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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I quote the CCC and other Church docs and solid Catholic references, copiously in my posts to support a point.

This can be easily done by a sedavacantist. Quoting Church teachings does not mean you agree with them, or are willing to act in accordance with them.

attack of me and my quotes

I am not attacking you Steve, I am trying to give you some feedback, about which you seem to be quite incalcitrant. I have not taken issue with any of your references only the conclusions you have drawn from them.

only shows your disdain tor the message those sources deliver

I have no doubt that it seems that way to you. You do not see any difference between your sources, and your conclusions. Anyone who has concerns about your interpretation of the documents is judged to have “disdain”. I was a fundamentalist before I was a revert, and I can see that you have a fundamentalist mentality about your position. Anyone who does not agree with your position is not against your perceptions, but against God.

Is something in them hitting a sore spot with you. Is THAT what this is all about?

I address bigotry where ever I find it. It is nothing personal.

You obviously don’t like the quotes I used.

I understand that you cannot see a difference between your sources, and your conclusions. This is a function of a fundamentalist mind.

Jurisdiction / authority has always been an issue with the Orthodox.

I think this is one of the best arguments, and works much better than disparaging the faith of those who are not yet in union with the successor of Peter.

autocephalous Orthodox Churches

You will note that Cardinal Kasper describes them as valid Churches. This is because they have valid Bishops (apostolic succession) and thus valid Holy Orders, and Sacraments.

It’s an ongoing “dialogue”. Made more difficult by this latest episode with the Russians

These seems quite pessimistic on your part. The other Eastern Churches that reunited with Rome did so under similar circumstances. Why not hope and pray that this is an opportunity for unity?

You disagree with my sources. My quotes. THAT’s what this is about.

 

[ziapueblo]

I agree, an ongoing dialogue with challenges, but coming to an understanding of the first millennium Church. From what I understand the next talks will be on what has happened, both Catholic and Orthodox, during the second millennium.

ZP

 

[guanophore]

You disagree with my sources. My quotes. THAT’s what this is about.

I think it is important for you to believe that, so that you can discount the feedback on your style/attitude.

I actually posted these comments as much for others reading the thread, so that they will know that your attitude only comprises a very small percentage of Catholics, and that there are other ways to understand and appreciate what the Church is teaching.

That being said, I think I will link to some of your posts as examples as well as references because they are very pointed and comprehensive. I was just reading on another thread that “heterodoxy” is ok, and I think some of your sources will be a good response to that!

 

[steve-b]

You disagree with my sources. My quotes. THAT’s what this is about.

guanophore:

I think it is important for you to believe that, so that you can discount the feedback on your style/attitude.

I actually posted these comments as much for others reading the thread, so that they will know that your attitude only comprises a very small percentage of Catholics, and that there are other ways to understand and appreciate what the Church is teaching.

Count up my quotes used on this thread . I have 60 posts on this thread. Be absolutely specific. Which sources I quoted have my name on them? None. I quoted scripture, tradition, the magisterium of the Church, and qualified Catholic articles all of which are properly referenced.

guanophore:

That being said, I think I will link to some of your posts as examples as well as references because they are very pointed and comprehensive. I was just reading on another thread that “heterodoxy” is ok, and I think some of your sources will be a good response to that!

Give examples

 

[guanophore]

Which sources I quoted have my name on them?

You are not listening, Steve. I don’t have any issue with your sources… It is the conclusions and the attitude.

Give examples

You have been given Examples by myself and other members. We have followed the Scripture, and gone to our brother, and told him his fault. He has refused to listen.

In the meantime, here is another thread that could really use your Sources.

Does it matter what denomination you are a part of? Apologetics

“We all have Jesus and our own opinions so it doesn’t matter if we are in different types of denominations right? I mean Jesus wouldn’t care if you are Baptist, catholic, or any type of protestant as long as we have Jesus in our heart” -protestants

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Which sources I quoted have my name on them?

You are not listening, Steve. I don’t have any issue with your sources… It is the conclusions and the attitude.

Give examples

You have been given Examples by myself and other members. We have followed the Scripture, and gone to our brother, and told him his fault. He has refused to listen.

You are the one not listening. Where are the posts in question, properly referenced?

 

[AlNg]

schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054.

I thought it was the Roman Catholic authorities in 1054 which condemned the Orthodox because they (the Orthodox) had married priests and that they would not say the filioque in their creed and a few other issues and so they (the RC) broke away from the Orthodox Church ?

 

[AlNg]

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?

Yes. That is what it looks like to me also. Of course, I would not agree with Steve on this.

 

[AlNg]

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

However, the E. Orthodox would say that to go deeper into history is to see why you should embrace their religion.

 

[AlNg]

Show me where “ Orthodox Church ” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?

It doesn’t matter because this is not the official name of the EO Church. Their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church . So they are the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church with the orthodox teachings, according to their teaching.

 

[AlNg]

The Orthodox chose to go by a different name

No. They are the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church according to them. Their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church which is to indicate that their teachings are Orthodox.

 

[AlNg]

Peter doesn’t split from himself.

At one time there were three Popes. Peter had split into three and it took a Council of the Church to decide on one Pope among the three. Without such a Council, no one would know who was the Pope.

 

[AlNg]

We venerate the same saints and we share the same apostolic succession.

Orthodox and Roman Catholics have apostolic succession, but they do not venerate exactly and 100% the same saints.

 

[AlNg]

You may be in danger of fomenting the same divisions and factions you preach against.

As long as Roman Catholics persist in this line of discussion as we see from Steve, I doubt that EO will be enthusiastic about embracing reunion with RC.

 

[AlNg]

Read the text (above) again.

" Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity ,

Ergo,

where there is no harmony and no unity, there is no virtue.

From a logical POV, I guess you are right on this point. It is simple logic, except that I think that the ergo should be: where there is either no harmony or no unity, there is no virtue. IMHO, the statement in the CCC is wrong. I think you can find virtue in people belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, even though they may not be in union with the Roman Catholic Church. IOW. I think you can have virtue in situations where there is not complete unity.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.

However, the E. Orthodox would say that to go deeper into history is to see why you should embrace their religion.

OK, the way this works then, using that quote “to go deep in history”,

Then show the evidence , as in going back to the 1st century on, quote from sources, where / when “Orthodox Church” 1st appears in history, in writing, properly referenced… right?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Show me where “ Orthodox Church ” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?

It doesn’t matter because this is not the official name of the EO Church. Their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church . So they are the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church with the orthodox teachings, according to their teaching.

Orthodox who came back to the Catholic Church would disagree.

Allow me to quote an Eastern Catholic bishop whose Church was previously Orthodox.

In a Q/A (emphasis mine)

A: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
(source: » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?)

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Peter doesn’t split from himself.

At one time there were three Popes. Peter had split into three and it took a Council of the Church to decide on one Pope among the three. Without such a Council, no one would know who was the Pope.

This is a good place to give references properly referenced.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Read the text (above) again.

" Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity ,

Ergo,

where there is no harmony and no unity, there is no virtue.

From a logical POV, I guess you are right on this point. It is simple logic, except that I think that the ergo should be: where there is either no harmony or no unity, there is no virtue. IMHO, the statement in the CCC is wrong. I think you can find virtue in people belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, even though they may not be in union with the Roman Catholic Church. IOW. I think you can have virtue in situations where there is not complete unity.

Are you aware of the recent schism of the Russians and Constantinople, meaning the Russians are not in union with those Orthodox who are in union with Constantinople as well. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

 

[twf]

You know full well that his views don’t represent the Catholic Church. On the other hand, there are Orthodox clergy who not only condemn us as schismatics and heretics, but also proclaim even our baptism to be null and void. You will never find a Catholic polemicist who goes to the length some Orthodox do in their contempt for Catholicism. Orthodoxy has no official / consistent teaching on Catholicism… while Catholicism officially recognizes the Orthodox Churches as sister churches with valid sacraments.