T
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Uh, no.
But it looks like you agree with the statement, do you?
That’s all I want to establish here.
That’s fine, they are out of the catechism. I should have realized that.
All I want to establish here is that people agree with them.
I wasn’t referring to these quoted excerpts from the catechism actually.
I was referring to the Codes of Canons themselves. The authority to codify them comes directly from the power of the Supreme Pontiff over the entire church, I believe.
Otherwise, well…any bishop could make a Code of Canons now, couldn’t he?
I mean, otherwise the Archbishop of Cleveland could make his own Code couldn’t he? No…I should think not, he does not possess Supreme Power over the entire church. By codifying the Canons on his authority alone he could be potentially tampering with the work of prior councils. No mere Archbishop has a right to do such a thing on is own authority does he?
I am trying to establish that the Pope of Rome has Supreme Universal Authority, actually called power, over the entire church without limit and some people seem to be reluctant to admit that. But not you.
Thanks
J
jimmy
Guest
tdgesq, I think you make a logical mistake when you try to compare the actions of Moscow or other patriarchs to the claims of Rome. Moscow walking out on the Ravenna meeting does not equate to Romes claim on a council. Rome claims that a council has no binding authority until the bishop of Rome approves it, not even a local council. Moscow simply says, we don’t approve. They use their voice, which is a strong one in the EO, to say that they do not accept it. That is not equivalent to the veto power of Rome.
The EO would say that Rome is one of the many Churches and that their approval of the council is the same as that of the bishop of Constantinople. It is not a veto power or an overriding rule. Just like the bishop of Rome affirmed all the first seven councils, so did the bishop of Constantinople and Jerusalem and the other eastern see’s.
As the catechism paragraph says, according to Rome, the body of bishops has NO authority except when in communion with Rome. The council has no authority - not even in those dioceses of the bishops which approved - unless the pope approves it.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Uh, yes. You ignored my reference to the Council of Florence, among many other things:
The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
The Patriarch of Constantinople agreed with the declarations of Florence, yet somehow that wasn’t good enough. The surviving delegates instead announced they needed to hold a synod to confirm it. If this is a prerogative of Constantinople, how in the world can you say it isn’t a prerogative of Rome to approve a council before it is ecumenical?
Last year the same type of thing happened in Raveena when after the approval of the ecumenical dialog the ROC issued a press release that the ecumenical nature of the agreement was in doubt because the Russian Patriarchate wasn’t represented (they walked out at the end).
In light of this history, it is quite hypocritical of the EO to challenge the necessity of the approval of the Bishop of Rome as a condition to an ecumenical council.
I agree with the statement that a council cannot be ecumenical and binding on all the faithful without the approval of the Pope. Why that offends you is quite strange considering that the Orthodox have exercised the same prerogative.
The various Codes of Canon Law are ultimately approved by the Pope. They codify ritual practice, hierarchal structure and appeals and the like. They are not a vehicle to announce new doctrine within the Catholic Church. There is an Eastern Code of Canons that defines all of these things. You can find copies online if you wish to refer to them. None of those were promulgated before consultation with the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Only the Roman Pontiff can issue Canon Law that regulates the CC. These are not new statements of doctrine concerning faith and morals. They are regulatory codes for the operation of the Church. They are reflective of what the CC already teaches.
It depends what you mean when you refer to “power over the entire church without limit.” You’ve given some specific examples to which I’ve given an answer. If those are the only ones that are included in you statement above, then I’m not reluctant to admit it at all. Just like you aren’t reluctant to admit that when a certain undefinable number of bishops come together and make a ruling they have the same power. The difference being your claim has an inferior historical basis.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Actually the ROC questioned the entire legitimacy of the proceedings because they didn’t agree (walked out at the end). And how could it be otherwise? Unless you want to say that what was decided is only binding as truth on those who agreed as opposed to those who didn’t. It is the truth for some but not for others.
And the Patriarch of Constantinople also agreed with Florence; a decision later undone by the delegates. The word “veto” is not used in the CCC. The language that it must be approved by the Roman Pontiff to be ecumenical and binding is. That is exactly what happened at Florence with Constantinople. What happens when a Patriarchate withholds consent according to the EO? It isn’t an ecumenical council. Now why is it that the same prerogative is not accorded to Rome?
You are going beyond what the language covers. It is speaking of councils that define doctrine that is binding on all of the Catholic faithful. In other words, ecumenical councils. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops makes its own liturgical decisions all the time for the U.S. Catholic Churches. I am bound to give my obedience to those decisions.
J
jimmy
Guest
They don’t claim infallibility though. They are making their voice heard. That is all they are doing and since the ROC is a vast majority of the Orthodox Church their oppinion is very strong. They don’t deny the right of the Greeks or the Romanians or the Bulgarians or any other Orthodox Church to continue with the proceedings. They simply spoke for the truth as they saw it. They do not claim that the Greek or Romanian bishops are less important than the Russians for the document to be accepted. All they said was, we Russians don’t accept it.
The Ravenna document isn’t truth. It is simply an attempt to make an agreement between Orthodox and Catholics on primacy. It is not de fide. the Russians are not required to affirm it.
The EO have a different ecclesiology which understands that no bishop is infallible. The Patriarch of Constantinople might have signed the documents but that doesn’t make it de fide. A bishop is not in a vaccuum. A bishop is part of a Church or he has no voice in a council. If his Church does not accept the council it doesn’t matter what he said at the council.
This is the claim of Rome regarding a council.
Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
Rome is claiming a unique authority that belongs to it alone. As the canon says, it belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone. The other bishops don’t have this right. You can not compare the patriarch of Moscow to Rome because it does not claim this right. It claims that all bishops have the same right to affirm the council.
A single patriarch doesn’t make or break a council. Things are far more dynamic than that in the east. There are ecumenical councils which a patriarch did not affirm.
Disciplinary councils are approved by Rome as well. The translations of the liturgy must be approved by Rome. All councils must be approved by Rome for them to be binding.
And even if was just doctrinal councils which must be approved by Rome it doesn’t matter because that is exactly what we are talking about. Rome holds the authority of all the bishops plus one.
J
jimmy
Guest
As I mentioned above a patriarch doesn’t make or break a council. There are patriarchs who have rejected councils that turned out to be ecumenical. And there are also patriarchs who signed onto councils that ended up not being ecumenical. The patriarch, according to the EO (and many Greek Catholics and other EC’s), does not have greater authority than any of the bishops in his patriarchate. He is one of many bishops when it comes to the councils. The fact that the patriarch of Constantinople signed the document was not enough because he is not the universal authority in the EO. In the west it might be enough for Rome to write the document and to sign it but it is not the same in the east.
Your arguement seems to be all over the place to me. You are arguing from one point at one time and next you are arguing from the opposite point. Earlier you were arguing that the Russian Orthodox Church claims the same authority that Rome claims now you are claiming that the other delegates at Florence overrode the patriarch. It only supports what I am saying, all bishops in the EO have the same authority. The patriarch of Constantinople and that of Moscow do not make or break a council. The Ravenna document will most likely be meaningless because the largest of the Orthodox Churches rejects it. And if other Churches would have been in the same position it might turn out the same. In the west it doesn’t matter what any individual Church says other than Rome. It didn’t matter that the Melkites rejected Vatican I. All that mattered was that Rome affirmed it. As the canon I quoted in my last post says, it belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone to affirm a council or to dissolve it.
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
I’m watching this thread with great interest. I am not too well informed on these topcis.
Jimmy,
What you said above, isn’t it true that this was hotly contested in the Middle Ages, following the Avingnon or “Babylonian” captivity of the Papacy? There were up to three Popes, so it seemed self-evident to many that there had to be some kind of concilliar authority that could excercise above the Pope.
Is the EO problem with the Papacy primarily a problem with the First Vatican Council (and insofar as VII re-affirmed it)?
If Vatican I did not happen, what would be the prospects of unity?
J
jimmy
Guest
From what I recall two - or maybe all three - of those ‘popes’ stepped down so it didn’t turn out to be a big issue. But there is no authority that can judge a pope not even an ecumenical council which can only be binding if the pope himself affirms it. The pope can step down of his own will but he can not be removed by any authority.
VI is a large part of the issue. I can only guess that if VI never occured then our prospects for unity would be much greater. There was room for debate before. Now there is none because Rome is infallible and therefore irreproachable on matters of faith and morals. But all other bishops are fallible and therefore they can be reproached regarding their faith. The EO does not have any bishop that claims infallibility. Therefore any discussion between east and west automatically has the expectation of submission of the east to the west. It might not be that submission is forced but the understanding is that eventually through discussions the east will be brought to affirm western developments. And it couldn’t be any other way.
T
tdgesq
Guest
According to them so strong that:
The MP refuses to recognise “any binding force” in any document issued by the mixed theological commission without the participation of its representatives. One such document is the paper released after the conclusion of the October 2007 session in Ravenna, which is concerned with the role of the primacy of the Pope of Rome in the ecumenical church. 02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/the-moscow-patriarchate-did-not-participate-in-the-orthodox-catholic-dialogue-due-to-the-policies-of-the-ecumenical-patriarchate-in-estonia/
That is one of the most cynical statements I have heard in a long time. The rest of Orthodoxy and the CC sign a statement of unity on certain issues, but it isn’t the truth. Why don’t you go tell all the Patriarchates and Metropolitans represented that signed it.
You are affirming my point. No binding force without the MP’s participation. He’s not just saying for his church either. Read the article if you don’t believe me.
I know. They understand that a bunch of bishops (we don’t know how many or who exactly) that meet together in council are infallible.
Then what does? Why wasn’t Florence ecumenical, or at the very least binding on Constantinople? How many and what type of bishops does it take to have an ecumenical council the decrees of which are binding on the entire Church?
The Church being . . . . Here is your problem Jimmy. You aren’t going to be able to find a single Patriarchate that will say its affirmation isn’t necessary for a binding ecumenical council. The theory being put forward here is nice, but flies in the face of the historical reality.
Yes, that is the claim. A simple question. Can a council be ecumenical and binding on all the faithful without the approval of the Bishop of Rome? I guess maybe that will get us to the heart of the matter faster than anything else.
The Roman Pontiff does claim unique authority along with most of the Catholic communion. I don’t think that is a surprise to anyone here. What may surprise some people is the notion that there can somehow be a council that is binding on all the faithful of the Church without the approval of the Bishop of Rome. Particularly when the historical evidence shows that other Patriarchates have denied ecumenicity on that basis.
Tell me one council the EO accept as ecumenical that wasn’t accepted by their patriarch or his representatives. If you are saying their acceptance isn’t necessary, then Florence looks like it fits the bill nicely, as well as all the other fourteen other councils in the west.
I don’t believe this to be true. I have seen the USCCB make myriad decisions that were not confirmed by Rome with respect to the liturgy.
How so? According to you universal binding decrees don’t depend upon all the bishops. It just depends on some undefined number and quality of bishops. It doesn’t appear that the Roman Pontiff needs to take the role of “all the bishops” if that is the case.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Hesychios (I’ll be addressing you as Hesychios from now on, if you don’t mind, as there is now another Michael in the Forum),
This basically describes the dynamics of the ecumenical council (it does describe the apostolic expectation for lower levels of the hierarchy also). What occurs is that most of the bishops wrangle it out on a certain issue. The issue is decided (doctrinal or other), and then AFTERWARDS the bishops hand over their findings to the head bishop (in this case, the Pope).
At this point, one of several things can occur:
To put it another way, I think that the question “is the Pope superior to an Ecumenical Council?” is just as valid as the question “Can God make a rock he cannot lift?” or “is the body of bishops (minus the bishop of Rome) superior to an Ecumenical Council?” It is a nonsensical question that has no real application except to satisfy a polemic agenda. In fact, an Ecumenical Council cannot exist ontologically without a head bishop. On the same principle, the Ecumenical Council is not the head bishop alone, but the collective body of the bishops of the Church.
I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily. If there is anything I can do to clarify, don’t hesitate to ask.
Blessings,
Marduk
I believe the Pope is not superior to an Ecumenical Council, and is the head bishop of such a Council. I have ALWAYS maintained that IN THE SETTING OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, the authority of the Pope is no more nor less than what is granted by Apostolic canon 34, where it states that the other bishops “MUST acknowledge their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent.” In addition, the head should not do anything without the consent of all.
This basically describes the dynamics of the ecumenical council (it does describe the apostolic expectation for lower levels of the hierarchy also). What occurs is that most of the bishops wrangle it out on a certain issue. The issue is decided (doctrinal or other), and then AFTERWARDS the bishops hand over their findings to the head bishop (in this case, the Pope).
At this point, one of several things can occur:
- The Pope gives his consent, unanimity will have been achieved, the consent of the other bishops already having been obtained prior to the involvement of the head bishop, and the decision is promulgated as binding on the ENTIRE Church (hence, “ecumenical”).
- The Pope withholds his consent, and the issue is rediscussed by his brother bishops, and the process continues until the issue is resolved. If the Church follows the commands of Apostolic Canon 34, this will be the ideal situation. As far as Catholicism is concerned (if past practice can be considered a standard), only 2/3’s of the voting body is required for an issue to be resolved, and the decision promulgated. The unanimity required by Apostolic Canon 34 is satisfied when the other bishops conscientiously submit themselves to the decision of the majority. In such a situation, the ecumenicity of the Council is maintained.
- The Pope withholds his consent, and instead of rediscussing the issue, the other bishops promulgate their decision without the consent of their head. At this point, the requirements of Apostolic Canon 34 can still be met, and communion thus maintained, if everyone agrees that the decision is NOT universally binding and is only binding on the jurisdictions of those who agree with the decision. This is highly probable on a canonical issue of discipline or practice, but if the point at issue is one of doctrine, a big problem is likely to occur.
- The Pope withholds his consent, and instead of rediscussing the issue, the other bishops try to excommunicate their head bishop. This inevitably results in schism, and completely violates Apostolic Canon 34
To put it another way, I think that the question “is the Pope superior to an Ecumenical Council?” is just as valid as the question “Can God make a rock he cannot lift?” or “is the body of bishops (minus the bishop of Rome) superior to an Ecumenical Council?” It is a nonsensical question that has no real application except to satisfy a polemic agenda. In fact, an Ecumenical Council cannot exist ontologically without a head bishop. On the same principle, the Ecumenical Council is not the head bishop alone, but the collective body of the bishops of the Church.
I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily. If there is anything I can do to clarify, don’t hesitate to ask.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
tdgesq
Guest
Care to tell me which ones.
Why not? What made them "un"ecumenical?
How many and what quality of bishops does it take then?
I’m not the one who made up the history, I’m just telling you what it is. It does seem a little bit contradictory for the ROC on the one hand to claim that a document isn’t binding unless they agree, yet on the other claim they are just one more set of bishops with equal authority. As for Florence, how is it that the delegates could override the decision of the Patriarch? Is it because he died?
Actually, I see the actions of the later delegates as asserting that they knew better than the patriarch. What gave them that authority?
Hello. So now it matters how many faithful attend that church? I thought each bishop was equal.
Same in the East according to you. The Bishop of Rome’s approval isn’t necessary. Isn’t that what you are really saying? It is truly ironic then that you turn to Vatican I and the Melkites and bemoan the fact that the council is considered ecumenical within the RCC despite the Melkites not agreeing to the infallibility criterion. All the bishops don’t have to agree. Remember?
Tell me what constitutes an ecumenical council.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother tdqesq,
I think we need to understand that brother Jimmy (and other Eastern/Oriental Catholics here of like mind) are members of sui juris Churches in a portion of the world that, by tradition, is under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. It seems hard for them to appreciate the complicated situation. Instead of a Pope who has, practically speaking, let go of a lot of his own authority in these areas (geographically and otherwise), they see instead a Pope who is trying to muscle in on their Churches by virtue of the fact that he has even the littlest amount of authority in their own sui juris churches.
I haven’t met many Eastern and Oriental Catholics from their motherland Churches. The ones I HAVE met (mostly Copts and Indians, and several Romanians and Russians) are FANTASTICALLY loyal to the Pope. I surmise that is because coming from non-Latin dominated lands, they don’t experience the same kind of preening tension that “Western” Eastern/Oriental Catholics experience with respect to their Latin brethren. Eastern/Oriental Catholics who live in the West are indeed minorities, and it is perhaps a minority/second class-complex, resulting in a lot of anger and dissatisfaction, that causes them to unjustifiably lash out against the papacy and on other issues. Since I did not grow up in the Catholic Church, I do not have these issues, so I maintain a dogged loyalty to the Catholic Church.
I think we should keep this in mind when addressing those particular Eastern/Oriental Catholic brethren (not that I am saying you have not maintained charity in your posts) who are going through these difficult times in their Catholic faith.
Well, that’s my own impression of it. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who went to Orthodoxy who has explained the Catholic faith very well (though they can explain Orthodoxy rather well). There’s got to be a lot more going in if they leave the Catholic Church without being able to explain the Faith they left very well.
Blessings,
Marduk
Everything you say is so true.:tiphat:
I think we need to understand that brother Jimmy (and other Eastern/Oriental Catholics here of like mind) are members of sui juris Churches in a portion of the world that, by tradition, is under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. It seems hard for them to appreciate the complicated situation. Instead of a Pope who has, practically speaking, let go of a lot of his own authority in these areas (geographically and otherwise), they see instead a Pope who is trying to muscle in on their Churches by virtue of the fact that he has even the littlest amount of authority in their own sui juris churches.
I haven’t met many Eastern and Oriental Catholics from their motherland Churches. The ones I HAVE met (mostly Copts and Indians, and several Romanians and Russians) are FANTASTICALLY loyal to the Pope. I surmise that is because coming from non-Latin dominated lands, they don’t experience the same kind of preening tension that “Western” Eastern/Oriental Catholics experience with respect to their Latin brethren. Eastern/Oriental Catholics who live in the West are indeed minorities, and it is perhaps a minority/second class-complex, resulting in a lot of anger and dissatisfaction, that causes them to unjustifiably lash out against the papacy and on other issues. Since I did not grow up in the Catholic Church, I do not have these issues, so I maintain a dogged loyalty to the Catholic Church.
I think we should keep this in mind when addressing those particular Eastern/Oriental Catholic brethren (not that I am saying you have not maintained charity in your posts) who are going through these difficult times in their Catholic faith.
Well, that’s my own impression of it. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who went to Orthodoxy who has explained the Catholic faith very well (though they can explain Orthodoxy rather well). There’s got to be a lot more going in if they leave the Catholic Church without being able to explain the Faith they left very well.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jimmy
Guest
No they don’t. You continue to misconcieve their ecclessiology.
Because they don’t follow an ecclesiology like the western ecclesiology. They believe that the whole Church is the defenders and bearers of the truth, not just the bishops. If the Church(the faithful) in Constantinople reject the council it is meaningless what the patriarch signed.
The Church according to the EO is the whole body of the faithful gathered around the bishop. A council is not made by a single bishop no matter what. A council no matter how universal and unanimous is not necessarily ecumenical because the Church is not an element of one part of time. As St. Vincent of Lerins said, we believe what was believed at all times and in all places. One bishop - or all of them for that matter - could sign on to a document but their successors could reject it as eroneous. Things are not as simple and static in the east as you would like to think.
You will not understand the eastern approach to a council until you actually read their sources.
Amazingly they still don’t profess its decrees to be true as shown by the Zhogby innitiative.
J
jimmy
Guest
Because later generations rejected them.
They could override him because they were bishops of Churches as well and since the patriarch isn’t God he isn’t infallible.
The EO Church is inherently local. The Russian Church will do what it thinks is right and so will the Greek Church. Greeks can make it binding on themselves but that doesn’t make it binding on the Russians. And considering that most of the EO Church is part of the Russian Church that means that a small portion of the EOC is going to be subject to the document. The Greeks can do as they will but it appears the Russians will not follow.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy
The EO, on the other hand, seem to believe that the lay Church is equal to the bishops in their teaching office, to the point that lay people can disrespect or even cast out their validly appointed bishops. To say otherwise, seems like semantics. Recall that after the Council of Florence, EO bishops were cast out of their office even without the benefit of a local Council. That such abuse existed and does exist in the EO Church is reality. For instance, look at how the ROC has accomodated the lay Church by permitting divorce by a person whose spouse has been imprisoned for a long time. Our Lord commands us to comfort those in prison. But the ROC ,for the sake of her lay members, disobeys the Lord’s command and permits divorce of the imprisoned. Maybe its just me, but I think divorcing your spouse because he/she is in prison for a long period violates the Lord’s command. Also recently was the public humiliation of a bishop by his flock when the bishops made a small change in their Liturgy (something about keeping the doors open during Lent, I think). True, the MP made statements that what occurred was wrong - but seriously, what would give lay people the idea that it was OK to do that in the first place, if not for an ecclesiology which places lay people on an equal footing with their bishops in the office of teaching (which is the highest office in the Church)?
BTW, the difference is not only between the EO and the CC, but also between the EO and the OO (of course, the ecclesiology of the OO is also different from that of the CC).
Blessings,
Marduk
I admit this is a difference. In the Catholic Church, we distinguish between the promulgation of the truth, on the one hand, and its defense, on the other. In the Catholic Church, the promulgation of the truth (the office of teaching) is the prerogative of the bishops alone, and God has graced them with special charisms at their ordination for this purpose (recall St. Paul’s words to St. Timothy about the gift he received with the laying on of hands), while the DEFENSE of the Truth belongs to EVERYONE in the Church, lay and cleric alike.
The EO, on the other hand, seem to believe that the lay Church is equal to the bishops in their teaching office, to the point that lay people can disrespect or even cast out their validly appointed bishops. To say otherwise, seems like semantics. Recall that after the Council of Florence, EO bishops were cast out of their office even without the benefit of a local Council. That such abuse existed and does exist in the EO Church is reality. For instance, look at how the ROC has accomodated the lay Church by permitting divorce by a person whose spouse has been imprisoned for a long time. Our Lord commands us to comfort those in prison. But the ROC ,for the sake of her lay members, disobeys the Lord’s command and permits divorce of the imprisoned. Maybe its just me, but I think divorcing your spouse because he/she is in prison for a long period violates the Lord’s command. Also recently was the public humiliation of a bishop by his flock when the bishops made a small change in their Liturgy (something about keeping the doors open during Lent, I think). True, the MP made statements that what occurred was wrong - but seriously, what would give lay people the idea that it was OK to do that in the first place, if not for an ecclesiology which places lay people on an equal footing with their bishops in the office of teaching (which is the highest office in the Church)?
BTW, the difference is not only between the EO and the CC, but also between the EO and the OO (of course, the ecclesiology of the OO is also different from that of the CC).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
I see you have responded to only a small percentage of what I had written. I am praying that is because your concerns have been assuaged for those areas that comprise the larger percentage of what I wrote. If not, I hope you give me an opportunity to defend the Faith by voicing any further concerns you may have regarding those topics.
Do you see why your rationale is a character judgment? I know you are thinking that you are basing it on the teachings/canons themselves, yet you have not actually offered any such proof. You have attempted to answer my general concern regarding your phrases “if he desires,” “whenever he wants,” “if he likes” (or some such phrase which indicates the Pope can make decisions arbitrarily) below with another canon. I appreciate that and I will address it when I get to it below.
CONTINUED
I see you have responded to only a small percentage of what I had written. I am praying that is because your concerns have been assuaged for those areas that comprise the larger percentage of what I wrote. If not, I hope you give me an opportunity to defend the Faith by voicing any further concerns you may have regarding those topics.
Sorry if I gave you that impression. I did not intend to assert that you were doing it on purpose. I was just trying to show you that what you were doing was in effect actually nothing more than a character judgment. I mean, we have had awesome Popes for the better part of a century. Let’s go with the flow. We see the direction the Church is heading regarding Eastern and Oriental Catholicism - more respect and a recovery of her traditions. Why get dejected about the Catholic Church at THIS point in time? Why assume ANY Pope in the future will reverse this trend?
Do you see why your rationale is a character judgment? I know you are thinking that you are basing it on the teachings/canons themselves, yet you have not actually offered any such proof. You have attempted to answer my general concern regarding your phrases “if he desires,” “whenever he wants,” “if he likes” (or some such phrase which indicates the Pope can make decisions arbitrarily) below with another canon. I appreciate that and I will address it when I get to it below.
So you have NEVER met a spiritual Latin Catholic? Have you never read any works by the Saints of the Latin Church? Surely, you don’t think that the spiritual people you’ve met or the Saints of the Catholic Church had such a healthy spirituality DESPITE the Catholic Church, and not BECAUSE of her? Please respond. I seriously cannot see how you can draw this conclusion unless your understanding of Western spirituality is based NOT on her own writings (doctors. saints, modern authors, etc.) but rather on the writings of anti-Western Catholic polemicists.
And St. Ephrem is a saint in the Latin catholic Church, which should immediately give you pause in your assessment of Latin spirituality as dry and spiritless (in my words).
I know it is your explanation. What I’m asking is why you believe it? Is it because the West has made dogmas? I had already stated that the West promulgates dogmas based on necessity, and nothing else. There were people denying the truth of transubstantiation, so the West asserted the dogma. Do you deny that dogmatization was necessary during the time of the Reformation? Can you deny that the dogmatization of the long-held belief in papal infallibility was in response to the growth of modernism? Why would you blame the West for dogmatizing when it is NECESSARY? Do you likewise blame the early Church for dogmatizing? Let’s be consistent and fair in our assessment of the issue, brother, agreed?Mardukm:
It is my explanation of the western approach to theology. It is not some conscious decision they have made.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Come ON, brother! SO WHAT if the Pope can dissolve the Council. That is just an administrative prerogative necessary for good order.
Can.18 - Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.
You see, the Fathers who formulated the Code were very precise. When HH JP2 the Great of thrice-blessed memory promulgated the Code, he wrote: “the GREATEST care has been taken that during the LONG PREPARATION of the Code, there should be an ACCURATE expression of the norms and that they should depend upon a sound juridical, canonical, and theological foundation.” You yourself charge the Latin Church with a calculating coldness. Be consistent. Do you SERIOUSLY think they would have left a stone unturned in their formulation of the Code of Canons?
If the Fathers of the Code intended Canon 338.1 to say “if he so chooses” or some such clause that designates arbitrariness, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT. In effect, you can’t go around criticizing the Code based on something that is not explicitly there.
Another thing you don’t seem to fully understand (if you do, forgive me for assuming so) is that an Ecumenical Council considered as such is a COLLECTIVE authority. If and when an Ecumenical Council is dissolved, it is dissolved FIRST by the requests of the bishops themselves, and when enough bishops make the request, THEN the Pope makes a ruling that it will be dissolved. Before that time, no bishop is permitted to leave the Council without good reason. That is just good order, brother. Is there no sense of order in Eastern Christianity that you would criticize such a basic requirement for good order?
Blessings,
Marduk
By your comments, am I to assume that under EO ecclesiology, the bishops can just walk out of a Synod willy-nilly gradually, paying no heed to Church order, until there is no one left? And THAT is how an EO Synod is dissolved?
Come ON, brother! SO WHAT if the Pope can dissolve the Council. That is just an administrative prerogative necessary for good order.
One thing you don’t seem to realize about the Code of Canons of the Catholic Church is that it was promulgated with the SPECIFIC built-in restriction that what is not contained in it cannot simply be assumed. Here is just one of those protective mechanisms:
Can.18 - Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.
You see, the Fathers who formulated the Code were very precise. When HH JP2 the Great of thrice-blessed memory promulgated the Code, he wrote: “the GREATEST care has been taken that during the LONG PREPARATION of the Code, there should be an ACCURATE expression of the norms and that they should depend upon a sound juridical, canonical, and theological foundation.” You yourself charge the Latin Church with a calculating coldness. Be consistent. Do you SERIOUSLY think they would have left a stone unturned in their formulation of the Code of Canons?
If the Fathers of the Code intended Canon 338.1 to say “if he so chooses” or some such clause that designates arbitrariness, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT. In effect, you can’t go around criticizing the Code based on something that is not explicitly there.Another thing you don’t seem to fully understand (if you do, forgive me for assuming so) is that an Ecumenical Council considered as such is a COLLECTIVE authority. If and when an Ecumenical Council is dissolved, it is dissolved FIRST by the requests of the bishops themselves, and when enough bishops make the request, THEN the Pope makes a ruling that it will be dissolved. Before that time, no bishop is permitted to leave the Council without good reason. That is just good order, brother. Is there no sense of order in Eastern Christianity that you would criticize such a basic requirement for good order?
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jimmy
Guest
That is absolute authority on a council. The council of Basil declared the ecumenical council to be above the pope and the pope dissolved it. It is not simply for good order. It is the question of what kind of voice the other bishops actually have. If the pope can simply dissolve a council at his will then none of the other bishops have any real authority. It all comes down to what the pope approves.By your comments, am I to assume that under EO ecclesiology, the bishops can just walk out of a Synod willy-nilly gradually, paying no heed to Church order, until there is no one left? And THAT is how an EO Synod is dissolved?
Come ON, brother! SO WHAT if the Pope can dissolve the Council. That is just an administrative prerogative necessary for good order.
Yes, an EO bishop could walk out on a synod just like the Russians walked out of the Ravenna discussions.
I don’t know what kind of proof you are looking for mardukm. I have given canons that refer to the bishop of Rome’s authority in a council. They basically indicate that the authority of the pope in a council is unlimited while that of the bishops is dependant on the pope. Others have given Catechism quotes that indicate that the pope has universal, absolute and immediate authority.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
I’ll post more later (perhaps even tomorrow).
Blessings,
Marduk
I will address the rest of your post later. For now let me address just this portion.
- So is it your opinion that a body of bishops can do something of such importance as dissolving a council that will affect the universal Church WITHOUT the consent of its head bishop? In other words, the Apostolic Canon 34 has no effect in EO’xy? Or are you saying this is the teaching of the EO and not necessarily your own opinion?
- Basle is a bad example. The Pope dissolved the Council AFTER REQUESTS FROM OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WAS CALLING ITSELF ECUMENICAL AT A TIME WHEN IT ONLY HAD FEWER THAN A DOZEN MEMBERS. Further, it was NOT only the Pope’s dissolution of that Council that effected its dissolution. It was actually the Pope’s decision AND the fact that so many of its members decided to leave and give allegiance to the Pope’s party, with only five bishops left holding the cards at Basle by the end of the debacle.
I’ll post more later (perhaps even tomorrow).
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status