To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[mardukm]

You said that you believe that the following is possible:

I am asking you how it works now in regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Sorry. I totally misread your comment.

Currently, I believe there is so much more evidence of this respect for the prerogatives of the Eastern and Oriental Churches to conduct their own affairs than in the past. Just recently, groups in the Ukrainian Church and the Indian Church who wanted to keep Latinizations appealed to the Pope to permit them to maintain them, even though their Synods disapproved. The Pope ignored them for a long time, and when he finally spoke out, he simply sided with the Synods. I believe the Pope ignored them because he knew he did not have the canonical authority to intervene in those matters. I suspect the Pope may have finally responded only because bishops in those Churches asked him to.

The Pope’s actions were in accord with the ancient canons which permit only bishops to appeal to the Pope. Priests and laymen can’t do so because they are under the direct authority of their own bishop (though a priest may do so with the leave of his bishop).

I’ve heard claims that the Pope has recently installed bishops in Eastern territorial jurisdictions, but I’ve never heard specifics. just accusations. I think the only time the Pope did this within the past hundred years was in the 1940’s with the Maronite Patriarch. I’m not completely sure of the circumstances, but I know it was a very volatile period in Maronite history, as Lebanon had just gained independence, and there were two Maronite parties with competing interests. It’s probable that an appeal was made to the Pope from a bishop of one of the parties to intervene in the election given the special circumstances - but I’m not at all sure. The whole episode was so strange because the very Pope that did it was very pro-Eastern/Oriental and promoted indigenous hierarchy. The prior practice was just to install foreign Latin clergy. To be clear, these were done not by the Pope, but by the Latin missionaries or nuncial prelatures who supervised the Easterns/Orientals, and the Pope was often at odds with the Latinizing tendencies of these missionaries or nuncial prelatures. For example, around the turn of the 20th century, Latin missionaries wanted to impose a certain Latinization (I forget what it was) on the Coptic Catholic Church, and the Pope ruled that the customs of the Copts should remain intact.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Currently, I believe there is so much more evidence of this respect for the prerogatives of the Eastern and Oriental Churches to conduct their own affairs than in the past. Just recently, groups in the Ukrainian Church and the Indian Church who wanted to keep Latinizations appealed to the Pope to permit them to maintain them, even though their Synods disapproved. The Pope ignored them for a long time, and when he finally spoke out, he simply sided with the Synods. I believe the Pope ignored them because he knew he did not have the canonical authority to intervene in those matters. I suspect the Pope may have finally responded only because bishops in those Churches asked him to.

Interesting. I know that countless letters have been sent to Rome by laity of the Ruthenian Catholic Church due to the unfortunate revision of the Divine Liturgy–including gender neutral language and revised rubrics. There are many entities (priests and laity) appealing to Rome regarding multiple errors they see in this revision. However, since Rome approved the revision and the bishops promulgated the Liturgy, are you saying that Rome cannot act unless the bishops ask for intervention?

The Pope’s actions were in accord with the ancient canons which permit only bishops to appeal to the Pope.

Same question as above.

Priests and laymen can’t do so because they are under the direct authority of their own bishop (though a priest may do so with the leave of his bishop).

So the priests and laity are wasting their time?

Are you saying that the Pope of Rome cannot act in another Catholic jurisdiction outside of his own without the appeal or request of the bishop from that jurisdiction?

 

[mardukm]

Interesting. I know that countless letters have been sent to Rome by laity of the Ruthenian Catholic Church due to the unfortunate revision of the Divine Liturgy–including gender neutral language and revised rubrics. There are many entities (priests and laity) appealing to Rome regarding multiple errors they see in this revision. However, since Rome approved the revision and the bishops promulgated the Liturgy, are you saying that Rome cannot act unless the bishops ask for intervention?

The Ruthenians are in a position that some other sui juris Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches find themselves - namely, it is not a patriarchal Church. Ancient Canon law recognizes that metropolitan sees are suffragan to Patriarchal Sees. But the only one that fits the bill for now is Rome (if and when the UGCC becomes Patriarchal, the Ruthenians would ideally come under the omophorion of the Ukranian patriarch). Thus, Rome has legitimate (name removed by moderator)ut in the affairs of the Ruthenians (instead of autonomous, I believe they are called semi-autonomous). So, yes, the Pope, as the highest court of patriarchal appeal in the Ruthenian Church, the Pope can override the decision of the Ruthenian bishops. HOWEVER, he can’t do that unless at least one bishop makes the appeal. If that bishop makes the appeal, he can rule through a motu proprio to make an exception for the diocese of that bishop regarding the RDL.

So the priests and laity are wasting their time?

No. They are not wasting their time. By airing their grievances, they can gain, with prayer, the support of more laity and clergy. At some point, a bishop, if he is doing his job, must give ear and he can appeal to the Pope to make an exception for his diocese from the ruling of the Ruthenian Synod.

Are you saying that the Pope of Rome cannot act in another Catholic jurisdiction outside of his own without the appeal or request of the bishop from that jurisdiction?

No. There are six circumstances when the Pope can act without appeal from a local bishop. (1) To address the local Church on a matter of universal faith or morals; (2) To enforce a universal canon of the Church; (3) to correct a local bishop on a matter of faith or morals, if his metropolitan has not done so already, and if that bishop is not in a patriarchal Church; (4) to hear the penal case of a layperson or priest if the layperson or priest appeals to the Pope (recall that the highest court of appeal for a layperson or priest is normally the local bishop); (5) to hear matters relating to the Sacrament of marriage upon appeal by a layperson (recall that the highest court of appeal for a layperson is normally the local bishop); (6) to rule on matters already reserved to the Pope (e.g., dispensation from the vow of celibacy, divorces that require the Petrine privilege, etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

HOWEVER, he can’t do that unless at least one bishop makes the appeal.

Priests and laity have been writing letters for more than two years. It is your opinion that without the appeal of at least one bishop–nothing will change?

No. They are not wasting their time. By airing their grievances, they can gain, with prayer, the support of more laity and clergy.

I assure you, they are praying hard and pleading for Rome to intervene.

There are six circumstances when the Pope can act without appeal from a local bishop.

So then, you were only speculating when you said this:?

Since his [the Pope’s] “jurisdiction” is only the Latin Church, he cannot intervene or interfere in the local laws, canons, disciplines and governance of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, (unless, of course, it is a matter of appeal).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Priests and laity have been writing letters for more than two years. It is your opinion that without the appeal of at least one bishop–nothing will change?
I assure you, they are praying hard and pleading for Rome to intervene.

The Pope is respecting the local hierarchies. He certainly can’t be faulted for that. Interestingly, this episode might demonstrate to the detractors of the papacy just how necessary the office of the papacy is.

So do you think the Pope should just overrule the decisions of the Ruthenian Synod? For the prevention of schism, would you admit that he should be able to act monarchially instead of collegially, if there was no other recourse?

So then, you were only speculating when you said this:?

I was responding to two different questions. Brother josephdaniel asked me what things do I feel the Church can change, and I gave him an answer which I thought best accomodated the concerns of both the Orthodox and Catholics. So part of it is speculation based on what I think might be acceptable to Orthodox.

You, on the other hand, asked me what I feel the state of the Catholic Church is.

So my statements might seem inconsistent at certain points - but that’s because I was answering two different questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The Pope is respecting the local hierarchies.

I suppose.

Interestingly, this episode might demonstrate to the detractors of the papacy just how necessary the office of the papacy is.

I do not know any Ruthenian “detractors of the papacy”. They are begging the Pope to intervene. Ironically, Rome approved the entire fiasco.

So do you think the Pope should just overrule the decisions of the Ruthenian Synod?

When I was a Ruthenian Catholic, I prayed every day that the Pope would listen to the people and the clergy—and overrule this travesty. But as an Orthodox, I no longer have a horse in the race.

So part of it is speculation based on what I think might be acceptable to Orthodox.

I understand.

You, on the other hand, asked me what I feel the state of the Catholic Church is.

I asked you a question regarding Rome’s jurisdiction in relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches based on your speculative answer to josephdaniel.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

I do not know any Ruthenian “detractors of the papacy”.

I was kinda referring to “detractors of the papacy” in general. Would they view this as an extenuating instance when the papacy is actually necessary?

They are begging the Pope to intervene. Ironically, Rome approved the entire fiasco.

Actually, Rome had no choice in the matter. Canon law says that a superior whose consent is required for the act of a body to be valid is required to give that consent if the rest of the body makes a unanimous decision on a matter.

BTW, were there any dissenting bishops during the Synod that approved the RDL?

When I was a Ruthenian Catholic, I prayed every day that the Pope would listen to the people and the clergy—and overrule this travesty. But as an Orthodox, I no longer have a horse in the race.

I asked the question more in the interests of how you think the Orthodox would view such a monarchial action by the Pope. Would you (as an Orthodox) say that it is justified in this instance, or do you think they would throw it back in the face of Catholics and say, "See! Despite what V1 and V2 and your canons say about respecting and upholding the prerogatives of his brother bishops, the Pope can still do anything he wants!:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I was kinda referring to “detractors of the papacy” in general. Would they view this as an extenuating instance when the papacy is actually necessary?

I suppose some might say that it is good to listen to the clergy and the laity also. St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

Actually, Rome had no choice in the matter.

Many say that Rome mistakenly rubber-stamped the revision.

BTW, were there any dissenting bishops during the Synod that approved the RDL

Not to my knowledge.

I asked the question more in the interests of how you think the Orthodox would view such a monarchial action by the Pope.

I do not believe in the idea of a papal monarchy.

Would you (as an Orthodox) say that it is justified in this instance

As an Orthodox, I continue to pray for my Ruthenian Catholic brothers and sisters. I feel the pain of those who are still praying that this travesty is rescinded. I have many Ruthenian Catholic friends.

 

[JackQ]

I really don’t have the space to fully explain to you the conciliar nature of the Church. Suffice it to say the idea that episcopal decisions are “submitted” to the laity for “approval” is false. It is the role of the divinely instituted episcopacy to define the truth.

That being said no one is obligated to follow a bishop or even a council of bishops that teaches something clearly opposed to Apostolic Tradition. How it works is a great mystery. The Church’s unity is maintained by the Uncreated Grace of God. Whether you understand it or not you have to see that it works. Fifteen independently governed national Churches all maintaining complete doctrinal unity and all without a monarchical bishop. You see what happened in Anglicanism. Why has the same thing not happened to us? How else do you explain that except for the Grace of God?

I will bring the question a little closer to home. If your bishop all of a sudden began denying the real presence would you be obligated to follow him? What if the Pope taught that? Answer those questions and you’ll understand the principle we are talking about.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Yes, it’s much too complicated to explain, isn’t it?

Individual bishops have no charism of infallibility like ecumenical councils do and the Pope does when he speaks ex cathedra.

The Pope would not be able to speak ex cathedra and deny the real presence, nor would an ecumenical council be able to do that. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow it.

 

[prodromos]

Here’s the ENTIRE context of that quote you gave:
“How did the Council go? Were we victorious?”
To which the hierarchs replied: “No! We sold our faith, we bartered piety for impiety (i.e., Orthodox doctrine for heresy) and have become azymites.”
The people asked then: “Why did you sign?”
“From fear of the Latins,”
''Did the Latins then beat you or put you in prison?"
''No. But our right hand signed: let it be cut off! Our tongue confessed: let it be torn out!"

Their agreeing to the theology of the Latins made them azymites. This has nothing to do with actual practice of using leavened or unleavened bread. They disagreed with the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist yet they had put their signatures on a statement accepting its use, thus making them “azymites”. Another way of looking at it is had they signed an agreement stating that Christ was not God, they would have said “We have become Arians”.

Your original grievance was that the bishops claimed they were forced to use unleavened bread, but that is not what the bishops claimed at all. Thus your argument that they were lying is you simply knocking down a strawman of your own construction.

John

 

[mardukm]

Their agreeing to the theology of the Latins made them azymites. This has nothing to do with actual practice of using leavened or unleavened bread. They disagreed with the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist yet they had put their signatures on a statement accepting its use, thus making them “azymites”. Another way of looking at it is had they signed an agreement stating that Christ was not God, they would have said “We have become Arians”.

Your original grievance was that the bishops claimed they were forced to use unleavened bread, but that is not what the bishops claimed at all. Thus your argument that they were lying is you simply knocking down a strawman of your own construction.

The distinction between being forced to BELIEVE and being forced to PRACTICE it is a sophistic distinction in the Eastern Church, and you know it.

Admitting to being azymites is more than just believing what the azymites believe. You can’t deny that EVERYONE knew (and everyone knows today) that the whole issue revolved around a certain PRACTICE, not merely a belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

The distinction between being forced to BELIEVE and being forced to PRACTICE it is a sophistic distinction in the Eastern Church, and you know it.

Admitting to being azymites is more than just believing what the azymites believe. You can’t deny that EVERYONE knew (and everyone knows today) that the whole issue revolved around a certain PRACTICE, not merely a belief.

The Orthodox Church has a strong theology behind the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, thus to change the bread used is tantamount to changing the theology, thus heresy. Also, Florence was a union in name only. Nothing which had been ‘agreed’ on had actually been put into practice, so again no one had been forced to use unleavened bread and neither did any of the bishops claim such.
Also, purgatory was mentioned in the Union Decree of Florence and no, St Mark did not claim they were forced to believe in purgatory in his letter. You’ve been wrong on almost every point you raised.

John

 

[mardukm]

The Orthodox Church has a strong theology behind the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, thus to change the bread used is tantamount to changing the theology, thus heresy. Also, Florence was a union in name only. Nothing which had been ‘agreed’ on had actually been put into practice, so again no one had been forced to use unleavened bread and neither did any of the bishops claim such.

Funny. I thought it was a matter of different interpretations of when the Last Supper was performed. Anyway, if they were not forced to offer unleavened bread, then they were not azymites. By claiming to have been forced to be azymites, yes, they did misrepresent the Council.

So I take it you’re one of those who believe the issue of the use of leavened or unleavened bread is a legitimate reason for disunity. I guess you’re one of those hard-liners who look down on the Oriental Orthodox. I certainly don’t see how you’re going to reconcile your view with the fact that one of the Churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion use unleavened bread in the Eucharistic Liturgy. You won’t get anywhere yelling “heresy! Heresy!” with the OO or the CC regarding the use of unleavened bread.

Also, purgatory was mentioned in the Union Decree of Florence and no, St Mark did not claim they were forced to believe in purgatory in his letter. You’ve been wrong on almost every point you raised.

Mark of Ephesus’ whole letter was to persuade people to reject the Council, and writes the following in the letter:
“…while they toegether with the Latins, desire immediately after death to receive according their merits, and for those in an intermediate condition, who have died in repeencetence, they give a purgatorial fire (which is not identical with that of hell) so that, as theysay, having purified their souls by it after death, they also together with the righteous will enjoy the Kindgom of Heaven.”
He’s accusing those who accepted the Council “together with the Latins” of believing in Purgatorial fire, even though Purgatorial fire was EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY excluded from the decrees of the Council.

In these, and other matters, Mark of Ephesus and other anti-Council proponents were guilty of misrepresenting the Council and were not entirely honest with their flock. Though, to repeat, there were legitimate objections.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

He’s accusing those who accepted the Council “together with the Latins” of believing in Purgatorial fire, even though Purgatorial fire was EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY excluded from the decrees of the Council.

Yet many years later, we get this from Pope Paul VI:

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted
by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through
the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,
or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments.

In these, and other matters, Mark of Ephesus and other anti-Council proponents were guilty of misrepresenting the Council and were not entirely honest with their flock.

Last time I looked, you were not at this “council”.
Dear brother Marduk–I would appreciate it if you would cease to imply that St Mark of Ephesus was a liar. I do not refer to any post schism Latin saints as “liars” and I would appreciate the same coutesy. Many EO’s have a great veneration for St Mark–including myself. Thank you.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

prodromos;5644759:

…he (and they) was not present at the said council, but you should also note that the Church in the East did not wait with baited breath for the Pope’s confirmation before enacting the decisions of the council, so little did they believe that his confirmation was necessary…

His confirmation was NECESSARY for the unity of the Church on the matter. That’s what Apostolic Canon 34 says. I’m just amazed how blithely EO can so often minimize the importance of that…

I realize I am coming late to this party, but I must say I cannot agree with your understanding of Apostolic Canon 34.

If anything it introduces the concept of local Metropolitan authority.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yet many years later, we get this from Pope Paul VI:

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted
by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through
the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,
or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments.

I believe the “divinely revealed truth” refers only to the statement that “sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice.” The rest is his personal belief as a Latin, which the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent purposefully failed to define.

Last time I looked, you were not at this “council”

But we have the Decrees.

Dear brother Marduk–I would appreciate it if you would cease to imply that St Mark of Ephesus was a liar. I do not refer to any post schism Latin saints as “liars” and I would appreciate the same coutesy. Many EO’s have a great veneration for St Mark–including myself. Thank you.

I apologize for using such a harsh word as “lie,” but please don’t expect me to just neglect the facts of the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Hi Marduk, I realize I am coming late to this party, but I must say I cannot agree with your understanding of Apostolic Canon 34.

If anything it introduces the concept of local Metropolitan authority.

Yes, I understand that is how EO interpret the Canon. I expressed my belief on the matter in an earlier post #150 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5649395&postcount=150)

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

I believe the “divinely revealed truth” refers only to the statement that “sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice.”

Do you know this for a fact?

I apologize for using such a harsh word as “lie,” but please don’t expect me to just neglect the facts of the matter.

In my opinion, sometimes your “facts” are interpreted in a highly subjective manner.

All that I ask is that you do not insult any saints of the Holy Orthodox Church. Thank you.

 

[Mickey]

Hi Marduk, I realize I am coming late to this party, but I must say I cannot agree with your understanding of Apostolic Canon 34.

If anything it introduces the concept of local Metropolitan authority.

I agree.

The Latin Church claims that the Roman Pontiff is the pastor of the entire Church having full, supreme, and universal power. I do not believe that this is in accordance with Apostolic Canon 34.

 

[mardukm]

Do you know this for a fact?

No. But I suspect you don’t know the contrary to be a fact either. All I know is that there are no infallible Magisterial documents of the Church which makes purgatorial fire a de fide teaching.

In my opinion, sometimes your “facts” are interpreted in a highly subjective manner.

I think anyone can see that how the anti-Council bishops represented the Council does not exactly coincide with what the Council actually decreed.

All that I ask is that you do not insult any saints of the Holy Orthodox Church. Thank you.

I accept that.

Blessings,
Marduk