www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canon Law question

I agree with Matt. Canon Law is revisable and not infallible. People keep stating that no one can judge the Pope. But Vatican I contains a very understated clause which indicates that an Ecumenical Council can be convened according to the Apostolic Canon 34 wherein a genuine reconsideration of a Pope's decision (of course, not a decision ex cathedra in terms of faith and morals) can be made.

Vatican I states that appeal to an ecumenical council is not possible from a Pope's decision ONLY IF one regards the ecumenical Council as above the Pope as head bishop. In other words, if an ecumenical council is convened wherein the Pope is regarded as an indispensable member of the Council wherein he is involved in the judgment of his own acts, then that is completely valid according to Vatican I. What is not allowed is for a supposed ecumenical council to sit as judge over its head bishop. In ALL things, the head bishop must be involved in the deliberations of an ecumenical council, much more that it be considered ecumenical in the first place. This is Apostolic Canon 34 in action. The other option (to regard a council as above its head bishop without consideration of his input) is the heresy of conciliarism.

Thus there is hope even from the perspective of Vatican I. It is fruitless in discussions on unity for one party to focus so much on particular sections of doctrine and canon law. Participants should take into account the FULL breadth of Tradition to resolve issues.

Blessings,
Marduk

I too remain hopeful that Roman can reinterpret Vatican I so that it is less problematic ecumenically. That being said, as an Eastern Catholic I accept and follow the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

I would just like to add that the Oriental Orthodox Churches recently appealed to Apostolic Canon 34 in just the sense that I have described to protest the uncanonical expulsion of the Patriarch of Eriteria HH Antonios from his seat by a "synod" who met to sit in judgment over him.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Friends,

Well, this thread only gets better.

I must say that Vladyka Hesychios becomes even MORE erudite with each successive post - if that is possible!

In any event, I'll talk about why I accept Vatican I.

Rome is truly judged by no one. In matters of canons, faith and morals et alia, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est."

As a principle, I've no problem with it. Neither would St John Chrysostom and, of course, St Augustine. And neither would the Byzantine Patriarchs and Emperors of the early centuries fo the Church who seemed to require the role of a political referree in the person of the Bishop of Elder Rome. The superlatives with which that role is extolled by the Sixth Ecumenical Council are quite telling, no?

That Rome has jurisdiction over everyone - personally and as an organizational sociologist rather than a theologian, I must say that this second prerogative is a logical progression from the first one above.

If Rome is to have the power to intervene anywhere in the Church, it must have the jurisdiction outlined to do so. Without it, its power to save bad situations would be nil.

This was brought home to me in some letters to the editor of an Anglican paper I picked up during a garden tour (that ended in refreshments at an Anglican church hall).

As you know, the issue of women and gay bishops is topical within Anglicanism today.

And yet there were letters to the editor that said, quite emphatically, "Why aren't we in union with the Bishop of Rome yet? What's going on with our ecumenical commissions that they have not produced any fruit on this? If we were in union with Rome, we could have petitioned him to get involved (seeing as our own bishops have no will for action) and he would have responded with his extraordinary powers to fix this mess etc."

Yes, I had to rub my eyes when I read those comments from more than one parishioner!

Since the Forum seems also to be short on monarchists ( ), the issue of absolute power is one where just HAVING it is a way to ensure that one need not use or abuse it, unless extreme circumstances call for it.

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, that absolute power was exercised by the Emperor with the Patriarchs doing their best to keep apprised of his activities and being subservient to him (unless he fell into heresy, in which case the people themselves disobeyed him).

I find not one issue as defined by Vatican I to be offensive to either solid organizational logic, ecclesial praxis as exercised by the Church of the early centuries or sound reason.

And Vatican I was also a product of its age which affected the language that was used in the definitions.

Moreover, this does NOT mean that the jurisdictional power of the Papacy cannot be further developed, modified etc. Vatican II did affirm the right of the EC Particular Churches to govern themselves in union with the Pope. There are all sorts of amendments and developments (as Cardinal Newman, for example, affirmed to his Anglican friends who were frightened out of their wits by Vatican I) that can be made to the Papal Office and its exercise.

Again, definitions and ecclesiologies aside, we may say that, today, when His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow makes a decision, NO ONE within the ROC will judge him (and he cares not if anyone within Orthodoxy does either).

Not to mention the other ancient Patriarchates . . .

So an iron fist is an iron fist, no matter what kind of velvet glove envelopes it.

And frankly, one really does need an iron fist at the top, RC, Orthodox or what have you.

If you want democracy, go join the Democratic Party . . . .

If some wish to paint a picture of an overbearing papal autocrat, contrasted by Orthodox patriarchal "firsts among equals" and other "wimpish-sounding" epithets, you guys are out to lunch.

Just take a look at Vladyka Hesychios' avatar.

That's no wimp there either . . .

And if anyone has ever felt the discipline of the Administrator's hand here - please don't tell me he too is inspired by "first among equals" anything!

You have to be tough on trouble-makers.

And I too can be a trouble-maker (all right, the cat's really out of the bag now . . .)

And now I'll go pull up some weeds in the sun!

Ciao,

Alex PP Romanus

That simply isn't true. Patriarchs (including the Patriarch of Moscow) are subject to their synods. Look at what happened in Jerusalem recently.

In the past Popes were too, but that is now declared an impossibility.

Andrew

Dear brother Alex,

I think some people are just more comfortable with the idea that such a universal authority exists that can be appealed to in such dire circumstances (i.e., as the Anglicans find themselves in). I, for one, am one of those. Being in the management field, I appreciate your statements VERY much.

St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Basil ET AL - they lived in a time when their last resort was the bishop of Rome. It was Arianism vs. Catholic orthodoxy. In our pluralistic society, maybe Christians do not feel as threatened as in the past, so many do not see the need that the office of the papacy supplied during much of the era of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Scripture predicts that in the End of Days there will come a great apostasy. At that time, perhaps all Christians will come to see the need for the office of the papacy once again (I guess unless you're one of those Protestants who claim the papacy IS the apostasy), the many schisms will be healed, and the Church can meet her spouse as a truly spotless bride without any blemishes of schism.

I recently saw a movie and here is the pertinent scene:
A person who is hired to lead an arctic expedition says to a member of her party who she sees has a gun: "In all the years I've been on the ice, I've never seen a gun save anybody's life. Why do you have it?"
The person with the gun says: "I'd rather have it and not need it, than find that I need it, and not have it."

Blessings,
Marduk

One, Alexius Romanus I, PP;
two, mardukm;
three,Gordonius;
four, . . . ?

Who is next to be embraced, bear-hugged really, by this Latin Papist?

Amado

Dear brother Andrew,

If the Patriarch of Moscow is "subject to their synod" as a body without its head, if Patriarchs in the EO are generally "subject to their synods" as a body without its head, then there is something wrong there.

Speaking of the Moscow Patriarch, his decision to be more open to the Catholic Church through the Pope seems to be a unilateral decision, rather than a synodal one. This is a matter that will affect the entire ROC. Did he consult his Synod before making a public statement on the matter? He seems to have acted THROUGH his Synod, but surely the driving force behind the decision was his alone? Let's face it, head bishops are more independent than many seem to care to admit.

With regards to your last sentence on the papacy, did you read my first post on this page?

Blessings,
Marduk

The Russian Patriarch, like all others, is accountable to his synod. He can stand in judgment and be deposed by them. That is not a body without a head, but a head accountable to its body.

Andrew

My goodness brother Alex! The only compliment stronger than that one is to be called Jesuitical!

Let's not carry this too far now...

Michael:

That's hiting below the belt!

Amado

Dear brother Andrew,

Let us hope that a head bishop always consults with his brother bishops before taking any action and makes his decisions in accord with the body - of course not as a mere puppet figurehead of that body, but as an indispensable member with an indispensable input into the deliberations of that body. That is the practice of the papacy. And it is a wise practice, IMO.

Someone earlier had written something to the effect that if the papacy was the one-headed monster non-Catholic polemicists presume it is, then it is strange that the Pope needed a Council to dogmatize the doctrines over which Vatican I deliberated. I had never thought of that before. THANK YOU, whoever that was.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

The problem with our brother, Andrew, is that he seems to be leaving out the organizational dynamics of ecclesiology - and you have hit the nail on the head in this (and other) respects, sir!

The ecclesial theory is nice and ecclesiologists in both Churches seem to be willing to outdo one another in terms of idealizations of how the Church should be etc.

That is all very nice and very readable!

But the realities of running a Church are quite different and the sociology of organizations, which you know perfectly, sir, have a living dynamic all their own that differ very little from Church to Church.

I'm not saying that is bad. It is just the way it is.

Perhaps Rome is more overt in telling it like it is!

But Andrew is a great man, and I would definitely hire him as a head of any organization's communications department!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Vladyko Hesychios!

I would NEVER call you "Jesuitical!"

I once saw a TV discussion between a Catholic layman and a Jesuit priest.

At one point, the layman told the priest, "You are a good man, Father, despite the fact that you are a Jesuit . . ."

And in England, it was once against the law to be Catholic AND to be a Jesuit at the same time!

To found guilty of being both legally implied one could receive TWO death penalties!

I visited the shrine in London to the Catholic martyrs there and, in the basement, they have a gallows of the Tree of Tyburn from which they hung Catholics (three arms with a maximum of eight people capable of being hung at the same time from each arm!).

The altar is at the base of this gallows.

The nun who guided us showed a piece of blood-stained shirt from one of the martyrs and remarked, "See the high quality of the shirt's material? He wore his best shirt on the day of his death - he was going to heaven, you see . . ."

Kissing your right hand, Vladyko, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

It is only in very recent times that the laws against the Jesuits in Switzerland were dropped. I am not sure that was wise.