www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy

marducum,

The new collegiality has been proven a disastrous novelty. What if a bishop's conference were to "declare" that, say, divorced and re-married can be allowed Holy Communion in Germany, not permitted in the USA and so on? Then would exist a rupture of unity, one of the essential marks of the true Church. A pope, no matter how reluctant to exercise his authority, will always have supreme authority over any and every member of the Church. This has been the practice since even before the Council of Chalcedon, and was definitely defined by Vatican Council I


Regarding this "doctrinal authority," I will try and find the link where I read this. The idea is obviously an error and could not be implemented. I believe that HH did insinuate this idea at one point while regarding this Synod on the Family, but as you know the Vatican is constantly scrambling to minimize and "explain" the hasty words of this Pope.

The bottom line is that the Pope must retain the supreme authority on matters of faith and morals, and discipline as well. Pope Paul VI himself demonstrated this by promulgating Humanae Vitae solely on his own authority, even though he was all in favor of excess collegiality.

The High Petrine and Low Petrine concepts are not relevant to the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, in direct apostolic succession from St. Peter, the rock upon whom Christ founded His Church. (In my opinion, which might not be strictly kosher, the Orthodox patriarchs have not lost this genuine succession, despite the state of schism that exists.)

All bishops must be subordinate to the Pope on matters of faith, morals and discipline, except in cases where the pope may promulgate erroneous novelties. The use of Right Reason and reference to the traditional magisterium can easily identify these errors.

Some bishops complain that collegiality has robbed them of the absolute control of their dioceses, since the democratic nature of bishops' conferences tend to a tyranny of the majority. I think it is plain that Vatican II collegiality is a damaging novelty.

Roman refugee,

I haven't managed to figure out yet how to use the quotation features with any measure of elegance, so I've incorporated quotations from your own post within the body of my response.

Your main argument is that "the new collegiality has been proven a disastrous novelty..." I see two problems with this claim. First, the 'new collegiality' really represents a 'novelty' only against a very recent backdrop of centralization. Second, your worry about differing decisions suggests to me that your expectation for uniformity might be a little anachronistic. Doubtless, not all differences in practice would be tolerable or acceptable to all. But it seems to me equally doubtless that some differences are. In my opinion, your example of differing decisions about admitting divorced and remarried persons to communion as some kind of pastoral provision is a tolerable difference, though I am sure that we could agree on many differences that we would both find to be instances of an intolerable divergence. At any rate, I find it hard to agree that 'the new collegiality has proven to be disastrous' (or anything else) on the basis of a hypothetical example of what some bishops' conference might decide in the future.

Clearly related to your estimation of collegiality--and related to my quibble with it--are your corresponding remarks on papal primacy. I don't understand your claim that the "the High Petrine and Low Petrine concepts are not relevant to the Roman Catholic Church." It seems to me that various accounts of the papal primacy and Petrine ministry are precisely (indeed mostly) relevant to Catholics. I think what you mean to say is that there isn't room for the 'lower' iterations of the primacy within an adequately Catholic account of it. But the center of gravity is clearly no longer ultramontane, and this movement or drift isn't simply evident in revisionists somewhere out on the edges, but in those usually regarded as orthodox, the magisterium, and even in the teaching of the recent popes themselves. Finally, the primacy of the Popes was exercised historically within, for, and through, a communion that was also inescapably collegial and synodal. If a genuinely Catholic view of primacy cannot coexist with multiple structures of regional authority, (which is what it seems to me you are really insisting on), then it would be hard to find it in the ancient church, and the Popes haven't really exercised it for very long.

To be clear, I'm not trying to refute your every concern about potential problems with greater realizations of collegiality, but I do think your total rejection of this tendency is mistaken and untenable.

Caleb

Dear brother Roman Refugee,

With all due respect, I don't believe you understand what the Church's teaching on collegiality actually is. I will simply repeat what I recently wrote in response to another poster on this matter in CAF:

There are certain Latin Catholics who think that Bishops' Conferences are examples of "collegiality," but they are not, because the true authority in a Bishops' Conference are the individual bishops, not the college as a whole. Only Oriental and Eastern synods, and the Ecum Council (and the College as defined by V2, whether spread throughout the world, or joined together in an Ecum Council) are true examples of the principle of collegiality.

Latin Catholic critics of Bishops' Conferences wrongly criticize the principle of collegiality as the cause of the cavalierism of certain bishops in some countries. Such critics really have little understanding of what collegiality is. These critics claim that Pope Francis' comment about giving episcopal conferences more doctrinal authority will lead to more chaos. On the contrary, the reason that calavierism among certain bishops exists in these countries is precisely BECAUSE Episcopal Conferences have no doctrinal authority over them. Currently, the nature of an episcopal conference designates the individual bishop as the highest authority in the land. THAT is why cavalierism exists in certain Latin Catholic countries (it is NOT because of collegiality). These bishops don't have to answer to any higher authority in their countries. Far from inspiring cavalierism in doctrinal teaching, the principle of collegiality will actually curb it.

I hope that helps.

Blessings

eastwardlean?,

I too have not been successful in the learning the quote format

Regarding the disastrous results of the New Collegiality:

The setting up of episcopal conferences has had two effects: the distortion of the structure of the Church, and the enfeebling of individual bishops. The New Collegiality has encouraged bishops to think that episcopal authority is to be exercised collegially within individual national episcopal conferences. The Vatican II doctrine fails to realize that a new juridical bond of this sort alters the Church's constitution, by replacing the individual bishop with a board of bishops, thus tending to replace individual responsibility with a collective responsibility.

This is why abuses and sacrileges such as Communion in the hand, "altar girls," and lay "Eucharistic ministers" spread to the whole Church. No bishop had the power to stop these things, even though they knew that these things were evil innovations. After all, Archbishop Leferbve stood up and told the truth to power, and see what happened to him?

As to the idea that bishops have authority directly as part of the apostolic body, Vatican I and Vatican II both taught that the pope is the principle and foundation of the unity of the Church, and it is through communion with him that bishops have communion with each other.

It is not possible to base episcopal authority on some common ground upon which pope and bishops are equal, but now with the new ideas of collegiality, the Church has become a "poly-centric" body, the centers being the various national bishops' conferences.

This has weakened each individual bishop's bond of unity with Rome, and has diluted responsibility for and authority in each bishop's diocese, replacing these essentials with a collegial body, in which authority does not rest in any particular member.

Further mixing the subjectivity of synods into this situation, as Pope Francis has "learned" from Orthodox practice, can only splinter the Catholic Church into many sects, like the Protestants, or at best, into a situation similar to Orthodoxy--many divided members with no Head.

I quote: "I think what you mean to say is that there isn't room for the 'lower' iterations of the primacy within an adequately Catholic account of it."

Yes, that is exactly correct. Regardless of the subjective errors of modern times, the objective fact is that the Pope holds supreme and final authority over all members of the Church in all matters of faith, morals and discipline. (I suggest that you read the Varican I document "Pater Aeternus" for a clear explanation of the role of the Pope in the Church.) This will always remain true, even when there are Popes who do not believe it, as the current pope, and however the Church is temporarily distorted by modernist errors such as democratic bishops' conferences, and the like. The Petrine primacy was fiercely defended by St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and all the Eastern Fathers. Certainly Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople would act of their own authority as Patriarchs in the ancient Church, but needed, desired and required the approval of the Bishop of Rome of their actions. When they did not, the cries of "schism" and "heresy" were immediately heard from their own subordinates and from the faithful themselves.

I will grant you that a certain Pope worship exists in the Church today, among both "traditionals" and "Neo-Cathlics," but not in the Ultramontane form that you speak of. Today's Novus Ordo Catholics accept everything the Pope says as "gospel," (except those things that they do not like, such as the ban of contraception,) not understanding the strict limits of papal infallibility. It is unfortunate, in a way, that the great popes who reigned during the 150 years before Vatican II were so strongly orthodox. It conditioned the faithful to obey a pope without question, even to the point of accepting Paul VI's abuse of authority when he promulgated the new mass, forbiding the real Mass, even when Pius V's condemnation of such a possible future action was printed in the front of the Roman Missal before the mid-1960s. No pope has the right to make up a new liturgy, and the actions of Paul VI and his successors in so far as they "forbade" the real Mass have been truly egregious abuse of authority.


One of the errors of Modernism is a constant referral to the "ancient Church," and a desire to return to it. The Deposit of Faith was sealed at the death of the last Apostle, it is true, but many aspects of the Faith that Jesus gave us have been explained and elaborated upon over the years and this is how it should be. The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (Dormition) of the Blessed Virgin Mary are examples.

You say,"First, the 'new collegiality' really represents a 'novelty' only against a very recent backdrop of centralization. Second, your worry about differing decisions suggests to me that your expectation for uniformity might be a little anachronistic."
This recent backdrop that you speak of is a serious error, and what you call anachronistic represents the Tradition of the Church, which is even more important than Scripture, since the Church existed before the New Testament and not the other way around.

You say " In my opinion, your example of differing decisions about admitting divorced and remarried persons to communion as some kind of pastoral provision is a tolerable difference," Absolutely not! If the Church is not in unity concerning such a matter as the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony, then there would be no one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. But this is the kind of error that the new collegiality and other novelties promulgated since the council that is destroying the faith of the faithful, and the hierarchy is leading this apostasy. What about all those whose spouse left them and who did not "re-marry," seeking to remain faithful Catholics. Will Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis now tell them that they needn't have bothered?

It would be like saying that the English martyrs who were murdered by Henry VIII were wrong, since the Anglicans are our brothers and part of the Church of Christ that does not happen to "subsist" in the Catholic Church. But this is another grave error of the post conciliar Church, the mistaken notions of "religious liberty."

All this stuff really doesn't belong here. This forum is supposed to be about the Eastern Church. I have tried to answer your questions, which necessitated all this talk about the Roman rite. Maybe, out of respect for others in the forum, we might continue this discussion privately by e-mail, if you wish.

However, if you yourself are an Orthodox Christian, we will never agree on certain things. I maintain and hold to the eternal and traditional magesterium, as taught up to and including the reign of Pius XII, and I reject all novelties that have, often dishonestly, come in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II," and especially the Modernist idea of a "living magesterium" which binds Rome today, and will pass away into the history of error when the Holy Spirit sees fit to restore the authentic teaching of His Church. These errors, mainly, are the novel ideas about collegiality, religious liberty and ecuminism, and these errors are expressed (lex orandi, lex credenti) in the Novus Ordo Missae.

cfburns17@gmail.com

Many happy years,
Charlie

Dear mardukum,

I get what you are saying, about some "superstar" bishops. However, I don't understand any need for bishops' conferences at all. Each bishop has communion with his fellow bishops only through and only in so far as he has communion with the pope. The pope is the principle, the living principle, of unity. Only in this way can a bishop truly reign as sovereign in his diocese. Bishops' conferences rob each individual bishop of his authority. All is done through the conference, based on a two-thirds majority vote. The Church is not a democracy, it is a top down Monarchy, and the very problems that the bishop conferences are causing point out the weakness of democracy.

How can you say that the true authority in the conferences is the individual bishops? It is like saying that the true authority of the US government is the individual voter. Theoretically true, but never so in reality.

Or, do you mean that other more orthodox bishops of the conference could rein in one of the cavalier bishops, who may be out there spreading heresy? Possibly, if they get a two-thirds majority. It seems better to me if the pope would "do his job" and be the one to discipline heterodox bishops. The only true duty of the pope is indeed to protect, defend, and hand on the Deposit of Faith that has come down to us through Jesus and the Apostles. (It is certainly NOT the pope's job to create novelties and to change doctrine and make up novel liturgies. "Who am I to judge," indeed!)

Were I a bishop, I would much rather to be answerable to only the pope of Rome than be controlled by my brother bishops, the conferences often headed by the very superstars that you mention. This rule by committee is the reason that more orthodox bishops were not able to stop abuses in the new mass, Communion in the hand, lay Eucharistic ministers, etc, in their own diocese.

For example, think how much the touching of the sacred Body of Christ by un-consecrated hands weakens the belief of the faithful in transubstantiation. Priests now often talk of the "Real Presence" the same as Protestants do, that is, His Real Presence within the assembly of the "people of God," glossing over the inconvenient truth that Christ actually exists and is present on our altars, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the "accidental" appearance of bread and wine. I would think that, things being as they are these days, that any individual bishop who dared to declare these truths would soon find himself marginalized in his conference.

Modernist thought cannot deal with the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, by which all the Truths of the Church have been taught and understood, until the unfortunate appearance of the "spirit of Vatican II." And because of the tyranny of the conferences, the individual bishop is emasculated to the point of not feeling able to expound correct doctrine in the face of error, as he is now only one member of a ruling committee, and no longer the supreme head of his diocese

I explained in more detail below in reply to "eastwardlean?." I don't know, maybe I am not getting it. But to me, any attempt to introduce "democracy" to the ruling structure of the Church is a mistake.

Regards and many happy years,
RR

Dear brother Roman Refugee,

To be precise, it iis that each bishop has communion with his fellow bishops through membership in the College (i.e., the Pope along with all the other bishops of the College). So the principle of communion you propose is not the full teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of V1 is that St. Peter is the principle of unity. The Pope of Rome has an obligation to remain united to St. Peter just like any other bishop. (It could even be said the Pope of Rome has an even greater obligation than any other bishop!) St. Peter exercises this role through his successors, the bishop of Rome. But, as even great Saints such as Francis de sales and Robert Bellarmine preached, if the bishop of Rome is found to be tearing down the Church, we as Christians are morally obligated to resist him and his brother bishops to correct him (though formal schism is not an option).


The 2/3 majority vote of episcopal conferences do not have binding force on Latin bishops (unlike that of a Synod in Oriental and Eastern Churches). The decree of an episcopal conference is binding on a particular diocese only if its bishop allows it for his diocese. The reason you might think this is the case is because V2, an Ecum Council, had granted a very concise and unique executive power to episcopal conferences in one, specific area of the liturgy - to determine whether the TLM or NO would become the norm in the country. But apart from that, Latin episcopal conferences generally and normally do not have the same plenary, executive power as Eastern/Oriental Synods on any other matter. So the statement "all is done..." is not a true statement about the episcopal conference.


More like a presidency than a monarchy.

No evidence has been given of the weakness of the bishops' conferences (unless one counts the fact that they have no authority over individual bishops a weakness). A preference for the Latin Mass is certainly no proof of the weakness of the episcopal conference. The abuses in the Liturgy are not the fault of the episcopal conferences; rather, the abuses that occurred resulted from a contradiction of the standards set by episcopal conferences. The real weakness is the schismatic spirit inspired by the SSPX.


Because it is true. An Ecum Council granted episcopal conferences the authority it now has regarding the Mass. It is a delegated authority, not an inherent one.

You seem unaware that, aside from a general determination of the standard Liturgy to be used in the country (TLM or NO), and whether the country can have married priests, episcopal conferences ordinarily don't have executive power in any other matter (it may vary from country to country, according to custom).


On a matter of Church doctrine, why would you need to have a 2/3 vote? The 2/3 vote would be relevant for the type of discipline that must be applied in violation of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. On matters of the Church's doctrine itself, no Episcopal Conference or local Synod has the ultimate authority to judge it (only an Ecum Council or the divinely instituted College has such a prerogative).

The Pope will be involved if it is a matter of deposition. Otherwise, no (notwithstanding his own Metropolitan and Patriarchal Church).

That's the duty of the whole divinely-instituted College, not of the Pope alone.

The excesses of the superstars would likewise be curbed by the principle of Collegiality. Just as even the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops in an Ecum Council, so can even superstar bishops be corrected in the context of the local college of bishops (Episcopal Conference or Synod)

Not true. Those things exist in a diocese only because the local bishop allows them to exist in his diocese, not because the Episcopal Conference has the authority to impose them. Communion in the hand is not an abuse. The Lay Eucharistic ministry in itself is not an abuse - the excessive use of them is (which is what often happens).

That's rather stretching it. First, don't confuse Holy Orders with particular consecrated ministries. EMHC's are trained and consecrated for a particular purpose in the Latin Church. That in and of itself is not an abuse - it is their excessive and normative use that is the abuse. Second, ff the consecrated host should not touch an "un-consecrated" body, we should not be having Eucharist at all. In case you are thinking, "if EMHC's did not exist at all, we would not have these abuses," that is a fallacy -- similar to saying, "if the Mass did not exist at all, we would not have these abuses."

Not relevant, unless:
(1) these priests are overtly denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist;
(2) you are claiming that the seminaries are actually teaching what is contrary to the Church's doctrine (if so, prove it).

Which supports the principle of collegiality.

Where did V2 teach something contrary to St. Thomas Aquinas? Please cite the exact place.

That's not an exact assessment of the situation. The bishops are the supreme head of their diocese. The NO exists because most of the bishops wanted it there. The bishop has always had the authority to allow the TLM at particular places and particular times within his diocese- it is simply that the NO has remained the norm. But because of the schism of the SSPX, desire for the TLM eventually became equated with the spirit of schism. That is not the fault of the Catholic bishops or Episcopal Conferences, but of the SSPX. On a separate note, the abuses of the NO exist because of individual pastors of parishes, not because of the bishops. This highlights the active role of the laity in the life of the Church. It is their job, if their parish pastor is abusing the proper rubrics for the NO, to inform the bishop, so appropriate action may be taken. But extremists, instead of pleading for the proper rubrics, instead want to get rid of the Church's NO altogether. Neither is that the fault of the bishops or the Episcopal Conferences, but of a schismatic spirit (that desires to completely replace the NO, contrary to the decision of the individual bishops and the Episcopal Conference, besides) that needs to be humbly removed by the Traditionalists from among their ranks.

I don't know if you are a member of the SSPX or some other schismatic group, or a Traditionalist Catholic, but the idea of blaming the NO itself, or the Episcopal Conferences, for the abuses that have occurred is a wrongheaded approach to this matter, and cannot be seen by a local bishop as anything more than a schismatic spirit.

The mistake would be stating that Collegiality is "democracy." The principle of democracy can introduce novelty if the majority demands it. The principle of Collegiatlity (a principle established by Christ Himself), contrary to the democatic principle, is for the purpose of preserving the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Blessings

ok mardukm, have it your way. Be a part of the new one world pan-catholic church, if that is what you want. You just want to fight with me, and that sort of thing is detrimental to Faith.

Moderator, please note mardukm's disparagement of the SSPX, a completely legal order of priests in Communion with the Holy See.

The NO, by its very nature, is detrimental to the faith of a Catholic. It is the "mass" of Thomas Cranmer, and attacks the sacred priesthood, transubstantiation and the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice for sins, while giving the impression that the "people of God" need to be present for a Mass to be of any worth.

I will pray that you can overcome your modernism and your Americanism, but I will no longer discuss issues with one who casts aspersions on those who live by the Eternal Magesterium and not by the novelties of the "pastoral" council.

Dear Roman refugee,

Yes, the Roman Church is one big disaster on a number of fronts . . .

(Is the SSPX a legal order of priests in union with Rome? Since when did that happen? I thought talks with Rome broke down and even though they have valid sacraments, Catholics are not allowed to attend their Masses . . .).

But Marduk is no modernist. Does everyone who disagrees with you or me have to be a modernist or something like that?

Can't we engage in conversation without disparaging one another?

Let me understand your position here. You are against episcopal collegiality and wish to return to a more centralized ecclesial authority emanating from Rome. But, at the same time, you reject the "pastoral council" even though it was approved by Rome?

So who is being modernist here?

Ale