the same thing

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dcointin

I think a simple visit to a typical mass would be enough.

Presupposes what is "typical". There are something like 300,000 parishes in the CC throughout the world. Similar difficulty with the EOC.

[dcointin]

Would you say that this is inaccurate then?

http://www.stmarysbc.com/faith.html

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dcointin

Would you say that this is inaccurate then?
http://www.stmarysbc.com/faith.html

I would say that it is a mix. There are some facts, some insights, some over generalizations, some superficiality, and some stereotypes in interpretation.

Consider this: how different would the worship be in a village in say Transylvania or Sicily? How different in Krakow or Uzzhorod? How different in Rome or Athens? And I see America, with a prevailing Protestant culture, as an outlier both for the CC and EOC.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by dcointin

Would you say that this is inaccurate then?

http://www.stmarysbc.com/faith.html

That's the 1st I've seen a comparison like this.





It looks like it came out at Christmas time. I guess I'm not clear on how that piece is used?

• is it used for evangelization? if so who is the auduence they're seeking?
  • Catholics of other rites?
  • fallen away Ukrainian Catholics?
  • non-Catholics?
  • Orthodox?
  • All?
• is it used for educating Ukrainian rite Catholics i.e. catechetical purposes
• etc etc

I found this interesting. It asks and answers this question.

“is one Tradition better than the other? No! Both Traditions are good, and both are Catholic”

I've so much as said the exact same on these forums. I'm just asking how are they using this piece?

as an aside, I'm not in complete accord with all the Latin descriptions, but I'm sure they were trying to be as accurate as they see it.

[rciadan]

Originally Posted by steve b

That's the 1st I've seen a comparison like this.





It looks like it came out at Christmas time. I guess I'm not clear on how that piece is used?

• is it used for evangelization? if so who is the auduence they're seeking?
  • Catholics of other rites?
  • fallen away Ukrainian Catholics?
  • non-Catholics?
  • Orthodox?
  • All?
• is it used for educating Ukrainian rite Catholics i.e. catechetical purposes
• etc etc

I found this interesting. It asks and answers this question.

“is one Tradition better than the other? No! Both Traditions are good, and both are Catholic”

I've so much as said the exact same on these forums. I'm just asking how are they using this piece?

as an aside, I'm not in complete accord with all the Latin descriptions, but I'm sure they were trying to be as accurate as they see it.

My understanding was that it was meant for Catholics of other Rites. I also think that, though simple, it is accurate.

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Mark of Ephesus

He has several eloquent responses to Rome's position at the council. Here is an excerpt in relation to purgatory :

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell [i.e., Hades], but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard."

I would say he understood Catholic doctrine and fully rejected it.

Actually, he did not understand what Florence taught at all. Florence taught only that souls may require cleansing pains after death. That's the same thing he said (though the HOW of it is explained differently by Mark of Ephesus) Florence did NOT teach purgatorial fire, since during the theological discussions, it was explicitly decided not to make it a dogmatic point of belief. FYI, the Council of Trent did not teach about Purgatorial fire either. It is a popular theologoumenon among Latins, but it is NOT a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. If Mark really understood what Florence was teaching, why was he complaining about a ponit (purgatorial fire) that Florence explicitly did NOT teach?

I hope you can answer that question, Mark.

Blessings,
Marduk

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

By immediate and universal jurisdiction, I mean the ability to act in a location without the consent of its local bishop or synod.

That is not the definition of "immediate and universal jurisdiction" according to Catholic teaching. "Immediate" simply means his prerogatives are directly from God. The Pope has no authority to interfere in the affairs of a local Church which has an orthodox bishop, for the simple reason that the powers of a bishop, according to Catholic teaching, are also "immediate" - i.e., directly from God. In fact, the Vatican Dogma on the Primacy explictly asserts that the supreme authority of the Pope DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS stand in the way of the local authority of the bishop - that's just a doctrinal statement of fact. Period. Those who interpret the papal prerogatives to mean he DOES have that prerogative - non-Catholic and Catholic - are simply presenting a false caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. The Pope can intervene only if the local bishop is impeded in his duties, whether by absence, heresy, imprisonment, etc., etc. - but he does not himself have the authority to impede the local orthodox bishop's exercise of his authority in his local diocese/eparchy. It is called universal because only the Pope can intervene in such a way universally, while a Patriarch can intervene in such wise in his entire Patriarchal jurisdiction, and a Metropolitan can intervene in such wise in his entire Metropolitan jurisdiction - i.e, when the local bishop has been impeded in performing his duties for his flock.

To repeat, "immediate and universal" does not mean having the ability to intervene in the affairs of any local Church without the consent of the local bishop.

The answer to your question depends on what you mean by arise. Rome tried to intervene in the affairs of other churches almost from the beginning. We see that in the late second century Easter controversy, when Victor of Rome tried to tell Polycrates of Ephesus when he should celebrate Easter. Polycrates would have none of it, and so Victor attempted to cut Polycrates and his supporters off from the common union. As Eusebius recounts, this did not please the other bishops, who rebuked Victor and forced him to settle for peace with Polycrates.

To be perfectly clear, Pope St. Victor called on the Churches to hold local synods on the matter only after other bishops had asked Pope St. Victor to settle the issue of the Easter date. He did not do it unilaterally. His blunder was trying to excommunicate other Churches on an issue which Tradition did not hold to be a matter that merited such an action. The Pope was duly corrected by his brother bishops and accepted correction. That seems to reflect the balance of which you spoke. The idea popular in certain Catholic circles that the Pope can do things unilaterally is neither the Tradition nor the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

[dcointin]

Originally Posted by mardukm

That is not the definition of "immediate and universal jurisdiction" according to Catholic teaching. "Immediate" simply means his prerogatives are directly from God. The Pope has no authority to interfere in the affairs of a local Church which has an orthodox bishop, for the simple reason that the powers of a bishop, according to Catholic teaching, are also "immediate" - i.e., directly from God. In fact, the Vatican Dogma on the Primacy explictly asserts that the supreme authority of the Pope DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS stand in the way of the local authority of the bishop - that's just a doctrinal statement of fact. Period. Those who interpret the papal prerogatives to mean he DOES have that prerogative - non-Catholic and Catholic - are simply presenting a false caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. The Pope can intervene only if the local bishop is impeded in his duties, whether by absence, heresy, imprisonment, etc., etc. - but he does not himself have the authority to impede the local orthodox bishop's exercise of his authority in his local diocese/eparchy. It is called universal because only the Pope can intervene in such a way universally, while a Patriarch can intervene in such wise in his entire Patriarchal jurisdiction, and a Metropolitan can intervene in such wise in his entire Metropolitan jurisdiction - i.e, when the local bishop has been impeded in performing his duties for his flock.

To repeat, "immediate and universal" does not mean having the ability to intervene in the affairs of any local Church without the consent of the local bishop.


To be perfectly clear, Pope St. Victor called on the Churches to hold local synods on the matter only after other bishops had asked Pope St. Victor to settle the issue of the Easter date. He did not do it unilaterally. His blunder was trying to excommunicate other Churches on an issue which Tradition did not hold to be a matter that merited such an action. The Pope was duly corrected by his brother bishops and accepted correction. That seems to reflect the balance of which you spoke. The idea popular in certain Catholic circles that the Pope can do things unilaterally is neither the Tradition nor the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

It's so good to see you! Once again I find your explanations of Catholic theological vocabulary extremely helpful. Now if only I could remember these in the future lol!

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by dcointin

It's so good to see you! Once again I find your explanations of Catholic theological vocabulary extremely helpful. Now if only I could remember these in the future lol!

Amen.

If Marduk wrote a book entitled "Explaining the Papacy: Clearing Up Common Misconceptions About a Key Catholic Doctrine", his efforts would do a lot of good--for Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics alike.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The metropolitan bishop of a metropolis has always had special privileges over his metropolis, such as having the power to refuse to allow for the ordination of a certain candidate for bishop. I think calling Orthodox ecclesiology collegial is making a caricature here. There is balance of power between the primate and the body in Orthodoxy that is not being acknowledged. The model is not purely collegial, except on an ontological level because all bishops have equal power given to them by the Spirit, but some have extra powers given to them by man for good governance.

There is an office in particular, with extra powers over the entire Church, not given by man, but from God. (1st link that follows)

Originally Posted by C

By immediate and universal jurisdiction, I mean the ability to act in a location without the consent of its local bishop or synod.
[snip]
Rome tried to intervene in the affairs of other churches almost from the beginning. We see that in the late second century Easter controversy, when Victor of Rome tried to tell Polycrates of Ephesus when he should celebrate Easter. Polycrates would have none of it, and so Victor attempted to cut Polycrates and his supporters off from the common union. As Eusebius recounts, this did not please the other bishops, who rebuked Victor and forced him to settle for peace with Polycrates.

• Immediate and universal jurisdiction is described under the sections
  • III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER
  • IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope
• One could ask, why did the Quartodecimens want a different date for Easter, from the rest of the Church? http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Victor_I%2C_Saint

Originally Posted by C

Now if by by arise you mean when it was accepted by other Churches, particularly in the East, I would have to answer probably never ecclesiologically (hence the lack of canons detailing it). Rome's claim to immediate and universal jurisdiction seems only to have been accepted in the East whenever political convenience and imperial meddling was involved (funny that those Catholic historians who took a critical view of the East, criticizing it for its caesaropapism, seemed to have forgotten that caesaropapism provided some of the best lip service for the papacy ever). And it was almost always the case that the imperial attitude towards Rome changed when a new emperor came into power (compare Justin I to Justinian).

How can " immediate and universal jurisdiction " be acknowledged and accepted by the East,........ but only when convenient?

Originally Posted by C

This question could be turned the other way around. Why are Catholics so obsessed with our "disobedience" towards Rome, when there is much to do at home? I don't see how it benefits your position any more than it benefits mine. We of course have our own ecclesiological questions to take care of, but since Rome is constantly asking in talks what needs to be done for reconciliation, we must offer an honest answer of how we understand ecclesiology and what in our understanding prevents us from reconciling with Rome.

Disobedience plagues humanity. That doesn't mean we aren't called to be obedient, or no longer even try to be obedient. Jesus told us what He wanted, that's what we'll be judged on

[yawsep1569]

Originally Posted by mardukm

That is not the definition of "immediate and universal jurisdiction" according to Catholic teaching. "Immediate" simply means his prerogatives are directly from God. The Pope has no authority to interfere in the affairs of a local Church which has an orthodox bishop, for the simple reason that the powers of a bishop, according to Catholic teaching, are also "immediate" - i.e., directly from God. In fact, the Vatican Dogma on the Primacy explictly asserts that the supreme authority of the Pope DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS stand in the way of the local authority of the bishop - that's just a doctrinal statement of fact. Period. Those who interpret the papal prerogatives to mean he DOES have that prerogative - non-Catholic and Catholic - are simply presenting a false caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. The Pope can intervene only if the local bishop is impeded in his duties, whether by absence, heresy, imprisonment, etc., etc. - but he does not himself have the authority to impede the local orthodox bishop's exercise of his authority in his local diocese/eparchy. It is called universal because only the Pope can intervene in such a way universally, while a Patriarch can intervene in such wise in his entire Patriarchal jurisdiction, and a Metropolitan can intervene in such wise in his entire Metropolitan jurisdiction - i.e, when the local bishop has been impeded in performing his duties for his flock.

To repeat, "immediate and universal" does not mean having the ability to intervene in the affairs of any local Church without the consent of the local bishop.

Brother Marduk,

I am not sure about whether your last sentence is true, though it very well could be. However, I am quite positive that you are confusing immediate with ordinary. Immediate means exactly what it sounds like. He does not need anyone to mediate his authority over all the faithful. Ordinary means that he has received them by virtue of his office, i.e. from God. Let me know if you think I am wrong because this what all my priests have taught me.

Peace,
yawsep

[steve b]

Originally Posted by yawsep1569

Brother Marduk,
I am not sure about whether your last sentence is true, though it very well could be. However, I am quite positive that you are confusing immediate with ordinary. Immediate means exactly what it sounds like. He does not need anyone to mediate his authority over all the faithful. Ordinary means that he has received them by virtue of his office, i.e. from God. Let me know if you think I am wrong because this what all my priests have taught me.
Peace,
yawsep

Popes have ordinary & immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church
Bishops have ordinary & immediate jurisdiction over their diocese

the distinction between ordinary and immediate jurisdiction pertaining to Pope and Bishops, is explained and distinguished, in the following links

Ordinary http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Ordinary

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Ecclesiastical_Jurisdict ion

Hierarchy http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hierarchy

Pope http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope

Bishop http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Bishop note section #3, Rights and powers of a bishop.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by steve b

There is an office in particular, with extra powers over the entire Church, not given by man, but from God. (1st link that follows)

I do not see how that can be proved.

Originally Posted by steve b

• Immediate and universal jurisdiction is described under the sections
  • III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER
  • IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope

Thank you for that fascinating link which describe the Pope's role within the Catholic Church. I especially found this passage helpful:

(2) In the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: "We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction, is immediate in its character" (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter, It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, "Feed my sheep". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., vii, § 7). That writer contended that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own authority depose him (op. cit., ii, §§ 4, 9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episco pus episcoporum.

This (the bolded section) is what I have always understood the term immediate jurisdiction to mean. But why is it that some within your very own Church deny that this is what immediate jurisdiction means? Surely your disagreement is not with me, who has the same understanding of immediate jurisdiction as you do, but it is with those who in this very thread have put forth a different meaning for immediate jurisdiction than the meaning which both you and I hold in common.

[Mark of Ephesus]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Actually, he did not understand what Florence taught at all. Florence taught only that souls may require cleansing pains after death. That's the same thing he said (though the HOW of it is explained differently by Mark of Ephesus) Florence did NOT teach purgatorial fire, since during the theological discussions, it was explicitly decided not to make it a dogmatic point of belief. FYI, the Council of Trent did not teach about Purgatorial fire either. It is a popular theologoumenon among Latins, but it is NOT a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. If Mark really understood what Florence was teaching, why was he complaining about a ponit (purgatorial fire) that Florence explicitly did NOT teach?

St. Mark replied to what was presented to him. Cardinal Julian (who had previously presided over the council) presented to all present, on behalf of Rome :

"From the time of the Apostles, the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint, - namely, the souls of saints, - immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment."

[mardukm]

Dear Mark,

I have read somewhere that Mark of Ephesus left the Council early. Is that true? Is it possible he did not know the final outcome of the discussions which explicitly left out the concept of purgatorial fire from the Decrees of Florence? Is it possible he never even read the final Decrees of Florence and failed (albeit untintentionally) to provide to his hearers when he got back home the full story, as it were?

Blessings,
Marduk

Originally Posted by Mark of Ephesus

St. Mark replied to what was presented to him. Cardinal Julian (who had previously presided over the council) presented to all present, on behalf of Rome :

"From the time of the Apostles, the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint, - namely, the souls of saints, - immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment."