Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?

[semper_catholicus]

Those who are apart of Christ’s Church by virtue of their baptism can separate themselves from it by schism.

 

[guanophore]

When Eastern Orthodox priest administers confession, baptism or sacrament of Holy Orders, he administers Catholic Sacrament- but it is not his right to do it. It is “stolen” or “borrowed” in a sense- therefore while it remains of course valid as he used property of the Church, lawfully speaking he had no right to use it because he himself is not part of the Church.

This is patently contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. The CC would not consider EO Holy Orders valid, and the Sacraments valid, if they were “stolen, borrowed” or they had no “right” to do them!

They possess the valid sacrament of Eucharist- and therefore we recognize them as “church” but not as Church.

This is not consistent with what the CC teaches either.

What we generally call full Communion applies to someone who has same faith as Church, isnt in anathema and is submissive to authority of Church.

Yes, there are many that are in a state of imperfect communion, but of those, our differences with the EO are the least.

If the Orthodox have apostolic succession, therefore a valid Eucharist, how can it be that they are administered unlawfully?

Because canon laws are human laws. A Catholic priest can administer sacraments unlawfully also. One is to have permission of the Bishop to perform sacramental duties in a diocese. One is given faculties, or permission to serve temporarily. If their faculties are removed, it is no longer lawful for them to perform sacraments in the diocese. Sometimes this is a disciplinary action.

They possess incomplete union with Catholic Church and therefore with God.

The EO would certainly not say so either!

Schismatics never lawfully celebrate the sacraments (except in cases where Ecclesia Supplet would apply), because they are schismatics.

In fact, the reason for which you say that they don’t celebrate theirnSacraments unlawfully is exactly the reason why they do celebrate them unlawfully.

And this is precisely the reason why Latin Catholics cannot receive sacraments in the EO Church. From their perspective, it is we who are in schism and have departed from the One True Church.

yet Schism is schism.

Those who did not initiate the schism cannot be charged with the sin of separation.

 

[guanophore]

That does not mean that they celebrate the Sacraments lawfully, or that they have Jurisdiction (which would be required to do so).

The Bishops are obligated to provide the faithful with the sacramental life of the Church. Since their Holy Orders are valid, then it is within their jurisdiction to celebrate them.

Jurisdiction exists only in the Catholic Church

I am not sure what you mean by this, but the CC recognizes the jurisdiction of the Eastern Churches.

It uses a binary position

You will find this characteristic is ubiquitous throughout the posts from that source.

It seems like you believe this to be true because you say it is and you are your own authority.

Ahhh…the higher authority at last!

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott

One must take Ott with a grain of salt.

 

[guanophore]

Sacraments are validly administered by Orthodox priests but because they lack union with Church they can not fully lawfully administer them- however whether or not it is sin depends on actual will and intent of the one who administers them.

This is not consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches.

It is however primary property of entire Catholic Church.

I don’t know where you are getting this “property” concept. Sacraments are avenues of God’s grace, which cannot be “owned” by people. The Church teaches that sacraments are the right of the faithful, so if anyone has “ownership” of them, it would be the recipients!

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma- in a sense that every sacrament comes from Church and so does salvation.

Yes, but it does not follow that sacraments which occur outside of full communion are not valid or licit. Otherwise, the CC would not accept Protestant baptism.

Orthodox are not part of Catholic Church (atleast not fully, I believe you would agree with this) and hence they are not part of community to which sacraments rightfully belong.

This is not consistent with what the CC teaches. Sacraments are not possessions. They rightfully “belong” to those who receive them. EO have rightfully received Holy Orders, and have valid priesthood, and valid sacraments which are validly offered to the faithful.

They are however not part of Catholic Church…

There is only One Church, and all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. They have received the faith from the Apostles just as we have. They don’t vote at the Councils because of the Schism.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Holy Orders of Orthodox Church are valid as they are administered validly- but they (property of Catholic Church) are not administered in the Church but outside it- I mean, the theory of Sister Churches and everyone having true right to administer sacraments would make Catholic Church be just an “option” along with all churches that have apostolic succession. Jesus did however estabilish one Church and gave the Church through Apostles right to administer sacraments. Those outside of the Church can do it too and God, through his grace and his promise to all mankind, does allow them to be administered as those who initiated the schism aren’t among them right now anyway, but that does not mean they should be administered outside the Church. I’m not expert on this, but I also do not quite believe this view is right as it kind of makes Catholic Church just one of many- not The Church that Jesus estabilished, just a Sister Church of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglican Church etc.

 

[ziapueblo]

Many like to throw the word schism around, yet from EWTN, “While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.”

We all agree that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are not in full communion but like what has been posted many times, an imperfect communion. The Orthodox have apostolic succession therefore a valid Eucharist.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m not expert on this, but I also do not quite believe this view is right as it kind of makes Catholic Church just one of many- not The Church that Jesus estabilished, just a Sister Church of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglican Church etc.

The Anglican Church is not seen as a “Sister Church” because they do not have apostolic succession therefore they do not have a valid Eucharist.

ZP

 

[babochka]

I agree that the terminology “sister Church” is a bit problematic. This was actually a topic of discussion at this year’s Orientale Lumen conference.

Orthodox and Catholics: Sister Churches? – Paulist Fathers

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

oops, my bad then. I’ve read quite a lot of history lately and before their heavy “protestantization”, they were considered one so I made a mistake there. Thanks for correction!

 

[guanophore]

Those who are apart of Christ’s Church by virtue of their baptism can separate themselves from it by schism.

Yes, but most of those who are born into communities that have been separated are not even aware that they are in a state of imperfect unity. And the EO have been taught that it is the Latins who left the One Faith. As with American Catholics, few study the history of the Church.

 

[AlNg]

guess we weren’t going to get out of that Revolutionary war, were we?

Americans are subject invisibly to Her Majesty the Queen of England by the theory of the Divine Right. King George III did not agree to the demands of the American revolutionaries, who never had the Divine Right. The subjection to Her Majesty the Queen is completely invisible and no one can see it. However, even if you reject Her authority, you are still subject to Her Majesty the Queen of England.
And of course, we all know that the Jews of Israel are subject to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, and likewise all the Hindus of India, and all Muslims across the whole world, all Buddhists, all atheists, etc., whether they agree to it or not. And of course, it is a totally invisible subjection that no one can see.
Does that make sense now?

 

[AlNg]

Do you believe that all the EO are “excommunicated”?

A while back, I read in the newspaper that a local bishop had excommunicated a Roman Catholic who converted to EO.

 

[AlNg]

One must take Ott with a grain of salt.

Does that mean that there are mistakes in his book? Where are the errors?

 

[steve-b]

• Heresy / divisiveness./ schism αἱρετικὸν, & Titus 3:10-11 IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences? Paul says to Bp Titus, “After admonishing such a person once or twice, have nothing more to do with them, They are perverted, and in serious sin, That person is self condemned.”
• Division / dissension / sedition διχοστασίαι, That same Greek word is used in both the following passages
  Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21
  Why is schism grave (mortal) sin? Note the consequences? (Gal 5:21] “ I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW one goes to hell when they die in that sin.

Do Anglicans fit the profile for being “in” the Catholic Church? No

guanophore:

I think the more appropriate word wold be “fully”. Obviously they are “in”, just not in perfect unity.

To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.

guanophore:

The Catechism indicates that there are members of the Body of Christ that are not fully incorporated, so your rendering seems to contradict.

AND

as the CCC also says

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

Now look at the consequences Paul mentions above for one being divided and remains divided from the Church (which is Our Lord’s body)

 

[steve-b]

Many like to throw the word schism around, yet from EWTN, hile full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.”

We all agree that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are not in full communion but like what has been posted many times, an imperfect communion. The Orthodox have apostolic succession therefore a valid Eucharist.

ZP

Excommunication was lifted, schism is still in place.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

yet Schism is schism.

guanophore:

Those who did not initiate the schism cannot be charged with the sin of separation.

That idea is not a permanent get outta jail free card. Given how easy information is to get today on this planet, the CCC points out, ignorance of one’s position must be innocent in order to get that benefit of ignorance.

HOWEVER

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

As in to remain in schism, heresy etc etc, in spite of an avalanche of information available showing such error, and not change, i.e. keep error going…they are culpable

 

[Isaac14]

Steve-b: if I understand what you’re saying, since I’ve read this thread and consequently gained knowledge, I as a Lutheran convert to Orthodoxy am fully culpable of schism and unless I unite myself to the Catholic Church will be condemned to hell?

 

[steve-b]

Steve-b: if I understand what you’re saying, since I’ve read this thread and consequently gained knowledge, I as a Lutheran convert to Orthodoxy am fully culpable of schism and unless I unite myself to the Catholic Church will be condemned to hell?

Allow me to ask

why did you leave Lutheranism for one of the E Orthodox churches?

 

[XXI_4]

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Edit:. Paragraph 838, CCC

 

[Isaac14]

Not sure of the relevancy to my question but it was two-fold:

1. My last Lutheran pastor basically stated that one doesn’t need to believe in the Resurrection or virgin birth in order to be a Christian.
2. Upon hearing that, I looked for a more solid church, and found that in the Orthdox church the services are so full of scripture and so much emphasize the resurrection that I never left after attending my first service.