|
0 members (),
528
guests, and
127
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,640
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99 |
Marduk:
Christ is Risen!!
This thread probably should be in the "Christian East and West" section, but it's been here so I'll not move it. I will close it if there is no more to be said about the original topic.
The appropriate place for the thread I suggested should be opened in the "Christian East and West" section.
Bob
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
]
No. While the Pope has full and ordinary authority at the same time, he cannot exercise it at the same time so as to impede the divinely appointed jurisdiction of the local bishop. To use an infamous example, it is not within the Pope's authority to demand that an Oriental or Eastern hierarch replace his local Church's Mass or Divine Liturgy with the Novus Ordo. That is why our canons state that even though the Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in any diocese, it is only the local bishop who has proper, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction in the that local diocese. Sorry to say, but I'm not buying that. Pope Benedict's motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, impeded the ability of local bishops to determine whether the Tridentine Mass should be served within their dioceses. Do you contend that this was an abuse of papal power, or that the Latins somehow have misinterpreted Summorum Pontificum? Did the MPs union with ROCOR impede OCAs jurisdiction? Did ACROD impede OCA? Was it an abuse of power, or justified for the good of the faithful?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
To answer Michael's question, I would assert that it was through the exercise of canonical 'ekonomia' and justified for the good of the faithful that the canonical anamolies you mention were justified. A strict reading of Orthodox canons (I will not say 'canon law' as we do not have a 'systemitized' approach to the canons as those in the west are familiar with) or 'akrivia' as it is called would see the ROCOR reunion and the existence of the MP's Patriarchal diocese in North America as impeding the OCA's jurisdiction. At the time of ACROD's formation, the predecessor to the OCA, the Metropolia, was viewed as uncanonical as the former Russian Mission was in turmoil following the Revolution and continuing at least through the beginning of the Cold War. Hence, the EP at least, would not have seen the ACROD's creation under the EP's omophorion as impeding any canonical jurisdiction.
Of course my answer does beg the question. Even we 'disorganized' Orthodox recognize the odd/un/non canonical situation in the so-called 'diaspora.' Hence, the so-called Assemblies of Canonical Bishops across the disapora were created and tasked with coming up with a solution to these situations.
Check with my son on his fiftieth anniversary of ordination in 2064 to see how that is coming along. (Yes, I am that cynical about the process. But...)
Last edited by DMD; 05/15/14 05:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
To answer Michael's question, I would assert that it was through the exercise of canonical 'ekonomia' and justified for the good of the faithful that the canonical anamolies you mention were justified. A strict reading of Orthodox canons (I will not say 'canon law' as we do not have a 'systemitized' approach to the canons as those in the west are familiar with) or 'akrivia' as it is called would see the ROCOR reunion and the existence of the MP's Patriarchal diocese in North America as impeding the OCA's jurisdiction. At the time of ACROD's formation, the predecessor to the OCA, the Metropolia, was viewed as uncanonical as the former Russian Mission was in turmoil following the Revolution and continuing at least through the beginning of the Cold War. Hence, the EP at least, would not have seen the ACROD's creation under the EP's omophorion as impeding any canonical jurisdiction.
Of course my answer does beg the question. Even we 'disorganized' Orthodox recognize the odd/un/non canonical situation in the so-called 'diaspora.' Hence, the so-called Assemblies of Canonical Bishops across the disapora were created and tasked with coming up with a solution to these situations.
Check with my son on his fiftieth anniversary of ordination in 2064 to see how that is coming along. (Yes, I am that cynical about the process. But...) Thanks for the reply DMD. Exercising my personal 'ekonomia', I appreciate the situation and its difficulties and recognize that some solution had to happen for the good of the Church. I extend that same 'ekonomia' toward the Papal solution - which, although using slightly different means, are pointed toward the same end.
|
|
|
|
|
