www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West CCEC on the Supreme Authority of the Church

Halychanyn:

If you go to this website:
http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Look under the following:

Questions related to worship and ritual

Then click on the following:

W-4. Why is it that we pray for the dead?
What is the Eastern view of Indulgences?

Bishop John Elya of the Melkite Byzantine Catholic Church answers a question about indulgences.

God bless,

Rony

Amado Guerrero:

Thanks for pointing that out. The Latin Church Code of Canon Law is available online via http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/

God bless,

Rony

Eric:

It did.

You can read the following from Vatican II's document Lumen Gentium (second paragraph of section 22):

--------------------------------------------------
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.
-------------------------------------------------

God bless,

Rony

Incognitus,

Canon Law binds the soul in conscience (i.e., the conscience of the soul), and I can't speak to your reluctance to accept this. I didn't make it up.

Go here: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/canon.htm and scroll about half way down to get a general overview of Canon Law and its force.

Logos Teen

Incognitus,

I've just been alerted via private message by another helpful incognito of your play on words. I didn't notice your "binned" joke; must've misread it. Kinda spoiled the desired effect, didn't I? Sorry!

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen - we are all subject to the occasional slip of the keyboard, and once in a while the results can be amusing.
But more seriously - there is no question that canon law "binds" in the external forum (albeit with certain restrictions and mitigations which I won't go into now). Whether - and how - it binds in conscience is a far different question.
Another turn of phrase puzzles me. You refer to the conscience of the soul. This seems to imply that there is some additional sort of conscience functioning for the human person. But since conscience is a moral faculty, and is certainly not subject to physiology, I'm at a loss to understand how this could be or what it might mean. But then, I'm neither a canonist nor a moral theologian, and I have no ambition to be either one. Incognitus

Dear Eric:

You say:

I submit that you confuse the issue of "theology" with the inevitable politics that will find their way into any instutution run by humans - inlcuding the Church.

From where I humbly sit, the issue of whether or not the Pope is the eccesiastical emperor over us all is a political issue, not one that deals with the dogmatic truths of the Faith as set forth by the Ecumenical Councils.

The Church would continue to exist if the Pope agreed to communion with the Orthodox without their yielding any of their power to him. Put another way, it is not heresy to say that the Roman Patriarch is just that - the Roman Patriarch who should not meddle in the affairs of Churches properly belonging to another Patriarch.

Therefore, "theology" has nothing whatsoever to do with the level of authority or jurisdiction granted to the Bishop of Rome.

As for what JPII meant, that's a matter of personal interpretation. But if the office of the Pope is serious about ecumenism, then it must change its Roman-empire model of governance if the cause is to go anywhere.


Yours,

hal

I understand that there is a new 'edition' of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Someone had loaned me a copy of the first 'edition' because I wanted to read TITLE XII, the chapter on monastics, monasteries, etc. But neither 'edition' appears to be on line anywhere.

Perhaps -- does anyone know if the new 'edition' has any changes or additions in TITLE XII -- on monastic life?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Dear Friends,

With respect to the Pope of Alexandria, let us remember that we are talking mainly about the Coptic Pope - not the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria today.

The Coptic Pope truly did have immediate jurisdiction over ever single priest and church in his African Patriarchate. He was called the "New Pharaoh" and "Ecumenical Archbishop."

It was he, and not the Roman Bishop, who first used the title "Pope" - and the Popes of Alexandria felt the EP of Constantinople was a usurper to the title of second Patriarchate in the Church.

However, this is NOT comparable to the situation of the Roman Pontiff.

The Pope of Alexandria held the powers he did within his own proper Patriarchal jurisdiction.

The Roman issue has to do with the right of the Pope to have immediate jurisdiction, not over his own Western Patriarchate, but over the Particular Churches in communion with him in the East.

That is a big difference!

Alex

Dear Friends,

Canon laws, such as the Eastern Code, cannot possibly be deemed to be part of the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox patrimony.

They are a Latin body of laws cast into an Eastern framework, successfully or not, to which the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome must "submit."

In the case of the UGCC, we await the day that all 33 points of union will be respected by Rome - and also the day that the Vatican II document on the Eastern Catholic Churches will be fully implemented, in spirit as well as in letter.

Alex

Dear Rony,

The Melkite Bishop in question spoke from within his own perspective.

I wonder if there is even one other Melkite Bishop who would agree with him?

Perhaps one of our "Melk-men" could answer that?

Alex

Dear Alex,

The point about Alexandria (and the qualifications about its relevance) was made in response to this remark:

I am often at a loss about what informs various ideas about the "ecclesiology" of this or that church. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be history.

Nicely put; very gentlemanly.

Dear djs,

Well, you were right on about the Pope of Alexandria!

That Church was once the most powerful and well-organized Church on the planet - and their theological school, as we know, produced some real spiritual heavyweights and pillars of the Church.

There was Alexandria - and then there was the rest of Africa . . .

And I'm still convinced that the body of Alexander the Great is in a mosque in the great city . . .

That jealousy and rivalry among the great Patriarchates were involved even in theological and ecclesiological disputes and helped to colour them - I think that is fairly obvious.

And that continues to the present.

Thank you for your compliment!

I'm not always a gentleman, as my comment to the Administrator before my canonical penance-ment illustrated.

But I've never claimed to be immaculately conceived!

God bless and happy Old Calendar New Year!

Alex