2 New Cardinals to come from Eastern Churches

[ConstantineTG]

It isn’t a comparison in the modern Eastern Orthodox Church, but I understand that the patriarchal primacy is much stronger in Oriental Orthodoxy - and even historically in Eastern Orthodoxy. (For example, when the Melkites with their canonical patriarch reconciled with Rome, Constantinople simple appointed a new Orthodox patriarch to pastor those who remained in the E Orthodox communion). The Coptic Pope doesn’t have unlimited authority, but I understand that he does exercise real authority/jurisdiction over the entire Coptic Church.

As PeterJ has noted, this is an over simplification and does the actual events no justice. while it is true that even the powers inherent in a Patriarch vary by jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it amounts to the bishops allowing for that to happen, not by a perceived divine institution. Even though they may have certain perogatives, they don’t have ordinary jurisdiction in every Eparchy. They can’t start running an eparchy no matter the reason. It is not inherent with their authority. I have yet to see a Patriarch that has ordinary jurisdiction in another eparchy apart from his own.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yes, if you mean *purely *negative. But it doesn’t take any twisting to see that it’s a mixed blessing.

I think the repeated pejorative connotation of fealty to the papacy (not the pope) misses the point entirely.

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. The pope, as His Vicar, is her visible head. By virtue of his supreme authority he represents and is the cause of the unity of the Catholic Church. “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their word, that all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you…” John 17:20-21.

Being ‘in communion with the pope’ means accepting his authority, exercised in the name of Christ, that we may be one. If there’s any submission in volved in this discussion, it’s submission to God in the Blessed Trinity.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you worship at St. Basil’s in Methuen, MA?

Like many posters (including you perhaps?) I prefer to say only *approximately *where I live (New England).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That is why there is a council, to clarify confusions. And in councils, all bishops are equal. What if the confusion came from the Pope
himself?

On matters of faith and morals, which is where the pope’s infallibility begins and ends, the Holy Spirit has never allowed that to happen and never will.

The Pope is a human being like all of us, thus subject to his own errors and limitations.

And no one is more aware of that than the Pope. Popes go to confession far more often than the average practicing Catholic. That said, as mentioned, the Pope, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, is infallible in matters of faith and morals. That infallibility accrues to the Church, not to the Pope individually.
ConstantineTG;9954272:

The Papacy, must like any Episcopacy, is not a magic position that someone suddenly becomes imbuned with powers.

First, the Papacy is not like ‘any Episcopacy.’ It is unique in all the world for the purposes explained. I’m not aware it has ever been described as ‘a magic position.’

Even St. Peter erred after Pentecost when he allowed the baptizing of Gentiles, and then backtracked later on. He was called on this by St. Paul.

You are mistaken. Peter was chastised by Paul for backing away from eating with Gentiles when some Jews of James’s diocese (Jerusalem) showed up in Antioch.

Today, no other bishop can correct the Pope because he has set himself above all bishops.

You are mistaken there, as well in the general nature of your statement and in your conclusion. Any bishop can challenge the opinion of any pope in any matter not dealing with faith and morals and not issued ex cathedra.

Although there may have been popes in the past who got carried away with their title, no recent pope, and by that I mean in the past, at least, 300 years, has ever ‘set himself’ above anyone. One official title of the pope is ‘The Servant of the Servants of Christ.’ He is placed in his office by the Holy Spirit, not himself. His authority is given to him by the Lord in Sacred Scripture.

If all of us had a tenth the humility of the current Pope, we’d all be better Christians for it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Like many posters (including you perhaps?) I prefer to say only *approximately *where I live (New England).

There are people who live 50 miles away form St. Basil’s who worship there. “New England” in your heading, which is why I asked. Sorry to bother you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

On matters of faith and morals, which is where the pope’s infallibility begins and ends, the Holy Spirit has never allowed that to happen and never will.

There have been Popes who have been immoral and there have been Popes who have been heretics. So they are surely not infallible on faith and morals.

And no one is more aware of that than the Pope.

You seem to imply that Popes have a higher level of awareness.

Popes go to confession far more often than the average practicing Catholic.

Define “average”. There’s over a billion Catholics, so average is open to a wide variety of interpretation. But surely, many who live religious lives go to confession as often, maybe even more. We don’t know really. I am not aware that Popes are supposed to publicly proclaim how many times they go to confession.

That said, as mentioned, the Pope, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, is infallible in matters of faith and morals. That infallibility accrues to the Church, not to the Pope individually.

The Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church, not just the Pope. Pentecost happened for all 120 in the room, not just Peter.

First, the Papacy is not like ‘any Episcopacy.’ It is unique in all the world for the purposes explained. I’m not aware it has ever been described as ‘a magic position.’

There are only three levels of Orders, diaconate, presbyter, episcopate. The Pope is like any Episcopacy because he is a bishop. No one is ordained Pope. The Apostles never set any other position above any other other than those three.

You are mistaken. Peter was chastised by Paul for backing away from eating with Gentiles when some Jews of James’s diocese (Jerusalem) showed up in Antioch.

The term “eating with the Gentiles” means associating with them, communing with them. Remember that the revelation on accepting Gentiles to Christianity was given to Peter first, yet at Antioch he backed down and wants to disassociate himself from the Gentiles. The fact that there were Gentile Christians at this time was because of Peter, that is why Paul called him a hypocrite.

You are mistaken there, as well in the general nature of your statement and in your conclusion. Any bishop can challenge the opinion of any pope in any matter not dealing with faith and morals and not issued ex cathedra.

They can’t challenge a Pope’s rule on jurisdictional matters and authority. Like with Summorum Pontificum, no bishop can tell the Pope, “no, I don’t want the Latin Mass in my diocese.” That is non negotiable, and it isn’t something ex cathedra.

Although there may have been popes in the past who got carried away with their title, no recent pope, and by that I mean in the past, at least, 300 years, has ever ‘set himself’ above anyone. One official title of the pope is ‘The Servant of the Servants of Christ.’ He is placed in his office by the Holy Spirit, not himself. His authority is given to him by the Lord in Sacred Scripture.

In the past 300 years? Read Vatican I and the Melkite Patriarch and the events around it and tell me if that is not setting someone above another bishop, a Patriarch nonetheless.

If all of us had a tenth the humility of the current Pope, we’d all be better Christians for it.

I can’t argue with this. But not every Pope in history has been humble. That is a fact. We can’t justify all of history for the actions of one man.

 

[twf]

If that isn’t an over-simplified version then I don’t know what is.

I know its an over-simplification. I wasn’t trying to provide a detailed account of the aftermath of the Melkites entering into full communion with Rome. My point was that the modern Eastern Orthodox notion, articulated by many, that the Patriarch is nothing more than a first-among-equals chairman of the board hasn’t always been the view or practice in the East. Various degrees of real jurisdiction have been exercised by patriarchs.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

There have been Popes who have been immoral and there have been Popes who have been heretics. So they are surely not infallible on faith and morals.

It appears you know very little about the doctrine of infallibility. In light of your attitude, it would be a waste of time trying to teach you so I’ll let it go.

You seem to imply that Popes have a higher level of awareness.

Most honest, highly intelligent people have a heightened awareness of their own persona. I understand your confusion.

Define “average”. There’s over a billion Catholics, so average is open to a wide variety of interpretation. But surely, many who live religious lives go to confession as often, maybe even more. We don’t know really.

One thing we do know is, you just like to argue, even if you make no sense. Protestants are like that.

I am not aware that Popes are supposed to publicly proclaim how many times they go to confession.

Nor am I. I didn’t say they did and I’m not aware any pope has. Are you? Since you seem not to know, there are many people around the pope who are well aware of his daily activities.

The Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church, not just the Pope. Pentecost happened for all 120 in the room, not just Peter.

You’re wrong again. Here’s a clue. How many people did the Lord tell to feed His sheep? Careful, now…

There were not 120 people in the room at Pentecost. It’s a common confusion, but there are three separate events in succession there. They are not all the same event. The Lord told the Apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit, not 120 people.

There are only three levels of Orders, diaconate, presbyter, episcopate. The Pope is like any Episcopacy because he is a bishop. No one is ordained Pope. The Apostles never set any other position above any other other than those three.

First you said ‘the Papacy.’ Now it’s ‘the Pope.’ The pope isn’t an episcopacy, he’s a man and he’s elected pope by his peers. The Lord set Peter above his brothers by giving him authority over the whole Church.

The term “eating with the Gentiles” means associating with them, communing with them.

You said Paul got after Peter for baptizing Gentiles. You were wrong. Now you’re moving the target again. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Remember that the revelation on accepting Gentiles to Christianity was given to Peter first, yet at Antioch he backed down and wants to disassociate himself from the Gentiles. The fact that there were Gentile Christians at this time was because of Peter, that is why Paul called him a hypocrite.

You’re wrong again. Peter never wanted to disassociate himself from Gentiles. He was sent by the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and baptized him before Paul ever met him. Paul called him a hypocrite because he wouldn’t eat with Gentiles in the presence of the Jews who went to Antioch from Jerusalem. Read your Bible.

They can’t challenge a Pope’s rule on jurisdictional matters and authority. Like with Summorum Pontificum, no bishop can tell the Pope, “no, I don’t want the Latin Mass in my diocese.” That is non negotiable, and it isn’t something ex cathedra.

You’re wrong again. Just about every bishop in the United States refused to allow the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses, even after the Pope said priests didn’t have to have permission of their bishop to use that Liturgy. The only thing that has changed is the replacement of liberal bishops with conservatives, whose attitude is more in line with the Pope’s.

In the past 300 years? Read Vatican I and the Melkite Patriarch and the events around it and tell me if that is not setting someone above another bishop, a Patriarch nonetheless.

Looking at your batting average so far, I think I’ll pass on the expectation you’re probably wrong about that, too.

I apologize for the tone of my discourse, but you asked for it. Change your attitude and I’ll change mine.

 

[Ghosty]

If that isn’t an over-simplified version then I don’t know what is.

It’s largely accurate, actually. In fact, Constantinople appointed its own Patriarch before the Canonical Patriarch of Antioch was fully reconciled with Rome. Constantinople claimed the authority to unilaterally invalidate the Synod of Antioch and appoint its own Greek Patriarch (and Greek Patriarchs continued to be appointed for over a century), a Patriarch so unpopular that he couldn’t even live in Damascus where his See was based.

Later the Canonical Patriarch of Antioch reconciled with Rome, and the Melkite Church and the majority of its Bishops went with him. I don’t know by what authority the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed the right to annul the decisions of the Antiochian Synod, but let’s not pretend that it didn’t happen. Even the Orthodox histories record this “birth” of the Antiochian Orthodox Church from the Melkite Church.

As to the OP, I think it’s silly for a Patriarch to become a Cardinal, but it’s not as if the position of Cardinal has any real Apostolic weight anyway. It’s a made-up office that could just as easily be totally eliminated tomorrow.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

One thing we do know is, you just like to argue, even if you make no sense. Protestants are like that.

Interesting … maybe Constantine is Protestant. I wonder what other evidence we could gather. (Most Protestants have two arms and two legs, so that might be a place to start.)

 

[malphono]

I don’t know by what authority the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed the right to annul the decisions of the Antiochian Synod, but let’s not pretend that it didn’t happen. Even the Orthodox histories record this “birth” of the Antiochian Orthodox Church from the Melkite Church.

I suspect that the “authority” was that of the Ottoman Empire. The last thing the Ottomans wanted was yet another group of annoying Christians not under their thumb, (they already had the Maronites, Armenians, Chaldeans, SOC, SCC, ACoE and, of course, the Copts), particularly one that was a “mirror image” of Constantinople which most definitely was under the Ottoman thumb. It’s actually kind of amusing that despite the “invalidation” of the Synod, etc, the scheme didn’t pant out and the Ottomans ultimately were stuck with the Melkites. Poetic justice.

As to the OP, I think it’s silly for a Patriarch to become a Cardinal, but it’s not as if the position of Cardinal has any real Apostolic weight anyway. It’s a made-up office that could just as easily be totally eliminated tomorrow.

Albeit that I rant against the “red hat” and its symbolism, that’s rather the way I look at it. The title itself is totally artificial and insignificant. It means nothing.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

The focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate in compliance with the stated purpose of the forum.

We understand that there is a wide diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, and discipline between and within the Eastern, Oriental, and Western rites and churches. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please review our forum guidelines on [charity (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852) before posting.

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism
No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said…
• You need to…
• You don’t get it.
• Why don’t you…
• If only you…
• It is you who…
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I’m not the one who…
• Some people here…

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to…
• Why don’t you…
• If you’d only…
• Those of us who have…

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always…
• Every single time this comes up…
• Aren’t you a saint?

Remember: your goal in a debate on the Eastern Catholicism forum is to sound like an encyclopedia robot. If you think you sound like a robot, that means you’re probably discussing the topic and not each other.

Please remember that there are many people lurking who are judging your position and all those who are in your communion by your behavior alone. It does not matter what anyone else says; you should be a model of charitable dialogue. If someone else is not, please do not respond in kind. Let the moderator know and it will be handled as necessary.