What authority the Roman Pontiff has over Eastern faithfuls?

[Seamus_L]

I believe there were a few threads on other forums after some people who were fluent in Ukrainian, gave rough translations of the UGCC catechism, and by most accounts it upheld Papal Infallibility, and listed several references to what some referred to as “Latin” documents.

 

[R_C]

We do not share the same law, hierarchy, liturgy, spirituality, theology, or praxis as the Roman Church. We are in communion with you, thats about it (in theory). You have expressed a fairly common ulrtramontane misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology.

Well, perhaps I did not express myself clearly, since I was relying on my memory rather than on official documents. Let’s go fairly briefly over a few of the most significant documents on the issue, and find out just what sui iuris is, the significant of the figure of the patriarch, and the authority of the Roman Pontiff over the Churches of the Eastern Rites, to avoid misunderstandings. By no means a full exposition, of course, but should show just how deep being in full communion is.

Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite
Orientalium Ecclesiarum

These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium

Canon 27

A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

Canon 42

Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

Canon 43

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

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 46

1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times …]
2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 55

…] a special honor is to be accorded to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each of whom presides over his patriarchal Church as father and head.

Canon 56

A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 91

The patriarch must be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy and in the divine praises after the Roman Pontiff by all the bishops and other clerics according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

Canon 92

1. The patriarch is to manifest hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Saint Peter, through the loyalty, veneration and obedience which are due to the supreme pastor of the entire Church.

 

[Denho]

Well, perhaps I did not express myself clearly, since I was relying on my memory rather than on official documents. Let’s go fairly briefly over a few of the most significant documents on the issue, and find out just what sui iuris is, the significant of the figure of the patriarch, and the authority of the Roman Pontiff over the Churches of the Eastern Rites, to avoid misunderstandings. By no means a full exposition, of course, but should show just how deep being in full communion is.

Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium

The CCEO usually isn’t a great motivator when speaking to Eastern/Oriental Catholics who have a sense of identity.

It is a singular legal document imposed on twenty-two distinct Churches with a “one-size fits all” mentality.

If that wasn’t indication enough, it is also written in a legal paradigm that is entirely foreign to the Eastern and Oriental Churches. It is riddled with scholastic circumlocutions and vocabulary that is directly opposed to the Eastern/Oriental conception of law. liturgy, and sacramental economy. It may serve as a means by which the Latins can understand the East through their own concepts, but it hardly reflects how the Eastern Churches view themselves and how they conceptualize their existence.

[Leaving aside, of course, the Particular Law, which in the case of the Maronites, is in many areas more Latin than the Latins… ]

 

[LilyM]

Hmm - there are analogies that can be drawn here from secular politics. In my country, Australia, we are a monarchy, with Elizabeth II as our head of State. Her power is exercised in this country by her personal representative, the Governor General, and by Governors in each State of Australia.

We have a lot of independence practically speaking - a lot of our law is different from that of the United Kingdom, we can no longer appeal our court cases to Britain nor do we hold British passports or receive British honours such as knighthoods.

At the same time, it took an Act of the British Parliament to ratify our Constitution and I think grant some of our other freedoms. Technically I suppose Britain could do away with that legislation and legally take us back to where we used to be.

And there have been real tussles over who is allowed to do what - in theory the Governor General can dismiss the federal legislature and require an election if the Parliament cannot pass a budget bill. The Governors can do the same with the states. However, many hold the view that this can only be done if the Head of Government (Prime Minister or Premier) advises that it should be done. It has been done twice without such advice, and both times caused such an uproar that any future GG or Governor will almost certainly not take the risk, even of technically permissible.

So I suppose it is not a matter of what power the Pope has - in theory his power is absolute - but of how likely, given the pastoral nature of his role (his title Pontiff literally means bridge builder) he is to take an authoritarian and heavy handed approach and impose too much of anything on anyone.

 

[dzheremi]

So I suppose it is not a matter of what power the Pope has - in theory his power is absolute - but of how likely, given the pastoral nature of his role (his title Pontiff literally means bridge builder) he is to take an authoritarian and heavy handed approach and impose too much of anything on anyone.

You see, this kind of thinking is the problem, as far as I see it: What is confined to theory for those outside of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches is very much non-theory for those inside of it. So you can say “the Pope is a bridge builder” all you want, but when blind allegiance to Roman ways as the prototype for all things ‘Catholic’ (understandable given the Rome-centric ecclesiology of your communion, but I digress…) results in situations in which Eastern priests in the permanent diaspora (aside: can we stop using this word already? Or is there some sort of planned massive repatriation of Maronites, Chaldeans, etc. to their ancestral homelands that I am unaware of; my Church faces this too, and I think the sooner we accept the reality that life in N. America or whatever is no longer to be seen as strange and foreign, the better off we’ll all be in terms of getting bishops where they’re needed and other matters related to handling our own affairs and not pretending as though we’re still in Egypt or Syria, or that some of us were ever there…cough) are not able to actually live according to their traditions (e.g., being married, communing infants, etc.), then the theoretically hands-off nature of the Roman Pontiff doesn’t really amount to much. As plenty will tell you, the love of all things great and Romanesque is really a problem in the native leadership of at least some non-Roman Catholic sui juris churches, but clearly having the Pope more or less demand that the Easterners/Orientals go back to their traditional ways (as has already been requested) isn’t going to change anything if at the same time they are robbed of their ability to do so by arbitrary imposition of “reason-based” qualifications on who can receive the sacraments, “participatory” ad populum pseudo-liturgies, horrid translations, etc., all carrying an “imprimatur”, so to speak. These things may or may not come directly from the Pope (I would wager that they’re more native by this point), but are certainly done with deference to what some people apparently think being in union with Rome is about, and of course you don’t hardly ever hear any Roman speak up and say “hey, wait a minute…isn’t your liturgy supposed to be facing east? Didn’t you traditionally commune infants? Why does your liturgical music sound like it belongs in lounge somewhere?, etc.”, because that would require them to know those things (e.g., admit that the “other lung” of the Catholic Church should be more than a showpiece), and when many Easterners/Orientals don’t seem to know those things…

Edit: I feel like I owe Malphono royalties for the use of tiny font™, but it seemed appropriate given the length of the digression. Sorry if it is distracting to anyone.

 

[LilyM]

You see, this kind of thinking is the problem, as far as I see it: What is confined to theory for those outside of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches is very much non-theory for those inside of it. So you can say “the Pope is a bridge builder” all you want, but when blind allegiance to Roman ways as the prototype for all things ‘Catholic’ (understandable given the Rome-centric ecclesiology of your communion, but I digress…) results in situations in which Eastern priests in the permanent diaspora (aside: can we stop using this word already? Or is there some sort of planned massive repatriation of Maronites, Chaldeans, etc. to their ancestral homelands that I am unaware of; my Church faces this too, and I think the sooner we accept the reality that life in N. America or whatever is no longer to be seen as strange and foreign, the better off we’ll all be in terms of getting bishops where they’re needed and other matters related to handling our own affairs and not pretending as though we’re still in Egypt or Syria, or that some of us were ever there…cough) are not able to actually live according to their traditions (e.g., being married, communing infants, etc.), then the theoretically hands-off nature of the Roman Pontiff doesn’t really amount to much. As plenty will tell you, the love of all things great and Romanesque is really a problem in the native leadership of at least some non-Roman Catholic sui juris churches, but clearly having the Pope more or less demand that the Easterners/Orientals go back to their traditional ways (as has already been requested) isn’t going to change anything if at the same time they are robbed of their ability to do so by arbitrary imposition of “reason-based” qualifications on who can receive the sacraments, “participatory” ad populum pseudo-liturgies, horrid translations, etc., all carrying an “imprimatur”, so to speak. These things may or may not come directly from the Pope (I would wager that they’re more native by this point), but are certainly done with deference to what some people apparently think being in union with Rome is about, and of course you don’t hardly ever hear any Roman speak up and say “hey, wait a minute…isn’t your liturgy supposed to be facing east? Didn’t you traditionally commune infants? Why does your liturgical music sound like it belongs in lounge somewhere?, etc.”, because that would require them to know those things (e.g., admit that the “other lung” of the Catholic Church should be more than a showpiece), and when many Easterners/Orientals don’t seem to know those things…

Edit: I feel like I owe Malphono royalties for the use of tiny font™, but it seemed appropriate given the length of the digression. Sorry if it is distracting to anyone.

I don’t doubt that Latinizaton has occurred, and mourn it. I do not believe in cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all praxis or theological expression. A poster above has raised the issue of whether this is done by the Eastern Churches themselves or not. I certainly don’t think it is always (or often) a case of Rome imposing anything.

I have personally never heard of an instance where Eastern Catholics were forbidden by Rome to chrismate or commune their infants in their own rites, and hope never to hear of such. It may be, very sadly, that well-meaning but undereducated Latin priests or laity may wrongly refuse communion when Eastern Catholic infants are presented to them. Unfortunately snap judgements are sometimes incorrectly made when one is presented with an unusual situation or request.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t doubt that Latinizaton has occurred, and mourn it. I do not believe in cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all praxis or theological expression. A poster above has raised the issue of whether this is done by the Eastern Churches themselves or not. I certainly don’t think it is always (or often) a case of Rome imposing anything.

I have personally never heard of an instance where Eastern Catholics were forbidden by Rome to chrismate or commune their infants in their own rites, and hope never to hear of such. It may be, very sadly, that well-meaning but undereducated Latin priests or laity may wrongly refuse communion when Eastern Catholic infants are presented to them. Unfortunately snap judgements are sometimes incorrectly made when one is presented with an unusual situation or request.

The chrismation and communing of Eastern Catholic infants was effectively suppressed in America until the last few decades. I do not if this was imposed by Rome, due to pressure from the American Roman Catholic hierarchy, or self-imposed, but I do know that this was the case.

 

[Aramis]

The chrismation and communing of Eastern Catholic infants was effectively suppressed in America until the last few decades. I do not if this was imposed by Rome, due to pressure from the American Roman Catholic hierarchy, or self-imposed, but I do know that this was the case.

It was also self-imposed in some parts of the UGCC in Europe during the Soviet period.

 

[theistgal]

The Pope has the same authority over Eastern Catholics as he has over Western Catholics. Period. End of thread. Right? ( )

 

[dvdjs]

The chrismation and communing of Eastern Catholic infants was effectively suppressed in America until the last few decades.

In the BCC, there communing of infants was effectively suppressed in America until the last few decades. But during those times, chrismation accompanied baptism: when infants were baptized they were also chrismated.

 

[josethomas2005]

Consider the statements made by the former head of the Syro Malabar Catholic church, Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil, “What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Rome appoints bishops all over the world? From where did it get all these powers? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch, who is head and superior.”
Any way after this remark, Rome relieved its practice of appointing bishops and major arch bishops to the eastern churches.

Consider another statement made by Cardinal James Gibbons, former archbishop of Baltimore, US. “Peter went to Antioch, established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the basis of the authority of Rome?”
After this statement, the influence of Rome on American church deteriorated. In the beginning of the previous century, the percentage of catholics in US was the highest. But then it decreased due to increase of other denominations.

 

[Vico]

It might make more sense using the idea that “Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch”:Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.

Press Release About The Abolition Of The Title “Patriarch of the West” From The 2006 Pontifical Yearbook Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

 

[mardukm]

Can the Roman Church impose her laws on her Eastern faithful?

Do you mean “Can the Roman Church impose her Latin laws on her Eastern faithful?”

The answer to that is “NO,” for four reasons:

(1) It would be contrary to Pastor Aeternus, which states that the purpose of the primacy is to strengthen, promote and defend the authority of the local bishop.

(2) No one can enact laws that conflict with the acquired rights of others.

(3) Immemorial customs cannot be changed without good cause.

(4) Local bishops have the authority to grant dispensations even from universal laws for the good of their local flock. This authority is even more effective when a whole group of bishops in a region are of one mind on the dispensation.

Blessings,
Marduk