|
0 members (),
262
guests, and
26
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by djs:
It certainly was the ecclesiological model of the Alexandrian Church. I would very much like to know more about this. Are there any readily available resources on ecclesiological model of the early Alexandrian church? Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 |
When reading either of the Codes with reference to the authority of the Pope, the Patriarch and the bishop one must keep in mind that strong language is used because in many countries - including the USA - these Codes have a degree of standing in the civil courts (the nature of this degree of standing varies from country to country) and thus the Codes are written to protect the Church in that context. These paragraphs are not necessarily ecclesiological or theological definitions. Incognitus Canon law has the force of law. Canon law bins the soul in conscience, and we're required to accept it until a new revision comes out. God willing, a new revision of the Code will attempt to smooth over whatever "problems" this Code possesses. Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845 |
Dear Teen:
So if Cannon Law allows for indulgences again, then we are duty bound to accept it and say nothing?
I admire when someone so young is willing to accept authority - but laws exist to serve the people, not to serve the agenda of those who make the laws.
Yours,
hal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 |
Hal,
I'm sorry if I've offended. Indulgences are utilized as we speak in the Catholic Church, and always have been (well, at least for centuries upon centuries), so I don't quite understand your question.
Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695 |
Not being a Latin, I can't say if the Latin Code is a "work in progress" in the same sense, but the Eastern Code is certainly a "work in progress" not just in the sense that it (as with any corpus of nomokanons) is subject to ecclesiastical revision according to historico-social necessity.
The Eastern Code is very much a "work in progress" because in it's tone, style, structure and some of the it's content (e.g. the non-synodal style ecclesiology, it excessive ultramontanism) it stands rather significantly at odds with the spirit and trajectory such documents as Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint, the Instruzzione, etc. and indeed Orientalium Ecclesiarum.
Canon law is just that, it is not a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but less a Constitution. It does not trump an Ecumenical Council.
Indeed, given the Pope's own initiative with the other Patriarches to explore/develop/further the Church's understanding of the role of Petrine Papal primacy in the context of a Communion of Autonomous Churches (ecclesiae sui iuris), this articulation of what sounds like "mono-apostolism" strikes me as unfortunate and unconsistent with what I have come to understand as the mind of the Pope vis a vis Eastern Church. Unfortunately from my point of view, like significant portions of the Eastern Code, it looks to be something cut and pasted from the Latin Code.
E.g. the very styling of the See of Rome as the "Apostolic See", shows a shockingly limited ecclesiology (I'm presuming by "Apostolic See" the Code is not referring to L'viv [which claims to be an Apostolic See] or Jerusalem or any number of Eparchys east of Adriatic - including Ernakulam and Chennai (Madras)).
Herb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
The episcopal and metropolitan bishoprics were supervised and regulated by the shepherd and master entitled the Pope of Alexandria. The centralising and monarchic system of the Church of Alexandria was such that the Pope enjoyed "unlimited powers comparable to those of Caesar in politics" an echo of the pagan "chief priest of Alexandria and all Egypt" as Adolf Harnack quite correctly points out. According to a canon adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, the Bishop of Alexandria was ranked second after the Bishop of Rome. Within his own lands, all his bishops were regarded merely as his commissioners and all the rights of a metropolitan bishop were concentrated in his hands. The bishops under the primacy of Alexandria were not even entitled to resolve ecclesiastical matters in their areas of jurisdiction: only the Pope of Alexandria was recognised as having the right to settle such problems, he first Pope of Alexandria is taken to have been Heracles (for a 1ist of all the Bishops, Archibishops and Popes of Alexandria whose names have come down to us, see the Appendix at the end of this file). The Bishops of Alexandria right from the inception of the Church of Alexandria, however, used the title of Pope. As early as the fourth century, the Bishop of Alexandria also bore titles such as "Shepherd and Lord", "Most Blessed, Father", "Most Blessed Pope" (Athanasius), "Father of Fathers", "Father of Fathers and Chief Priests", "Christ's Locum Tenens", and "Judge of the World". In this way, the Archbishop of Alexandria assumed unlimited powers and his authority was absolute. In the third century, the Church of Alexandria became Mother Church of all the churches in Egypt and Africa, with its Bishop as their Great Shepherd. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council was quite explicit about this: "Let the ancient customs be kept up in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria 'has power over all these, since it is customary in the case of the Bishop in Rome, and likewise at Antioch and in the other provinces for the privileges to be preserved by the churches". and more at http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 271
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 271 |
I'll bet this thread goes to at least 20 pages before the end of the month.
Joe Prokopchak
archsinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Originally posted by djs: The episcopal and metropolitan bishoprics were supervised and regulated by the shepherd and master entitled the Pope of Alexandria. The centralising and monarchic system of the Church of Alexandria was such that the Pope enjoyed "unlimited powers comparable to those of Caesar in politics" an echo of the pagan "chief priest of Alexandria and all Egypt" as Adolf Harnack quite correctly points out. According to a canon adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, the Bishop of Alexandria was ranked second after the Bishop of Rome. Within his own lands, all his bishops were regarded merely as his commissioners and all the rights of a metropolitan bishop were concentrated in his hands. The bishops under the primacy of Alexandria were not even entitled to resolve ecclesiastical matters in their areas of jurisdiction: only the Pope of Alexandria was recognised as having the right to settle such problems, he first Pope of Alexandria is taken to have been Heracles (for a 1ist of all the Bishops, Archibishops and Popes of Alexandria whose names have come down to us, see the Appendix at the end of this file). The Bishops of Alexandria right from the inception of the Church of Alexandria, however, used the title of Pope. As early as the fourth century, the Bishop of Alexandria also bore titles such as "Shepherd and Lord", "Most Blessed, Father", "Most Blessed Pope" (Athanasius), "Father of Fathers", "Father of Fathers and Chief Priests", "Christ's Locum Tenens", and "Judge of the World". In this way, the Archbishop of Alexandria assumed unlimited powers and his authority was absolute. In the third century, the Church of Alexandria became Mother Church of all the churches in Egypt and Africa, with its Bishop as their Great Shepherd. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council was quite explicit about this: "Let the ancient customs be kept up in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria 'has power over all these, since it is customary in the case of the Bishop in Rome, and likewise at Antioch and in the other provinces for the privileges to be preserved by the churches".
http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm Do the Alexandrian Orthodox believe that their Patriarch (Pope) enjoys Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility as does the Roman Pontiff?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695 |
If indeed, as has been posted, in the Coptic Church, the Pope (of Alexandria) has absolute power in his Patriarchate, I guess I would comment that:
1. that is not what I understand to be a Byzantine ecclesiology and an Eastern Code (if one must a 1 Code for the 21 or so Eastern Churches) should reflect that diversity;
2. that power only pertains to his own Patriarchate and it does not govern the relationship between various Patriarchs, which is inter alia what I find makes the Eastern Code a "work in progress";
(what powers the other Pope (Rome) has over his patriarchate and how he uses such power is none of my business and is an affair between the Latins themselves and their hierarchs;
and finally
3. it would be VERY interesting if the Eastern Code said that the Pope (Coptic, that is) has immediate, universal jurisdiction in the Churches of other Patriarchates, esp. immediate and universal jurisdiction in the Latin Church!
Herb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
The passage I posted is from the website of the Greek ORthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria; the monarchial mode is pre-Chalcedonian. I don't know about the constitutional structure of the Coptic Orthodox Church, in particular, how this imperial mode has transformed over many centuries. The point of the post is in no way to tout this as some inspirational model. It is merely to point out that the ideas that seem to be taken for granted about the great collegiality in the good ole days seem to be undisciplined by available facts. I think much could be added along these lines about de facto Byzantine ecclesiology, if the history of the EP were better appreciated. Do the Alexandrian Orthodox believe that their Patriarch (Pope) enjoys Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility as does the Roman Pontiff? Although unrelated to my posts, the questions are interesting. If we suppose that Alexandrians still follow this same model, in which there is effectively only one bishop, and further assume the infallibility of the church, then the infallibility of their Pope is immediately inferrable whether it is explicitly dogmatized or not. As to supremacy yes and no: Yes within the Patriarchate, that's the point of what is being said in the quote. But the article also indicates that Alexandria was "second" to Rome. that is not what I understand to be a Byzantine ecclesiology What exactly is your understanding based on?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Someone wrote earlier today that "Canon law bins the soul". I've suspected this for years - perhaps that explains my lack of enthusiasm for canon law. I really have no wish to have my soul binned, thanks. Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 110 |
Everyone:
I think we should let the Holy Father speak on behalf the new Eastern Code on the important issue of unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
In the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones, here is paragraph #7 the Holy Father wrote in regards ecumenism:
-------------------------------------------------
With regard to the whole question of the ecumenical movement, which has been set in motion by the Holy Spirit for the realization of the perfect unity of the entire Church of Christ, the new Code is not at all an obstacle, but rather a great help. Indeed, this Code protects that fundamental right of the human person, namely, of professing the faith in whatever their rite, drawn frequently from their very mother's womb, which is the rule of all "ecumenism." Nor should we neglect that the Eastern Catholic Churches, discharging the tranquility of order desired by the Second Vatican Council, "are to flourish and fulfill their role entrusted to them with a new apostolic vigor" (Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 1). Thus it happens that the canons of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches must have the same firmness as the laws of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church, that is, that they remain in force until abrogated or changed by the supreme authority of the Church for just reasons. The most serious of those reasons is the full communion of all the Eastern Churches with the Catholic Church, in addition to being most in accord with the desire of our Saviour Jesus Christ himself.
-------------------------------------------------
God bless,
Rony
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106 |
Originally posted by Herbigny:
Canon law is just that, it is not a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but less a Constitution. It does not trump an Ecumenical Council.
....
E.g. the very styling of the See of Rome as the "Apostolic See", shows a shockingly limited ecclesiology...
Herb I thought Vatican II explicitly stated that the Pope had full, universal, and immediate jurisdiction over the entire universal church. I wonder if what is intended is to say *THE* Apostolic See (pre-eminently, if you will) to emphasize it's the greatest.
"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106 |
Originally posted by Halychanyn:
...
Still, I believe JPII has asked the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome to help the Catholic church re-define the role of the Papacy. This is also worth remembering in these discussions.
Yours,
hal Is the Pope's request an invitation to change how his office does business on a day-to-day basis rather than an invitation to change the theological understanding of the priviliges of the papacy? What I mean is that I'm guessing the Orthodox would welcome a change in how the papacy usually functions but would still insist on a change in theology and/or the way the west sees the rights of the pope to function if he wants to do so. I saw JP2's invitation as one to change the day-to-day way the papacy does business but not one to change the Catholic church's theological understanding of the pope's authority. I'm not pontificating, by the way!  I'm actually stating how it seemed to me but also asking for how you folks saw this invitation... since I'm no expert by any, any means.
"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
Not to deny that there is more than one "Apostolic See," but the application of "the Apostolic See" to the See of Rome dates from the first millennium Church.
I would add that I think the current Eastern Code should be viewed as an interim document. To think that it could be changed to reflect the "first among equals" ecclesiology would not be an accurate reflection of the first millennium Church IMO.
David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
