Role of Roman Curia

[Hesychios]

It’s only in the Byzantine East where the primate has no authority over his synod…

This is the first I have ever heard that the Orthodox claim the Patriarch or Metropolitan has no authority over the synod. I have to wonder what you think constitutes authority.

The Metropolitan and the rest of the synod have to work together. No one works in a vacuum.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ukrainian Catholics do tend to be rather cynical about questions involving Roman Curia and jurisdiction.

The reason is that such jurisdiction is mainly used, in our case, to limit the influence of the UGCC in Ukraine so as not to offend the Russian Orthodox Church.

We know what we have to do to serve our flock in Ukraine and Rome doesn’t.

Rome should just butt out and the next time a Roman Cardinal wishes to visit Moscow, he should just take the direct flight there without going through Kyiv.

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

The Assyrian patriarchs in the first millenium understood it to exist, one writing that the relationship of Pope to Patriarch was that of Patriarch to Bishop;

I suppose that means when the synod decided to allow married bishops, they did so under the Pope’s direction.

The Role of the Pope of Alexandria (Coptic) to the Oriental Orthodox shares the same authority, and Alexandrian Popes have been intervening in their synod’s sees for many centuries…

Well then, this directly contradicts the position you assert the Assyrians held, one claim does not support the other. There cannot be two bishops with universal jurisdiction.

What you seem to be asserting here is that the Pope of Alexandria regulates the Armenian and Jacobite churches in the same manner that the Pope of Rome would regulate his own dependant churches. If you have any references to support that claim I would be interested to see them.

 

[mardukm]

This is the first I have ever heard that the Orthodox claim the Patriarch or Metropolitan has no authority over the synod. I have to wonder what you think constitutes authority.

The Metropolitan and the rest of the synod have to work together. No one works in a vacuum.

I would agree with you here, brother Michael. There’s a debate going on at the ECF between an Absolutist Petrine advocate and several High Petrine advocates. The High Petrine position is that the Pope as head bishop is not above an Ecumenical Council, but works within it as its head bishop whose confirmation is necessary. The Absolutist Petrine advocate has finally conceded that the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council.

The difference between the High Petrine view and the Low Petrine view (that many EO hold) is that the High Petrine view, in accord with the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 (which Vatican 1 called a Rule of Faith), understands that the consent of the head bishop in a Council is NECESSARY. From what I’ve read numerous times from EO apologists, the head bishop merely has a “tie breaker vote” and it is the majority that always rules, whether or not the head bishop is a member of the majority or the minority.

Perhaps that is what brother Aramis meant. It appears that a head bishop, according to the perspective of many EO, is not really necessary. If that is what brother Aramis meant, I am certainly on his side.

However, if he meant his comment “no authority over the synod” as if the head bishop’s viewpoint simply overrides everyone else’s, then I would be more inclined to side with you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ciero]

The Assyrian patriarchs in the first millenium understood it to exist, one writing that the relationship of Pope to Patriarch was that of Patriarch to Bishop; that same Patriarch also wrote of the jurisdictional authority of the patriarch to censure bishops.

The Role of the Pope of Alexandria (Coptic) to the Oriental Orthodox shares the same authority, and Alexandrian Popes have been intervening in their synod’s sees for many centuries…

It’s only in the Byzantine East where the primate has no authority over his synod…

This seems to be the case in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh but NOT in the rest of Byzantium!

 

[mardukm]

I suppose that means when the synod decided to allow married bishops, they did so under the Pope’s direction.

That’s not what jurisdiction means as far as a head bishop is concerned. The jurisdiction of a head bishop does not micromanage. To repeat your own words to brother Aramis “what do you think constitutes authority?” I explain it somewhat in this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7952677&postcount=23

Well then, this directly contradicts the position you assert the Assyrians held, one claim does not support the other. There cannot be two bishops with universal jurisdiction.

I doubt that’s what he meant, but I don’t want to speak for him.

What you seem to be asserting here is that the Pope of Alexandria regulates the Armenian and Jacobite churches in the same manner that the Pope of Rome would regulate his own dependant churches. If you have any references to support that claim I would be interested to see them.

Again, what do you think constitutes authority? Why should his influence in the Oriental Orthodox communion be automatically regarded by you as “regulating” the affairs of other Churches?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

This is the first I have ever heard that the Orthodox claim the Patriarch or Metropolitan has no authority over the synod.

Well it is clear that the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox in America has absolute authority over his “bishops”. But in the OCA it is not so clear: the Holy Synod has ultimate authority. Presumably you know this.

The Metropolitan and the rest of the synod have to work together. No one works in a vacuum.

I have to wonder what you think constitutes authority.

 

[dvdjs]

This seems to be the case in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh but NOT in the rest of Byzantium!

The Metropolia has a Council of Hierarchs not a Synod. As to: “NOT in the rest”, see above.

 

[Hesychios]

Again, what do you think constitutes authority?

This thread is about the Roman Curia, and the authority vested in it by the Pope of Rome. Aramis is comparing the Church of the East and the Coptic Orthodox church with the Pope Rome, so I would assume that if one wants to discuss authority it is the Pope of Alexandria’s authority in comparison to to the Pope of Rome’s authority.

… Why should his influence in the Oriental Orthodox communion be automatically regarded by you as “regulating” the affairs of other Churches?

What does he do with his sister churches? I am looking for examples here. What is the Pope of Alexandria’s authority within the non-Chalcedonian communion?

Give me examples. Does the Pope of Alexandria do with the Armenian Apostolic church what the Pope of Rome does with the Armenian Catholic church? Do they match?

 

[Aramis]

Well it is clear that the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox in America has absolute authority over his “bishops”. But in the OCA it is not so clear: the Holy Synod has ultimate authority. Presumably you know this.

I have to wonder what you think constitutes authority.

The AOC has only one Bishop Ordinary - the metropolitan. The others are auxilliaries, and so technically do not comprise a synod/council-of-hierarchs.

The AOC metropolitan thus has no synod to have authority over.

Authority: the power to act upon others.

EO primatial authority is usually limited to calling the synod, and often tiebreaking votes. The Greek primate isn’t even allowed to call the synod… Otherwise, his sole authority is as local ordinary (and that’s considerable, when the metropolitans and primates have little and exercise less).

Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs have suspended bishops without pre-approval of their synod. So have Assyrian ones. (Recently, even - for open desire for reunification with Rome. The appeal was to the synod, who upheld it. So the Bishop left the ACE and came into communion with many of his clergy anyway…)

As for the historical activities of the Alexandrian Patriarch - remember, they have always asserted patriarchal authority in a manner not dissimilar to the Assyrians. The assyrians also have 1st milenium patriarchs saying that the pope has that same authority over patriarchs… The Alexandrians have that same level of Patriarchal authority.

There’s also the Byzantine approach of by being in the synod, a bishop is justified as valid, and the primate arises from the synod’s authority…
in the Catholic and OO Communions, a bishop’s validity flows from communion with the Primate, and by that communion is admitted to the synod; the churches are admitted to the communion by their primates’ communion with the head primate.

 

[dvdjs]

The AOC has only one Bishop Ordinary - the metropolitan. The others are auxilliaries, and so technically do not comprise a synod/council-of-hierarchs. The AOC metropolitan thus has no synod to have authority over.

This situation is true, but only for the past two years and four months. The decision from the Patriarch and his Synod to recast “bishops” in the Metropolia as auxiliaries of the the Metropolitan, and make them subordinate to him was was perceived as a substantial change by many and controversial. In any case it ought to served as a stark reminder that all bishops are not equal even in Orthodoxy, and even in Orthodoxy unconstrained by Sultans, Czars, or Commissars.

By contrast, Met Jonah and the Synod of the OCA is clearly a work in progress.

Authority: the power to act upon others. …

The situations you recount make it clear that the is not a clear sense of what authority means in Orthodox ecclessiology. Some may protest that that is off topic. It is, however, relevant. We have again another thread on which Orthodox quote a paragraph here and a paragraph there from Rome, then insist on some specific interpretation. If that were a sound approach to gain understanding, then perhaps they would even know who has what authority in their own church. But they don’t. There are some lessons in that fact.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Don,

Again, the understanding of “jurisdiction” is of paramount importance, here. The High Petrine view understands “jurisdiction” in terms of love and service, and is exercised collegially. The Absolutist and Low Petrine views understand “jurisdiction” in terms of control, and is exercised unilaterally.

Examples of jurisdiction exercised according to the High Petrine view abound in the first millenium Church.

I seriously doubt there are examples of jurisdiction exercised according to the Absolutist Petrine view (i.e., if the Pope tried to unilaterally impose something on an inter-church affair, he was corrected), or the Low Petrine view (i.e., any single bishop was not above correction in his local jurisdiction by another authority above him).

Blessings,
Marduk

You may find the word cumulatively interesting here:

1. The jurisdiction of the Military Ordinary is personal, ordinary and proper. This jurisdiction shall be exercised cumulatively with the local Ordinaries.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2000/documents/rc_seg-st_20000505_santa-sede-lituania_en.html

Also from "THE LAW OF THE CHURCH - INSTRUMENT OF CHARITY":

The “principle of territoriality” 5. It seems opportune to recall here the “principle of territoriality”, that was firmly upheld by all the ecumenical Councils, including the Second Vatican Council (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 7), and which the Holy Father wanted the experts to keep in mind as they drafted the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches. The members of the Commission that prepared the Code - with the six Eastern Patriarchs being pre-eminent among them - demonstrated that they understood this (principle) perfectly: in the course of the Plenary Assembly of November 1988, after the matter was brought to their attention by the Holy Father, they abandoned a motion that had been signed by 15 members aimed at obtaining the extension of patriarchal jurisdiction to the whole world. The Pope had asked for the Code to be drafted in accord with both the traditions of the Oriental Churches and the decisions of the Councils, including those of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II did not accept the request to extend Patriarchal jurisdiction beyond the legitimately established boundaries of the patriarchal Church. From that point on, the assembly did its work quietly and effectively. In fact it was evident to all that the draft of the Code presented by the Assembly, the fruit of almost 20 years of assiduous work, finished with the collaboration of the entire Episcopate of the Eastern Churches, and even on the theme of territoriality, was in accord with the Oriental traditions and the decisions of Councils.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011122_sodano-ius-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[Hesychios]

Also from "THE LAW OF THE CHURCH - INSTRUMENT OF CHARITY":

The “principle of territoriality” 5. It seems opportune to recall here the “principle of territoriality”, that was firmly upheld by all the ecumenical Councils, including the Second Vatican Council (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 7), and which the Holy Father wanted the experts to keep in mind as they drafted the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches. The members of the Commission that prepared the Code - with the six Eastern Patriarchs being pre-eminent among them - demonstrated that they understood this (principle) perfectly: in the course of the Plenary Assembly of November 1988, after the matter was brought to their attention by the Holy Father, they abandoned a motion that had been signed by 15 members aimed at obtaining the extension of patriarchal jurisdiction to the whole world. The Pope had asked for the Code to be drafted in accord with both the traditions of the Oriental Churches and the decisions of the Councils, including those of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II did not accept the request to extend Patriarchal jurisdiction beyond the legitimately established boundaries of the patriarchal Church. From that point on, the assembly did its work quietly and effectively. In fact it was evident to all that the draft of the Code presented by the Assembly, the fruit of almost 20 years of assiduous work, finished with the collaboration of the entire Episcopate of the Eastern Churches, and even on the theme of territoriality, was in accord with the Oriental traditions and the decisions of Councils.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011122_sodano-ius-ecclesiarum_en.html

I wonder, was this letter drafted before or after the Cardinal decided to ban married Ukrainian priests from Poland?

 

[Vico]

I wonder, was this letter drafted before or after the Cardinal decided to ban married Ukrainian priests from Poland?

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was the Vatican secretary of state when he ordered Ukrainian Catholic bishops in Poland to use only celibate priests and to send their married priests to Ukraine, which was 1998. He said the bishops could not “unilaterally modify the practice in use.”

"THE LAW OF THE CHURCH - INSTRUMENT OF CHARITY" is from 2001, tenth anniversary of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO).

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011122_sodano-ius-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[ciero]

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was the Vatican secretary of state when he ordered Ukrainian Catholic bishops in Poland to use only celibate priests and to send their married priests to Ukraine, which was 1998. He said the bishops could not “unilaterally modify the practice in use.”

"THE LAW OF THE CHURCH - INSTRUMENT OF CHARITY" is from 2001, tenth anniversary of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO).

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011122_sodano-ius-ecclesiarum_en.html

And I believe the Ukrainian bishops ignored the letter.

 

[Vico]

And I believe the Ukrainian bishops ignored the letter.

Back in 1999 Fr. Deacon Lance wrote on the byzcath forum that Cardinal Sodano was reprimanded (privately) for this so the priests remained. I do not know if it is true.