www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things the West can do right away

Dear Memo,

Actually, I'm not afraid of episcopal authority at all.

As an Eastern Christian, and this would apply whether I'd be EC or Orthodox, the power of the bishop is absolute (Alexander Schmemann).

IF you are saying that Vatican I defined papal authority of jurisdiction as it has always been throughout Christian history, THEN there is no doubt that Vatican I represented a development of papal authority that simply did not exist in the first millennium - and I believe we are talking about the first millennium (not whether we should return to it, but only about it).

You and LatinTrad have both said that the Pope had primacy of jurisdiction over the East in that sense (Vatican I).

And the onus is on you to show HOW that obtains. Roman Catholics once believed that, but who, other than ultramontanists, believe that today in the RC Church?

If the Pope's exercise of authority was constrained by a number of factors (crisis, being asked), then how is that "immediate jurisdiction?"

It is not.

As for Papal involvement in choosing bishops for EC churches today, you perhaps may not be aware, as an RC, concerning the jurisdictional strangle-hold Rome has over the EC Churches?

And also that of the Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches? (That Vatican bureaucracy is an enduring insult to the Particular governance of EC Churches and we've petitioned to have it annulled by Rome for years.)

The Pope himself, as busy as he must be with the worldwide RC Church, does indeed approve each and every one of our bishops.

We EC's are not afraid of episcopal authority at all.

You will find among us the most conservative, traditionalist, staunch supporters of orthodox Christian doctrine. EC's put many liberal RC's to shame in this respect and one reason why I am firmly EC today is because of many turn-offs I experienced with liberal Catholics in Catholic educational institutions I attended and the like.

With respect to papal authority, we are simply defending our right to govern ourselves, as Vatican II has affirmed as well.

Vatican I can also be augmented within the perspective of "development of doctrine."

But to say, as you seem to be doing, that Vatican I affirmed the papal jurisdiction that was always the case in the worldwide Church of Christ from the beginning and during the first millennium - that is simply "ultramontanist wishful thinking" to coin a phrase.

Alex

Hi,

I think you are misunderstanding Vatican I.

Vatican I said what the Pope can do. Not what the Pope has done.

What Vatican I says is that the Pope has the authority to override each and every jurisdictional act of each and every Catholic bishop.

If you're saying that this is not true, because it has not happened before, then I agree, we do not have one recorded instance for every kind of jurisdictional act there is, in which the Pope overrode the Local Ordinary.

If you're saying that this is not true, because the Pope doesn't actually have the authority to do so, then we are in disagreement, on what I regard a dogmatic issue.

Yes, we are saying that. We are not saying that the Pope has ever used his authority to its fullest extent over the East, or the West, for that matter.

Well, I do believe that the Pope has Universal, Ordinary, Immediate Episcopal jurisdiction. In that, I am not ultramontanist, I am simply a Catholic subscribing to the letter to a dogmatic definition of a General Council which my faith instructs me to regard as infallible and irreformable.

If I am alone in this position, so be it. Until my Church instructs me better, this is my understanding on what to be a Catholic faithful actually means.

Perhaps we are not understanding "immediate" in the same way.

I think immediate means that the authority needs not to be mediated by a thrid party.

I am aware of this and, yes, I think this needs to change and each Sui Iuris Church needs to be able to elect their own bishops with a simple notification to Rome begin required. This is still required to keep an official record on who is who throughout the Church.

I would have no trouble seeng the Congregation go the way of the dinosaur.

However, we need to determine if all the Eastern Churches are actually ready to make do without a Roman dicastery dedicated to their needs.

Yes, but the Pope's authority is not contrary to this right you mention, if anything, it reinforces it, as if anybody outside your Church attempts to influence your Church governance, the Pope can intervene immediately.

Yes, the Orthodox do not have this benefit, and look how they've fared with the Turkish and the Comunist regimes.

Well, I do not think so. Vatican I is actually affirming that an essential element of the Petrene ministry, one that is Divinely Revealed Truth, is precisely this supreme, universal jurisdiction.

Whether this jurisdiction has been fully exercised or not, is another matter, Vatican I was concerned with doctrine, not history.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

O.K., that's fine - I'm simply saying that what Vatican I defined is something that is a development in the Church's understanding of the Papacy that went beyond how it understood the papacy in the first millennium.

That's all I'm saying.

Development of doctrine is part and parcel of the Catholic theological enterprise, as we know.

And papal jurisdiction does not have to be "overridden" once it has been defined.

But it can be "worked on" by subsequent popes and councils i.e. again within the context of development of doctrine.

The other consideration that would have to be discussed on the issue of Catholic-Orthodox unity, of course, is whether the 14 Roman Councils, including Vatican I, were truly "Ecumenical" in the same sense that the first Seven Councils were (and I know the Oriental Churches don't accept seven but three (and two)).

Many EC's today would, with the Orthodox, deny that the later 14 RC Councils are anything but legitimate, Local Councils of the Roman Church.

IF that is the case, and Rome agrees to it, THEN that would mean that what Vatican I said about papal jurisdiction can be limited to the Roman Patriarchate in terms of immediate jurisdiction and the like.

In fact, Vatican II's Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches can already be seen as limiting the scope of Vatican I by saying that the EC Patriarchs govern their Churches with the Pope etc.

Again, development of doctrine is, contrary to RC and Orthodox traditionalists' views, an ingenious aspect of RC theology.

Vatican I is not a closed book, but something that can be, again, worked on and refined in subsequent times by popes, councils etc.

What it says about papal authority, far from being changed, can be limited, as John Henry Cardinal Newman said in response to Protestant fears about "papal supremacy."

Alex

I guess what I was saying is that, apparently, Bartholomew and John Paul have found a way to cooperate - a real reconciliation without giving up church identity. While it may be true that the See of Peter may have immediate jurisdiction - apparently his 'jurisdiction' in this reconciliation is to not exercise any. This I believe - is the exact model of the first century. Where the body of the Church calls upon the Pope for a final judication - and Peter does not take the Papacy upon himself. Peter remains a Patriarch of his own church at all times - but only assumes the Primary Papacy when the body of the church calls for it.

You know, I often think of how Paul (who considered Peter as the boss) at least twice went head to head with Peter. We all remember the first Jerusalem council - but there was also an incident where Paul invited Peter to come - and Peter went to this gentile area and city and ate dinner there (a gentile dinner and not to Jewish standards) and Peter had a good time and all parted with hugs� but when Peter got back to Jerusalem his head was filled with �You broke Jewish dietary laws!!?� by Judasizers(sp) and Peter was swayed to them - so that Paul really got heated and spoke his mind about the non-sense going on. Obviously Paul won the day but he won the day by winning over Peter. It is interesting to see the interaction between these two (and I am not expert on the subject) where Paul was clearly the �mover and shaker� and Peter was the �reluctant� but still Paul considered him - the boss. There certainly is a Patriarchal independence there where Paul would rather argue matters out (very forcefully at times) but would not diviide. It also seems that Peter did not �interfere� (as you might put it) by going out and looking for reasons to force his authority. It seems rather that apostles came to him - rather than he (Peter) going �out� to them to find things to �straighten out�. Peter seems more of a �touch stone� which they all checked with when differences became troublesome. So too does it seem to be with the original Councils. The office of Peter seems to not have been a driving force - and councils would debate (even to violence) but dare not seal anything a universally binding without the final approval of Peter. Peter had to sign off - or it did not become universal but remained local.

So IF there is a model of the first century Primacy of Peter - it would be one of each Patriarch doing things as he saw fit - and if something came to be a contention within the circle of Patriarchs - their bishops would call council (an invitation to council) to argue the matter - and the results of that must be approved by Peter - after which - all must submit. It does not seem to be a model where Peter went about seeking to make everything into his own image - but rather a last resort to peace - a prevention of division which all gave final submission to.

Since the cannons of the church are not infallible (most anyway) cannons which, for example, have it that any Patriarch successor be chosen by submitting three candidate to the Pope of which he chooses one - can certainly be changed. These are not matters of divine revelation - and so they are fallible and only reasonable within the context of current social realities. They are laws pertaining to the human side of the organization - only.

This first century model does not disturb the infallibility of the Pope - it just places it into a �last resort judicator� which all voluntarily submit to - for the sake of unity and non-division.

Certainly, under the Latin �development of doctrine� meaning the evolution of a better understanding - the Primacy can be better defined - and since the operation of it is not an item of revealed faith - no less-better definition need be declared heretical. At least - for the RC - the way is clear to better define this Primacy into a �prevention of division�.

In that sense - any Patriarchal bishop seems to have been able to put out a call to assemble a council regarding a dispute - and all others Partiarcates were free to come or not (send reps). If (for whatever reasons) the Pope did not sign off on the results - it remained a local judication as long as it was not diametrically opposed to what had been Papal sealed in the past. In this way Papal infallibility did rest with Peter - but - depended upon the collegency and did not operate without it.

Therefore any Council meant to be universal (ecumenical) must have invited all - all - Patriachates to attend (if they declined the invitation that is their moment of division) and so as long as the Papalcy signed off on the results - it IS ecumenical. Peter certainly has the right, as Roman Patriarch - to call for a Council as any other Patriacate does -

In the disagreements between Patriacates - one could see that this was very workable - until someone had a beef with Patriarch - Peter - in which case - Peter would be expected to be mindful of the responsibilities of his office according to the results of any Council in which his Patriarchal position on some matter what involved.

I, myself, after much study and thought - have reservations about Sanctorum (whatever the Bull was named) in as much as I see it as a direct address of the situation of King Phillip - breaking away the Catholic Church of France and placing himself as it head. To me - it seems the Pope was declaring that if Philip did that - the Church Philip headed - would be cut off from the Pope (its authorized Patriarch) and therefore nothing about it would be valid. A body cut away from it head. It seems to me that the misinterpretation of this Bull centers around a confusion of the church triumphant - and the church militant. Certainly the original �no salvation outside the church� means that apostate groups do not have valid sacraments (as I have put forth in other posts)� and a mis-application of that to mean that every human must submit to the Pope or not see heaven - is diametrically opposed to it continuously held opinion of the �justified gentile� (those whom God justifies outside of church membership).

The last subject�. Heresy�

I think it will be found that neither Church (Orthodox/Latin) has ever entered heresy. First - heresy must be directly involving items of - revealed faith (Trinity, Sacraments, Eucharist etc.. these few items) and not really appropriate to cannons which sole purpose is the human and fallible side of the church organization. Secondly - according to the Latin cannons anyway - there are steps that must be taken and the final step is that a �cease and desist� order must be signed off on by the Primacy (Pope) and if that order is willfully and knowingly rejected - only then can heresy be applied. The Latin cannons are very clear to exclude conditions such as error, ignorance, misunderstanding etc.. I do not believe that these steps had ever been taken nor do I believe that each (Orthodox/Latin) had every disagreed on - revealed items - but rather the expression (particular language) by which to publish them to their own continuants. So - heresy - is not a problem - at least in the Latin.

These are my half-baked thoughts. It is not biblical study - so I am out of my waters. Give me the word and I will postal mail this out to all Patriacates - if they are not to busy gathering accolades from the laity - maybe they will read it.


It has seemed to me that hierarchy customs should have weigh limits. If you throw him into the water and he sinks - he is wearing too much gold, silver, and jewels. The tip of his tall hat being above water - having no value. (this section is humor folks). Has it not been that the best Patriachs have been reluctant monks of poverty?


-ray

My apologies for my - humor section - some may find it offensive and it was not meant to be that. I suppose it is my frustration with �management.�

-ray

Ray I think your last post was excellent.
Thanks.
Stephanos I

Dear Ray and Neil,

Our Synod in Lviv chose the current bishop for Eastern Canada and informed Rome of its choice.

Rome refused to acknowledge this - as far as we know, it still hasn't but got its Papal Nuncio to choose the same man two years later.

That Nuncio spoke at the consecration as if the Synod had nothing whatever to do with the choice of episcopal candidate and he totally ignored His Beatitutde Lubomyr's earlier remarks to this effect.

This is what got the people shaking their heads, this kind of expression of Vatican ignorance, overbearing insensitivity etc.

Apart from how these things "should be" conducted, as Neil pointed out so well, the fact is that our Synod is acting very much like a truly Particular Church by appointing bishops for eparchies around the world and then informing Rome etc.

Perhaps that is breaking the rules, but then again, calling our Primate "Partriarch" is also breaking Rome's rules and so are a number of other things that we consider important to our internal life as a Particular Church.

So far, Rome hasn't excommunicated us though, perhaps a lot of problems would be solved if it did . . .

We no longer wait for Rome's approval to "be who we are."

Alex