Answering a question by a question: do you not realize that in the early Church encyclicals were not letters from the Pope of Rome imposing some doctrinal formulation or canonical judgement but were rather informational attempts on the part of local bishops to garner support from brother bishops on disputed key issues of the day. As the old Virginia Slims commercial had it, "We've come a long way, baby!" Yes, unfortunately in the wrong direction! The end result: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est!" Or as we perverse Orientals used to mutter, "Roma locuta est; causa PERDITA est!"
Last edited by Ot'ets Nastoiatel'; 09/25/1404:43 AM.
In an age when it was rather difficult to bring bishops from all corners of the earth together, that was a practical way of sounding the opinion of the Church on matters of universal import. But: (1) that was not the only way. At other times, an Ecumenical Council was called, which was the formal voice of the Church universal, not simply a gathering of individuals expressing their own mere opinions on matters, but a gathering of individuals intended to express the will of the Church as a whole. Afterwards, formal decrees were passed with the intention of having jurisdictional force everywhere; (2) today is not yesterday. It is easier today for bishops from around the globe to gather together than during the time of the early Church. There is no reason the Church cannot make use of the better modes of transportation offered by today's technology in order to come together in synods or councils. The method you mention used by the early Church serves the exact, same purpose as the extraordinary synod.
The question before us is whether the head bishop of the Church universal can be the voice of the Church in exceptional circumstances. According to the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus, as well as the current canons of the Catholic Church, the Pope uses his unique personal authority as primate only when called upon by the Church to do so (a limitation which was opposed by the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists of V1 and of today). It is not for him to decide to act unilaterally in whatever he pleases, but for him to decide whether to RESPOND to the Church's request for his help in a personal or collegial manner.
It is possible that in a reunited Church, the Pope of Rome will never issue another ex cathedra decree, since most bishops will prefer the mode of the Ecum Council (which is the normative means according to the Relatio of Bishop Gasser anyway). Since no ex cathedra decree has ever been issued unilaterally, there is no reason to believe it ever will be done that way. I wonder, however, if there cannot be room for the exercise of such a personal prerogative (i.e., to represent the Church) on, for example, canonical matters - of course, after due consultation with his brother bishops. I can't imagine the Church would want to call together an Ecumenical Council for every little thing concerning the Church universal!
Blessings
Originally Posted by Ot'ets Nastoiatel'
Answering a question by a question: do you not realize that in the early Church encyclicals were not letters from the Pope of Rome imposing some doctrinal formulation or canonical judgement but were rather informational attempts on the part of local bishops to garner support from brother bishops on disputed key issues of the day. As the old Virginia Slims commercial had it, "We've come a long way, baby!" Yes, unfortunately in the wrong direction! The end result: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est!" Or as we perverse Orientals used to mutter, "Roma locuta est; causa PERDITA est!"
Can someone please offer a link to Cardinal Kaspar's original statements on the matter?
Having translated to the CC from the Coptic Orthodox Church, the topic at issue has a particular relevance for me -- which I will reveal once I read Cardinal Kaspar's original statements.
This is not, however, as Otets suggests, "ultramontanism" in play. The Pope is not sitting in an ivory tower, isolated from the world, promulgating decrees. He consults with the cardinals, he convenes synods, etc...and THEN promulgates decrees on behalf of the Church universal.
This is not, however, as Otets suggests, "ultramontanism" in play. The Pope is not sitting in an ivory tower, isolated from the world, promulgating decrees. He consults with the cardinals, he convenes synods, etc...and THEN promulgates decrees on behalf of the Church universal.
This is not, however, as Otets suggests, "ultramontanism" in play. The Pope is not sitting in an ivory tower, isolated from the world, promulgating decrees. He consults with the cardinals, he convenes synods, etc...and THEN promulgates decrees on behalf of the Church universal.
That's not ultramontanist?
Perhaps you failed to catch brother Tyler's nuance when he put "ultramontanism" in quotes. Many (perhaps most) fail to distinguish between Ultramontanism (the official High Petrine position of V1) and NEO-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view held by the SSPX and like-minded Catholics).
Ultramontanism asserts that the Pope (1) MUST be in agreement with all the orthodox bishops of the Church when he makes a decree; (2) must consult with his brother bishops out of a practical and normative, though not dogmatic, necessity.
In distinction, NEO-ultramontanism asserts that the Pope (1) does not need to be in agreement with any bishop when he makes a decree; (2) does not even need to consult with his brother bishops at all.
Brother Tyler did affirm the ultramontanist, not the NEO-ultramontanist, position. I believe he put "ultramontanism" in quotes because he suspected that brother Otets was mistaking ultramontanism for NEO-ultramontanism.
Sandro Magister, a prolific and well-renowned traditional Catholic writer, has provided an article from Fr. Nicola Bux, described as "an expert on the liturgy and a professor at the theological faculty of Bari, is a consultant for the congregation for the divine worship and for the causes of saints."
I had never met a divorced and remarried person when I was in the COC. However, I do know that in the rite for second marriages, the traditional blessing over the marriage is replaced by a prayer for forgiveness.
Blessings
P.S. I hope someone can provide me a link to Kaspar's original statements.
Perhaps we may also mention how modern-day Roman Catholicism "annuls" a marriage, even one with children, so that the people involved may get married again sacramentally in the Church.
Is this not a Catholic form of divorce and remarriage?
At least the Orthodox are being honest about their praxis in this area . . .
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
