Towards a High Petrine Reality

[mardukm]

The “Papal Prerogatives Revisited” thread focused on the doctrinal aspect of the Primacy. I wanted to start this thread to investigate the praxis and canons of the Catholic Church as regards the Papal Primacy since Vatican 1. When I speak of canons, I’m not talking of doctrinal canons (which would simply repeat the discussion from the Papal Prerogatives Revisited thread), but rather the disciplinary and pragmatic canons, reflecting Papal Primacy in practice.

Personally, I think the some things could be done to promote a High Petrine reality in the Catholic Church – though I must assert from the get-go that I believe there is already much in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church that reflects this ideal.

My suggestions:

1. Currently, Eastern/Oriental canon law requires the assent of the Pope for any newly ordained bishop. To be clear, I understand that “assent” is a different canonical animal than “confirm.” It is, basically, a rubber stamp, but it makes it seem that our Patriarchs are not fully competent to judge the orthodoxy or episcopal qualifications of the bishops under them. I propose we get rid of that canon, and let Patriarchal confirmation be a sufficient gauge of the worthiness of the new bishop. Let the Roman Pontiff, however, be fully informed of the election.
2. Place the Syro-Malankara Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Syrian Patriarch.
3. Place the Syro-Malabar Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Chaldean Patriarch.
4. Place the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Coptic Patriarch.
5. Place Latin Catholics in traditionally Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions under the omophor of the local Eastern/Oriental hierarchy. This is not necessary at all, IMO, since the reality of apostolic vicariates in a different canonical territory exists among the OO, but it would be a goodwill gesture. This is already the reality in Ethiopia.
6. An official commentary on the Eastern/Oriental Canons demonstrating their consistency with ancient canon law should be produced. Currently, many think that the current Code simply abolished all laws from the past, which is not at all true.
7. Clarify in Canon Law that a Pope who becomes a public heretic ceases to be Pope by virtue of Divine Law. Currently, Canon law states that any bishop who becomes a heretic ceases to be bishop latae sententiae. This obviously applies to the Pope, who is a bishop, but many think this is otherwise in their efforts to impugn the papacy.
8. Make an official clarification of the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” Currently, it is perceived of only in legal terms. HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory made efforts to insist that “jurisdiction” be conceived of only in terms of service. I think the word itself is problematic (not only with regards to the papal office, but with the episcopal office, as well), and everywhere it is used in Canon law, it should be replaced by the word “solicitude” or “service” or other appropriate word that denotes its true intent.
9. Recognize the Patriarchal rights of the UGCC. The Ruthenian Church would naturally come under its omophor (IMO). I admit that even though this is ideal, I can find no ancient canonical justification for it. Current Canon law would grant such rights by virtue of custom, not canon.

Looking forward to everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

BTW, I don’t want people to think this thread is only about making changes. If someone has a positive evaluation of the papacy in terms of fulfilling a High Petrine reality, please present that for us, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Julian0404]

Mardukm; your “over thinking” the faith.

Mattew 16: JESUS changes Simons name to Peter. JESUS declares that upon Peter HE will build HIS church. JESUS gives Peter the “…keys to the kingdom…” - very clear symbol of authority. Still confused, JESUS declares “…that what Peter holds bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what Peter lets loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” paraphrase. JESUS words - not to be ignored or spun, and not symbols. Absolute authority!!!

Your many tiers of “if - then” propositions simply disgregards the truth stated above. You appear to be on a protestant architectural venture to redesign that which was designed and organized by GOD HIMSELF. If the many factions and branches that you name wish to place themselves under the Absolute Authority of GOD’s named, designated, appointed representative on earth, that being the Pope, they may do so, who is stopping them?

There is one true church. It is identified by the signs of being ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. To be “ONE” means, one faith, one teaching, one Pope.

I am unclear by your phrase “HIGH PETRINE REALITY” as you fail to provide a definition. However, given Matthew 16, JESUS has already declared what HE wants Peter to be and to do. How much “higher” can Peter or his successors be than where JESUS has placed them?

 

[PAboy57]

It started with Peter. We now have Pope Benedict. Let the other churches get on the right band wagon. I’m really tired of all the b.s. I stand with our Pope just as others stood with Peter and the other apostles. Let’s stop the bickering.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Julian,

Mardukm; your “over thinking” the faith.

Mattew 16: JESUS changes Simons name to Peter. JESUS declares that upon Peter HE will build HIS church. JESUS gives Peter the “…keys to the kingdom…” - very clear symbol of authority. Still confused, JESUS declares “…that what Peter holds bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what Peter lets loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” paraphrase. JESUS words - not to be ignored or spun, and not symbols. Absolute authority!!!

Your many tiers of “if - then” propositions simply disgregards the truth stated above. You appear to be on a protestant architectural venture to redesign that which was designed and organized by GOD HIMSELF. If the many factions and branches that you name wish to place themselves under the Absolute Authority of GOD’s named, designated, appointed representative on earth, that being the Pope, they may do so, who is stopping them?

There is one true church. It is identified by the signs of being ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. To be “ONE” means, one faith, one teaching, one Pope.

I am unclear by your phrase “HIGH PETRINE REALITY” as you fail to provide a definition. However, given Matthew 16, JESUS has already declared what HE wants Peter to be and to do. How much “higher” can Peter or his successors be than where JESUS has placed them?

You can discuss your point of view in the “Papal Prerogatives Revisited” thread, which concerns the doctrinal aspect of the primacy (please read it through before giving your (name removed by moderator)ut, though - it might be informative for you).

I would like this thread to focus on the praxis and canons.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fwon2638]

My suggestions:

1. Currently, Eastern/Oriental canon law requires the assent of the Pope for any newly ordained bishop. To be clear, I understand that “assent” is a different canonical animal than “confirm.” It is, basically, a rubber stamp, but it makes it seem that our Patriarchs are not fully competent to judge the orthodoxy or episcopal qualifications of the bishops under them. I propose we get rid of that canon, and let Patriarchal confirmation be a sufficient gauge of the worthiness of the new bishop. Let the Roman Pontiff, however, be fully informed of the election.

Blessings,
Marduk

I guess as head bishop, the Pope (who has universal jurisdiction) always retains the veto power (although he would only exercise this power in exceptional circumstance).

Francis

 

[malphono]

The “Papal Prerogatives Revisited” thread focused on the doctrinal aspect of the Primacy. I wanted to start this thread to investigate the praxis and canons of the Catholic Church as regards the Papal Primacy since Vatican 1…

The “honeymoon” continues, eh? …

Of course I still support the “High Petrine” view, but it just isn’t reality. In any case, while I probably shouldn’t do this, I’ll make some observations on your listed points.

1. Currently, Eastern/Oriental canon law requires the assent of the Pope for any newly ordained bishop. To be clear, I understand that “assent” is a different canonical animal than “confirm.” It is, basically, a rubber stamp, but it makes it seem that our Patriarchs are not fully competent to judge the orthodoxy or episcopal qualifications of the bishops under them. I propose we get rid of that canon, and let Patriarchal confirmation be a sufficient gauge of the worthiness of the new bishop. Let the Roman Pontiff, however, be fully informed of the election.

It seems to me this differs depending on where. Within the Patriarchal Territories, yes, the “assent” is basically a rubber-stamp. Outside the Patriarchal Territories, though, it’s another ball of wax entirely. Rome can and has rejected episcopal appointments. The very existence of this (whether rubber-stamp or otherwise) supports my comment in the other thread: whatever may be the case de jure (and it’s still not clear), the de facto truth is that we are dealing with the “Absolute Petrine” view.

1. Place the Syro-Malankara Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Syrian Patriarch.

I believe this was the case until sometime in the past 20 or so years, when it was split-up by the previous Pontiff. By rights, what should happen here is that the Syro-Malankara Church be declared a Catholicosate (same as the Malankara Orthodox).

1. Place the Syro-Malabar Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Chaldean Patriarch.

This will never fly. For one thing, the “chain” as it were, was broken many centuries ago, and it would not make sense to restore it now.

1. Place the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Coptic Patriarch.

This will never fly either. Wasn’t it some 25 years ago that the Ethiopian Orthodox made a final and formal break with Alexandria? Why would this be any different?

1. Place Latin Catholics in traditionally Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions under the omophor of the local Eastern/Oriental hierarchy. This is not necessary at all, IMO, since the reality of apostolic vicariates in a different canonical territory exists among the OO, but it would be a goodwill gesture. This is already the reality in Ethiopia.

This is a lovely idea and indeed reflects ancient practice. But of course it works both ways. In any case, though, I highly doubt that Rome would ever give up its notion of “universal jurisdiction” particularly in regard to Latin Rite faithful.

1. An official commentary on the Eastern/Oriental Canons demonstrating their consistency with ancient canon law should be produced. Currently, many think that the current Code simply abolished all laws from the past, which is not at all true.

This would be nice if it were possible, but I don’t think it is. The current CCEO is an invention of the Roman Church, and it doesn’t seem to reflect much continuity with ancient canons. But I would have to leave further comment on that to a Canon Lawyer. If I have the chance, I’ll ask one who is quite well respected.

1. Clarify in Canon Law that a Pope who becomes a public heretic ceases to be Pope by virtue of Divine Law. Currently, Canon law states that any bishop who becomes a heretic ceases to be bishop latae sententiae. This obviously applies to the Pope, who is a bishop, but many think this is otherwise in their efforts to impugn the papacy.

Ditto the above.

1. Make an official clarification of the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” Currently, it is perceived of only in legal terms. HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory made efforts to insist that “jurisdiction” be conceived of only in terms of service. I think the word itself is problematic (not only with regards to the papal office, but with the episcopal office, as well), and everywhere it is used in Canon law, it should be replaced by the word “solicitude” or “service” or other appropriate word that denotes its true intent.

Again a nice idea but, to use bad English, it ain’t never gonna happen.

1. Recognize the Patriarchal rights of the UGCC. The Ruthenian Church would naturally come under its omophor (IMO). I admit that even though this is ideal, I can find no ancient canonical justification for it. Current Canon law would grant such rights by virtue of custom, not canon.

I’ve no problem per-se with the UGCC using the title “Patriarch” but to formalize it would, IMO, be a problem. I’ve said it before in past threads and I’ll say it again: I don’t favor this. As in the past, I know that some here will continue to argue with me, and I mean no disrespect, but I still contend that the theory reflects the Byzantine idea of “national patriarchates” and ultimately is tantamount to autocephaly. While it might be a bit novel in the Eastern/Byzantine milieu, what could be done, though, is to recognize the UGCC as a Catholicosate. And again risking attack by some of our fellows, yes, I agree with you that the Ruthenian Church should come under the same omophor.

 

[mardukm]

The “honeymoon” continues, eh? …

Of course I still support the “High Petrine” view, but it just isn’t reality. In any case, while I probably shouldn’t do this, I’ll make some observations on your listed points.

OK — NOW you’ve gone and done it! :knight2:

Just you wait!

:

I glanced at your post.

:yawn:Watsamatta? Izzat all yous got?:blackeye:

Heeheehee.

Anyway, don’t you have anything you’d like to see changed or improved?

I gotta be off for several days. I’ll respond then.

Hold the fort down.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Charlotte408]

I think my question may fit in here, so rather than starting a new thread I’ll step in and add:’

If the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and an Apostle has apostolic authority everywhere - and a bishop has apostolic authority, but only in their diocese - could it be that Peter wasn’t a bishop, he was apostle that appointed bishops?

By ‘specific’ definition, an apostle is one commissioned by Christ - not just any old person representing him today. There were Apostles in the Apostolic era, but none today - though we are sent, we are sent by the Church, not commissioned personally by Christ Himself. We are the successors of the Apostles. This is important. Otherwise, everyone can be the pope - which means no one is…

 

[utunumsint]

The “Papal Prerogatives Revisited” thread focused on the doctrinal aspect of the Primacy. I wanted to start this thread to investigate the praxis and canons of the Catholic Church as regards the Papal Primacy since Vatican 1. When I speak of canons, I’m not talking of doctrinal canons (which would simply repeat the discussion from the Papal Prerogatives Revisited thread), but rather the disciplinary and pragmatic canons, reflecting Papal Primacy in practice.

Got it. Focusing on how papal primacy works in action.

Personally, I think the some things could be done to promote a High Petrine reality in the Catholic Church – though I must assert from the get-go that I believe there is already much in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church that reflects this ideal.

For those of us not familiar with the term “High Petrine”, can you define it, or provide links to a discussion of this topic?

My suggestions:

1. Currently, Eastern/Oriental canon law requires the assent of the Pope for any newly ordained bishop. To be clear, I understand that “assent” is a different canonical animal than “confirm.” It is, basically, a rubber stamp, but it makes it seem that our Patriarchs are not fully competent to judge the orthodoxy or episcopal qualifications of the bishops under them. I propose we get rid of that canon, and let Patriarchal confirmation be a sufficient gauge of the worthiness of the new bishop. Let the Roman Pontiff, however, be fully informed of the election.

What if there is a conflict between the Pope and a Patriarch on the ordination of a bishop within the Patriach’s jurisdiction? Does the Pope have say?

1. Place the Syro-Malankara Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Syrian Patriarch.

1. Place the Syro-Malabar Church (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Chaldean Patriarch.

1. Place the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches (if it is willing) under the omophor of the Coptic Patriarch.

1. Place Latin Catholics in traditionally Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions under the omophor of the local Eastern/Oriental hierarchy. This is not necessary at all, IMO, since the reality of apostolic vicariates in a different canonical territory exists among the OO, but it would be a goodwill gesture. This is already the reality in Ethiopia.

The Omophor seems to be the equivalent to Palliam signifying the authority of a metropolitain or primate. Is this correct? Would the suggestions you are making allow the effected churches more authority within the Catholic Church? If point 1 applies to the omophors, then would this effectively isolate these churchs from Papal jurisdiction, except at the highest levels? I’m not sure what this would imply.

1. An official commentary on the Eastern/Oriental Canons demonstrating their consistency with ancient canon law should be produced. Currently, many think that the current Code simply abolished all laws from the past, which is not at all true.

So you would have several Codes of Cannon law within the church? I’m not sure, but is this the case already? Or are you talking about harmonizing the different codes by writing some sort of commentary?

1. Clarify in Canon Law that a Pope who becomes a public heretic ceases to be Pope by virtue of Divine Law. Currently, Canon law states that any bishop who becomes a heretic ceases to be bishop latae sententiae. This obviously applies to the Pope, who is a bishop, but many think this is otherwise in their efforts to impugn the papacy.

I can see the ecumenical benefits to this, but wouldn’t this clause defeat the concept of Papal infallibility?

1. Make an official clarification of the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” Currently, it is perceived of only in legal terms. HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory made efforts to insist that “jurisdiction” be conceived of only in terms of service. I think the word itself is problematic (not only with regards to the papal office, but with the episcopal office, as well), and everywhere it is used in Canon law, it should be replaced by the word “solicitude” or “service” or other appropriate word that denotes its true intent.

Since I am not a cannon lawyer, I have no idea what actual power the word “jurisdiction” provides to the Pope. Although I think you are right about the over use of “legal” terms. The Bible doesn’t seem to codify the position of Peter in specific legal terms. Mathew 16 can be looked at in multiple ways, I guess… I’m not sure how this could be done given the current Catholic understanding of the authority of the Pope. But perhaps it is up for negotiation… It would be something to be discussed at a very high level.

1. Recognize the Patriarchal rights of the UGCC. The Ruthenian Church would naturally come under its omophor (IMO). I admit that even though this is ideal, I can find no ancient canonical justification for it. Current Canon law would grant such rights by virtue of custom, not canon.

So create a new patriachate for the Ruthenians?

Looking forward to everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

BTW, I don’t want people to think this thread is only about making changes. If someone has a positive evaluation of the papacy in terms of fulfilling a High Petrine reality, please present that for us, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m hoping my comments might stimulate discussion, although I am very unfamiliar with the subjectmatter.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Charlotte408]

I am very unfamiliar with the subjectmatter.

My life story on CAF

Just…tagging along…trying to get a foothold.

 

[Contarini]

Mardukm; your “over thinking” the faith.

Mattew 16: JESUS changes Simons name to Peter. JESUS declares that upon Peter HE will build HIS church. JESUS gives Peter the “…keys to the kingdom…” - very clear symbol of authority. Still confused, JESUS declares “…that what Peter holds bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what Peter lets loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” paraphrase. JESUS words - not to be ignored or spun, and not symbols. Absolute authority!!!

But if this applies to the bishop of Rome, and to the bishop of Rome only, then the Fathers were heretics and only RCs of the High Middle Ages discovered the true faith, which puts you in the same position as radical Protestants, just a few centuries earlier.

It is abundantly clear that the Papacy of the first millennium did not possess absolute authority.

Your many tiers of “if - then” propositions simply disgregards the truth stated above. You appear to be on a protestant architectural venture to redesign that which was designed and organized by GOD HIMSELF.

So the ultramontanist faction of your Communion claims. But this is far from evident.

Matthew 16 does not establish the absolute authority of the Papacy, and historically it was clearly a later development resisted by many Christians on the grounds that it did not line up with the ancient Tradition of the Church.

Edwin

 

[utunumsint]

But if this applies to the bishop of Rome, and to the bishop of Rome only, then the Fathers were heretics and only RCs of the High Middle Ages discovered the true faith, which puts you in the same position as radical Protestants, just a few centuries earlier.

It is abundantly clear that the Papacy of the first millennium did not possess absolute authority.

I’m wondering if this has to do with the fact that the church did not have any formal body of canon law until after the legalization of Christianity. Once that legalization happened and Christianity became a legal institution, it sort of adopted Roman law. This also placed it in a strong position after the fall of the Roman Empire. Most western babarian tribes looked to the example of the church to model their states, including the church canon law.

Looking further back, you have the canons of Nicaea which place the church of Rome above all other churches in order of honour. This seemed to be easily accepted by all orthodox Christians at the time, but there still wasn’t any precise definition of Papal powers at that time, just a traditional acceptance of the importance of Church of Rome.

So the ultramontanist faction of your Communion claims. But this is far from evident.

Matthew 16 does not establish the absolute authority of the Papacy, and historically it was clearly a later development resisted by many Christians on the grounds that it did not line up with the ancient Tradition of the Church.

Edwin

Perhaps with the Anglican commnion, but it seems to me that most other communions argued from a total rejection of Tradition in favour of scripture alone.

It is an interesting question though. I know the church of Rome has been in dialogue with Orthodox churches for a while on the exact nature of the authority of Rome based on the first thousand years of Church history. Perhaps this study might correct some of the ultramontanist tendencies in the church.

Still, I cannot imagine a church without a papacy without some kind of authority.

God bless,
Ut