ideal that the article proposes. If you agree with the position from that article, you will find a good home here in the Eastern Catholicism Forum of CAF, and hopefully will never experience the problems in the past that you have mentioned. Not only Eastern, Oriental and many Latin Catholics, but there are also at least 3 other EO members here who agree with the High Petrine ideal.

I agree with everything in that article to which you linked (believe it or not ), except for one thing. I note that the article discusses the concept of primacy within conciliarity. I agree with that principle. But the Catholic principle is a bit more expansive. The Catholic ideal is not Primacy within conciliarity, but Primacy within collegiality. Catholics who accept the High Petrine view understand Primacy within conciliarity as merely a subset of the more general concept of Primacy within collegiality. It appears that the EO position is that Primacy can ONLY be exercised within a formal council or synod. If I’ve misunderstood what “primacy within conciliarity” means, please correct me.

To Catholics, Primacy is a reality that exists even outside a conciliar or synodal setting. In Catholicism, there is a reality called the College of Bishops. It’s supreme authority is most solemn in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, but that same supreme authority exists even when that College is dispersed throughout the world. The College of Bishops, whether in Council or dispersed throughout the world, has a head bishop (i.e., the Pope), whose primacy is recognized, similarly, whether in Council or even when the College is dispersed throughout the world.

What do you think? Do you think this is a difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings (as expressed in that article)? Did I just misinterpret what “primacy within conciliarity” means? If there is a difference, do you think this difference is reconcilable?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I am still in the process of constructing a response to your post #11, but it will come, hopefully within 2 days.