the same thing

[Vico]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you for quoting these relevant canons. I would llike to make some comments, for the sake of information, as well as to combat the Absolutist misinterpretations of these canons.


It should be noted here that while the power of jurisdiction is regulated by the Supreme authority, it is obtained by bishops directly from God (and in that sense is considered "immediate"). As noted earlier, the power of jurisdiction of Patriarchs, Metropolitans and other head bishops (other than the coryphaeus who is the Pope if Rome) is not considered immediate because it was/is granted by the Church, not directly from God.


I would have included the canonical term "proper" in your highlight of this section.


Along with Section 1 of this Canon 45, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law makes a special point of the use of the term "munus." The Commentary notes that the writers of the Code used this term munus in specific contradistinction to the use of the term potestas. In other words, the power of the primacy rests in its nature as a SERVICE (munus) for the Church, not by virtue of legal force (potestas).


Naysayers of the papacy often criticize this section. In truth, it merely reflects the ancient Canons of Sardica. Unless non-Catholics can find proof that the early Church affirmed a higher court of appeal than the bishop of Rome, I do not see what justification they can offer for their criticism.

Absolutist Petrine advocates often use this section as proof for their claim that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, when he wants, at his mere discretion. They fail to realize that this is in specific reference to the Pope responding to the needs of the Church (see previous section). So this is in the context of an appeal process. It offers no support for the idea that the Pope can make decrees and sentences unilaterally.

Blessings,
Marduk

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Vico

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

From the CCC
895 "The power which they (bishops) exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church." But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.


If a bishop won't accept correction/guidance from the pope, a pope can replace a bishop http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/

[ConstantineTG]

An Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox faith and praxis can only be found in the Orthodox Church. The reason is that being in communion with Rome means it is unavoidable that they will have influence in our Churches. He likens it to a body, your foot is in communion with your hand. The same blood circulates around the same body. You can't be in isolation from one another.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

An Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox faith and praxis can only be found in the Orthodox Church. The reason is that being in communion with Rome means it is unavoidable that they will have influence in our Churches. He likens it to a body, your foot is in communion with your hand. The same blood circulates around the same body. You can't be in isolation from one another.

I feel that what he said holds true. It can be like a mixed marriage ...

It is like being unequally yoked.

[Seamus L]

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Seamus L

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

Why do you say this?

[Seamus L]

Because of the numbers of people I've known of in one way or another who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. I've even seen staunch OICWR types admit that a high pct of those in there ranks eventually "dox".

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Seamus L

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

Perhaps that is how God intended it.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Perhaps that is how God intended it.

Since you're still in communion with Rome, don't you fear for the souls of those who, according to Catholicism, have gone into schism by converting to Eastern Orthodoxy? How could such a thing be the will of God from a Catholic perspective?

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Vico

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

What does 'proper' mean in the context of this discussion?

Just an example ... If one was to make the claim that immediate Papal authority in another bishop's diocese was improper, how would that be taken?

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I feel that what he said holds true. It can be like a mixed marriage ...

It is like being unequally yoked.

The problem that I find is that if it is impossible to be fully "Orthodox"/Eastern while also being in communion with Rome, it is similarly impossible to be fully "Roman"/Western while being in communion with Orthodoxy, as witnessed by the "Western Rite" Orthodox.

I personally find that the Church needs the tension of the Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith. Without that tension one tends to dogmatize one's own theological concepts and speculations, ultimately making an idol of them. Just say "uncreated energies" or "Gregory Palamas" to a somewhat knowledgeable Roman Catholic, and the reaction will be sadly condemnatory. Likewise say "Papal infallibility," "original sin," or "Immaculate Conception" to a somewhat knowledgeable Orthodox, and their reaction won't be much different.

The problem is that the majority of the major theological differences between East and West were developments after the Schism. Has one Church become heterodox? Have both? Or are both simply expressing the same ultimate reality from within their own theological framework. As an Eastern Catholic I obviously opt for the third of these options.

Oh, and Hesychios, this post was not directed at you in particular. I simply quoted your post in order to show some continuity with a line of discussion within this thread.

[Seamus L]

I mean this as politely as possible Constantine TG, but if you really hold such views, i,e, that God may intend people to leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, I seriously have to wonder why you're still Catholic.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

The problem is that the majority of the major theological differences between East and West were developments after the Schism. Has one Church become heterodox? Have both? Or are both simply expressing the same ultimate reality from within their own theological framework. As an Eastern Catholic I obviously opt for the third of these options.

I can understand the position (I once agreed with this third option of your description) but in fact being a member of an Eastern Catholic church does not represent the third option.

The third option would be a replication of the first Millennium church, which Eastern Catholicism as it is constituted today does not represent.

Certainlly, there can be people who believe that neither church (being namely the Orthodox and the Latin Catholic) is heterodox, and to many it seems like the Eastern Catholic churches are the best option out of several poor fits, but it is not the answer to the dilemma.

I am not going to claim that there is a 'better' option right now, and I am not going to say that one should abandon option 'C' for some option 'B' or even a 'D'. what I am saying is the better option for people who believe neither camp is completely heterodox has not appeared on this earth. It is a dream and a vision and perhaps, just perhaps, only exists in heaven.

The rest of us have to make do with what we've got.

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Oh, and Hesychios, this post was not directed at you in particular. I simply quoted your post in order to show some continuity with a line of discussion within this thread.

I understand.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I can understand the position (I once agreed with this third option of your description) but in fact being a member of an Eastern Catholic church does not represent the third option.

The third option would be a replication of the first Millennium church, which Eastern Catholicism as it is constituted today does not represent.

Certainlly, there can be people who believe that neither church (being namely the Orthodox and the Latin Catholic) is heterodox, and to many it seems like the Eastern Catholic churches are the best option out of several poor fits, but it is not the answer to the dilemma.

I am not going to claim that there is a 'better' option right now, and I am not going to say that one should abandon option 'C' for some option 'B' or even a 'D'. what I am saying is the better option for people who believe neither camp is completely heterodox has not appeared on this earth. It is a dream and a vision and perhaps, just perhaps, only exists in heaven.

The rest of us have to make do with what we've got.
I understand.

I agree completely here, Hesychios. I know such great modern luminaries as Fr. Lev Gillet (aka A Monk of the Eastern Church) firmly believed that Catholicism was not heterodox, even after they became Orthodox. I've also heard of Orthodox folks who became Catholic that maintained that Orthodoxy was far from heterodox. The fact is that neither Orthodoxy, or Catholicism, or Eastern Catholicism represent the experience of the Church of the first Millennium. As one theologian pointed out it is in the nature of Catholicism to be in union with Orthodoxy, and it is in the nature of Orthodoxy to be in union with Catholicism. To the extent that both sides have failed to maintain that communion, both sides have failed to be in continuity with the Church of the first Millennium.

But that's all history now. I personally admire the many Eastern Catholics, particularly among the hierarchy, that attempt to be fully "Orthodox" and fully in communion with Rome. Folks like Met. Sheptytsky, Patriarch Maximos IV, Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Archbishop Joseph Tawil, Archbishop Joseph Raya, etc., etc., etc. are all personal heroes of mine. But even Fr. Robert Taft recognizes that Eastern Catholics are neither "Orthodox" nor "Roman Catholic." We are our own breed. To the extent that we maintain our authentic heritage we are certainly Eastern. But we cannot be considered Orthodox because we are in communion with Rome. And sadly that communion has too often taken the shape of subjugation rather than authentic communion.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Seamus L

I mean this as politely as possible Constantine TG, but if you really hold such views, i,e, that God may intend people to leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, I seriously have to wonder why you're still Catholic.

Why not wonder why any of us are Catholic? Why do any Eastern Catholics maintain communion with Rome? There are many reasons. Some of us persevere in the hope that we actually can live fully "Eastern" and "Orthodox" lives while maintaining communion with Rome; we believe that there is something to being within such a communion. Others remain in communion for cultural reasons. Others, for family. We ought not to question why our brothers and sisters remain in communion with Rome. Rather we ought to be cultivating a relationship of love with our brethren. Only then will all be drawn to Christ. "See how they love one another."