Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[steve_b]

I think you should consider that a lot of the Catholics here are giving you incorrect answers. People don’t always have a good understanding. Think carefully about what is required for a sin to be mortal - not the lists that you see, but the actual requirements.

as Paul said, before the law was given, (i.e. a list of do’s and dont’s WITH consequences) he wouldn’t have known, “to covet” was wrong. [Rom 7:7-8] Therefore, lists ARE necessary. Lists, clarify for everyone,

• especially those who think laws don’t apply to THEM.
• Who argue over everything, take responsibility for nothing.
• Who pretend to have comprehension problems after they’ve been caught. Gee officer I saw that the speed limit is posted at 65 mph, but what does that really mean to me? Yeah I was going 120 mph but I have a high performance car, it’s meant to go 200 mph. Is what I did so wrong? Why am I going to jail

law was brought into the mix to increase the seriousness and consequences of doing wrong. [Rom 5:20 paraphrased] That’s why lists are necessary and it’s why consequences are spelled out as well… so everybody is on the same page.

The more serious the wrong the more serious the consequence
B:

How often do people who sin really understand how it separates them from God? How often do they do it with full consent? Masturbation is an interesting example because it can be habitual, and it can relate to very strong physical urges.

If an act is wrong, you tell the person it is wrong. Now they are no longer ignorant of the wrong. They might argue with it being wrong, but that doesn’t change the reality that it is wrong. If they continue to do that wrong, they are guilty.

Scripture identifies all sexual immorality, is seriously wrong and has serious consequences attached to them. Therefore, once a person knows this , then they are no longer ignorant. That’s the purpose of giving the law AND the consequences, so everyone knows the rules upfront. At the end of one’s life, after judgement, no one accidently gets sent to heaven, and no one gets accidently sent to hell. A person in heaven knows why they are there, and a person in hell knows exactly why they are there.
B:

And very often people do things with a really divided will, which isn’t really the full consent and knowledge required for mortal sin.

I think it can be pretty difficult to actually p(name removed by moderator)oint a mortal and venial sin, which is one reasonwhy I am not crazy about the Roman model. But I think it is still more complex than many people give it credit for.

Feigned ignorance doesn’t diminish ones guilt, it actually increases one’s guilt.

 

[jmj1984]

Fr. Kimel’s article on Original Sin is very good. He is a a former Anglican minister who became a Roman Catholic but has since found his spiritual home in Orthodoxy.

Which seems to rather undermine his arguments as if he believed them he would hardly have converted to Orthodoxy.

As for the Pope being the head of the Church on earth - perhaps some of that language could be tempered since Christ still IS with His Church on earth.

He is the “Invisible Head” of the Church, but the Head nonetheless.

A fact no one denies, the point Pope Boniface VIII makes is that for all intents and purposes saying the Pope is the head of the church and Christ is the head of the church mean the same thing, hence his sentence ‘But a body with two heads is a monster’. The Pope is head of the church because he acts in Christ’s place and with his authority (regarding governance) over his church here on this earth and because Christ deigns to act through him in all matters regarding his church. None of this undermines the truth that Christ is the head of his mystical body.

If people want to temper the language, the most it can be tempered to is ‘Head of the whole church militant’ as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches.

The language in which papal primacy is being expressed here sounds too much like trying to put the Pope on a kind of 'even keel" with our Lord or else suggesting that our Lord’s invisibility somehow impedes Him being fully the Head of His Church.

I believe Unam Sanctam explains this fairly well as does the First Vatican Council.

The Pope is called, it is true, to be an “Alter Christus” and to be the Servant of the Servants of God. And so are all the bishops and priests. And so are we, in our different roles.

The bishops and priests to a lesser degree as regards jurisdiction and we in a still lesser degree lacking both the power of order and the power of jurisdiction.

But Christ is the Head of His Church, which is His Body, and He has not abandoned His Church on earth. Is not the reserved Blessed Sacrament intended to demonstrate visibly that this is so?

Alex

The Blessed Sacrament demonstrates several things, but as I have said none of this contradicts the De Fide doctrine that The Pope is the head of The Church or as Vatican I expressed it ‘The head of the whole Church Militant’

 

[Alexander_Roman]

De Fide does not mean that dogmas cannot be developed or that the process has somehow stopped because of this or that proclaimed dogma.

Sometimes the term “De Fide” is used to stop a discussion about a theological area as if there is no longer any “wiggle room.” And that is simply wrong.

The Pope acts in Christ’s Name, to be sure. Christ is still and always will be in His place as Head of His Body which is the Church. Christ acts in and through His Church via the pope, the bishops etc.

In terms of the Head of the Church, the theological language in which the De Fide dogma is expressed should never suggest that Christ is somehow “up in Heaven” and therefore somehow removed from His Church on earth (being “invisible”).

The triumphalist language used, especially at Vatican I, is what can be tempered. Vatican II has done a good job of that without affecting the De Fide character of what was proclaimed.

As for Father Kimel, I don’t understand what you said about his arguments. Unless, of course, you affirm that Orthodoxy’s view of Original Sin cannot be reconciled with that of the West. Fr Kimel is a friend and this is why I ask.

Alex

 

[jmj1984]

De Fide does not mean that dogmas cannot be developed or that the process has somehow stopped because of this or that proclaimed dogma.

Sometimes the term “De Fide” is used to stop a discussion about a theological area as if there is no longer any “wiggle room.” And that is simply wrong.

The Pope acts in Christ’s Name, to be sure. Christ is still and always will be in His place as Head of His Body which is the Church. Christ acts in and through His Church via the pope, the bishops etc.

In terms of the Head of the Church, the theological language in which the De Fide dogma is expressed should never suggest that Christ is somehow “up in Heaven” and therefore somehow removed from His Church on earth (being “invisible”).

The triumphalist language used, especially at Vatican I, is what can be tempered. Vatican II has done a good job of that without affecting the De Fide character of what was proclaimed.

Alex

What De Fide means is that a matter has been settled and there can be no more support given to opposite schools of theological thought, the idea that the Pope is the head of the church is a dogma and de fide, it cannot be changed, revoked or contradicted its set in stone. You can disagree with the language all you want but ultimately it changes nothing, its dogma and we are not at liberty to disagree with it.

I cannot see how reference to Vatican II helps your cause either, that council made no explicit or implicit rejection of the title -as well it couldnt the title being De Fide and infallible-, so the title remains.

I cannot see anyone claiming that saying ‘The Pope is the Head of the church’ somehow implies or relegates christ to heaven, how anyone could say this in light of the holy sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments as a whole especially penance, holy orders and matrimony as well as eucharisitic adoration, numerous other private devotions and frankly the entire theology of the church is beyond me

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What De Fide means is that a matter has been settled and there can be no more support given to opposite schools of theological thought, the idea that the Pope is the head of the church is a dogma and de fide, it cannot be changed, revoked or contradicted its set in stone. You can disagree with the language all you want but ultimately it changes nothing, its dogma and we are not at liberty to disagree with it.

I cannot see how reference to Vatican II helps your cause either, that council made no explicit or implicit rejection of the title -as well it couldnt the title being De Fide and infallible-, so the title remains.

I cannot see anyone claiming that saying ‘The Pope is the Head of the church’ somehow implies or relegates christ to heaven, how anyone could say this in light of the holy sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments as a whole especially penance, holy orders and matrimony as well as eucharisitic adoration, numerous other private devotions and frankly the entire theology of the church is beyond me

Well, Christ is the Head of His own Body which is the Church. He has not abandoned it, period. The Pope is only the “visible head of Christ’s Church” but surely not in the same sense as Christ is?!

To say that the pope is the head of the Church without qualifying what is really being said, even if the same language is used in official, infallible, De Fide documents does not mean that better language cannot be used.

If you can calm down a bit, please explain what you mean in your last paragraph and what that has to do with anything (?)

Perhaps it might be a good idea if we got back to the original theme of this thread altogether and leave the papacy for another time (?)

Alex

 

[jmj1984]

Well, Christ is the Head of His own Body which is the Church. He has not abandoned it, period. The Pope is only the “visible head of Christ’s Church” but surely not in the same sense as Christ is?!

To say that the pope is the head of the Church without qualifying what is really being said, even if the same language is used in official, infallible, De Fide documents does not mean that better language cannot be used.

If you can calm down a bit, please explain what you mean in your last paragraph and what that has to do with anything (?)

Perhaps it might be a good idea if we got back to the original theme of this thread altogether and leave the papacy for another time (?)

Alex

It was in response to what you said ’

In terms of the Head of the Church, the theological language in which the De Fide dogma is expressed should never suggest that Christ is somehow “up in Heaven” and therefore somehow removed from His Church on earth (being “invisible”).

’

I did qualify the phrase in the same way the Pope did.

And yes of course we should

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi Fone Bone, Actually, I have never read the Official Relatio, have you?

It is hard to find on the internet, although I note that it can be order as a download. There is only one person I know of who appears to have actually read it, and quite frankly he has a way of interpreting things that I cannot rely on without reservation.

I don’t have access to the complete document either, though I - like you - have read portions of it.

I don’t know for sure who you’re referring to, but I will say that on this forum, Marduk - I referred to him earlier - would almost never quote solitary sentences or clauses but would rather reproduce paragraphs or even pages. The context was there plain for all to see…

I do know that the Ralatio was given in response to objections from the objecting party, as a way of persuading bishops were waffling or unsure. It is not official in the sense that it defines anything, it is Cardinal Gasser’s opinion, or perhaps spin. The definition is in the official decrees of the Council, which are written in very plain language.

True, it doesn’t define anything; but it is official in the sense that it reflects the papacy’s interpretation of the First Vatican Council.

That said, you have a point, Hesychios: should a pope disagree with some other entity on where his authority ends, the pope is probably going to win simply by virtue of his supreme authority in the Catholic Church. But that “no recourse” aspect of his authority is a blessing when wielded responsibly, and the bishops of the first millennium East were certainly happy to look, when necessary, to Rome for guidance.

I understand that many Orthodox today see that as something to fear. That is, I suppose, the only real reason to disagree on this.

The plain fact is that the Patriarch of Alexandria has always acted within his own synod. He never controlled, or sought to control any other church within the communion. One does not see him claiming to have jurisdiction over the Apostolic church of Armenia, or the Jacobite church of Antioch, for example.

Earlier you listed a bunch of things - i.e. confirming episcopal appointments, etc. - that the pope of Rome does today in the Latin Church. Are you denying that the pope of Alexandria in the first millennium did many of those same things throughout that entire patriarchate? That he did speaks volumes, whether he did it in synod or not. As I pointed out earlier, even in the High Middle Ages the pope of Rome most often exercised his supreme authority in a collegial manner as well.

I don’t really understand how you can avoid the implications of the fact that in the first millennium, head bishops of various levels simply had more authority outside their particular churches than they do in eastern Orthodox Christianity today… (I said “eastern” there only to clarify that I do not intend that point to apply to Oriental Orthodoxy)

Actually, that letter doesn’t order the church of Corinth to do anything.

Of course. I didn’t mean to imply that it gave them any “orders.” Still, if a bishop who had no ordinary authority whatsoever in my diocese wrote specifically to my diocese with such exhortations, that would be strange at the very least. It would, I think, imply that for whatever reason someone at least thinks that bishop has business concerning himself with another region’s affairs, something that - even in mild forms - the Orthodox seem frightened of today.

Canon 57

1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.

I’m no canon lawyer, but it seems that canon actually protects patriarchs from unwarranted interference by those who have no authority to intervene. Eastern Catholic patriarchs should feel secure knowing that the pope is there to prevent abuses of their authority… it’s those patriarchs who don’t have the guarantee of papal protection who ought to fear abuses…

I really feel so many of these issues could be resolved if the Catholic Church could re-couch in different terms the pope’s universal jurisdiction: it’s not actually a legal reality as the Church is not a legal institution. The pope is called to be the servant of the whole Church, and all bishops are entitled to his service-leadership, which should be a boon and not a burden. I’ll keep my fingers crossed, since the last two popes have put the western expression of the pope’s universal authority on the table and have kept it there…
Hesychios;8352078:

Canon 76

1. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77

1. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

I admit I can’t respond to this because I don’t know what “ecclesiastical communion” means. It sounds simply like being in communion with the pope as opposed to being in schism from him. I will certainly be surprised if, say, Patriarch Gregory III of Antioch requires papal approval every time he seeks to ordain a bishop.

Any members of eastern Catholic patriarchal churches reading this? Can you confirm or deny Hesychios’ point and/or explain what “receives ecclesiastical communion” in the above canons means?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This was because the Papal authority was evolving. The USA was treated as mission territory, Italy was regarded as Rome’s own Metropolia, which in fact it has been from the beginning. Since then the power of the Pope to name bishops has expanded to other countries, most notably in the 19th century.

Well, see, there you go. It was a development, and while the pope’s supreme and universal authority has been dogmatized in the Catholic Church, the notion that he gets to confirm episcopal appointments always and everywhere at all times has not been (and, in fact, couldn’t be, as he didn’t exercise that authority for nineteen centuries).

From your end, Hesychios, what I’d like to see is for you to admit that the Catholic Church can, according to Catholic principles, truly be open to the proposal to de-centralize episcopal appointments.

A decision of the ‘Holy See’ is never refused. The Pope can reassign a doorkeeper in any little parish or mission anywhere, in just the same manner as the local Ordinary (which is what immediate means - it doesn’t mean fast in this case, it means un-mediated by anyone), they are working at that level as partners. But he also functions as the boss of the local bishop, so the bishop can’t move the doorkeeper back without crossing the boss.

That I know is untrue, Hesychios. Unless special circumstances mean the local bishop is impeded somehow, papal “reassignment [of] a doorkeeper in [a] little parish” would be an unequivocal usurpation of the authority of the local Ordinary. On this point I - as a Catholic faithful to the consistent teaching and example of the Catholic Church throughout history and today - deny what you’ve said.

Furthermore, that is not what “immediate” means - it means “directly from God,” i.e. not simply a practical part of the Church structure’s praxis. Of course, I know you disagree that universal papal authority is “immediate” in that sense too. But that is, in fact, what it means.

 

[jmj1984]

{continued from above}

Canon 76

1. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77

1. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 85

1. For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See, the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see

This was because the Papal authority was evolving. The USA was treated as mission territory, Italy was regarded as Rome’s own Metropolia, which in fact it has been from the beginning. Since then the power of the Pope to name bishops has expanded to other countries, most notably in the 19th century.
A decision of the ‘Holy See’ is never refused. The Pope can reassign a doorkeeper in any little parish or mission anywhere, in just the same manner as the local Ordinary (which is what immediate means - it doesn’t mean fast in this case, it means un-mediated by anyone), they are working at that level as partners. But he also functions as the boss of the local bishop, so the bishop can’t move the doorkeeper back without crossing the boss.

Anyway, the Pope himself writes and reviews all of the rules and regulations which define ‘proper’ authority. and there is no recourse to his judgment. If someone complains, they have no where to appeal but back to the Pope himself.

I fear for the church when an Orthodox has a better grasp of basic Catholic teaching than a Catholic

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I fear for the church when an Orthodox has a better grasp of basic Catholic teaching than a Catholic

No need to fear, Jesus is here (Matt. 16:18).

I know what you really meant, don’t worry.

 

[jmj1984]

No need to fear, Jesus is here (Matt. 16:18).

I know what you really meant, don’t worry.

Deo Gratias!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Deo Gratias!

Ein feste burg ist unser Gott.

 

[jmj1984]

Ein feste burg ist unser Gott.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I fear for the church when an Orthodox has a better grasp of basic Catholic teaching than a Catholic

The leaders of *both *churches who are serious about ecumenism are, in fact, open to reworking their understandings of papal primacy/supremacy “to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences,” in the words of Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988).

The most honest Catholics I know on this matter are the ones who admit that the praxis of how papal supremacy is exercised can be reworked quite a bit without violating the divinely established part of it.

And the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who admit that neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church today functions the exact way the first millennium Church did, and that the example left by the first millennium church at Antioch, for instance, really is quite different from the example left by the first millennium church at Alexandria, etc.

That is why those serious about reunion in both churches are looking forward, not backward, and are open to change. We Catholics have to be willing to re-examine the appropriateness and utility of centralized papal authority in the Catholic Church, just as the Orthodox have to see that autocephaly and a Low Petrine ecclesiology are both second millennium innovations as well.

You shouldn’t feel threatened by this process, jmj, any more than our brother Hesychios here should feel threatened by the pope’s supreme authority.

 

[jmj1984]

The leaders of *both *churches who are serious about ecumenism are, in fact, open to reworking their understandings of papal primacy/supremacy “to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences,” in the words of Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988).

The most honest Catholics I know on this matter are the ones who admit that the praxis of how papal supremacy is exercised can be reworked quite a bit without violating the divinely established part of it.

And the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who admit that neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church today functions the exact way the first millennium Church did, and that the example left by the first millennium church at Antioch, for instance, really is quite different from the example left by the first millennium church at Alexandria, etc.

That is why those serious about reunion in both churches are looking forward, not backward, and are open to change. We Catholics have to be willing to re-examine the appropriateness and utility of centralized papal authority in the Catholic Church, just as the Orthodox have to see that autocephaly and a Low Petrine ecclesiology are both second millennium innovations as well.

You shouldn’t feel threatened by this process, jmj, any more than our brother Hesychios here should feel threatened by the pope’s supreme authority.

And of course all the popes and ecumenical councils before then weren’t open to ecumenicism and thus are bad

I have seen nothing but disaster result from The Church’s attempt to ‘re-invent’ itself in the last 50 years and neither could anyone else who looks at matters objectively.

As for your statements regarding ‘honesty’ unless your calling all the popes and councils and theologians who thought otherwise and those who still do dishonest it seems a very rash thing to say.

I will not ‘re-examine’ and ‘be open to change’ regarding the tenets of faith, to do would be suicidal and an admission that the church has been wrong over the last 1,900 years.

I do not feel threatened by the movement because I know that it will fail, As our Blessed Lord declared to St Peter ‘And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ and ‘I will be with you even unto the ending of the world’. Therefore I know that this process so opposed to the teaching of the church and thus the will of God cannot and indeed will not succed.

 

[steve_b]

The leaders of *both *churches who are serious about ecumenism are, in fact, open to reworking their understandings of papal primacy/supremacy "to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences," in the words of Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988).

see the link below. Let’s not take snippets out of context, from what the Cardinal said and create pretext from it
F:

The most honest Catholics I know on this matter are the ones who admit that the praxis of how papal supremacy is exercised can be reworked quite a bit without violating the divinely established part of it.

take a look here.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/
F:

And the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who admit that neither* the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church* today functions the exact way the first millennium Church did, and that the example left by the first millennium church at Antioch, for instance, really is quite different from the example left by the first millennium church at Alexandria, etc.

OC?. Which one? No ONE speaks for them collectively. The RO have become the largest Orthodox Church. It’s predicted the Muslims will be the majority in Russia by 2040. Re: Antioch and Alexandria today, you can’t hardly find Christianity in those cities or the countries they are in.
F:

That is why those serious about reunion in both churches are looking forward, not backward, and are open to change. We Catholics have to be willing to re-examine the appropriateness and utility of centralized papal authority in the Catholic Church, just as the Orthodox have to see that autocephaly and a Low Petrine ecclesiology are both second millennium innovations as well.

You shouldn’t feel threatened by this process, jmj, any more than our brother Hesychios here should feel threatened by the pope’s supreme authority.

The papacy and the CC will be here till the end of time. What else has that gurantee?

 

[TrueLight]

Ein feste burg ist unser Gott.

No inside jokes!

 

[jmj1984]

No inside jokes!

Its german, ‘A mighty fortress is our God’ I just ran it through google translate lol

 

[Alexander_Roman]

see the link below. Let’s not take snippets out of context, from what the Cardinal said and create pretext from it

take a look here.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/

OC?. Which one? No ONE speaks for them collectively. The RO have become the largest Orthodox Church. It’s predicted the Muslims will be the majority in Russia by 2040. Re: Antioch and Alexandria today, you can’t hardly find Christianity in those cities or the countries they are in.

The papacy and the CC will be here till the end of time. What else has that gurantee?

Dear Steve,

In fact, what the Pope and the Vatican say is one thing - how this is reinterpreted by Episcopal conferences, RC theologs etc. can be quite another.

The idea that Roman Catholicism is one big monolith is no longer the case, if ever it was.

As for Muslims being the majority - have a look at Europe, my friend and also the whole issue of secularization, fallen-away Catholics and the like.

The Orthodox may be numerically smaller, but in my (considerable) experience with them, they are the spiritually stronger.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t have access to the complete document either, though I - like you - have read portions of it.

I don’t know for sure who you’re referring to, but I will say that on this forum, Marduk - I referred to him earlier - would almost never quote solitary sentences or clauses but would rather reproduce paragraphs or even pages. The context was there plain for all to see…

True, it doesn’t define anything; but it is official in the sense that it reflects the papacy’s interpretation of the First Vatican Council.

That said, you have a point, Hesychios: should a pope disagree with some other entity on where his authority ends, the pope is probably going to win simply by virtue of his supreme authority in the Catholic Church. But that “no recourse” aspect of his authority is a blessing when wielded responsibly, and the bishops of the first millennium East were certainly happy to look, when necessary, to Rome for guidance.

I understand that many Orthodox today see that as something to fear. That is, I suppose, the only real reason to disagree on this.

Earlier you listed a bunch of things - i.e. confirming episcopal appointments, etc. - that the pope of Rome does today in the Latin Church. Are you denying that the pope of Alexandria in the first millennium did many of those same things throughout that entire patriarchate? That he did speaks volumes, whether he did it in synod or not. As I pointed out earlier, even in the High Middle Ages the pope of Rome most often exercised his supreme authority in a collegial manner as well.

I don’t really understand how you can avoid the implications of the fact that in the first millennium, head bishops of various levels simply had more authority outside their particular churches than they do in eastern Orthodox Christianity today… (I said “eastern” there only to clarify that I do not intend that point to apply to Oriental Orthodoxy)

Of course. I didn’t mean to imply that it gave them any “orders.” Still, if a bishop who had no ordinary authority whatsoever in my diocese wrote specifically to my diocese with such exhortations, that would be strange at the very least. It would, I think, imply that for whatever reason someone at least thinks that bishop has business concerning himself with another region’s affairs, something that - even in mild forms - the Orthodox seem frightened of today.

I’m no canon lawyer, but it seems that canon actually protects patriarchs from unwarranted interference by those who have no authority to intervene. Eastern Catholic patriarchs should feel secure knowing that the pope is there to prevent abuses of their authority… it’s those patriarchs who don’t have the guarantee of papal protection who ought to fear abuses…

I really feel so many of these issues could be resolved if the Catholic Church could re-couch in different terms the pope’s universal jurisdiction: it’s not actually a legal reality as the Church is not a legal institution. The pope is called to be the servant of the whole Church, and all bishops are entitled to his service-leadership, which should be a boon and not a burden. I’ll keep my fingers crossed, since the last two popes have put the western expression of the pope’s universal authority on the table and have kept it there…

I admit I can’t respond to this because I don’t know what “ecclesiastical communion” means. It sounds simply like being in communion with the pope as opposed to being in schism from him. I will certainly be surprised if, say, Patriarch Gregory III of Antioch requires papal approval every time he seeks to ordain a bishop.

Any members of eastern Catholic patriarchal churches reading this? Can you confirm or deny Hesychios’ point and/or explain what “receives ecclesiastical communion” in the above canons means?

But our UGCC Patriarch HAS been requesting eccles. communion from the Pope - he’s just not in the mood to respond yet . . .

Frankly, I’m surprised. I thought Pope Benedict XVI would have been his own man, traditionalist and disciplinarian that he always has been.

It’s a shame he has buckled under the Vatican ost-politik with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate where the UGCC is concerned.

I am quite sorely disappointed in him. I thought he would be different. It is clear that he is not.

Alex