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

[twf]

If this is the Catholic Church’s position, it is all the more alarming that our 1983 code of canon law permits Orthodox Christians to commune with us under certain circumstances…

The poster in question didn’t seem to think much of some aspects of St John Paul’s Catechism… so perhaps his codification of canon law is also suspect.

 

[AlNg]

There are plenty of married clergy within the Catholic Church today.

If a married clergy is acceptable, was it absolutely wrong for the Roman Church to mention it as one reason why His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers should be excommunicated.

can you show me where schism is approved in scripture?

It is not. Then was it right for the Roman Church to cause a schism by mentioning a married clergy as a reason for excommunicating His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers?

 

[AlNg]

You’ve already kindly and gently provided the quotes above that reveal me and all my fellow Orthodox Christians are condemned to hell.

The question I would have is that if all the Orthodox Christians are going to hell, why then does the Roman Church allow an Orthodox Christian to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Church (Remembering though that this only goes one way in the sense that the Orthodox Church does not generally allow a member to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church).

 

[Isaac14]

The question I would have is that if all the Orthodox Christians are going to hell, why then does the Roman Church allow an Orthodox Christian to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Church (Remembering though that this only goes one way in the sense that the Orthodox Church does not generally allow a member to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church).

AINg: I apologize for any confusion. I’m only pressing on Steve’s mistaken and repeated assertion about my status as someone, in his judgement, that is culpable (to the point of condemnation to Hell) for the sin of schism simply for being Orthodox. Many others have tried to point out to him, as you have, that the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is much more complex than his black and white view of things.

 

[AlNg]

AINg: I apologize for any confusion.

You were right. It was my formatting error. I was referring to the fact that I could not make sense of what Steve had implied.

 

[ziapueblo]

So there is no confusion, note the following is a quote. (emphasis mine)

“ However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9]”

Again, the Catholic Church as a whole and the Orthodox Church as a whole cannot be called sister Churches. To many Latin Catholics believe that “Roman Catholic” is synonymous with the Catholic Church but the Catholic Church is made up of 24 sui juris or particular Churches. The Latin Church being one of these particular Churches. As quoted from the Note on the Expression Sister Churches, “In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.” So the Latin diocese of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox diocese of Constantinople, or for that matter, the Latin Church (as it is a particular Church) and the Greek Orthodox Church (as it is a Patriarchate) can refer to each other as sister Churches.

Here is a quote from an article by Father Ronald Roberson, CSP on the theme “Sister Churches: Fact or Fiction?” form this years Orientale Lumen Conference. I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about and I assume he attended the conference since he is the associate director for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs at the USCCB. “Thus it is appropriate for Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs to refer to each other as heading sister churches which in this case are the diocese of Rome and the diocese of Constantinople.”

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What’s the consequences for those who die in that sin?

You’ve already kindly and gently provided the quotes above that reveal me and all my fellow Orthodox Christians are condemned to hell.

Q:

While those quotes are there, and they aren’t from me, the question is, what does one do with those quotes?

 

[steve-b]

Continuing,

So there is no confusion, note the following is a quote. (emphasis mine)

“ However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9]”

ziapueblo:

Again, the Catholic Church as a whole and the Orthodox Church as a whole cannot be called sister Churches.

And that’ reiterates the points of the quotes already given , for the clarification of “sister churches” True?

ziapueblo:

Here is a quote from an article by Father Ronald Roberson, CSP on the theme “Sister Churches: Fact or Fiction?” form this years Orientale Lumen Conference. I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about …

AND

Note the conclusion to your article

“The presentations at the 22nd Orientale Lumen Conference examined this situation from various points of view. The theme was introduced at the first plenary session by Dr. Will Cohen, a professor at Scranton University, who published in 2016 an in-depth examination of the question in his book, The Concept of ‘Sister Churches’ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since Vatican II. Other speakers included Patriarch Emeritus Gregorios III of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church; Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (by video), Professor Emeritus, Oxford University; Father Robert Kaslyn, SJ, School of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America; Father John Ford, CSC, Professor Emeritus of Ecumenism at The Catholic University of America; Father Hyacinthe Destivelle, OP, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Unity in the Vatican; and Mr. Michael Haldas, a Greek Orthodox author, lecturer, and educator. Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, attended the Tuesday evening session to hear Fr Destivelle’s presentation.
None of the speakers took a position with regard to the appropriateness of the Catholic and Orthodox churches as a whole referring to each other as sister churches,”

Which has been the clarifying point…true?

 

[steve-b]

If this is the Catholic Church’s position, it is all the more alarming that our 1983 code of canon law permits Orthodox Christians to commune with us under certain circumstances…

The poster in question didn’t seem to think much of some aspects of St John Paul’s Catechism… so perhaps his codification of canon law is also suspect.

The “poster” in question, has posted all the appropriate Church quotes unredacted and unchanged.

Reverse the example.

Catholics are NOT to think attending an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday satisfies A Catholic’s obligation for attending mass.

Canon Law

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

The reason an Orthodox liturgy doesn’t satisfy our obligation is because it is NOT a Catholic rite, AND in communion there is to be a unity of community which in that case does not exist. It maybe valid but without it being a Catholic rite, and that unity of community is not there , it is illicit. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

 

[twf]

You misunderstood. What I said is “our 1983 code of canon law permits Orthodox Christians to commune with us under certain circumstances”… meaning, Orthodox Christians may receive communion at a Catholic Mass. Catholics may only receive communion at an Orthodox liturgy under very particular circumstances - but that wasn’t the topic of discussion.

From Canon 844:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

 

[Isaac14]

Q:

While those quotes are there, and they aren’t from me, the question is, what does one do with those quotes?

Considering the large majority of your fellow Catholics have quoted both your Code of Canon Law and Catechism to state that I (and my fellow Orthodox) am NOT condemned to hell, I will kindly and gently ignore your misapplication of St. Paul’s words.

Indeed, I have read with my own eyes, in the missal at my wife’s church, that Orthodox are welcome to receive the Eucharist. If, as you contend St. Paul says, the Orthodox are under blanket condemnation, how then can we be welcome to receive the Eucharist?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Statement in CCC isnt wrong- mathematically speaking atleast.

“Where there is virtue, however, there are also harmony and unity” means if virtue is there, there are also harmony and unity. It doesnt say anything about harmony and unity existing without virtue. While it does say that if there is no harmony and unity, there is no virtue- but if there is harmony amongst them there can be virtue. They dont have unity but harmony also qualifies. It doesnt also state “unity with Church” or “harmony with Church”, it merely states harmon and unity.
Also, Catholics did not excommunicate Cerularius for omitting Filioque- Cardinal Humbert was sent to Constantinople because Patriarch Cerularius stepped on Latin Eucharist. Also decree by which Cerularius was excommunicated was not valid hence Catholic Church never excommunicated him- also Cerularius excommunicated himself by stepping on Body of Our Lord with his feet and implying it was never valid Eucharist.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Orthodox are certainly not condemned to Hell by being Orthodox- Steve however quoted some quotes we ought to respect and look into instead of dismissing them. Paul says schism is a sin- which it is, but not every eastern orthodox is guilty of schism- some were just born to being in schism or are in schism by no fault of their own. Steve’s quotes imply that those guilty of schism are in-fact condemned, not those who participate in it by no fault of their own. I am not sure if he himself understands this or not however, instead of hating him and dimissing him, it would be better of us Catholics to actually explain and address the Holy Words from Bible that he provided.

 

[steve-b]

Considering the large majority of your fellow Catholics have quoted both your Code of Canon Law and Catechism to state that I (and my fellow Orthodox) am NOT condemned to hell, I will kindly and gently ignore your misapplication of St. Paul’s words.

to your points,

The Catholic Church views this, as How Eastern Orthodox Christians Can Be Saved | Catholic Answers

Re: Canon Law, Scripture, the CCC, etc I’m just giving information properly referenced. What anybody does with it is up to them

According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true religion and Catholicism is the ordinary means of salvation (John 14:6; The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism , Chapter 1, part 23; CCC 846). However, it acknowledges that there can be elements of truth in other religions, such elements are true insofar as they are in line with Catholic teaching. “All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to ‘Catholic unity,’” the Catechism explains (CCC 819).

“Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning,” the Catechism continues. “This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time … the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her … The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 820).

“Concern for achieving unity ‘involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike,’” the Catechism instructs (CCC 822).
Issac14:

Indeed, I have read with my own eyes, in the missal at my wife’s church, that Orthodox are welcome to receive the Eucharist. If, as you contend St. Paul says, the Orthodox are under blanket condemnation, how then can we be welcome to receive the Eucharist?

To answer that, can we reverse that example. What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

1. “Under current law, Eastern non-Catholic liturgies do not fulfill the Sunday obligation.” Orthodox Liturgies & Sunday Obligation – Jimmy Akin

 

[steve-b]

Orthodox are certainly not condemned to Hell by being Orthodox- Steve however quoted some quotes we ought to respect and look into instead of dismissing them. Paul says schism is a sin- which it is, but not every eastern orthodox is guilty of schism- some were just born to being in schism or are in schism by no fault of their own. Steve’s quotes imply that those guilty of schism are in-fact condemned, not those who participate in it by no fault of their own. I am not sure if he himself understands this or not however, instead of hating him and dimissing him, it would be better of us Catholics to actually explain and address the Holy Words from Bible that he provided.

Thanks for your thoughts and support.

Re: the point through “no fault of their own”, I’ve always taken that point to be the reason behind the need for education and formation, not to be silent or ignore the issue so one isn’t in, or left in the dark. IOW we are all ignorant of way more than we will ever know on this side of eternity. But as for knowing what we are to know, how does that happen?

Re: ignorance being innocent or culpable, I’ve always included somewhere in the conversation, the following from the CCC

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.

In extension, that is why I bring up the points I do.

 

[eagerbeaver]

To answer that, can we reverse that example. What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

I would be MOST surprised if an Orthodox Priest, who did not know you ,would give you the Eucharist without actually questioning you when you approached the Chalice . Even in Eastern Catholic Churches I have seen visitors/strangers gently questioned when they come forward for Communion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To answer that, can we reverse that example. What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

I would be MOST surprised if an Orthodox Priest, who did not know you ,would give you the Eucharist without actually questioning you when you approached the Chalice .

Thanks for your response

It actually makes my point and gives the why behind it. All the ecumenical speak aside, there is no communion when there is no unity of community.

 

[ziapueblo]

I would be MOST surprised if an Orthodox Priest, who did not know you ,would give you the Eucharist without actually questioning you when you approached the Chalice . Even in Eastern Catholic Churches I have seen visitors/strangers gently questioned when they come forward for Communion.

It also depends on where you are. I know that in Eastern Europe and the Middle East there is intercommunion going on all the time. Within the family they may be Romanian Greek Catholic and Romanian Orthodox, or you may be Antiochian Orthodox and the only Church close to you is a Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

I know someone who is Melkite and when they are away for the summer months at their summer home they attend an OCA parish because there is no Byzantine Catholic Church in town. They know he is Byzantine Catholic, he makes no bones about it, and he is allowed to receive the chalice since he has made himself part of the community when he is there. Another person I know spent time in Romania and an Orthodox monestary. She never approached the chalice. When ask why not, she told them that she was Byzantine Catholic and they replied, “we’re the same Church,” and allowed her to receive the chalice. Another friend of mine, while an undergrad, there were no Byzantine Catholic Churches so he went to the local OCA and would often make Prosforo. They all new he was Catholic.

I think at the local level, for the most part, we Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox see each other as the same and the only issue is a problem with “upper management” so to speak. Now I can only speak from my experience.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

Orthodox are certainly not condemned to Hell by being Orthodox- Steve however quoted some quotes we ought to respect and look into instead of dismissing them. Paul says schism is a sin- which it is, but not every eastern orthodox is guilty of schism- some were just born to being in schism or are in schism by no fault of their own. Steve’s quotes imply that those guilty of schism are in-fact condemned, not those who participate in it by no fault of their own. I am not sure if he himself understands this or not however, instead of hating him and dimissing him, it would be better of us Catholics to actually explain and address the Holy Words from Bible that he provided.

Orbis: I agree with everything you’ve stated here, with perhaps a few clarifications.

I obviously agree with St. Paul that schism is a sin. In my case, I converted to Orthodoxy from Lutheranism. My wife is Catholic. I have no room to claim ignorance in this.

What has irked me (and no doubt others) is that Steve’s approach is so black and white. As much as both the Orthodox and Catholics have every right to believe the “other” is guilty of schism, that does nothing to help us actually achieve restored communion between our Churches through the dialogue that has and continues to take place. If we’re not willing to look at the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches with more nuance than to speak only terms of schism and guilt, we have little hope.

 

[Isaac14]

To answer that, can we reverse that example. What happens if I as a Catholic receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday. Have I met my Sunday obligation for Mass, according to the Catholic Church? … No

Steve: you’re side-stepping the point. I’m not talking about whether attendance at each other’s church fulfills one’s Sunday obligation. I’m stating that according the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in line with the Code of Canon Law (844 section 3), the Catholic Church does not object to the reception of communion in a Catholic Church by Orthodox Christians. This makes no sense if schism has condemned us.