www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

It is reflected in our canons (i.e., the Pedalion); but I agree that it is not reflected in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was created for us by the Roman Curia.

>>Eastern Catholics do not operate under the Pedalion no matter what we would like it to be any more than the Latin Church operates under the Decretum of Gratian.

Unless you retain any illusions, Canon 6 of the CCEO states:
"Canon 6
Once this Code goes into effect: (1) all common or particular
laws are abrogated, which are contrary to the canons of the Code
or which pertain to a matter ex integro regulated in this Code;
(2) all customs are revoked which are reprobated by the canons of
this Code or which are contrary to them and are neither centenary
nor immemorial."

I understand that Rome has imposed this new Latin code on the Eastern Catholic Churches, but if communion is ever restored between the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin Church this Roman code will be null and void. Personally, I see it as null and void already.



P.S. - If you compare the CIC and the CCEO they are nearly identical, and both were promulgated in Latin. Rome needs to make up its mind, are Eastern Catholics to de-Latinize or Latinize.

I agree with you in theory, but reality is what it is.

The reality is this: the Pope does not possess the authority to impose a Latin code of canons upon the Eastern Churches.

That said, it is ironic that Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, is the man who has attempted the most massive Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches to date.

God bless,
Todd

The reality is the only Eastern Churches where the pope doesn't possess authority to do anything is among the Orthodox. Eastern Catholics, by contrast, have accepted papal authority, so this code of canon law is part of the deal.

Until Rome recongizes the CCEO has to go, we're stuck with it.

Vatican II's Decree on the Eastern Churches says:

"3. 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. . .EASTERN RITE PATRIARCHS

7. The patriarchate, as an institution, has existed in the Church from the earliest times and was recognized by the first ecumenical councils.(8)

By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.(9)

Wherever an hierarch of any rite is appointed outside the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, he remains attached to the hierarchy of the patriarchate of that rite, in accordance with canon law. . ."

The last time I checked all of the Eastern Catholic Churches accepted Vatican II.

The official statements of the Eastern Catholic bishops point out where they do not accept everything that comes from Rome as a mandate. For example, here is their statement concerning the catechism: http://www.ecdd.org/index.php?pr=Response_to_Catechism

/mark

JohnRoss,

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe that Vatican II (or Vatican I, or any other Western Synod for that matter, is ecumenical), and I stand with Elias Zoghby on this topic.

Moreover, I do not accept the CCEO as a valid expression of the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches, and I am not saying anything all that controversial in this regard, since the Melkite Patriarch himself has questioned its legitimacy.

The continuing de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches is going to be a very slow process, but it will eventually strengthen the Catholic Church, because the Pope will no longer be seen as a "universal" bishop, or as having authority over other bishops in the fashion of Gentile governance condemned by our Lord in the Gospels. The primacy of the historic petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, which Pope St. Gregory the Great called one see "in three places," will help to unify the Church according to the ancient patristic understanding of primacy within synodality.

God bless,
Todd

Mark,

Very interesting link. Thank you for posting it.

Gordo

I think the last sentence you quoted is key. "all customs are revoked..... which are... neither centenary or immemorial"

The Eastern traditions of Canon Law are definitely centenary and immemorial, and as such, cannot be abrogated even if the Pope wanted to.
It has been said that the popes from Pius XII (who made the first Latinizing "Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches" in the form of Cleri Sanctitati in 1957) to John Paul II had a very exaggerated notion of their own authority, and they definitely applied this notion to their reforms to the liturgy. (Decades prior to Pius XII, there was Pius X, who completely abolished the old Roman Breviary and replaced it with a drastically shortened version of his own.) Pius XII began the first drastic reforms to the Holy Week ceremonial and to the liturgical calendar, while John Paul II promulgated several reforms too, ranging from female altar servers (1994) to the "Missale Romanum" of 2002 which, among other things, allowed (but did not command) for the substitution of the Apostles Creed for the Nicene Creed during the Paschal Season. (Strangely enough, the Orthodox were utterly silent about this permission for wholesale removal of the Nicene Creed from the Liturgy of the Paschal season)

With Summorum Pontificum and it's momentous declaration that the classical Roman Rite was never abrogated, Benedict XVI has actually re-asserted a canonical and theological principle almost forgotten since the beginning of the 1900's, if not denied or condemned by most "traditional" or "conservative" Catholics: the notion that papal power has its limits, and that not even the pope can abolish legitimate and immemorial tradition. So far as I know, this aspect of the Motu Proprio has gone almost uncommented on. And yet, for those familiar with the debate, Pope Benedict XVI's declaration that the classical Roman Rite was never abrogated is an implicit admission that the decrees of Paul VI that attempted to completely ban the old rite, never had any real force, because they attempted to do something that not even the pope had authority to do!
I think that the Eastern Churches would do well to pay attention to the canon law aspect of the liturgical debates that have raged in the Roman Catholic Church from the 1960's to the present.It will certainly shed great light on their own attempts to preserve their traditions from forcible Latinization

The issues surrounding the recent Motu Proprio aside, Catholic thought has clearly held that the pope has full authority over the Church Universal and is the steward of Holy Tradition found in the infallible deposit of faith. It would appear he has full authority to make any changes he feels are best, up to and including Eastern Catholic disciplines if he so chooses to involve himself. The only thing he cannot do, as I have learned it, is change or revoke infallible dogmatic divine teachings of the Church.

There's nothing infallible about Byzantine trappings, traditions, theologies, or even liturgy.

I'm at a loss to understand certainideas that tend to be espoused here. If a Roman Latin Catholic theologian, priest, bishop, or cardinal declares that 1 + 1 = 2, is that now a Latinization? If a Cappadocian father had said that 1 + 1 = 3, is he automatically right because he's a Cappadocian father?

The idea that everything has to be bifurcated into an East/West dialectic, I'm increasingly coming to believe, is potentially pernicious to any kind of Catholic identity. It's not a matter of something being West or East. It should be a question as to whether it's Catholic or not.

What would one have Rome do? Declare that 1,000 years of infallible dogma is no longer infallible? Is something untrue if it had its roots in any form of Western thought? Christmas originated in the West; should Eastern Catholic Churches toss that as well?

And if the past 1,000 years of Catholic dogmatic thought should be declared null and void, then why not 2,000 years of thought as well? On what basis is that any sounder? The Donatists, Novatians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts have their grievances too, I'm sure. Not to mention the whole array of Protestant thought.

Everything that I've read and have been taught points to one conclusion: all Catholics - ALL Catholics - are obligated to affirm and uphold all that the Catholic Church teaches in the area of infallibly and solemnly defined faith and morals. There is no other intellectual conclusion that I can see, and no other theological or metaphysically sound conclusion that I can fathom. Universal, supreme jurisdiction cannot be anything other than universal. The Holy Spirit and the Son cannot be interacting one way in North America, South America, and Western Europe, and in another way in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

The problem doesn't seem to stem from popes not knowing what their authority entails. It seems to be stemming from Byzantine Melkite Catholic bishops not fully adhering to what their authority does not entail. Let Bishop Zoughby show backing for his position from the full corpus of 2,000 years of definitive Catholic teaching.

Best to all,
Robster

I am sorry Robster, but we will never agree on this topic.

I would amend the opening portion of your post with the simple addition of one word:

WESTERN

The Eastern Patriarchs (including the Eastern Catholic ones) have never accepted the exaggerations of papal authority promoted by the West.

God bless,
Todd

A professor of mine - himself a Roman Catholic priest - was fond of stressing an interesting point: one must be careful to take into account, not only what the Church claims to do, but what she actually does!

In varying degrees, perhaps, the relationship between Rome and the several Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome is always a bi-lateral relationship. To understand what is going on, then, one must take into account:

a) how Rome would like to view the matter;

b) how the Eastern Catholic Church in question would like to view the matter; and

c) how Rome acts and how the given Eastern Catholic Church acts, in practice.

The answers can be quite enlightening, sometimes tragic, sometimes joyful, sometimes amusing - and often dependent on what language is being spoken!

Fr. Serge

Todd,

What about the "yes" votes on Lumen Gentium? Or does that not count?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Lumen Gentium is a wonderful document, and I am sure that the Eastern Catholic bishops present at that synod voted for it, but the Second Vatican Council is not ecumenical, and -- as a consequence -- its novel teachings (whether on papal infallibility or Islam, etc.) are merely theologoumena.

I am once again reminded of the words of the Melkite Patriarch, who said:


Clearly, if the Pope is infallible, so are the other Patriarchs.

That said, as an Eastern Christian I hold to the doctrine of primacy within synodality (see the Apostolic Canon 34), which means that no one bishop taken in isolation holds authority in the Church. In other words, the primate must have the assent of his synod to act, and the synod must always work in conjunction with its primate. All the bishop are equal in authority, since they all are successors of the Apostles (i.e., all of the Apostles, including Peter).

Did you seriously type that?