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

[Don_Ruggero]

A Rite is not confined to its liturgy. The Eastern Code of Canons defines “rite” in this manner: “A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.”

Indeed. In my work on the issue of East-West relations, one of the most important things in my experience is that those who are rigid and who cling to mentalities of the pre-conciliar past, mentalities that have fallen by the wayside in the dialogue at the international level, are simply to be set aside as out of touch with the mind of the Church of today. The mind of the Church in and after Vatican II is well expressed in Pope Saint John Paul II’s “Ut Unum Sint” and his many other writings and addresses – particularly on the occasion of his apostolic visits to the East.

We who are Latin must remember, and never forget, when Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II BEGGED forgiveness for the errors of the past against the Christian East.

For me, there is no image richer and more inspiring than this one as we go forward toward greater and greater communion between East and West.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Again I say good grief. I HAVE NOT said that the West’s distinction of mortal and venial sin is wrong. I have also not said that the Orthodox do not believe there is such a thing as mortal sin.

You and others of the East have been nothing short of attacked and badgered by a Latin Catholic poster in this thread.

This is horrifying to me as a priest. It is inexcusable. It displays a mindset completely alien to the Holy See and to contemporary situation. Such attitudes are unworthy of any Catholic who claims to be faithful to the Bishop of Rome, for he would condemn such behaviour unequivocally.

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you for your kind words Father. To my discredit I keep pushing when I really shouldn’t and know better. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out there are way too many Orthodox who exhibit the same attitude towards Catholics.

 

[twf]

Again I say good grief. I HAVE NOT said that the West’s distinction of mortal and venial sin is wrong. I have also not said that the Orthodox do not believe there is such a thing as mortal sin. What I have said and am trying to say is that we have do not have a formally declared list of what is or isn’t "mortal sin” nor do we make a formal distinction that impacts what should or shouldn’t be confessed and when.

The reality is that there are many “grey areas” in the spiritual life of a Latin Catholic as well…which must be addressed with one’s confessor or spiritual director. Certainly sins are generally understood to be “grave matter”, and thus if committed with full consent of the will and with full knowledge, “mortal sins”, but its not always black and white. Theft can be a grave sin, but it depends on what was stolen and the damage inflicted on the victim. It is probably a mortal sin to steal a hard earned loaf of bread from a starving person…but it probably isn’t a mortal sin to steal a few dollars from a millionaire. Everything in between those two extremes? A matter to be discerned with your confessor.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You didn’t open the link to see the point Bp Elya was making.

And ziapueblo pointed that Bp. Elya’s successor seems to have a different opinion. Is Bp. Samra wrong?

Bp Elya’s ending point was to quote canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, [CCEO = Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (Latin: Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches]

Bp Elya writes

"Here are two relevant canons from OUR Eastern Catholic Church Law:

c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

It’s best to read the entire answer of Elya’s for context.

 

[steve-b]

Thank you for your kind words Father. To my discredit I keep pushing when I really shouldn’t and know better. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out there are way too many Orthodox who exhibit the same attitude towards Catholics.

Actually to your credit, you seek solid answers, not a bunch of (as Bp Elya puts it,)

“where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.”

I think Bp Elya is spot on. He’s not for shutting down conversation nor expressing relativism which so many exhibit today

 

[ChristMyLife]

Despite our frailties, I have full faith we will, in time, return to full communion in way that is neither, “submit to Rome!” nor “repent of your papist heresies!”

I’m all for the EO coming into full Communion with the Catholic Church exactly as they are, and simply acknowledge that the Pope has final appeal and the highest level of jurisdiction in the Church.

He won’t interfere in Eastern Church affairs unless the Patriarch of a particular Church appeals directly to him, or if there’s a clear dispute between two Churches, he sees an immediate need to step in and mediate.

For example, with the current situation between EP/MP/Ukraine, the Pope could step in and settle the issue and thats that. He has final say in serious disputes between Patriarchs. If the dispute continues even after that, he has authority to convene an Ecumenical Council to settle the dispute.

I’d also say that when it comes to deposing Patriarchs, the Pope should have to take into consideration the stances of all the other patriarchs before he does such a thing.

When it comes to appointing Patriarchs, the Eastern Churches should be able to continue doing it exactly how they do now, with the caveat that the Pope has to either give his “recognitio” or “veto” on the new Patriarch, and if he gives a veto, he must give a serious reason as to why he is vetoing it.

Each Patriarchal Eastern Church would also form its own Canon Law, with the Roman Congregation of Eastern Churches giving it a once over on behalf of the Pope and then the Pope giving it his recognitio.

He shouldn’t just act unilatterally but in a collegial manner whenever it’s possible to do so.

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

Despite our frailties, I have full faith we will, in time, return to full communion in way that is neither, “submit to Rome!” nor “repent of your papist heresies!”

I’m all for the EO coming into full Communion with the Catholic Church exactly as they are, and simply acknowledge that the Pope has final appeal and the highest level of jurisdiction in the Church.

He won’t interfere in Eastern Church affairs unless the Patriarch of a particular Church appeals directly to him, or if there’s a clear dispute between two Churches, he sees an immediate need to step in and mediate.

Great sentiment.

ChristMYLife:

For example, with the current situation between EP/MP/Ukraine, the Pope could step in and settle the issue and thats that. He has final say in serious disputes between Patriarchs. If the dispute continues even after that, he has authority to convene an Ecumenical Council to settle the dispute.

Again great sentiment.

However, a Pan Orthodox council was attempted in 2016, and failed. The Russians boycotted the council

The Russians who make up the majority of Orthodoxy, just went into schism with Constantinople, (i.e. the EP) AND in extension schism from all those in union with Constantinople. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

16 yrs ago, Cardinal Walter Kasper, then President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Wrote

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002

And because of authority issues, away goes most of Orthodoxy from the others.

ChristMyLife:

I’d also say that when it comes to deposing Patriarchs, the Pope should have to take into consideration the stances of all the other patriarchs before he does such a thing.

When it comes to appointing Patriarchs, the Eastern Churches should be able to continue doing it exactly how they do now, with the caveat that the Pope has to either give his “recognitio” or “veto” on the new Patriarch, and if he gives a veto, he must give a serious reason as to why he is vetoing it.

Each Patriarchal Eastern Church would also form its own Canon Law, with the Roman Congregation of Eastern Churches giving it a once over on behalf of the Pope and then the Pope giving it his recognitio.

He shouldn’t just act unilatterally but in a collegial manner whenever it’s possible to do so.

Just out loud, How is what you describe, any different than what they have now with the EP?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You didn’t open the link to see the point Bp Elya was making.

And ziapueblo pointed that Bp. Elya’s successor seems to have a different opinion. Is Bp. Samra wrong?

To select one example from that link

When Bp Samra identifies from section on Historical Evaluation of Divisions

He (Bp Smara) equates Catholic Charity, (giving financial support, food, housing, schools etc to those the Church is ministering to) as

“each Church had to struggle to keep their own faithful because the Latins began to build churches and homes for the people – in a sense buying them to accept the Latin Church. In Jerusalem the Latin Church is still nicknamed the Church of the Bread Latins! because they became Latin for food and financial support. Instead of all Christians working together for education and schools, each Church attempted to open their own schools in the cities as well as in small villages where several churches existed. Enter the Protestant Churches who were financially supported by the West, particularly the United States. Again, money, homes, food, and support distracted Eastern Christians away from their proper roots and traditions.”

I wasn’t sure how to respond to that… He Reduced Church charity to a distraction at best and bribing converts at worse. All under the guise of taking people away from their particular traditions?

 

[ziapueblo]

So you’re ok with Latinizations and the Traditions of the Eastern Churches being lost? This is Latin imperialism. The only way to express the faith is from the Latin perspective.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

From Bp Samra’s Historical Evaluation of Divisions

So you’re ok with Latinizations and the Traditions of the Eastern Churches being lost? This is Latin imperialism. The only way to express the faith is from the Latin perspective.

ZP

You’re also equating Catholic Charity with Latinization and imperialism? Holy smokes!

 

[ziapueblo]

You obviously don’t know the history of Latinizations and the loss of traditions in our Churches. It’s a sad realization and at least Popes of the last hundred years or so admit to it and want to do something about it.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

You were criticizing charity as Latinizing. Is that really your position?

 

[ziapueblo]

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m saying using charity to pull people away from their traditions and heritage, yes.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Bishop Samra knows the history. Funny question, do I know the position I’m taking, coming from all your posts I’ve seen

Good night @steven-b! You will never see eye to eye with us Eastern Catholic but that’s ok. I’m fortunate to know many Latins that believe we are fully Catholic and share the same faith even though we don’t share the same theology, Liturgy and expression of it.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

Actually to your credit, you seek solid answers, not a bunch of (as Bp Elya puts it,)

Steve, with respect, farther up this thread you’ve provided quotes that imply I am condemned to hell for being a schismatic Orthodox. When I asked if I was misinterpreting the sources you provided in reaching that conclusion, you did not deny that I am condemned to hell. Why do so many other Catholics here, including Priests, reach a different conclusion as to the status of Orthodox Christians?

 

[steve-b]

Bishop Samra knows the history. Funny question, do I know the position I’m taking, coming from all your posts I’ve seen

Good night @steven-b! You will never see eye to eye with us Eastern Catholic but that’s ok. I’m fortunate to know many Latins that believe we are fully Catholic and share the same faith even though we don’t share the same theology, Liturgy and expression of it.

ZP

You’re punching at a foe of your own making. I’ve been a member of an international Catholic men’s organization that is 100% focused on charity. Most of the ones I personally work with are probably non-Catholics. I never ask anyway. It’s not why I do this. Not ONCE in 30+ yrs of service have I EVER heard of a quid pro quo scenario, by ANYONE where it is understood we feed or house you if you become Catholic. NOT ONCE.

Has anybody I helped over all those years become Catholic? I have no idea. And I have helped the worst of the worst.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Actually to your credit, you seek solid answers, not a bunch of (as Bp Elya puts it,)

Steve, with respect, farther up this thread you’ve provided quotes that imply I am condemned to hell for being a schismatic Orthodox. When I asked if I was misinterpreting the sources you provided in reaching that conclusion, you did not deny that I am condemned to hell. Why do so many other Catholics here, including Priests, reach a different conclusion as to the status of Orthodox Christians?

The quotes made the conclusion…not me…True? You wanted me to deny the conclusion from the quotes. Who am I to deny scripture, or an ecumenical council etc

 

[Isaac14]

The Russians who make up the majority of Orthodoxy, just went into schism with Constantinople, (i.e. the EP) AND in extension schism from all those in union with Constantinople.

That’s not true. My church, the Orthodox Church in America, is in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople.

Just out loud, How is what you describe, any different than what they have now with the EP?

For one, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no say in the choice of Patriarch or Primate of any other autocephalous church, nor do autocephalous churches have to submit their canon law for approval. Having to submit names or laws for approval outside of an autocephalous church goes against our ecclesiology.