R
Religio71
Guest
what is the “Orthodox Church in Canada”? Never heard of it.
- Status
F
Formosus
Guest
You are confusing being in communion with the theology of those groups. If you want to know who the Orthodox are, then its easy to find out. Just look up Canonical Orthodox Churches on Google and you will find it. There countless Churches out there that call themselves Catholic, yet you know as well as I do that to use that as some apologetic point is ridiculous.
The Eastern Orthodox did not create new WRO dioceses because they still attempt to follow the ancient practice of one Bishop over any territory. In America, this suffers some serious problems and do not misunderstand me, I think their way of handling it is not the best and the idea of Sui Irus churches with their own Bishops is imo superior but is still not the same thing that was practiced in the Early Church where one Bishop shepherded all the Christians in his territory irregardless of the ritual church they belonged to.
The Eastern Orthodox did not create new WRO dioceses because they still attempt to follow the ancient practice of one Bishop over any territory. In America, this suffers some serious problems and do not misunderstand me, I think their way of handling it is not the best and the idea of Sui Irus churches with their own Bishops is imo superior but is still not the same thing that was practiced in the Early Church where one Bishop shepherded all the Christians in his territory irregardless of the ritual church they belonged to.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Cecilianus,
":
An historical example to discredit the absolutist Petrine view is the Council of Orange. The Council of Orange made a judgment on a matter of doctrine (Semi-Pelagianism) and it was ratified by the Pope. If the Pope’s consent alone is what gives a council its ecumenical authority, then the Council of Orange would have been counted by the Church as an Ecumenical Council. However, no one, not even the Latin Church, has ever regarded the Council of Orange as Ecumenical.
An historical example to discredit the low Petrine view is the Fifth Ecumenical Council. There, though the head bishop did not agree with the body, the body did not take it upon themselves to just depose the head, and elect a new one more amenable to themselves. Rather, they waited, with the spiritual fruit of patience, pleaded, and (yes!) prodded - even prodded forcefully - until agreement was reached.
On the matter of the universal nature of the appellate authority, I have had debates with both Catholics and non-Catholics on the matter. The debate revolves around whether the universal nature of the appellate authority is itself a function of the appeal, or is inherent in the office of the papacy. I am of the opinion that the universal nature of this authority is inherent in the office. To me, it is ludicrous to appeal to an authority who does not have the authority to intervene in your jurisdiction in the first place. If that were the case, the appellate authority can be given to ANYONE (e.g., I give Coptic Deacon Brad the authority to decide this matter in my Ruthenian jurisdiction). But the ruling of the Council of Sardica (with the participation of Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, no less), ratified by two Ecumenical Councils, is that it is the Pope of Rome, and him alone, who has this appellate authority for the universal Church. This recognition can only be premised on the notion that the bishop of Rome in fact had universal authority in the Church at large in the first place.
There are also those who believe that the Council gave universal appellate authority ot the Pope, when in fact, its ruling functioned to LIMIT the universal authority of the Pope for the good order of the Church. I make the foregoing statement to indicate my belief that the universal authority of the papacy is of DIVINE institution, established by Christ when he appointed Peter the confirmer of the brethren (Luke 22), the Rock upon whom the Church would be built (Matthew 16; on the basis of his divinely-given confession, and the sacramental principle of in persona christi), and the servant whom He would set over the Church to feed her (Matthew 24 and John 21).
CONTINUED
":
So far, I believe we are making great progress in a meeting of the minds, as St. Paul exhorted us to do.
This is a good illustration, but I think I am meaning something more. Let me illustrate, and I would appreciate your feedback to see if we can agree on this. When I say that every bishop in an ecumenical council speaks for the entire Church, and not just the Pope (though the Pope has the only absolutely necessary vote in that body), I say this by virtue of the fact that God imbues the entire Council with infallibility. The Council is not infallible because the infallible Pope gives his approval to a non-infallible body; the Council is infallible because God directly imbues the entire conciliar body with infallibility. Because of this, the body of bishops can no more disregard the consent of the head, than the head can disregard the consent of the body. In the absolutist Petrine view, the head can disregard the body; in the low Petrine view, the body can disregard the head, in the High Petrine view, the head and body together must give heed to each other equally.
An historical example to discredit the absolutist Petrine view is the Council of Orange. The Council of Orange made a judgment on a matter of doctrine (Semi-Pelagianism) and it was ratified by the Pope. If the Pope’s consent alone is what gives a council its ecumenical authority, then the Council of Orange would have been counted by the Church as an Ecumenical Council. However, no one, not even the Latin Church, has ever regarded the Council of Orange as Ecumenical.
An historical example to discredit the low Petrine view is the Fifth Ecumenical Council. There, though the head bishop did not agree with the body, the body did not take it upon themselves to just depose the head, and elect a new one more amenable to themselves. Rather, they waited, with the spiritual fruit of patience, pleaded, and (yes!) prodded - even prodded forcefully - until agreement was reached.
I believe wholeheartedly that the bishop of Rome as Pope has UNIVERSAL APPELLATE authority in the Church. That is the only way to interpret Vatican 1’s two-fold teaching that (1) the Pope has supreme authority in the Church, and (2) the Pope’s authority must safeguard the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Within his patriarchal jurisdiction (i.e., the Latin Church), motu proprios need not be given upon appeal (though, according to the canons, neither can they be given whimsically or given to harm the acquired rights of individuals). Outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction, motu proprios should and must only be given upon appeal. That is the only way for the Pope to satisfy the requirement of Vatican 1 that the Pope not only cannot stand in the way of the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops, but rather has a positive obligation to uphold and defend those rights and prerogatives. Canon law states that Patriarchs and other head bishops of sui juris Churches are competent in themselves (i.e., not by virtue of permission from any other authority) to discipline and instruct their own faithful. If the Pope went around issuing motu proprios for that sui juris Church without any appeal from an internal authority within that sui juris Church, that would be in direct violation of the canons, and the teaching of Vatican 1.
On the matter of the universal nature of the appellate authority, I have had debates with both Catholics and non-Catholics on the matter. The debate revolves around whether the universal nature of the appellate authority is itself a function of the appeal, or is inherent in the office of the papacy. I am of the opinion that the universal nature of this authority is inherent in the office. To me, it is ludicrous to appeal to an authority who does not have the authority to intervene in your jurisdiction in the first place. If that were the case, the appellate authority can be given to ANYONE (e.g., I give Coptic Deacon Brad the authority to decide this matter in my Ruthenian jurisdiction). But the ruling of the Council of Sardica (with the participation of Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, no less), ratified by two Ecumenical Councils, is that it is the Pope of Rome, and him alone, who has this appellate authority for the universal Church. This recognition can only be premised on the notion that the bishop of Rome in fact had universal authority in the Church at large in the first place.
There are also those who believe that the Council gave universal appellate authority ot the Pope, when in fact, its ruling functioned to LIMIT the universal authority of the Pope for the good order of the Church. I make the foregoing statement to indicate my belief that the universal authority of the papacy is of DIVINE institution, established by Christ when he appointed Peter the confirmer of the brethren (Luke 22), the Rock upon whom the Church would be built (Matthew 16; on the basis of his divinely-given confession, and the sacramental principle of in persona christi), and the servant whom He would set over the Church to feed her (Matthew 24 and John 21).
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
As an aside, it should be noted that Constantinople also had a similar appellate authority within Eastern Byzantine Christendom (not the Church universal). With Constantinople’s case, the authority was indeed a purely canonical power (i.e., not divinely instituted like the bishop of Rome’s).
I also wholeheartedly believe the Pope as supreme pastor (I could never get myself to say/write “supreme monarch”
) of the universal Church he has the inherent authority to enforce a universal canon of the Church through a motu proprio, even without appeal. and to instruct the universal Church on a matter of Faith or morals, even without appeal. We have examples of both in the early Church, so I have no problem with that (e.g., Pope St. Dionysius of Rome gave instruction to Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria; the Pope (I forget the name) appointed an apostolic vicar to administer the affairs of the See of Jerusalem when it’s See was vacant due to Moslem invasion (this was in the 7th or 8th century). But even here, the Pope must act according to the canons and Vatican 1. That is, he can’t act in a way that would obstruct the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops, especially in other canonical sui juris jurisdictions. For instance, the motu proprio should be addressed to a whole particular Church, or to the whole Church, or to prelates under his direct supervision (i.e., Patriarchs, metropolitans of non-Patriarchal Churches, bishops of his own Church). If he does so to specific individuals or groups of individuals within a sui juris or particular Church, that would trample on the rights/prerogatives of his brother bishops, which is forbidden by Vatican 1 . Indeed, Vatican 1 states that as the supreme governing power, “the Roman Pontiff has the right of freely communicating with the shepherds and flocks of the whole Church…” but says nothing of individuals or smaller groups within a sui juris or particular Church (btw, remember, we’re talking about motu proprios here, not contentious or penal trials, which is a whole other bag).
This statement needs some discussion. As far as I know, papal infallibility (as distinct from conciliar infallibility) is only active in the context of an ex cathedra statement, which is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. In the context of the ORDINARY Magisterium, it is not the Pope’s infallibility that is the guarantee of infallibility (since the bishop of Rome does not possess infallibility in the ordinary magisterium), but rather the moral unanimity of all the bishops combined (which includes the bishop of Rome as head bishop, of course). In contrast to an Ecumenical Council, an exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium where the consent of the Pope as head bishop is required by virtue of a divine necessity, the consent of the bishop of Rome as head bishop in the exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium is required only by ecclesiastical/canonical necessity. So, I would not say that the Pope’s consent in the ordinary magisterium is absolutely necessary, but only more necessary than any other individual bishop’s. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Even in matters of Faith, a local Eastern council need not submit their rulings to the Pope for approval. There are many such councils in the history of the Church before the schism. It may have been normative in the Western patriarchate to submit local synodal decrees to the Patriarch, but I don’t see that such an obligation ever existed for local Eastern councils (i.e., submitting their local rulings to the bishop of Rome). If Rome was involved, it was only through appeal (i.e., the heretic would go to Rome and appeal his case, whereby Rome would get involved).
Looking forward to your responses.
Blessings,
Marduk
As an aside, it should be noted that Constantinople also had a similar appellate authority within Eastern Byzantine Christendom (not the Church universal). With Constantinople’s case, the authority was indeed a purely canonical power (i.e., not divinely instituted like the bishop of Rome’s).
I also wholeheartedly believe the Pope as supreme pastor (I could never get myself to say/write “supreme monarch”
) of the universal Church he has the inherent authority to enforce a universal canon of the Church through a motu proprio, even without appeal. and to instruct the universal Church on a matter of Faith or morals, even without appeal. We have examples of both in the early Church, so I have no problem with that (e.g., Pope St. Dionysius of Rome gave instruction to Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria; the Pope (I forget the name) appointed an apostolic vicar to administer the affairs of the See of Jerusalem when it’s See was vacant due to Moslem invasion (this was in the 7th or 8th century). But even here, the Pope must act according to the canons and Vatican 1. That is, he can’t act in a way that would obstruct the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops, especially in other canonical sui juris jurisdictions. For instance, the motu proprio should be addressed to a whole particular Church, or to the whole Church, or to prelates under his direct supervision (i.e., Patriarchs, metropolitans of non-Patriarchal Churches, bishops of his own Church). If he does so to specific individuals or groups of individuals within a sui juris or particular Church, that would trample on the rights/prerogatives of his brother bishops, which is forbidden by Vatican 1 . Indeed, Vatican 1 states that as the supreme governing power, “the Roman Pontiff has the right of freely communicating with the shepherds and flocks of the whole Church…” but says nothing of individuals or smaller groups within a sui juris or particular Church (btw, remember, we’re talking about motu proprios here, not contentious or penal trials, which is a whole other bag).Again, I am not in exact agreement with you here, though it might just be your wording. Vatican 2 and the canons state that bishops need not even be acting in “concert” or “together” for them to be able to regarded as having taught infallibly as individuals. The only thing that is required is that their teaching is definitive and unanimous (including the living voice of the Church in the past, of course - i.e., Sacred Tradition), even if they are separated by the oceans and/or at different points in time.
This statement needs some discussion. As far as I know, papal infallibility (as distinct from conciliar infallibility) is only active in the context of an ex cathedra statement, which is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. In the context of the ORDINARY Magisterium, it is not the Pope’s infallibility that is the guarantee of infallibility (since the bishop of Rome does not possess infallibility in the ordinary magisterium), but rather the moral unanimity of all the bishops combined (which includes the bishop of Rome as head bishop, of course). In contrast to an Ecumenical Council, an exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium where the consent of the Pope as head bishop is required by virtue of a divine necessity, the consent of the bishop of Rome as head bishop in the exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium is required only by ecclesiastical/canonical necessity. So, I would not say that the Pope’s consent in the ordinary magisterium is absolutely necessary, but only more necessary than any other individual bishop’s. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Perhaps, but I would like to see your comments on my answers first.
Local councils do not need the approval of the Pope to make rulings that are not matters of Faith. Normally, the Pope would not get involved unless someone appealed to him on the matter. Such was the case with the Meletian Schism, for instance. Apparently, the reordering of the Sees was initially supposed to be an “internal” affair of the East. And it could have been. The episode is interesting. The reordering of the Sees was at the instigation of the Emperor, not the bishops. The Emperor might have gotten away with it, but when the Fathers saw fit to submit their “internal” matter to the Patriarch of the West for approval, it was no longer a merely “internal” affair, and the Patriarch of the West was obliged to act as Pope (i.e., as pastor of the universal Church) to preserve Tradition and oppose Canon 3 of the Constantinopolitan Council in order to preserve the dignity of the See of Alexandria. This might well have been the reason why the Second Ecum Council did not immediately obtain Ecumenical status in the Church.
Even in matters of Faith, a local Eastern council need not submit their rulings to the Pope for approval. There are many such councils in the history of the Church before the schism. It may have been normative in the Western patriarchate to submit local synodal decrees to the Patriarch, but I don’t see that such an obligation ever existed for local Eastern councils (i.e., submitting their local rulings to the bishop of Rome). If Rome was involved, it was only through appeal (i.e., the heretic would go to Rome and appeal his case, whereby Rome would get involved).
Looking forward to your responses.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Madaglan
Guest
The notion that “there are not two heads, but one” is the explicit teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam. He affirms “one body, one head.”–by one head he means Christ and Peter and his successors.Dear brother Madaglan,
Thank you for the response. I hope my own reply is not taken by you as argumentative. If it gives you that impression, please forgive me.
Yes, that would seem to be a distinguishing factor (but why do non-Catholics love using that word “sola?”). As a Catholic, I distinguish between the ultimate head of the Church, Who is Christ, and the temporal head of the Church, the Pope (if you ask the Pope who is his head…). As a Catholic, I would definitely not claim your statement (with the word “sole” in it) as a “Truth” because it denies several other Truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – namely, the biblical Truth that Christ has set someone over His household to feed them their spiritual food (Matthew 24 – most Catholics I think will go the Matthew 16 route, but I’m going with Matthew 24 J), the Truth of the hierarchical structure of the Church on earth, and the Truth of the Sacramental nature of the Church on earth, whereby Christ rules and cares for His Church through his temporal representatives (the denial of this is easily reflected in your apparent criticism of the idea that “there are not two heads, but one”), Truths which distinguish us from non-Apostolic Christians.
No sensible Christian denies that Christ establishes shepherds (bishops). The disagreement concerns seeing Peter as having supreme authority over the other Apostles, indeed over the whole Church.
Each is head of his particular Church. None has authority over the whole Body of the Church.I mean, if I was in a room of Oriental Orthodox (i.e., everyone knew they were Orthodox), and someone asked another, “who is the head of your Church?” the other would answer with the name of their Patriarch or Catholicos. That’s because it goes without saying that everyone (including the head bishops) acknowledges the ultimate headship of Christ. In a room full of Oriental Orthodox, the only one who would respond with a protest that “only Christ is the head of the Church,” ISTM, would be a Protestant.
I wasn’t claiming the circumstance as a “plus” for Eastern Orthodoxy but only showing that actions regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches have done more harm than good towards Church unity. Even Archbiship Elias Zoghby considered these actions as sealing the break of communion with the Orthodox Churches.
I nowhere mentioned disobedience to bishops. I only pointed out the restriction of freedom.
Yes, the Old Calendarist break-off groups. Sadly, they are uncompromising regarding the New Calendar. It’s automatic heresy to them. I see them either as continuing to divide into non-existence or re-joining the main body of Orthodox Churches. I actually would have thought you’d mention the Old Believers.
The wide options of what one can believe is attractive to the fancy yet where does the buck stop? Certainly, with such a wide range of options, there is more than one understanding of the bishop of Rome’s role in the Church. I suppose I can venerate an icon of St. Cyril in one Catholic church and revile him in another as I defend the orthodoxy of Nestorius.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Madaglan,
Besides this EO teaching that St. Peter and his successors are not heads of the Church does not seem to be patristic (as far as the united Church of the first millenium is concerned). I’m sure I don’t have to give the quotes of the numerous Eastern and Western Fathers who called Peter the coryphaeus of the Apostles. It’s just a lot more sensible and consistent that, through the principle of apostolic succession, the apostolic college down through the centuries (i.e., the body of bishops) likewise possesses its own coryphaeus. I’ll quote just one of the many statements from the Fathers that indicate that this headship was handed down to the bishop of Rome. This one is from the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while they were strongly urging Rome to consent to its decrees: If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, father and primate. Since Pope Vigilius’ consent was given… Note also that the Council appealed to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them. Remeber - we’re talking about an ECUMENICAL Council here, which represents the WHOLE Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thanks for pointing out the source of the teaching. I was aware of it and do not deny it. I am just saying that there is nothing “untruthful” about the teaching that the authority of Peter and his successors is derived from Christ himself, and not from any authority of their own.
Besides this EO teaching that St. Peter and his successors are not heads of the Church does not seem to be patristic (as far as the united Church of the first millenium is concerned). I’m sure I don’t have to give the quotes of the numerous Eastern and Western Fathers who called Peter the coryphaeus of the Apostles. It’s just a lot more sensible and consistent that, through the principle of apostolic succession, the apostolic college down through the centuries (i.e., the body of bishops) likewise possesses its own coryphaeus. I’ll quote just one of the many statements from the Fathers that indicate that this headship was handed down to the bishop of Rome. This one is from the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while they were strongly urging Rome to consent to its decrees: If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, father and primate. Since Pope Vigilius’ consent was given… Note also that the Council appealed to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them. Remeber - we’re talking about an ECUMENICAL Council here, which represents the WHOLE Church.
Yes, that idea, that each particular Church has a temporal head, but that the Church universal does not have a temporal head, grew more and more incomprehensible to me as I read more of the Fathers and the Councils.
Yes. I understand your point. My point was that the EO is just as guilty of actions against the unity of the Church, so it’s not exactly a valid selling point for the EO.
There’s a fine line between claiming “restriction of freedom” and disobedience, wouldn’t you say? I’m pretty sure the EO have many examples of such fine lines, as well (though Eastern Orthodox internal affairs are not my strong suit). So, I don’t think this is a valid reason for “becoming Orthodox.”
Like I said, EO internal affairs ain’t my strong suit.
Yes. I need to pursue that line of questioning with Murtad. His statements are novel and shocking. I think we need more info, and your last statement should be taken with a grain of salt.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Schism and vagante jurisidictions w/in EO’xy are not valid arguments against joining EO’xy. That would be known as the “tu quoque” fallacy. It is also not Christian or biblical (“let him who is perfect cast the first stone”, log in the eye and all that). In fact, the only way a Catholic can bring up those circumstances as arguments against EO’xy is if Catholicism itself does not have schism or vagante jurisdictions. Guess what? We’ve got them in Catholicism, too. So please don’t try to use them as arguments against our EO brethren.
I must confess, I sometimes bring up these circumstances during debates with EO, but I only do so to point out the hypocrisy of the argument after they make the accusations toward the Catholic Church first. But to bring them up against the EO outside that context, as if Catholicism is oh-so-pure in the same matter is a big no-no, IMO.
Blessings,
Marduk
I must confess, I sometimes bring up these circumstances during debates with EO, but I only do so to point out the hypocrisy of the argument after they make the accusations toward the Catholic Church first. But to bring them up against the EO outside that context, as if Catholicism is oh-so-pure in the same matter is a big no-no, IMO.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
malphono
Guest
It’s no secret in this forum that I agree with you, Marduk, in supporting the “High Petrine” view.Cecilianus:
I believe wholeheartedly that the bishop of Rome as Pope has UNIVERSAL APPELLATE authority in the Church. That is the only way to interpret Vatican 1’s two-fold teaching that (1) the Pope has supreme authority in the Church, and (2) the Pope’s authority must safeguard the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Within his patriarchal jurisdiction (i.e., the Latin Church), motu proprios need not be given upon appeal (though, according to the canons, neither can they be given whimsically or given to harm the acquired rights of individuals). Outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction, motu proprios should and must only be given upon appeal. That is the only way for the Pope to satisfy the requirement of Vatican 1 that the Pope not only cannot stand in the way of the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops, but rather has a positive obligation to uphold and defend those rights and prerogatives. Canon law states that Patriarchs and other head bishops of sui juris Churches are competent in themselves (i.e., not by virtue of permission from any other authority) to discipline and instruct their own faithful…
I’m sitting this thread out, but still I had to chime in with that.
M
Madaglan
Guest
I see nothing foreign to the Orthodox understanding in that quote. The Fathers and the other Patriarchs are inviting their fellow brother, the Patriarch of Rome, to join with them in deciding on the Three Chapters.
It’s interesting that the language is not “since we hold you as our head, father and primate,” but rather “if…[you] give in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith…we will hold thee as our head, father and primate.” The Pope of Rome is to work with, not over, brother Patriarchs and bishops in reaching common agreement.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Dear brother Marduk,
Likewise, local councils can fall into heresy - such as the Synod of Pistoja. And the Pope can veto purely disciplinary canons. But he cannot “disregard the body”. I take this to mean that he can’t refuse to ratify orthodox doctrinal decrees. You probably mean something stronger than this - can you clarify? Aside from the governance of the Eastern Church - which I’ll get to later - what obligations does the Pope have to the “body” of bishops?
CONTINUED
Yes - I agree with this. The source of infallibility is not some sort of emanation down from the Pope but comes from the Council itself. I was trying to say something like this in the last post, but having trouble formulating my thoughts yesterday.
Yes, but I would qualify this a little - the body is only the “body” when acting in union with the head, so it cannot be said that the body can force the head to comply with it when the “body” ceases to act in union with the head. The example I am thinking of is the latrocinium or robber-council (pardon my earlier misspelling) of Ephesus, which attempted to teach Eutychianism and force it on the orthodox bishops through violence (bringing in the military and slaying them while they were clinging to the altar). The papal legate Hilarus cried out “Contradicitur” and thereby annulled any authority the council had.
Likewise, local councils can fall into heresy - such as the Synod of Pistoja. And the Pope can veto purely disciplinary canons. But he cannot “disregard the body”. I take this to mean that he can’t refuse to ratify orthodox doctrinal decrees. You probably mean something stronger than this - can you clarify? Aside from the governance of the Eastern Church - which I’ll get to later - what obligations does the Pope have to the “body” of bishops?
I forgot about the Council of Orange. Thank you for reminding me.
CONTINUED
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Do you know where (2) is specifically taught? I’d been planning to read through Vatican I this week but I’m lagging behind a little bit - I’m still on Trent (I have both councils in the same volume).
I agree with this, but would extend it to the whole Church. My reason for this is that there is no Christ-given “patriarchal” jurisdiction given to the Pope, and I have never seen a Counciliar-given “patriarchal” jurisidiction. Pope Benedict XVI dropped the title for “theological reasons”, and yet still gave a motu proprio (regarding the Latin Mass); since he no longer has the title “Patriarch of the West”, by what authority did he give the motu proprio? I always understood the motu proprios - all encyclicals and motu proprios - as coming from his authority as Supreme Pontiff, not through the jurisidiction of “Patriarch of the West”.
Again, I’m interested to see the exact wording. In my understanding every bishop - West or East - is “pope within his own diocese”, and so long as himself is not a heretic (like the many Arian, Eutychian, and Nestorian bishops who were deposed by Ecumenical Councils) he cannot be stopped from enforcing the discipline of Faith within his own diocese. Nor can the Pope depose a bishop except, I think, by excommunicating him for heresy, schism, or disobedience to canon law (though he has asked bishops to resign voluntarily - my own rather weak-spirited Latin bishop, for example).
So could the Pope impose a revised Canon Law on the Eastern Church as well as on the Western Church? My understanding is yes - and that he did, except that the revisions are very slight. Could he impose celibacy on the Eastern Church? I don’t know, and I don’t think it’s been defined, but as Supreme Pontiff, it seems to me that he ought to be able to (though Pius XII among others assured that it wasn’t going to happen anytime soon). Could he be able to ban the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - no; at least I hope to God not. (It’s not even entirely clear whether he could ban the Tridentine Mass, sincee Benedict XVI affirmed that Paul VI never had.) I’m really unsure as to the limits of what the Pope could possibly do wrong; I’m hoping I never have to find out.
Yes, and so is every bishop.
I am unsure of this. The Pope does not in fact do so, but I don’t know whether he is in principle incapable of doing so. There are plenty of good reasons for the Pope not to arbitrarily meddle with the Eastern Churches - they are perfectly competent on their own, abolishing ancient traditions is generally a catastrophe (e.g. the “Novus Ordo” Mass), and relations have been so poor historically that doing so could lead to another schism. But to say that the Holy Father lacks an intrinsic jurisdiction to act motu proprio on the Eastern Churches seems to me to be not fully consistent with the “sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdictin of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ chapter 3).
Agreed, obviously.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Yes; this would clearly be different than, for example, imposing celibacy on the Eastern Church.CONTINUED
As an aside, it should be noted that Constantinople also had a similar appellate authority within Eastern Byzantine Christendom (not the Church universal). With Constantinople’s case, the authority was indeed a purely canonical power (i.e., not divinely instituted like the bishop of Rome’s).
I also wholeheartedly believe the Pope as supreme pastor (I could never get myself to say/write “supreme monarch”
My fault in the wording. I meant what you said.
I think we agree here, but I would need to go back as see your original post since the quotation from my post was lost here. If we don’t agree, I’ll make a separate post on it.
Perhaps, but I would like to see your comments on my answers first.
Yes, though such rulings when they are on matters of faith are not infallible through themselves, since they are only the rulings of a part of the Church - though unless condemned by Rome (Synod of Pistoja) we should assume that they reflect the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium - even including local councils such as the Palamite Councils three hundred years after the schism.
I think the main or only point of disagreement now is over the Pope’s jurisdiction as Patriarch of the West. Look forward to seeing what you say about that!
In Domino Dominaque,
Cecilianus
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Yes - my original point was not on the ordinary Magisterium of the Church taken as a whole, but individual local synods (the Jansenist-leaning Synod of Pistoja being the example that comes to mind which I keep using).
C
Cecilianus
Guest
C
Cecilianus
Guest
What about the Serbian Orthodox who think he’s a heretic?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
If my argument is what you’re referring to, then I should clarify it.
My argument runs as follows.
If there is a single “Orthodox Church”, then the boundaries must be clear and distinguishable and there must be a way of seeing unity.
But there is no clear unity or boundaries (e.g., Orthodox Church of Canada which has communion with the Antiochians but not the Russians, while the Antiochians and Russians have Communion with each other).
Therefore, there is no single “Orthodox Church”.
F
Formosus
Guest
What you are doing is trying to fit Orthodox imperial ecclesiology into Latin Catholic papal ecclesiology and that just isn’t the case. There have always been minor disputes among various churches even during the days before the e/w schism. For instance, the dispute between the Bishop of Rome and the north african churches. The Eastern churches maintained communion with both Rome and with the African churches throughout the whole ordeal. Church history is not a neat little package and its very easy to find situations like that. There is unity in Eastern Orthodoxy within their doctrine and theology. For them, unity in theology is more important then political unity among church jurisdictions.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Which Serbian Orthodox?
M
Madaglan
Guest
I don’t consider this specific comparison as unjust, since just here and recently a Catholic posted certain things concerning the orthodoxy or lack thereof of St. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius.
M
Madaglan
Guest
To which Orthodox Church of Canada do you refer? I’m not aware of a canonical Orthodox Church of Canada. The OCA churches in Canada are in communion with the Antiochians and with ROCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, etc.
- Status