|
0 members (),
473
guests, and
95
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,526
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 192
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 192 |
Ilian, Thank you for that link. It was really helpful. Now, what was clear as mud in my mind is starting to clear into water  I will be able to email a link to this entire thread, and be able to answer the question posed to me. This will also help me to better understand discussions throughout the board, and hopefully help others who may read, but not post. Many thanks to all, Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
Neil- Very good post! A few follow-on questions Originally posted by Irish Melkite:
"the" Eastern Orthodox Church or Communion, which is constituted of fourteen Autocephalus Churches, five Autonomous Churches, and six Churches which are neither autocephalic nor autonomous - but are under the omophor of Constantinople (an additional half-dozen Churches are considered non-Canonical or of Irregular status, as they are not in full communion with all of Eastern Orthodoxy);
[*]six Oriental Orthodox Churches (which together are often termed the Oriental Orthodox Communion); and,
[*]four pre-Chalcedonian Churches.
[/list] Is there a list of these churches somewhere (i.e. the name of the autonomous jurisdictions and all that? Dr. Eric mentioned the Italo-Greico-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church as having no counterpart; while it is true insofar as there being no "Canonical Orthodox Church" so-named, the Greek and Albanian Orthodox Churches are its direct and legitimate forbearers. I was under the impression that the Italo-Greek/Albanian Church is a church parallel to the local churches of Calabria and Sicily; i.e. that upon the Norman conquest the Byzantine diocese were Latinized and that several hundred years laters the remnant Greek Rite churches were incorporated into their own diocese. Is this the case? Thanks, Markos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
Originally posted by Ilian: First, let me caution that "the Orthodox Church" doesn't exist. There is: Andrew, my dear friend, I am guessing that you refer to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox do not consider the Oriental Churches to be among "the Orthodox". True enough, but in the common parlance, they are so-termed. If you are referencing the fact that Holy Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodoxy) considers itself to be a single Church, autonomous and autocephalic status aside, I do not dispute that and intended to make that clear; if I failed to do so, my apologies. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
Originally posted by Amadeus:
I would not say, however, that the Cardinalitial title is merely honorific. It is more of a juridic title with the attendant powers, rights, and responsiblities. Amado, my brother, We must again butt heads, as we do whenever the subject of the cardinalate arises. I hold that it is an honorific rather than juridic title. The College of Cardinals, acting as a body to fulfill its sole defined function - the election of a successor to a deceased Pope - is a juridic person. Individual Cardinals - physical persons - in the aggregate constitute the juridic person of the College. A Cardinal would only be a juridic person in and of himself were he the last surviving member of the College, at which point he and the College would be a conjoined entity. Canon 115 �1 Juridical persons in the Church are either aggregates of persons or aggregates of things. et. seq. All powers exercised by any Cardinal are as an individual incumbent of an office to which he is appointed. Note that there are no other prescribed tasks accorded to them. Canon 349 The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the norms of a special law. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff especially in the daily care of the universal Church. (emphasis added) Originally posted by Amadeus:
In the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the Cardinals are of the highest dignity next only to the Pope outranking bishops, archbishops (whether Metropolitans or Majors), and, beginning in the 14th century, even Patriarchs (as now shown in the order of precedence among the Cardinal-Bishops where Eastern Catholic Patriarchs occupy the 7th, 8th, and 9th in the order of procession during consistories). Ah, a new variation on your old argument :p - still not passing muster however. Your point is solely valid as to the precedence of Cardinals in the Latin Church and as to the processional order in consistorial processions, in which Cardinal Patriarchs alone participate. Note that participation in consistories - as Cardinals - and even being a Cardinal - is a role foreign to Patriarchs, being a Latin Church function. Canon 58 CCEO
Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff. is inclusive of Cardinals. Originally posted by Amadeus:
The Cardinals have 3 major roles:
(1) They help the Pope govern the day-to-day acctivities of the worldwide Catholic Church by heading the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia (Cardinal-Deacons) or running their own archdioceses in major or capital cities of the world (Cardinal-Priests) or running their own Patriarchates (Cardinal-Patriarchs). As to the first comment, note that this is an assignment/office given to individual Cardinals, rather than a duty of the juridic College and the Pope could, as well, assign a dicastry to a non-Cardinal's care. "Running" an archdiocese in major or capital cities is not a function reserved to Cardinals. There are a number of Metropolitan Archbishops serving in jurisdictions fitting that description who are not Cardinals. Most aggravating, "running" a patriarchate is absolutely not a function of the Cardinalate (and disparages in the saying those Patriarchs who have not been named, or who have declined to be named, as Cardinals). Originally posted by Amadeus:
(2) As exclusive electors of the next Pope, the under 80 Cardinals meet in conclave after the death or resignation of the Supreme Pontiff to elect his successor. The sole true function of a Cardinal. Originally posted by Amadeus:
(3) During the interregnum, the Cardinals as a body (including 80 and over Cardinals) and led by the Dean of the College, govern the day-to-day affairs of the Holy See/Catholic Church until the next Pope has been duly elected and qualified. Govern with precious little authority. Canon 359
When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals has only that power in the Church which is granted to it by special law. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
Originally posted by MarkosC: A few follow-on questions
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Irish Melkite:
<strong>- "the" Eastern Orthodox Church or Communion, which is constituted of fourteen Autocephalus Churches, five Autonomous Churches, and six Churches which are neither autocephalic nor autonomous - but are under the omophor of Constantinople (an additional half-dozen Churches are considered non-Canonical or of Irregular status, as they are not in full communion with all of Eastern Orthodoxy);
- six Oriental Orthodox Churches (which together are often termed the Oriental Orthodox Communion); and,
- four pre-Chalcedonian Churches.
Is there a list of these churches somewhere (i.e. the name of the autonomous jurisdictions and all that?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Markos, An excellent reference to them is Father Ron Roberson's text on the CNEWA site. Go the The Orthodox Church [cnewa.org] and click on each of the linked categories under "The Orthodox Church" in the Table of Contents at the right. Originally posted by MarkosC:
Originally posted by Irish Melkite:
[b]Dr. Eric mentioned the Italo-Greico-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church as having no counterpart; while it is true insofar as there being no "Canonical Orthodox Church" so-named, the Greek and Albanian Orthodox Churches are its direct and legitimate forbearers. I was under the impression that the Italo-Greek/Albanian Church is a church parallel to the local churches of Calabria and Sicily; i.e. that upon the Norman conquest the Byzantine diocese were Latinized and that several hundred years laters the remnant Greek Rite churches were incorporated into their own diocese. Is this the case?[/b] Essentially, yes. To understand better the history and the dynamics involved, you might want to read the three links under Information on Our Heritage at the site of Our Lady of Grace Byzantine Italo-Greico-Albanian Mission [byzantines.net] and discussion of this subject between my friend and brother, Andrew Rubis, and myself near the end of the thread titled Catholic-Orthodox Counterparts? , some further excellent explanation by Andrew in the thread Italo-Greek Catholic Church , and my comments on the three extant jurisdictions scattered through the posts on page 1 of the thread Churches & Rites . Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Amadeus:
(3) During the interregnum, the Cardinals as a body (including 80 and over Cardinals) and led by the Dean of the College, govern the day-to-day affairs of the Holy See/Catholic Church until the next Pope has been duly elected and qualified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Govern with precious little authority.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon 359
When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals has only that power in the Church which is granted to it by special law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we call it: "Hurry up and elect another Bishop of Rome or we'll lock you in that chapel!" Hmmmm..... I think we even have a special word for that in the Catholic Church 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,337 Likes: 98
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,337 Likes: 98 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Originally posted by Irish Melkite: Originally posted by Ilian: [b] First, let me caution that "the Orthodox Church" doesn't exist. There is: That is not the Orthodox view of the church however.
I am guessing that you refer to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox do not consider the Oriental Churches to be among "the Orthodox". True enough, but in the common parlance, they are so-termed.[/b]Neil, my intention is not at all to slight the Non Chalcedonian churches. I simply meant to point out that from an Orthodox perspective, the church is the autocephalous and autonomous churches that are all in communion with one another. Your caution that the "Orthodox Church doesn't exist", which I know you did not mean polemically, simply isn't the case from the Orthodox viewpoint. I also believe that while "Eastern Orthodox" is a commonly used term, it isn't in my opinion accurate geographically or ritually, and isn't how the church officially refers to itself anyway. St. Mary of Egypt, I think the essential difference between the two sides is the Eastern Catholics exist in and are governed by a church framework centered in Rome. What that means is their own synods are not the full authority in their church, because their synods are subject to and participate in the Curia. The Eastern Churches are also governed by a Code of Canon Law that I believe is based on the Roman one. I also believe, but don't know for sure, that the Eastern Catholic Synods do not govern directly in concert with each other, but only through the Curia. This quote by the Melkite Patriarch I think points out from an Orthodox perspective what some of the issues with this system would be: H.B. Gr�goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria
It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.
In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.
It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.
With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.
Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.
Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.
Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.
We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.
We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.
Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.
We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology! That is from here - http://www.vatican.va/news_services..._x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html Another important difference is that Orthodox Churches can govern their flocks in their home territories and where they have a presence in the diaspora. That is not the case for the Eastern Catholics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Originally posted by Irish Melkite: Originally posted by Amadeus:
[qb]I would not say, however, that the Cardinalitial title is merely honorific. It is more of a juridic title with the attendant powers, rights, and responsiblities.
We must again butt heads, as we do whenever the subject of the cardinalate arises.
I hold that it is an honorific rather than juridic title. The College of Cardinals, acting as a body to fulfill its sole defined function - the election of a successor to a deceased Pope - is a juridic person. Individual Cardinals - physical persons - in the aggregate constitute the juridic person of the College. A Cardinal would only be a juridic person in and of himself were he the last surviving member of the College, at which point he and the College would be a conjoined entity.Section 2, Canon 351 provides that "Cardinals are created by decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined by law." Under canon law (or any legal system, for that matter) the acquisition or conferment of a "title" with the attendant binding of such person to certain rights and obligations is a juridical act or part of the juridical process. The title goes beyond merely honorific. As the exclusive electors of the Pope, the exercise of such act of voting by a Cardinal, both a right and an obligation, is a juridic act defined by canon laws. If the cardinalitial title is merely "honorific," then the Code of Canons and the "special law" Universi Dominici Gregis (1996 Apostolic Constitution) become inoperable as both define the juridic acts exclusively to be exercised by Cardinals. The Holy See/The Catholic Church is a recognized juridical entity by legal fiction, as well as a simple diocese. That's basically the meaning of Canon 115 you cited. But I fail to see the parallel for the College of Cardinals to be clothed as a "juridical person" as defined by Canon 115. The law which grants that "juridical personality" of the College of Cardinals as a body corporate is the UDG, which provides that the College, under the leadership of the Dean, will govern the Catholic Church during the interregnum. Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Originally posted by Irish Melite: Originally posted by Amadeus:
(2) As exclusive electors of the next Pope, the under 80 Cardinals meet in conclave after the death or resignation of the Supreme Pontiff to elect his successor.
The sole true function of a Cardinal. Again, the election of the Pope's successor is not the "sole" duty of a Cardinal or of the College. However, it is an exclusive right and duty and no other hierarchs or group of hierarchs are empowered to do so. The other duties are assisting the Pope in the daily governance of the Catholic Church via the Roman Curia (which, by the way, serves the needs of the global Church) and those exercised during the interregnum as presented below. Originally posted by Irish Melkite: Originally posted by Amadeus:
(3) During the interregnum, the Cardinals as a body (including 80 and over Cardinals) and led by the Dean of the College, govern the day-to-day affairs of the Holy See/Catholic Church until the next Pope has been duly elected and qualified.
Govern with precious little authority. Canon 359
When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals has only that power in the Church which is granted to it by special law. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, the supreme authority, in the Catholic Church. In him the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in the Church are concentrated. With certain exceptions enumerated by the UDG, this "supreme authority" and all the attendant powers of the Pope are assumed by the College of Cardinals upon his death or upon his resignation and for the entire period of the interregnum. The interregnum seems short, as in the case of the last papal vancancies of memory, but this period can become indefinite as has happened before. The governance of the Church during the interregnum is by no means of "precious little authority." It is still "supreme" and it extends to the entirety of the Catholic Church. It could be "brief" but it could also continue "indefinitely!" Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, the supreme authority, in the Catholic Church. In him the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in the Church are concentrated. That's the main difference between the two sides. Eastern Catholics being in communion with Rome and abiding by the post schism councils accept this belief. Orthodoxy does not just not have someone with this power, they don't believe it was the state of the church before the schism. This thread I think really boils down to this difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Andrew:
Yes, forget all other issues that presently separate us! It is this critical issue of "supremacy" in all its aspects that is the crux of the matter.
Eastern Catholics may pick up the argument from the Eastern Orthodox that this was not the case during the first millenium but it boils down to whether this "doctrine" should be believed unequivocally by all Churches in the Catholic communion.
Some Eastern Catholics do and some do not.
However, by the act of communion requested by Eastern Catholic Patriarchs upon their respective election, and the corresponding grant to such a request by the Pope, the "issue" of supremacy should be done with as provided for in both the Latin Code of Canons and in the CCEO: the Pope is the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church!
Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21 |
Originally posted by theophan:
Nestor:
A Cardinal is a bishop who has been given an honorary rank in the Catholic Church's hierarchy. A cardinal's chief function is to serve in the conclave that elects the next Pope. In the interim, all cardinals serve on various committees both at their national levels and at the Vatican at the international level. Each is called to be a confidant of the Pope--to be his closest, most trusted advisors. The Cardinal swears an oath that he will defend the Faith to the last drop of his blood--hence the cardinal red of his ordinary vesture showing his rank.
Until recently most of the Cardinals were of Italian origin, but under both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI the college of Cardinals was widened to give more input from bishops in major cities around the globe.
Centuries ago the Cardinals were the most senior priests of the diocese of Rome who met to elect the new Pope. There was a time when any male Catholic could be made a cardinal, even without holy orders, but I believe that it was Pope John Paul II who mandated that all cardinals must henceforth be bishops.
That's my "thumbnail" sketch.
In Christ,
BOB Thank you for your informative reply. Although we have no conterpart per se, I do understand their function in such a large church centered on one bishop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 |
Shlomo Theophan,
A cardinal is an honorary title within the Roman Church. It can be given to any man, for example Cardinal Dullas is a priest not a bishop. Further, after the age of 80, a cardinal can not participate in a conclave.
Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21 |
Originally posted by Yuhannon:
Shlomo Theophan,
A cardinal is an honorary title within the Roman Church. It can be given to any man, for example Cardinal Dullas is a priest not a bishop. Further, after the age of 80, a cardinal can not participate in a conclave.
Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon Term limits!?!?! Oy...
|
|
|
|
|
