|
0 members (),
722
guests, and
81
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by rugratmd: Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[b] Evidently you were only able to read point number 2.
I personally had decided what would have been best would have been the scenario described in #3 before I read your post. [/b]Since some people have taken offense at what I said in point number two of my previous post (dated: 08-17-2006 02:31 AM), it should be noted that the ideas that I expressed there were taken from the following Catholic sources, the Code of Canon Law (1983), Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and an article by an Eastern Catholic canon lawyer, Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, which appeared in the journal Diakonia back in 1976. The following excerpts are taken from Dr. Ott's book: The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.
A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church's jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.
A truly episcopal power, that is, the Pope is just as much a "universal bishop" of the whole Church, as he is the bishop of his diocese of Rome.
As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone.
He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he.
[Dr. Ludwig Ott, "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," pages 285-286] The following quotation is from the article by Fr. Victor Pospishil: We must above all point to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, which was never disavowed in the actions of the popes and the Roman Curia, namely, that the Roman Pontiff is an absolute monarch, though he may not always behave as such, whose power is limited solely by divine law as he himself defines it. He is above the bishops even when they are assembled in an ecumenical council.
[Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, "Compulsory Celibacy for the Eastern Catholics in the Americas," Diakonia, issues 2 & 3, 1976] The following quotations are from the Code of Canon Law (1983): [The Pope], by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power. (Canon 331)
By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. (Canon 333 �1)
The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner. (Canon 333 �2)
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 333 �3)
The First See [i.e., Rome] is judged by no one. (Canon 1404) P.S. - The point of my post, as RugratMD realized, was to show that point number three is the best; and in fact, the most Christian course of action.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Peter, I apologise for inadvertently ascribing to you anything that should not have been!  As for me, I "take the train that says 'Byzantine theology' but get off at the stop that says, "Communion with Rome!" I asked the question about how one may affirm union with Rome while believing Rome to be in error on this or that. I just don't understand it - and that just means that I don't understand it and seek guidance, enlightenment etc. If I believed that Rome was in error on Trinitarian theology or anything that substantive, I would not be in communion with Rome, period! I would go down to see the UOCC priest down the street and ask to go to confession where I would recite the Nicene Creed, and ask to be received into the UOCC etc.  After all, who wants to be in communion with heretics? What these threads have led me to discover about myself is that I really am "old style Catholic." By that I mean that I really do feel happy with the Pope and the whole "papal thing." However it developed and grew, I think it is great. Perhaps I'm more willing to bend the knee to Rome than others, but that is the monarchist in me! I support my Particular Church in her struggle for her rights, but not to the point of breaking union with Rome. That would be to be unfaithful to the work and witness of our martyrs and confessors. I would still maintain that the differences in theology between Rome and Orthdoxy are things that can ultimately be worked out, especially within the context of a future union Council (to which I hope that Apotheoun would be invited to participate, along with Gordo, yourself and Marduk!). But that is in God's good time. I love the fact that my union with Rome puts me in a family of religious cultures and natioanlities that spans the globe in a way no other Church loyalty can. I love my Mother Orthodox Church too and wish her well. Indeed, I have and continue to do what I can on her behalf. As for everything else, I'm cool! And this thread is interesting, I wish I could take you all out for a beer or perhaps to a tapas bar and give you a hug before you all went home! (Those who are less than fully sober can sleep over at my place . . .) Cheers, Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99 |
As for me, I "take the train that says 'Byzantine theology' but get off at the stop that says, "Communion with Rome!" That should be the official motto of this forum I think it best exemplafies how I feel as well (generally at least). The coolest thing about the Catholic Church is that it really does attempt to embrace all orthodox theological currents in a way that no other communion does. At least, that's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Hello Todd! Originally posted by Apotheoun: The following excerpts are taken from Dr. Ott's book:
The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.
A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church's jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.
A truly episcopal power, that is, the Pope is just as much a "universal bishop" of the whole Church, as he is the bishop of his diocese of Rome.
As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone.
He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he.
[Dr. Ludwig Ott, "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," pages 285-286]
We must above all point to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, which was never disavowed in the actions of the popes and the Roman Curia, namely, that the Roman Pontiff is an absolute monarch, though he may not always behave as such, whose power is limited solely by divine law as he himself defines it. He is above the bishops even when they are assembled in an ecumenical council.
[Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, "Compulsory Celibacy for the Eastern Catholics in the Americas," Diakonia, issues 2 & 3, 1976]
[The Pope], by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power. (Canon 331)
By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. (Canon 333 �1)
The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner. (Canon 333 �2)
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 333 �3)
The First See [i.e., Rome] is judged by no one. (Canon 1404) I find this post an excellent exposition of the raw power vested in the bishop of Rome, exercised at his option. Many devout Catholics in communion with Roma prefer not to think of the Pope in this fashion, for good reason. I sympathise completely, it seems to contrast with the concept of "Servus Servorum Dei". We must examine this further, in the clear light of day, to see whether or not Christ intended this type of "Primate" over the church or not. It is a hard call. IF this was not the intention of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, it casts a shadow over the Vatican Council of 1870, and that then leads to other questions. A reminder is appropriate at this point, for those who may read this unaware that this is not merely a question of church discipline, which could be changed by common consent of the Faithful: From the decrees of Vatican I
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. 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 Those Catholics in Communion with Roma who insist that there is some kind of parity or equality between the ecumenical Council and the Pope, or between the college of bishops and the Pope, are misrepresenting the position of the church. This is not dependent upon whether or not the Pope of the day chooses to exercise this authority. According to Vatican Council I this power is always present in the Papacy. One is not commanded to like this or even approve of it, but one may not publicly claim that this is not in fact so. Any Catholic in communion with Roma who teaches otherwise (even with the goal of making the papacy more attractive to potential converts) is condemned by his (or her) church. This is why I feel that a resolute stance on the part of Orthodox participants in Ecumenical dialog is the only likely chance to redress this situation for the betterment of Eastern Catholics, whose churches must sometimes bear the full weight of this awesome power. +T+ Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope. Which is extremely ironic to me since it took a council to grant the Pope this power. It seems like something of a major logical break (leaving tradition aside) to say a body can grant power that it is not equal to. In retrospect it makes even less sense to me, since it was a council that sorted out the mess of the three Popes, though now I believe they could no longer do that since they can't depose a Pope. Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99 |
He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he. Well, Dr. Ott is welcome to his opinion but I'm not buying it. Moreover, it flies in the face of history. One need only point to the Western Schism where the Council of Constance in 1417 deposed two Popes, secured the resignation of a third, and elected Pope Martin V. And if I am forced to choose between a council and Ott then I am afraid the good-fellow will be given the boot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32 |
Honest question. I don't have a copy of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It this a Church document? Does it carry the nihil obstat and imprimatur?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by Matt: He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he. Clearly Ott was not infallible when he composed his guide. However I do not see anything he wrote on this matter in conflict with Vatican Council I! I do see a direct conflict between Vatican I and Constance, however. SacroSancta:
In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in head and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . . It was the force of this Canon which ended the Great Western Schism, which otherwise might have been with us to this very day! (A more frightening prospect is that, thus weakened through schism the church might not have survived a Protestant reconstitution at all.) Likewise, the Council of Basle was called under the authority of Constance, which mandated a Council every ten years! Basle renewed the Canon Sacrosancta, above. Is an Ecumenical Council able on it's own authority to reverse a previous Ecumenical Council? Florence seems to have reversed Constance. The crushing of the Ecumenical Council of Basle was the end of the last great attempt to preserve the original Orthodox ecclesology (with which the church began) in any form. +T+ Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Matt: He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he. Matt, The Code of Canon Law agrees with Dr. Ott, or I should say that Dr. Ott is merely agreeing with the Latin canonical tradition, because Canon 1404 says: "The First See (i.e. Rome) is judged by no one." Thus, under Roman canon law (and the Roman formulated CCEO) no one may judge the Pope, nor may a person appeal a decision made by the Pope (See Canon 333 �3), because he is invested with absolute power over the Church. God bless, Todd P.S. - It should be noted that Pope Pius II in his Bull "Execrabilis" (18 January 1460) condemned the Conciliarist heresy and the Council of Constance, and proclaimed that the Pope is above a council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by rugratmd:
Honest question. I don't have a copy of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It this a Church document? Does it carry the nihil obstat and imprimatur? Hi Rugratmd, It is not an official church document. It carries no more actual authority than the Old Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent. Although I presume it is much more accurate (at least in the original German). It reads like a rulebook. Ott's original composition Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It has been used as a reference work by countless numbers of priests and laity. Your brother, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32 |
Originally posted by Apotheoun:
The Code of Canon Law agrees with Dr. Ott, or I should say that Dr. Ott is merely agreeing with the Latin canonical tradition, because Canon 1404 says: "The First See (i.e. Rome) is judged by no one." Thus, under Roman canon law (and the Roman formulated CCEO) no one may judge the Pope, nor may a person appeal a decision made by the Pope (See Canon 333 �3), because he is invested with absolute power over the Church.
God bless,
Todd
P.S. - It should be noted that Pope Pius II in his Bull "Execrabilis" (18 January 1460) condemned the Conciliarist heresy and the Council of Constance, and proclaimed that the Pope is above a council. This is so complicated. Is that what "the First See is judged by no one" means?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32 |
Originally posted by Hesychios:
Ott's original composition Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It has been used as a reference work by countless numbers of priests and laity.
Your brother,
Michael Hi Michael. Hope you had a good Feast of the Holy Dormition. As I said in the above post, it is all so confusing. I wonder how much is lost in the translation of all of this material. You know? Are the translations really acurate portrayals of what was originally proclaimed?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by rugratmd: Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[b]
The Code of Canon Law agrees with Dr. Ott, or I should say that Dr. Ott is merely agreeing with the Latin canonical tradition, because Canon 1404 says: "The First See (i.e. Rome) is judged by no one." Thus, under Roman canon law (and the Roman formulated CCEO) no one may judge the Pope, nor may a person appeal a decision made by the Pope (See Canon 333 �3), because he is invested with absolute power over the Church.
God bless,
Todd
P.S. - It should be noted that Pope Pius II in his Bull "Execrabilis" (18 January 1460) condemned the Conciliarist heresy and the Council of Constance, and proclaimed that the Pope is above a council. Yes, the "First See" (Prima Sedes) is the Apostolic See, i.e., it is the See of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the Pope cannot be judged, because he is the highest judge upon earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99 |
Todd, Cannon law is revised from time-to-time, and is certainly not infallible, so I'm afraid that isn't going to cut it either. I will say though that I'm willing to allow for certain situations where Rome's word is final (may be judged by no one) -- if it is the arbiter in a dispute for example. Perhaps they can add that part when Cannon Law is next revisited Also, Todd, I'm pretty sure you're playing a little devil's advocate here I mean do you personally agree with Ott? If someone disagrees with Ott do you believe the Church condemns them? I mean how does the Council of Constance make any senses if Ott is right? And if the Council of Constance is wrong then what does that say about the legitamacy of Pope Martin V and all the Popes who followed it? I mean I am willing to go down many a rabbit hole but this one doesn't seem worth the trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Matt: Todd,
Cannon law is revised from time-to-time, and is certainly not infallible, so I'm afraid that isn't going to cut it either. I will say though that I'm willing to allow for certain situations where Rome's word is final (may be judged by no one) -- if it is the arbiter in a dispute for example. Perhaps they can add that part when Cannon Law is next revisited
Also, Todd, I'm pretty sure you're playing a little devil's advocate here I mean do you personally agree with Ott? If someone disagrees with Ott do you believe the Church condemns them? I mean how does the Council of Constance make any senses if Ott is right? And if the Council of Constance is wrong then what does that say about the legitamacy of Pope Martin V and all the Popes who followed it? I mean I am willing to go down many a rabbit hole but this one doesn't seem worth the trouble. The canon (1404) is based upon the teaching of Vatican I, and the Roman canonical tradition. In addition, it is founded upon documents of the Papal Magisterium like "Execrabilis" of Pius II, which nullified any right of appeal from the decisions of the Pope, and "Unam Sanctam" of Boniface VIII, which declared that ". . . it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Thus, no one may judge the Pope, because he is the supreme judge upon earth. I of course do not accept these statements of the Pope as "definitive," but the Western tradition has held that these statements are de fide, and especially the decrees of Vatican I. Now, in this thread, I am just presenting the Roman documents, people will have to make their own decision as far as the authority behind the documents goes; but I will say this, the majority view of the theologians in the Roman Church (and of the pre-Vatican II Popes) was that these statements are definitive tenenda. P.S. - As far as the Council of Constance is concerned, the Popes annulled portions of the Council, that is, certain sessions. This is a complex issue, because both the Council of Constance, and the later Council of Florence (Basel / Ferrara) have some sessions that are considered to be ecumenical, and some sessions (i.e., those that the Popes did not like) that are considered to be spurious. It is a very complex issue.
|
|
|
|
|
