www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Papal Authority

Dear Mardukm,

The issue of papal jurisdiction is one that truly does mean the Pope has the power to involve himself in the affairs of any local or Paricular Church at any time.

That is clearly what Vatican I has defined and how that power has been interpreted - even long before Vatican I and after 1054.

When EC's look at papal jurisdiction - they often cringe.

And why?

It is because we have our own bad experiences with this, especially through RC bishops who have been our de facto overlords in history and also through the way the Vatican controls . . .I mean "deals" with our internal affairs.

The point here is not how Rome deals with matters within its own Latin Patriarchate. Everyone can agree that Rome may adopt its own style of governance - as do ORthodox Patriarchates as well.

The point here is what the relationship between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches in communion with it has been, is and can be.

And how could we understand "Roman interference?"

One way is when Rome, via its Apostolic Nuncio, tries to control the episcopal selection process, as happened in my Eparchy last year.

The Patriarch and his Synod chose a successor here.

Rome, via its Apostolic Nuncio, showed up at the consecration and the AN made public statements to the effect that he, and he alone, was responsible for selecting the bishop etc.

And this after the Patriarch's sermon where HE said the bishop was chosen by his Synod . . .

People were shaking their heads!

And for the UGCC, the LARGEST EC Church that there is, to have to endure the continuing refusal by Rome to recognize its Patriarchate after everything that church went through and as a result of Vatican politics with the East (I thought the Vatican learned its lesson with that or should have by now) - anyway, you get my meaning.

We have many martyrs for loyalty to Rome, so please do not question that. Please do join us in questioning the wisdom of the Vatican.

The definition of Vatican I, given above, can still be "worked on" and qualified without doing damage to the definition itself - I think we can all agree on this after reflecting on the wording of the definition.

The point is also that Orthodox, and even Western Protestants look to Rome's jurisdictional relationship with Eastern Catholics as a measure of Rome's sincerity in wanting to be open to other forms of ecclesial governance.

There have been times during ecumenical conferences, and I witnessed two myself, when the issue of Eastern Catholics was brought up within the context of ecclesial relationships with Rome.

At one time, an Anglican scholar stood up and in a very dismissory tone of voice said, "Yes, we know what happened to the Eastern Catholics . . ."

Happily, our UGCC Patriarch Lubomyr and his Patriarchal Synod are working on this matter and are making, I believe, significant contributions to this area.

Patriarch Lubomyr referred to the Eastern Churches' relationship to Rome as one of "Eucharistic Communion with Rome" and called it an important part of an overall "ecumenical Orthodoxy."

Perhaps that is too much for many Orthodox to swallow, but, from the Catholic side, these are quite revolutionary statements.

Alex

Shalom Alekeh Alex,

I don't think your post responds to my point at all.

I am not saying the Roman Church or anyone else was wrong to condemn Honorius. I speaking to what they condemned him for which was omission rather than commission. Hence, the condemnation of Honorius cannot float as an argument against papal infallibility. It's a horse that won't run.

Re: Bellarmine--

His words are not dogma but rather theological speculation. His position on papal heresy was never accepted by the Church, and seems to be excluded by the solemn definitions of the First Vatican Ecumenical Council. By canonizing him, the Church was NOT endorsing his every opinion or any of his opinions for that matter.

LT

Alex and LT,

I'm interested to know - did subsequent Popes say "we anathematize Honorius the heretic", or did they simply say "we anathematize Honorius", or "we anathematize Honorius ---" qualified by what they anathematized him for?

With regards to the general topic, if it is as you say Alex, I certainly understand and accept the Eastern grievance against it. It seems however that the current western Patriarch has more respect for his Eastern brethren than most; and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, most, if not all, of the western Patriarchs in the 20th century had the same respect.

But what the Church needs, what the Eastern churches require is more than just the good will and respect of the reigning Pope of Rome. What the Church needs if it is to be united is a guarantee that the current respect displayed to the East will be dogmatized (i.e., always will be the case). May I offer the following suggestion:

Accept the dogmatic notion that the Pope can affect the business of any See at any time.

Restrict that action, however, by an appeal to the equally dogmatic notion that the Pope is responsible for the unity of the Church. Since the issue of jurisdiction is a cherished notion in the East, the pope of Rome must respect jurisdiction if he is to fulfill his obligation as watchdog of ecclesiastical unity.

This suggestion might conceivably be regarded as a valid development of doctrine, since it is working off of a dogmatic premise that is already contained in the Vatican I decree. The restriction is not merely canonical. Since it preserves unity, which is itself a dogmatic tenet of the Vatican I decree, then it has moral/theological standing, and would thus present the guarantee that Eastern Christians desire and require.

I hope I can get input from Western Catholics here regarding my suggestion (aside from Alex (et al), of course).

Having said all that, I do want to question whether "immediate" is interpreted as Alex suggested. I read on another message board that German theologians on the heels of Vatican I presented to the Pope of Rome a treatise on how the jurisdictional prerogative of the Roman bishop is to be exercised. It basically limited its exercise in cases of emergency and in appellate cases. If the person who posted it is correct, the Pope at Vatican I apparently agreed to the definition, though informally. Now, if there can be these two seemingly opposite views of the term "immediate" ("anytime" vs. "emergency and appellate", this latter basically interpreting "immedate" as Memo understands it) from the same legislative body, then here is a chance for development to occur. There is hope.

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Marduk

P.S.

Alex, your relation of the incident regarding the consecration reminds me of the debacles that occurred during the Meletian schism and the 1054 event. Some Roman cleric with an overblown sense of importance, without his bishop's (the Pope's) explicit approval, takes it upon himself to make statements and decisions that are divisive. (To be fair, the Easterns did not react in an all too Christian manner either).

Dear LT,

I think Alex's point may have been that one can hold the view that Bellarmine proposed without breaking communion with the See of Peter. (Sorry to presume to know your thoughts, Alex)

Interestingly, the canon quoted by Jason does not address what to do when the Pope begins to teach heresy, privately. So perhaps it is a loophole in the decree. In fact, I don't recall Vatican I ever addressing the issue of what may occur if the pope is a heretic privately. Perhaps there is room for development here. More hope, once again.

Blessings,

Marduk

You have a misunderstanding of what and how the terms heritic and hertical are properly used.

Error and heretical - are two diffrent things.

A doctrine of teaching - alone - cannot be hertical - but it may be error - but not hertical untill certain cannon steps are followed.

Only the church has the power to declare someone a heretic and some doctrine he is promulgating as hertical.

It is a condition of the will - in defiance - and not a condition of doctrinal error. It can only be declared upon one who - having known the proper doctrine now kowingly and willingly corrupts that doctrine.

Only members of the Church can be declared heretics and the doctrine he is promulgating is hertical because of its direct association - with him as his teaching.

The church must follow many steps (laid out in cannon) before it may command the teacher to cease teaching what he is teaching. Only if he refuse to cease - can it then go to the next step of having him and his teaching - declared heretic and heretical. There are many safty measures along the way to that the church does not pronounce heretic on someone who is simply in error, or simply mistaken, or had just said things wrong, or was under mental strain, or political pressure, etc.. etc..

The very first condition that must be meet is that the person and his teaching - must be causing - great harm to the church.

In fact (hehe) the Pope himself must sign-off on any declaration of anyone to heretic or his teaching be heretical.

When indivdual churches or bishops throw around the accusations of heresy or call someone hertical - it is essentially - meaningless. It is opinion with no offcial church authority or connonacal backing.

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnhrsy.htm

This is the way I understand it. I am not an authority.
-ray

Slava Isusu Christu!

This discussion reminds me of when Salafi Muslims talk about the first three generations after the Prophet Muhammed:) I suppose we are akin to the Sufis and the Orthodox are like the Salafi. We believe in development of doctrine, and use "development-praxis" oftentimes tempered without the Patristic sense; and the Orthodox, especially "Traditional" Orthodox have denied in some theological circles that devolopment has occured, after a certain idealized historical period, or continues to occur in the Church. Many times this has lead its adherants to believe that the Church no longer has the authority to change matters of liturgy and government according to the exigencies of the times.

Our main issue is whether not God acts immediately by His Spirit in the Church to guide it or whether he has granted the early generations the pleroma of inspiration and gnosis and left us to only maintain what they have planted--not that that is necessarily a black and white issue. But the point is clear: Rome believes and uses the charism of living, immanent, and actual authority to move the organism of the Church through the murky waters of history (Vatican II); the Orthodox Church has not developed a doctrine that would give their hierarchs the actual juridicial ability to break the Church out of a form of historical idolatry. Even using extreme Sobornost paradigms it is difficult for Orthodox to image Orthodoxy outside of a Byzantine-context (i.e. the scandals over the Western Rite and Evangelical Orthodox Churches)

Catholics on the other hand, in repudiating the past, have bitten off the causative force that gives the Pope juridical, plenary, and full authority (i.e. Trent) or even a patristic sign of Rome's "authentic" position. In other words: Tradition without development is a dead road and a lawgiver who disregards the canonical sources of the past and the Tradition has lost or will loose full authority. So the Eastern and Western Churches, in many ways, are irregular and at the most illicit; regardless of Rite and so-called preservation of Tradition, through the Schisms, our Churches have placed themselves in some degree outside of what would be considered the pleroma of the Church; that is what the "subsistit in" interpretation of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" is all about in Lumen Gentium and the CCC. This irregular status is scandalous, grave, and is a necrotic reality in today's Apostolic Churches.

What needs to be done is a deconstruction of the political foundations of titles in the Church, whether given by Emperor or Pontiff, and re-image the notion of Pariarchate and gradations of honor amongst, firstly, the original historic Patriarchates, and then the others (This was partly attempted by Paul VI). Surely, it can no longer be supported that the Church, a Divine Institution, must be harlot with the state and model her society and ritual after the Roman/Byzantine Court. Let us keep praying and working toward this reconfiguration and unity of the Churches.

In Christ,

Robert

Alex�

I have heard you allude to this story before - but I seem to understand it better now. If what you say is true and not a misunderstanding of what took place - then it does seem like an injustice - if the sucessor was refused by the nuncio - was he?

Can I ask - is there a possibility that he was being misunderstood? - assuming that you are going to say �no possibility� - than I wonder what ecclesiastical right he felt he had? Does such a right exist? Somehow - I would think not. Isn�t it traditional that your Synod do the appointment and the Pope approve it as a matter of ceremony or something like that? Where does the nuncio come into play as more than a message and representative? Perhaps the successor was publicly named without getting the �stamp of approval� from the Papal office before going public?

In my effort to always look for misunderstanding to be the major cause of troubles - and not bad intentions� if the successor was publicly announced before the Pope was allowed to ceremonially approve - would not that have been a breach of cannon? And unintentionally put the nuncio and Pope into a very awkward position?

Since he is the nuncio - has the Pope himself agreed with the position that the nuncio took?

Was the sucessor accepted and the nuncio's speach just a bit too self-grandising of the nuncio's role of approval?

Just asking.

-ray

Ray,

I'll leave it to Alex to discuss the specifics of this situation, but as to the specifics of approving appointments, the process as it attends is fairly clear-cut.

In filling hierarchical vacancies in the diaspora (outside the historical bounds of a Church's presiding or primary hierarch), the Synods of Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches sui iuris propose a list of three names to Rome. The Pope approves one of the three as the successor to the See in question (or withholds approval of any, if he so chooses). Unfortunately, his decision is not merely ceremonial or a matter of course and, in some instances, has been withheld for protracted periods of time.

Historically, the opinions of apostolic nuncios and apostolic delegates as to those candidates known to them have carried considerable weight with Rome in its decision whether to grant approval of a candidate.

Many years,

Neil

You explained it well.

I see.

So it seems that perhaps procedure was not followed. Or perhaps it was.

This is not biblical study - so I am at a loss to understand much of these cannons and such.

Alex... there is no need to give details... I think I would still be lost if you did, anyway. As always, my intentions and prayers are for the situation.

-ray

In many places in the first millenium East, no doubt the local bishop and certainly the local clergy did not have a clue as to who the Pope of Rome was. Furthermore, according to Orthodox Eucharistic Theology, that fact didn't matter. Because that bishop united with the clergy and people of God in his diocese constituted the Orthodox Catholic Church in its fullness (ecclesia). His unity with all the other Orthodox bishops transcended time and space by the Body and Blood of the Godman through the power of the All Holy Spirit and untimately to the Glory of Our Heavenly Father!
Christ Is Among Us!
Three Cents

Dear All,

There has been discussion of Vatican I and the dogmatic/doctrinal status of its teachigs. The same issues were dealt with about a year ago.

I found some information then that may be relevant to the discussion underway. Asking your indulgence, I am reposting most of what I found then. A poster asked then about the status of the teaching on Papal Primacy: he asked if it was doctrine or dogma.

Here is the greater part of that posting:

"I'm not sure that this is what you are asking about, but there is a good entry on Papal Primacy (Primacy, Papal) by Jean- M.R. Tillard in the The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pages 1051 - 1053. It discusses primacy and places primacy as treated by Vatican I in the Context of primacy and collegiality as treated by Vatican II. It does indicate that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is that ...'the Bishop of Rome has a jurisdiction that is not delegated (it is ordinary) and can be exercised directly for the whole Church without having to go through an intermediate body (it is immediate). This power is episcopal, given in the sacramental grace of episcopacy' (pp. 1052-1053).

The author of the article also points out that, 'Vatican I teaches that other bishops are not the vicars of the Bishop of Rome, and no detriment may be done to the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the bishops in their own local churches (DS 3061). Vatican II adds that in his local church each bishop is 'vicar of Christ' (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, n. 27) and that the power of jurisdiction he possesses in this local church is given through his sacramental ordination and not throught the Bishop of Rome.'

So, it seems that it is safe to assume that the doctrine of the Catholic Church about Papal Primacy is as you thought. As presented in the article, there are many rich nuances in its meaning and its application.

If Vatican I is indeed a true Ecumenical Council, it appears that it is dogma also. But as Alex points out infallibility and primacy were discussed in basically juridical terms by the Fathers of Vatican I. The fact that the same issues were discussed in pastoral and collegial terms by the Fathers of Vatican II suggests that the doctrinal understanding of the dogma is capable of further development.

In short, the discussion has not been completed. If it had, it doesn't seem reasonable for Pope John Paul II to invite brother patriarchs and bishops and the faithful to find ways that the role of the Pope would serve in the life of the Churches. Surely this indicates that the understanding of infallibility and jurisdiction are open for further clarification that will enrich those charisms of the college of bishops and the Pope with insights as yet not declared."

As I said then, I hope that this helps further the dialogue.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Thank you for the definition you posted on "immediate." I am wondering if this is a personal opinion of a theologian, or this is the way it is suppose to be understood by the Catholic Church. If the latter, then there is indeed hope for development on the issue, since the Vatican I decree is not too clear on it.

Blessings,

Marduk

we need a board 'FAQ' posting. Some where - where some of the often repeated major issues can be referenced. And quick reference to a few things often misunderstood.

-ray

Article 1: The Roman Pontiff

Canon 331 - The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Let's look at this canon and see what it means.
The first point that really struck me was the term "power in the Church". The service of the Petrine ministry as exercised, is indeed that, namely a service. It is in the Church (humble) service, not "over" the Church.
It is also said of the Pope "in virtue of his office" (manus) not in his person.

1. What is this power to be used for? "Potestas" Canon law derives the extensive fullness of power of the Petrine office from the will and mission of Jesus and the function of that Petrine office, namely, "to guarantee the unity of the faith and the Church"
The pope "possesses supreme, full and immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely."
Supreme Power seems to simply be a recogintion in the Church of the first mellinium of Rome as the final court of appeals. In other words there is no appeal against a papal judgement or decree.

2.How is it to be used?
"Immediate" means that the pope can (not has to) intervene directly on all levels of ecclesial jurisdiction. Such papal power should be conceived of and employed to stregthen and protect the power of of the bishops in their particular churches as well as the rights of the faithful. Mardukm this is just as you cited in Rome protecting the right of the Seeof Alexandria.

Any observations or comments?

Stephanos I