|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
I hope that this was an appropriate category to post this query. Would anyone here more learned than I attempt to harmonize the two interelated points of view of these three sites? Here are the links: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/0F44BC68.en.aspx f) The confirmation of the Bishop's Faith by the laity.
As very rightly observed by the renowned theologian Protopresbyter fr.George Florovxky, that although a Bishop does not teach the Faith based on a "power of attorney" and suggestions by the flock - ie the faithful people - he likewise cannot say whatever he wants, because "in the Church, ‘personal opinions' cannot and should not exist"19. Therefore, the Bishop is called upon - and limited to - expressing the age-old catholic experience of the Church. If he has not "embodied" himself in the Holy Spirit to this experience - which will become apparent in his teaching, behold, he will duly and justifiably be subject to the reaction of the Fold. These are the exact words of fr. George Florovsky: "the bishop must embrace inside him the whole Church; he must display, must reveal Her experience and Her faith. He must not express himself, but must speak on behalf of the Church - ‘ex consensus ecclesiae'. [...] The bishop has not obtained the full competency to preach from his flock, but from Christ Himself, through his Apostolic Succession. But this full competency which has been given to him is a competency to bear the witnessing of the catholic (overall) experience of the Church. He is restricted to this experience. Subsequently, in questions pertaining to Faith, it is the laity that must judge, depending on his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases to be valid, when the bishop deviates from the catholic model, in which case, the people have the right to accuse him, even to dethrone him"20.
For that reason, the response by the Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX in 1848, was to proclaim the significance of the role of laypeople in the preservation of the Faith of the Church: "for us, neither Patriarchs nor Synods could ever introduce new things (dogmas and morals), because the defender of religion is the Body of the Church itself - that is, the people themselves, who want their religion eternally unaltered and the same as that of their fathers."21
When interpreting this response of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX in 1848, where the role of the laity for the preservation of the Faith is pointed out, fr. George Florovsky observes: "The whole body of the Church has the right to verify - or, to be more precise - the right, but not only the right but the duty of "verification". In this sense, the Patriarchs of the East had written in the familiar Encyclical of 1848 that ‘the people themselves have been the defenders of the religion'"22. Compared to these: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm http://untilwerestinthee.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-infallible-is-magisterium.html quote: Religious Submission of Mind and Will When the Church Speaks Fallibly:
Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's document on the Church, states that "Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." "The Magisterium of the Church: The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome... Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: 'He who hears you, hears me,' the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (CCC 85-87).
Docility?!!
It seems to me that they may not be in absolute agreement, and perhaps contradicting each other. Either way I am confident them they represent the widely varying ways in which modern day roman catholics and modern eastern orthodox see their faith and the role of holy tradition in preserving it free of heresies. I seek opinions in others in discerning whether or not what they state can be harmonized happily in a unified position.
What does one do if a local bishop is teaching a heresy?
How do the Eastern Catholic, Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches view the role of lay people in preserving the faith when a local bishop appears to teach something opposed to a previous bishop which is potentially endangering the salvation of souls?
Thank you for your time.
[i]
Last edited by Xristoforos; 01/21/14 10:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
I hope that this was an appropriate category to post this query. Would anyone here more learned than I attempt to harmonize the two interelated points of view of these three sites? f) The confirmation of the Bishop's Faith by the laity.
As very rightly observed by the renowned theologian Protopresbyter fr.George Florovxky, that although a Bishop does not teach the Faith based on a "power of attorney" and suggestions by the flock - ie the faithful people - he likewise cannot say whatever he wants, because "in the Church, ‘personal opinions' cannot and should not exist"19. Therefore, the Bishop is called upon - and limited to - expressing the age-old catholic experience of the Church. If he has not "embodied" himself in the Holy Spirit to this experience - which will become apparent in his teaching, behold, he will duly and justifiably be subject to the reaction of the Fold. These are the exact words of fr. George Florovsky: "the bishop must embrace inside him the whole Church; he must display, must reveal Her experience and Her faith. He must not express himself, but must speak on behalf of the Church - ‘ex consensus ecclesiae'. [...] The bishop has not obtained the full competency to preach from his flock, but from Christ Himself, through his Apostolic Succession. But this full competency which has been given to him is a competency to bear the witnessing of the catholic (overall) experience of the Church. He is restricted to this experience. Subsequently, in questions pertaining to Faith, it is the laity that must judge, depending on his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases to be valid, when the bishop deviates from the catholic model, in which case, the people have the right to accuse him, even to dethrone him"20.
For that reason, the response by the Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX in 1848, was to proclaim the significance of the role of laypeople in the preservation of the Faith of the Church: "for us, neither Patriarchs nor Synods could ever introduce new things (dogmas and morals), because the defender of religion is the Body of the Church itself - that is, the people themselves, who want their religion eternally unaltered and the same as that of their fathers."21
When interpreting this response of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX in 1848, where the role of the laity for the preservation of the Faith is pointed out, fr. George Florovsky observes: "The whole body of the Church has the right to verify - or, to be more precise - the right, but not only the right but the duty of "verification". In this sense, the Patriarchs of the East had written in the familiar Encyclical of 1848 that ‘the people themselves have been the defenders of the religion'"22. Compared to these: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm http://untilwerestinthee.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-infallible-is-magisterium.html quote: Religious Submission of Mind and Will When the Church Speaks Fallibly:
Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's document on the Church, states that "Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." "The Magisterium of the Church: The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome... Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: 'He who hears you, hears me,' the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (CCC 85-87).
Docility?!!
It seems to me that they may not be in absolute agreement, and perhaps contradicting each other. Either way I am confident them they represent the widely varying ways in which modern day roman catholics and modern eastern orthodox see their faith and the role of holy tradition in preserving it free of heresies. I seek opinions in others in discerning whether or not what they state can be harmonized happily in a unified position.
What does one do if a local bishop is teaching a heresy?
How do the Eastern Catholic, Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches view the role of lay people in preserving the faith when a local bishop appears to teach something opposed to a previous bishop which is potentially endangering the salvation of souls?
Thank you for your time. Xristoforos, Thanks for posting this--I think you've hit upon something here that is not only the #1 church-dividing issue, but also a reason for many of the ills in modern society: namely the question of whether or not authority is *strictly* a one-way street! From the example you gave above, the Orthodox position is fairly clear: it is mostly a one-way street, yes--but not completely. Curiously enough, though, the RCC has always taught that the faithful had an obligation to disobey when someone in authority told them to do somthing wrong, and it is my understanding that they could even demand the resignation of a bishop who was scandalously sinful. There is also the "sensus fidelium" of John Henry Newman, which has been generally accepted as an ecclesiological principle for over 100 years. These exceptions notwithstanding, the overwhelming tendency in the West has clearly been that authority is *strictly* a one-way street, as witnessed by your excerpts from LG and the CCC. I really have to agree with the East on this one. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
Here is another of example of what I find to be a problem within the Roman Catholic Church. I offer this example as "contrustive criticism". A single man should not "make and break" the traditions and culture of the church in this manner. Clearing up heresies, writing some encyclicals, doing what any bishop does, but on a grander scale is great, thats what makes sense in my opinion. This letter from September 2013 illustrates some of the issues involved with the conception of ordinary magisterium in the RC, where it seems to almost carry more weight than "Holy tradition". As Popes come and go, the liturgy and church should carry on as usual and not take such notice of the current Pope, viewing him as an all important ally or potential nemesis. Thankfully the byzantine catholic churches do not have this tendency to the extent that the Latin church does. As a member of a religious order, I would say that Pope Francis has made things more difficult – not just with this interview, but with many of his other actions and utterances over the past six months. Pope Benedict XVI was under regular attack from the media, but he had actually made progress in the work of repairing some of the deep divisions that have opened in the Roman Catholic Church over the past fifty years, particularly with respect to the liturgy and the interpretation of Vatican II. I was disappointed with Pope Benedict’s decision to resign – in fact, I’m still disappointed – but I hoped and prayed that the conclave would elect someone who would continue Benedict’s work, giving a legacy to the initiatives that were central to his pontificate. The election of Pope Francis not only halted momentum on those initiatives but has effectively reversed them, such that the divisions that I had hoped were starting to go away actually seem fated to continue into the foreseeable future.
The words and actions of the new pope have also emboldened clergy who found themselves in opposition under Benedict XVI and John Paul II, making life difficult for those of us who not as enthusiastic about Pope Francis. There have certain been examples of this among the hierarchy – e.g. Cardinal Mahony’s post-conclave tweets and Archbishop Piero Marini’s remarks about emerging from the “swamp” of the Benedict years – but I also see it every day in my own community. Priests who never made a secret of their disagreements with the last two popes suddenly consider it vitally important that we all embrace Pope Francis, and those of us who are reluctant to do so face regular criticism and scrutiny.
A priest quoted in Rod’s first post on the Pope Francis interview commented that said interview chopped the legs out from under those Catholics who have been working to repair some of the damage of the last forty-five years. I completely agree, but I would also like to extend that point a bit. I think that many of us priests and religious who were in agreement with some of the key initiatives of the last two popes were spiritually and practically buoyed by the fact that the pontiff had our backs: many of our brethren in community were less than thrilled with our support for the traditional Latin liturgy or our emphasis on the hermeneutic of continuity or our commitment to the life issues, but the sense that the tide seemed to be turning in our direction offered us some protection. Now that we have a pope who does not seem to have our backs, we feel a lot more vulnerable – and, as I suggested above, those who felt like they were on the outs under the previous two popes are now using the pope’s words and example as a club with which to beat their perceived opponents. In short, it’s been a difficult six months – not only in ministry, but in community and in prayer.
Last edited by Xristoforos; 01/23/14 09:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
Xristoforos, you have started a very interesting thread with many nuances and difficulties. I, like many Traditional leaning Latin Catholics, have felt disturbed by the poor, if not outright imprudent, words and actions of Pope Francis; I even felt that Pope Bl. John Paul II's pontificate was filled with many acts of imprudence. You are right that Pope Francis is in stark contrast with Pope Benedict XVI in word and action. Much of the modern papacies have made it difficult to understand what good Catholics should take as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Hopefully, I can help here.
Lumen Gentium in defining the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and our assent to it is correct, but what is often less emphasized is that the Ordinary Magisterium is one of much repetition by a current Roman Pontiff; one statement does not constitute an Ordinary Magisterium because it is not yet made "ordinary" by repetition. Furthermore, there is a hierarchy in Papal Documents, with Apostolic Constitutions being second in severity, which make the Ordinary Magisterium more clear.
In Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" the Ordinary Magisterium is not defined in terms of a few actions or words of a Roman Pontiff. Rather, he correctly defines the Ordinary Magisterium (Here is a summary rather than a long quote) in regards to the current Roman Pontiff echoing and clarifying the teaching of Sacred Writ, Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, and his predecessors. One simple comment in an interview or an imprudent action of a Roman Pontiff is not an act of the Ordinary Magisterium; therefore, a good Catholic does not have to assent to it. For further understanding I would recommend the aforementioned book.
With Local bishops and ordinaries, the faithful do have a right in Canon Law to make known to the Apostolic Signatura, the Church's Supreme Court, accusations of their impropriety of word or conduct. Cardinal Burke, who is very Traditional, is the head of this office now. In regards to a reigning Roman Pontiff, he is in conscience bound by the Holy Spirit. The only way he could lose this protection and his office is if it is known that he no longer holds the Faith; thus, necessitating his immediate resignation; I am sure the Pope would resign if he no longer has the Faith.
Hopefully, this reply helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Xristoforos,
There's a certain missing factor in your OP. The Catholic sources you give use the term "Magisterium." The title of the thread concerns the "ORDINARY Magisterium."
The missing factor is that the two terms are not equivalent. When the documents you cited use the term "Magisterium" it INHERENTLY includes the two distinct notions of the ORDINARY Magisterium and the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church acts as a witness to the Faith. It is in this area where the Orthodox and Catholic paradigms you have quoted in your OP are most perfectly aligned. On this point, there is no discrepancy between East/Orient and West, and the quotes you provided do not contradict each other.
It is in matters involving the Extraordinary Magisterium where the distinctions appear. The Church's Extraordinary Magisterium is utilized not primarily as a witness to Tradition, but as the JUDGE of Tradition. Both East/Orient and West agree that the teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium should and can never contradict the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (in fact, an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium is really nothing more than a more definite and authoritative expression of what is taught through the Ordinary Magisterium).
But there are certain instances when new situations might arise that require a -- creative (for lack of a better word) -- application of the Church's Tradition. This is where an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium comes into play. In such instances, the Western and Oriental paradigms generally favor the decision/guidance of the episcopal Magisterium. The Western paradigm favors a more authoritative approach, while the Oriental paradigm favors a more pastoral approach. I am not qualified to comment on how the Eastern paradigm approaches the matter, but from my observations over the years, the Eastern paradigm seems to be more "democratic" (for lack of a better word).
Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
