Under Rome?

[Alethiaphile]

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).

That’s just factually inaccurate. The papacy was theologically under much more attack in the 15th century (conciliarism), the 16th century (Protestantism) and the 17th-18th centuries (Gallicanism). Conciliarism and Gallicanism was practically dead by 1870. If definitions of papal supremacy and infallibility were genuine developments of the Apsotolic faith, they would have been defined much earlier.

 

[Jean_1958]

Hi Angel Gabriel,

To be honest, I was shocked by the attitude of Western Catholics towards Eastern Catholics here at CAF. It seems as if most do not realize that Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome, but have their own rites and traditions. These rites and traditions, while different, are just as valid. I am over 50 years old and, when I went to parochial grade and high school, I was taught by nuns and priests. I don’t think Catholics nowadays are taught very well about their faith.

Jean

 

[twf]

Alethiaphile:

By that reasoning, the Assumption of Mary into heaven must not be a genuine component of the Apostolic faith as it wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1950…yet all Eastern Churches maintain the same tradition. (And yes, as a Latin Catholic I fully accept that Our Lady fell asleep in the Lord, shared in the resurrection, and was then assumed into heaven…the notion that Latins are free to believe that she did not die is, IMHO, a very popular misconception…Only Mary’s assumption is dogma, but her death is still doctrine and is explicitly taught in the same document that promulgated the dogmatic decree- but that’s a topic for another thread).

 

[Allyson]

When the Lord gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom and told him that whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, He gave not only authority but responsibility. A huge responsibility. And, this was reinforced when the Lord told him to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep. With this huge responsibility came huge accountability. In this, Christians that humble themselves under this authority can rest. Obedience is better than sacrifice.
And now in the Church, Jesus Christ is still Lord. For over 2,000 years it has been this way and I have no doubt that it will continue.
The only way to show that we our His disciples is to love one another in word and deed. Anyone who believes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and loves, evidenced by keeping His commands, is of God.
I think the same words Paul wrote Timothy should be considered; “Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness.”

No offense, but you seem to be answering a different question. Could you elaborate on what you think this means for the relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome and Rome itself?

Thank you!

 

[mardukm]

Dear Soler,

**

I think it is rather unfair to characterize Latin traditionalists as typically adhering to the “Absolutist Petrine View” . The “High Petrine View” however, seems rather like heresy.

I propose a middle ground (bold text=my additions):

Making the “Absolutist” view less extremist

There is -]only one/-] a supreme head bishop - the bishop of Rome. -]All other bishops of whatever grade are merely an extension of papal authority. Even the Ecumenical Council is merely an extension of papal authority./-] If there is a disagreement between [the Pope] and his brother bishops, [the Pope’s] will dominates to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. Anyone not agreeing -]is/-] may be excommunicated.

Making the “High” view less egalitarian

The head bishop has the same role as St. Peter had among the Apostles. The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church), and has a unique authority among his brother bishops. He is morally bound by the principle of the unity of the Church, and the -]divine rights/-] eccesiastical dignity of his brother bishops, to -]always/-] work with his brother bishops in -]all/-] matters affecting the Church as a whole where appropriate. He is also morally bound by those same principles to not interfere in the proper and ordinary jurisdiction of his brother bishops where this would be inappropriate. -]If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, there must be constant exchange until agreement is reached, not that he can impose his singular will on all./-]

Permit me to give the following quotes from some eminent Catholic authorities, to demonstrate the error of your interpretive additions and deletions:

"The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: 'My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Ch. 3 (July 18, 1870)

"[T]here is a twofold power in the Church, one called the power of orders and the other called the power of jurisdiction. We teach in regard to this latter power that it is jurisdiction that is absolute and perfectly complete…and that it pertains not only to the internal and sacramental forum but also to the external and public. The subjects of this power are the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of any secular control; and, therefore, with all authority, they rule the Church of God."
VATICAN COUNCIL. First Draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (April 24, 1870) As you may know, V1 was cut short because of impending war. This excerpt is part of one of the documents that was prepared by the Council theologians and presented to the General assembly, but was unfortunately not voted upon. It’s contents, however, are easily reflected at Vatican 2.

And the Roman Pontifffs, recognizing their duty, have willed above all to preserve in the Church everything that has been divinely established. Consequently, just as they exert proper care and vigilance to protect their own power, so they have always taken care, and will continue to take care that the authority of the bishops be protected.
POPE LEO XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896)

To be honest, I don’t know why you think that the Pope is merely “morally” bound, and not rather that he is constrained by Divine law, to respect and uphold the authority and prerogatives of his brother bishops - which have been divinely given to those bishops.

You make it seem as though the Pope can normally intervene (or “interfere,” as one may have it) in the affairs of other jurisdictions. In truth, the normal course of affairs is that he cannot do so, and the canons, and the history of the Church, bears that out. The Pope has only intervened in other jurisdictions in very exceptional circumstances, and 99% of the time, he has exercised this prerogative only by way of an appeal from another bishop to intervene.

I especially note that in your mitigation of the Absolutist Petrine view, you maintain that the Pope’s view necessarily dominates. This is not borne out by Church history, where there are several examples of the Pope being exhorted and even chastised by his brother bishops to change his mind. As brother Malphono stated, “If it walks like a duck…”

The Absolutist Petrine view - even with your mitigations - is not found in Tradition, except maybe in the LOCAL Tradition of the Latin Church after the Great Schism. Vatican 1 can accomodate a genuinely collegial ecclesiology. Actually, I believe it is the only VALID interpretation of Vatican 1, especially if we are to stay true to the intentions of the Vatican 1 Fathers of preserving Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Soler,

Permit me to give the following quotes from some eminent Catholic authorities, to demonstrate the error of your interpretive additions and deletions:

"The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: 'My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Ch. 3 (July 18, 1870)

"[T]here is a twofold power in the Church, one called the power of orders and the other called the power of jurisdiction. We teach in regard to this latter power that it is jurisdiction that is absolute and perfectly complete…and that it pertains not only to the internal and sacramental forum but also to the external and public. The subjects of this power are the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of any secular control; and, therefore, with all authority, they rule the Church of God."
VATICAN COUNCIL. First Draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (April 24, 1870) As you may know, V1 was cut short because of impending war. This excerpt is part of one of the documents that was prepared by the Council theologians and presented to the General assembly, but was unfortunately not voted upon. It’s contents, however, are easily reflected at Vatican 2.

And the Roman Pontifffs, recognizing their duty, have willed above all to preserve in the Church everything that has been divinely established. Consequently, just as they exert proper care and vigilance to protect their own power, so they have always taken care, and will continue to take care that the authority of the bishops be protected.
POPE LEO XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896)

To be honest, I don’t know why you think that the Pope is merely “morally” bound, and not rather that he is constrained by Divine law, to respect and uphold the authority and prerogatives of his brother bishops - which have been divinely given to those bishops.

You make it seem as though the Pope can normally intervene (or “interfere,” as one may have it) in the affairs of other jurisdictions. In truth, the normal course of affairs is that he cannot do so, and the canons, and the history of the Church, bears that out. The Pope has only intervened in other jurisdictions in very exceptional circumstances, and 99% of the time, he has exercised this prerogative only by way of an appeal from another bishop to intervene.

I especially note that in your mitigation of the Absolutist Petrine view, you maintain that the Pope’s view necessarily dominates. This is not borne out by Church history, where there are several examples of the Pope being exhorted and even chastised by his brother bishops to change his mind. As brother Malphono stated, “If it walks like a duck…”

The Absolutist Petrine view - even with your mitigations - is not found in Sacred Tradition, except maybe in the LOCAL Tradition of the Latin Church after the Great Schism. Vatican 1 can accomodate a genuinely collegial ecclesiology (i.e., the High Petrine view). Actually, I believe it is the only VALID interpretation of Vatican 1, especially if we are to stay true to the intentions of the Vatican 1 Fathers of preserving Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

Papal authority has increasingly come under attack throughout the World, East and West. To many it’s an outdated dogma of supreme arrogance. Even in discussions between Catholics it often takes on a negative context “Are we under the Pope” ? As if to say we’re at the mercy of some spiritual dictator and not a successor of St Peter. My personal experience has been that many Eastern Catholics do believe the Pope is there Universal Pontiff, and that many Latin Catholics now sadly reject that doctrine.

 

[Diak]

My personal experience has been that many Eastern Catholics do believe the Pope is there Universal Pontiff, and that many Latin Catholics now sadly reject that doctrine.

We commemorate him as such (“Universal Pontiff” is the English UGCC translation) in every Divine Liturgy, and we well understand his authoritative role as the Bishop of Rome, but also understand him as the final earthly arbiter who abides in love whom we will look to in grave matters of faith and morals our own Synod cannot resolve (which has yet to happen). That does not place us “under” anyone save our own Patriarch and Synod but always respectful of the Union to which we pledged communion with Old Rome, respecting her continue to exercise primacy when universal circumstances necessitate the exercise of that primacy.

And thanks once again to brother Marduk; sometimes Rome and new Rome (Constantinople) need to keep silence and listen to Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[Aramis]

The Pope has (as does a patriarch within his church) the authority to intervene in any parish, diocese/eparchy, province/metropolitanate, or patriarchate.

He has the duty not to do so unless it is absolutely needful (as with one eastern church’s election of major-archbishop, or more correctly, inability to do so) or when asked (as with the UGCC, Ruthenians, and Melkites in 1900, for relief from Roman-Rite US Synodal oppression).

A patriarch, within his Church Sui Iuris, has the same universal authority under the canons… and the same duty not to do so.

And one of the guiding principles of Church governance is that of localization of action: Things should be handled as close to the issue as can be done. Therefore, if a Pastor can deal with the issue, the bishop shouldn’t; if the Bishop can, the Metropolitan shouldn’t; if the Metropolitan or his synod can, the Patriarch shouldn’t; if the Patriarch or his synod can, the Pope and General Councils should not.

But, by the same token, if the issue has been handled differently by different bishops, it’s advantageous for them to compare notes and find a common solution as a group, and form a standard answer as a group… The whole church has, historically, had constant swings on just how far up the chain this should be done at.

 

[mardukm]

The Pope has (as does a patriarch within his church) the authority to intervene in any parish, diocese/eparchy, province/metropolitanate, or patriarchate.

He has the duty not to do so unless it is absolutely needful (as with one eastern church’s election of major-archbishop, or more correctly, inability to do so) or when asked (as with the UGCC, Ruthenians, and Melkites in 1900, for relief from Roman-Rite US Synodal oppression).

A patriarch, within his Church Sui Iuris, has the same universal authority under the canons… and the same duty not to do so.

And one of the guiding principles of Church governance is that of localization of action: Things should be handled as close to the issue as can be done. Therefore, if a Pastor can deal with the issue, the bishop shouldn’t; if the Bishop can, the Metropolitan shouldn’t; if the Metropolitan or his synod can, the Patriarch shouldn’t; if the Patriarch or his synod can, the Pope and General Councils should not.

But, by the same token, if the issue has been handled differently by different bishops, it’s advantageous for them to compare notes and find a common solution as a group, and form a standard answer as a group… The whole church has, historically, had constant swings on just how far up the chain this should be done at.

Good points, brother Aramis.

Even though the plenary authority of a head bishop on any level (whether Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, or Pope) is always present, it is by necessity - for the canonical and divinely-established good order of the Church - always in “stand-by” mode, not normally in use.

I’ve had both papalists and papal naysayers argue with me, “what use is having an authority or prerogative if you can’t use it?” I always respond by quoting a line from a movie I saw, “I’d rather have it and not use it, instead of needing it and not have it.”

There is also a precedent from Scripture. The Lord gives his Apostles the power both to bind and to loose sins (i.e., to not forgive or forgive sins), Who here believes that the power to not forgive has ever been used by the Church after one has confessed?

So possessing power, authority, or a certain prerogative does not necessitate that it be used, or intended to be used regularly, at least not in the economy of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

We commemorate him as such (“Universal Pontiff” is the English UGCC translation) in every Divine Liturgy, and we well understand his authoritative role as the Bishop of Rome, but also understand him as the final earthly arbiter who abides in love whom we will look to in grave matters of faith and morals our own Synod cannot resolve (which has yet to happen). That does not place us “under” anyone save our own Patriarch and Synod but always respectful of the Union to which we pledged communion with Old Rome, respecting her continue to exercise primacy when universal circumstances necessitate the exercise of that primacy.

Also a good point, Father deacon.

The normal course of arbitration in the Eastern and Oriental Churches is the Synod first. The canons do not permit an Eastern or Oriental Catholic to go directly to Rome without permission from his/her bishop. This was illustrated not too long ago with regards to the UGCC and the Syro-Malabar (Malankara?) Churches. Vocal groups wanting to maintain Latinizations appealed to the Pope in the face of contrary decisions from their Synods. The Pope basically ignored them, and, after some time, eventually simply sided with the Synodal decisions.

Humbly,
Marduk