Under Rome?

[Diak]

I don’t have any actual quotes for you, but my reading on the subject has led me to believe that Rome has some regrets about de-Easternizing some of the Eastern Churches.

Yes, indeed. There have even been apologies by individiual bishops (such as Bishop Wilton Gregory) to the Eastern Catholics for their treatment by the Latin hierarchy in the US. Cardinal Schoenborn has stated that Rome should have been even more aggressive in the de-Latinization process.

 

[Diak]

No, not quite so. Taking that position, a Pope could, e.g., dissolve the Union of Brest. Something like that would shake the tenuous unity of the Church to its very foundations. A Pope would not be “within his rights” to do such a thing, any more than he would be “within his rights” to declare that the Missal of 1962 was no longer holy. Such acts would be in direct contradiction of Tradition.

Excellent point. Using the specific example you cited, the Union of Brest is a mutual covenant of communion between the Kyivan and Roman Churches which was mutually agreed to by both, and would take both to therefore mutually amend. Of course, if Rome were to unilaterally abrogate or violate the terms of the Union, resulting with the Kyivan Church leaving formal communion because of that, there could be no sensible judgment of schism on the Kyivan Church as the “schismatic act” would not have been taken by the Kyivan Church. To say Rome can capriciously violate such things at her will is not only unjust but unreasonable.

Thing is, Rome itself, and the Popes, really didn’t do that much Latinizing. Local pressures often did, as did unhappy local Roman bishops. (Many of whom generated the pressure mentioned.)

Not quite so; there were cojoined political-ecclesiological pressures in certain areas (Poland and Lithuania for example) that forced certain nobles of the Kyivan Church to actually become Latin in order to retain ownership of lands or minor nobility. More than one Latin bishop was a party to this sort of mistreatment.

 

[Aramis]

Not quite so; there were cojoined political-ecclesiological pressures in certain areas (Poland and Lithuania for example) that forced certain nobles of the Kyivan Church to actually become Latin in order to retain ownership of lands or minor nobility. More than one Latin bishop was a party to this sort of mistreatment.

Father Deacon, you misread.

I pointed out that Rome, as in the Holy See, and the popes, as opposed to the latin bishops, who, while Roman, are NOT Rome.

Again, it’s the decentralized pressures, not the central authority, as your example makes abundantly clear.

 

[Diak]

Father Deacon, you misread.

I pointed out that Rome, as in the Holy See, and the popes, as opposed to the latin bishops, who, while Roman, are NOT Rome.

Again, it’s the decentralized pressures, not the central authority, as your example makes abundantly clear.

But that’s arguable when the local Latin bishops are the vicars and local representatives of the Vicar of Christ. More than once this was officially protested to Rome without any action to suppress the purpetrators. In the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was the Empress (Maria Theresa) who had to take action when Rome (through the local bishops) refused to do so.

 

[JohnVIII]

“In communion with” does not automatically mean “under”. I am in communion with Rome, but “under” the hierarchy of the Patriarch and Synod of the UGCC.

I personally reject the notion of an “hierarchy”. If you say you are under a hierarchy you are saying that you are under more than one bishop. This was a very big deal in the earliest days of the Church, as it was clearly taught that there can be only one bishop in one city (see Canon eight of the first ecumenical Council). Although there was such a thing as a Vicar Bishop, many early teachers, including St. Augustine, believed that this was wrong as it placed more than one bishop within the same diocese.

How then can it be right that there can be such a thing as a patriarch over several diocese as this too would make more than one bishop “over” a parish. I’m well aware that this is an established pattern not only in Rome but also in all the Eastern churches including the Oriental churches, but like St. Augustine I too do not believe this is right. If you have a patriarch than that bishop MUST be your only bishop, all others must be Vicar Bishop’s. Likewise under Rome the Bishop of Rome is the only bishop. Even though many will say that this is not what is taught to be so, yet it has to be so. Conservative Roman Catholics consistently teach that you must be under the pope in order to be saved, and yet they do not teach that you must be under any other bishop to be saved. I do believe that you must be under a bishop to be saved, but only one bishop, not two, not a hierarchy, not a synod; so if you believe that you must be under the pope you must also say you believe that the Pope is the only bishop, all other so-called bishops are actually something less than a bishop since you don’t have to be under any one of them to be saved. I am under one bishop and his name is bishop Basil, therefore I cannot be under the pope because that would make to bishops.

I believe the concept of a hierarchy is a man-made development that actually first started in the East with the Eastern patriarchs. I believe it afterwards developed in Rome primarily to compete with this development in the East. Just because everybody does it doesn’t make it right!

 

[Diak]

I think part of the confusion is terms and words; there is in the created cosmos a hierarchal order when one considers natural biological, chemical, and physical interactions and relationships. In the Most Holy Trinity there is a monarchia of the Father. One can’t really reject an ontological notion of “hierarchy”, especially when the earthly order is iconic of the heavenly.

The problem comes rather with ecclesiology; in the ancient Church before Ephesus and especially Chalcedon it was easy to maintain the one bishop - one local particular Church model. After Chalcedon this ideal becomes essentially impossible when the Greeks and Latins establish parallel non-Chalcedonian episcopal structures and even patriarchates in overlapping areas with more ancient non-Chalcedonian hierarchies. After that, and the split of Rome and Constantinople, as well as other national Orthodox churches, it becomes even more complex. I haven’t counted lately how many overlapping Orthodox hierarchal structures exist just in the US, but even just with the “canonicals” it would be perhaps upwards of a dozen.

 

[JohnVIII]

Canon 43 CCEO

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45 CCEO

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 1008 CCEO

1. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods. 2. Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of temporal goods of the Church belongs to that juridic person which has lawfully acquired them.

Regardless of anything that is said in these Roman Canons that cannot change the fact that they are “Roman” canons, not Ecumenical. If anyone wants to say that they are anything more that simply Roman canons, then I want to see the signatures of the Eastern Patriarchs as well as the Pope on the document. To be Ecumenical it MUST include all the catholic churches, otherwise it is nothing more than a local council.

 

[JohnVIII]

I think part of the confusion is terms and words; there is in the created cosmos a hierarchal order when one considers natural biological, chemical, and physical interactions and relationships. In the Most Holy Trinity there is a monarchia of the Father. One can’t really reject an ontological notion of “hierarchy”, especially when the earthly order is iconic of the heavenly.

The problem comes rather with ecclesiology; in the ancient Church before Ephesus and especially Chalcedon it was easy to maintain the one bishop - one local particular Church model. After Chalcedon this ideal becomes essentially impossible when the Greeks and Latins establish parallel non-Chalcedonian episcopal structures and even patriarchates in overlapping areas with more ancient non-Chalcedonian hierarchies. After that, and the split of Rome and Constantinople, as well as other national Orthodox churches, it becomes even more complex. I haven’t counted lately how many overlapping Orthodox hierarchal structures exist just in the US, but even just with the “canonicals” it would be perhaps upwards of a dozen.

Of course you are right. This is the practical reality. But the very fact that there is so much chaos is a sign that hierarchies are not of God. In the beginning God ordered only one bishop (not a hierarchy) in one city. If we held to that simple pattern that God ordered, I believe we could have trusted God and secured for all of us universal unity. Gods way always works better than mans way.

 

[Hesychios]

Regardless of anything that is said in these Roman Canons that cannot change the fact that they are “Roman” canons, not Ecumenical. If anyone wants to say that they are anything more that simply Roman canons, then I want to see the signatures of the Eastern Patriarchs as well as the Pope on the document. To be Ecumenical it MUST include all the catholic churches, otherwise it is nothing more than a local council.

It was not even a Council that did this, but a promulgation of the Supreme Pontiff on his own authority (which supposedly comes from Jesus Christ through Peter).

In Orthodox understanding it is important to agree with the teachings of a fellow bishop in order to commune or concelebrate. Using that standard (how silly of me) an ‘Orthodox in Communion with Rome’ would believe or endorse everything the See of Rome teaches.

This (Canons quoted above) is not only what the See of Rome teaches, it is what is insisted upon by that See to effect a state of Communion.

Eastern Catholic bishops presumably do affirm everything taught by the Latin Catholic church as true. I say presumably because that is what is expected of them by the Pope of Rome. I would go further and say most of those bishops vigorously endorse everything taught by the Latin church.

That any Eastern Catholic receiving communion under an Eastern Catholic bishop should not also agree with their own bishop and the Pope strikes me as disobedient at least, if not (in the mind of Rome) perhaps even heretical, as per the definitions and anathemas from Vatican I.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

What value then, is there in actually being in communion with the bishop of Rome? Why the disobedience? Isn’t it much more like taking communion in bad faith?

Is he the Vicar of Christ on earth, or is he not? Does it mean what the Latin church Councils and Papal promulgations teach, or does it not?

Are Canons which are promulgated by the bishop of Rome binding ‘over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful’ or are they not?

If not, who really cares whether they are in communion with him?

 

[jimmy]

I don’t have any actual quotes for you, but my reading on the subject has led me to believe that Rome has some regrets about de-Easternizing some of the Eastern Churches.

But the question is, what does that mean when some of the eastern churches have become so latinized that they have almost lost their identity and have become almost just an apendage of the Roman Church? Many eastern Churches continue to be heavily latinized. It also brings up the question of whether delatinization is even legitimate or whether it is artificial. Is it truely our faith guiding us or is it just a superficial attempt? Are we all just Latins trying to be Eastern?

 

[malphono]

But the question is, what does that mean when some of the eastern churches have become so latinized that they have almost lost their identity and have become almost just an apendage of the Roman Church? Many eastern Churches continue to be heavily latinized. It also brings up the question of whether delatinization is even legitimate or whether it is artificial. Is it truely our faith guiding us or is it just a superficial attempt? Are we all just Latins trying to be Eastern?

This isn’t hot news, but among the Maronites, there is no such thing as “delatinization” in fact. What the effect of the purported “delatinization” has been and remains, is nothing more than Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. So yes, “delatinization” is artificial in the same way that the Novus Ordo is artificial rather than organic.

Apparently the idea in vogue among the Maronite “powers that be” is that “latinization” means pre-conciliar, whereas “delatinization” means post-conciliar. In other words, it follows exactly the Novus Ordo mindset: destroy what was and substitute something novel. They both use the guise of “reversion to ancient practice” (which is, of course, a crock) in order to make their agenda palatable to the masses. It’s very sad that so many people buy into the lie.

 

[jimmy]

This isn’t hot news, but among the Maronites, there is no such thing as “delatinization” in fact. What the effect of the purported “delatinization” has been and remains, is nothing more than Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. So yes, “delatinization” is artificial in the same way that the Novus Ordo is artificial rather than organic.

Apparently the idea in vogue among the Maronite “powers that be” is that “latinization” means pre-conciliar, whereas “delatinization” means post-conciliar. In other words, it follows exactly the Novus Ordo mindset: destroy what was and substitute something novel. They both use the guise of “reversion to ancient practice” (which is, of course, a crock) in order to make their agenda palatable to the masses. It’s very sad that so many people buy into the lie.

Yes, that is true, but my question is more along the lines of; are we even eastern Catholics anymore? Have we become so latinized that to call ourselves eastern anymore is practically meaningless? Is there anything that remains that could not be considered just a Lebanese quirk like those of the Mexicans or Italians or of any other culture? Or are we just kidding ourselves?

 

[Diak]

From Orientalium Ecclesiarum of the most recent Catholic Council:

For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and **are in duty bound to rule themselves, **each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.

If we are “duty bound to rule ourselves”, how can we be “under”? Obedience does not mean capitulation; and communion does not mean subjugation.

 

[malphono]

Yes, that is true, but my question is more along the lines of; are we even eastern Catholics anymore? Have we become so latinized that to call ourselves eastern anymore is practically meaningless? Is there anything that remains that could not be considered just a Lebanese quirk like those of the Mexicans or Italians or of any other culture? Or are we just kidding ourselves?

Good question. Up until the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization got into full swing, my answer would have been yes. Despite the so-called latinization of the 16th century, the Maronite identity remained intact. Even the liturgical texts remained almost intact. But these days? Not much left, is there? The liturgical texts have been put through the Novus Ordo meat grinder. What we got was hamburger, not kibbee or kafta.

 

[Hesychios]

From Orientalium Ecclesiarum of the most recent Catholic Council:

… and are in duty bound to rule themselves

It is nice to read these kinds of little encouraging clips. However there are a few different ways that a statement like this can be interpreted. Having a law of your own is not necessarily the same as self government, although self government certainly implies a law of your own.

I have argued for the future autocephaly of the Eastern Catholic churches previously in this section of CAF (I suggested that it was a way the EC could be a real vehicle and means of reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholics), and as I recall my idea was pretty much shot down. No one seems to really want that, at least that is the impression I received. But to claim one is ‘in communion’ but not ‘under’ the Pope is claiming just that: autocephaly.

I think Pope John Paul II (of Blessed Memory) has interpreted Orientalium Ecclesiarum for you in the Canons of the church. He has given you a law. Post #33. From his judgments there is (supposedly) no recourse.

 

[josie_L]

Thanks, malphono. That actually helps quite a bit. I don’t know that I could buy such a “low Petrine” view because it doesn’t seem to be supported by the first three Ecumenical Councils. Once again, however, we get into discussing what “primacy” means. As I mentioned above, not even the Roman Catholic Church has worked that one out.

I think the prerogatives (as well as the meaning) of the primacy are delineated in documents of Vatican I and II (if you haven’t read 'Jesus, Peter and the Keys" as well as “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray, you should, it will help you enormously in understanding the primacy).

 

[josie_L]

The whole idea was that the Pope received this power directly from Christ. It (according to VI) has always been there, they just recognized it in 1870. Therefore, no, he couldn’t have reduced his power before 1870 (under the reasoning of VI).

Now why it would take 1870 years before the supreme authority in the Church was defined, well, that’s the $64,000 question.

Because the papacy (and all that it entailed) was being attacked (and as per the usual course of action taken by the Church when teachings/doctrines/traditions were/are being attacked, an ecumenical council was set to absolve the problem).

 

[Nine_Two]

Because the papacy (and all that it entailed) was being attacked (and as per the usual course of action taken by the Church when teachings/doctrines/traditions were/are being attacked, an ecumenical council was set to absolve the problem).

Then shouldn’t it have been defined after Ephesus?

 

[josie_L]

Another matter of opinion.

In any case, Victor, by virtue of his office as Bishop of Rome (and ex-officio Patriarch of the West, regardless of whether that title is currently in use or not) was free to call the Roman Synod and impose its decision within his own territory. In the end, he appears to have recanted his action of trying to impose it beyond his own territory, and like magic, within a century or so, the Roman custom of celebrating Easter was adopted by the “rebel provinces” and ultimately did, in fact, become universal. But it was by agreement and adoption, not because it was imposed from without.

Actually, it was not so much by agreement than it was by the continuous efforts of Pope Victor to do away with this practice/innovation (confined to Asia), i.e., the quatrodecimans were heretics and their practices were denounced in several councils (instigated by the pope).

 

[josie_L]

Then shouldn’t it have been defined after Ephesus?

Why do you think it should have been defined after Ephesus (not taking into consideration the development of doctrine)?