www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Leaders Could Accept Papal Primacy

I think that Universal Jurisdiction is probably a misleading term. When was the last time you saw JP2 or B16 interfere with the day to day workings of the diocese of Tokyo or the eparchy of Van Nuys? The popes can barely keep the Roman Curia in line, much less can they keep rogue bishops like Mahoney and Law from doing bad things.

This Doctrine only reinforces the age old tradition of appealing to Rome when the local bishops and councils can't come to an agreement or when heresy is manifest. I can think of many examples in the first millenium in which we all would agree that were appropriate.

Once again, don't look to how Bl. Pius IX interpreted the Council. Look to how it was applied during the whole course of the Papacy and then make a judgement.

What it is really saying is that concupiscence was removed from her at her conception. That is she never possessed the inclination to sin, something was fundamentally changed within her in the Latin teaching that makes her different from every other human. That precludes her from true theosis, because it was not an act of her will combined with the sanctifying grace of God.

I didn't want to get this off on a tangent, so my apologies. The best summation of the Orthodox viewpoint I have run across is this [home.it.net.au] one by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos.

I believe infallibly proclaimed doctrine may not be subject to the judgement of the church, or there would be no reason for infallibility to exist. So the Roman Pontiff is very different on this account, and does hold absolute powers in a way the East does not view as appropriate.

Andrew

Rilian wrote:
Perhaps that's true.

But this: is not.

And this: is not.

These ideas, and interpretations of "proof-texts" being presented by Rilian are simply not Catholic teaching. This has been pointed out ad nauseum. I don't understand Andrew, why you persist in making these claims.

There is a difference between saying what the Pope teaches is not subject to debate and what he teaches is not at all subject to the Church. Between the quote from St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and this quote from Newman on The Vatican Defintion [newmanreader.org] from his letter to Norfolk there is no contradiction:

djs

My understanding is that the Latin formulation says that concupiscence was removed from the Theotokos. That's what it appears to me to be saying in the CCC. If in fact in Catholic understanding it is believed she did retain the human inclination to sin, and that her full sanctification was through a combination of her ascesis to avoid sin met with the grace of God (i.e. theosis), then my understanding is incorrect. I agree that this been discussed to death elsewhere, and is tangential to this thread. My apologies! Why do I persist? Sometimes I think I'm just annoying.

Also, I remember running across a quote by Avery Cardinal Dulles somewhere saying the IC was a remote aspect of the faith and not something that should cause division. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Dr. Eric

It is very real and written for instance in the CCEO. This doctrine is actually I think much more problematic than Infallibility.

Andrew

On the subject of Universal Jurdistiction Andrew I think I agree with you. This may sound naive but I dont think that the Orthodox churches would have nearly as much difficulty accepting infallibility as presented in Catholic teaching if it didnt come with universal jurdistiction as it is presented in our time.

Were universal jurdistiction more in line with the canons of the Council of Serdica 343AD, that is, that disputes unresolveable amongst Bishops could be appealed to Rome I think we might get somewhere. I think what the Orthodox dont want is to become vicars of the Pope: To have the Pope going beyond the bounds of the Western Patriarchate and controlling episcopal appointments throughout the Church.

I agree absoloutley, although perhaps "in these times" could be amended to "in recent times". I certainly remeber in recent decades there has been purported curial interference in a number of Australian dioceses. But whether these alleged events will continue under the new Pope is to be seen. Certainly, however, if Latin rite Bishops should not have to deal with it, Eastern Bishops are right to point this out.

N

Sorry.."in our time"..not "in these times".

N

I was under the impression that Papal involvement in various Churches over the past 40 yrs had only been to sort out the mess that some have found themsleves in. One of the worst cases was in my view would have been the Church of the Netherlands and it was an advantage the Pope of the day spoke Dutch). I did not think they get involved easily at all. I suppose it depends on where the observer is standing. In Australia's case I was told some years ago by a Vatican based Monsignor that there was concern about the volume of mail coming from Australia from the laity. I dread to think of a Church where there was no central coordination role. How long has it taken to put some parts of the Church back on tracks after Vatican II. That as I see it that was the role of the Pope who alone had the Ecumenical authority to make changes happen. Also those who did not like this did not go down quietly either, they fought back all the way down.

ICXC
NIKA

Agreed Pavel. Actually Ned I disagree with you about Rome's relationship with the Latin Bishops. Although I do not mind the Patriarch's of North, South, East and Centre exercising and affiliated church's exercising autocephaly I am fundamentally opposed to that happening in the West.

The Patriarch of the North has seen fit to allow the autocephalous arrangement become the norm for his Patriarchate. However, in the West such a thing apart from the attempts of the Gallican Bishops to gain independence of organisation of Rome is practically unprecedented.

It has been over a millenia since the churches that comprise the Western Patriarchate had anything close to the autocephaly of the Byzantine-Slav churches and there is no reason why that should change.

I think the National Episcopal Conferences have taken on the role of Particular Churches from Vatican II onward. Those who did not have such mechanisms were to get one off the ground in the mid to late 60s. The bishops in this country meet twice a year in Sydney and have done so quiet regularly for some years. I dont think the bishops here met so often before the council. It was the Bishops in conference who were the reason we have married Eastern Rite Priests here.

ICXC
NIKA

Who are the Patriarchs of the North, South, and Center? (Centre for those of you who use the Queen's English )

I've never heard of them.

Which Queen?

I am the Patriarch of the South. Who the others are I have no idea.

Patriarch of the West=Archbishop of Rome
Patriarch of the North=Archbishop of Constantinople
Patriarch of the South=Archbishop of Alexandria
Patriarch of the East=Archbishop of Antioch
Patriarch of the Centre=Archbishop of Jerusalem

Dear Alex,

Thank you for the kind welcome.

It has always seemed to me that there is really nothing wrong with the approval of bishops on the part of the papal office and the appropriate curial office.

It seems to me that what might be more useful a direction for change, would be to eliminate the current system for "nominating" bishops, and rather to include the laity and parish priests in the selection process so that the election process becomes less a matter of choosing pre-selected clones, and more a matter of electing men who are already selected locally and known and loved by all already as shepherds and holy men.

Then Vatican approval may be seen as a kiss of peace and not a flex of muscle.

I do not believe it is the Vatican who has forced upon us our current crop of Shepherds, do you?

Eli