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

[babochka]

This is a very good question. I think we Eastern Catholics can be a bit defensive and for good reason.

Here in the West, our very existence is unbalanced. If we have Catholic friends, they are almost always western. If we go to Catholic school, we get only a western perspective. Outside of our parish liturgical life, we are surrounded on all sides by those who have a very one-sided perspective and, for the most part, are not even aware that another perspective exists.

And so we seek out Orthodox sources to learn about and nourish our faith. Ancient Faith Publishing is going to speak to us more than Ignatius Press. In many cases, Orthodox sources are our only option if we want to bring balance to our Catholic identity. Our identity, for the most part, is firmly Catholic. Otherwise, we would be Orthodox.

Even the way your question is phrased points to the unbalanced reality. It assumes that Catholic identity is Western and that the Eastern identity is somehow separate from the Catholic identity. You never have to ask a Western Catholic how they find the balance between their Catholic identity and their Western identity.

 

[AlNg]

Is Purgatory an infallible doctrine of the Roman Catholic church? Same question for indulgences.

 

[AlNg]

If we go to Catholic school, we get only a western perspective.

Yes. I know of a case in a Catholic school where a nun spoke to the parents of an Eastern Catholic student and asked for him to convert to Roman Catholicism so that he could attend First Holy Communion with the other students.

 

[babochka]

Is Purgatory an infallible doctrine of the Roman Catholic church? Same question for indulgences.

I attended an Eastern Catholic funeral today. I know the Orthodox don’t like to use the word Purgatory and it brings up certain medieval Western images…but, I’ve got to say, “lex orandi, lex credendi”. Call if by any name you want, we believe in Purgatory. If in doubt, read our liturgical texts.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

If we go to Catholic school, we get only a western perspective.

Yes. I know of a case in a Catholic school where a nun spoke to the parents of an Eastern Catholic student and asked for him to convert to Roman Catholicism so that he could attend First Holy Communion with the other students.

I went to Catholic school and was frequently (kindly and gently) “corrected” on the way I made the sign of the cross. I also quite scandalized my 1st Grade teacher by approaching to receive Holy Communion. After a long meeting with the pastor, the matter of receiving Communion was worked out, but I’m pretty sure the good sisters were never quite convinced that we were really Catholic.

 

[twf]

Yes, my Orthodox cousin has basically said the same thing to me. If I remember correctly he said something along the lines “we claim we don’t believe in Purgatory, but we sure act like we do!”.

Here’s how Pope Benedict describes Purgatory:

1. A further point must be mentioned here, because it is important for the practice of Christian hope. Early Jewish thought includes the idea that one can help the deceased in their intermediate state through prayer (see for example 2 Macc 12:38-45; first century BC). The equivalent practice was readily adopted by Christians and is common to the Eastern and Western Church. The East does not recognize the purifying and expiatory suffering of souls in the afterlife, but it does acknowledge various levels of beatitude and of suffering in the intermediate state. The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today. Who would not feel the need to convey to their departed loved ones a sign of kindness, a gesture of gratitude or even a request for pardon? Now a further question arises: if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. And for that there is no need to convert earthly time into God’s time: in the communion of souls simple terrestrial time is superseded. It is never too late to touch the heart of another, nor is it ever in vain. In this way we further clarify an important element of the Christian concept of hope. Our hope is always essentially also hope for others; only thus is it truly hope for me too[40]. As Christians we should never limit ourselves to asking: how can I save myself? We should also ask: what can I do in order that others may be saved and that for them too the star of hope may rise? Then I will have done my utmost for my own personal salvation as well.
   Spe salvi (November 30, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI

 

[semper_catholicus]

That’s false. That can’t be the case. To say that means there’s a fundamental difference in the nature of the Sacrament between the Eastern and Western Churches, which cannot be. If that were the case, that the priest were the minister of the Sacrament, then what is the point of having the codes on the nullity process in the Eastern Code of Canon Law?

 

[Wandile]

The case of Pope Zosmius is not a good example at all. Members of the African church who were against his intrusion were against it out of disobedience and stubbornness. They felt he didn’t respect them and felt he was overusing his power and disregarding the procedures they had set up for themselves. The same African church during the reign of St Cyprian called for the Pope to singlehandedly depose certain Bishops without council. The same African church later again said the pope should butt out when St Cyrpian had disagreement with Pope St Stephen.

All this shows is that the Africans in principle (as this is seen in many writings) agreed with papal authority especially when they had no “beef” with Rome but as soon as they had a dispute with Rome they conveniently didn’t want to hear anything about papal authority.

 

[AlNg]

That’s false. That can’t be the case.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

 

[Wandile]

I thinks it’s wrong for Eastern Catholics to say we don’t see them as real Catholics or as Catholics with a fuzzy liturgy.

I just think there is a real disparity in approach to catholic identity. Most western Catholics are wary of a tendency (which sometimes but not always) to emphasize easterness over catholicity. I have seen certain Eastern Catholics literally deny core dogmas of the faith (Papal Supremacy and infallibility, Purgatory, Filioque etc) and yet still claim to be catholic. This is ridiculous. There’s is only one Catholic faith and Catholics believe the same things in the west, east, north and south. Truth is not limited to geography.

However western Catholics need to also be aware that just because we believe the same things, doesn’t mean we articulate these truths in the same manner. This is where theology comes in. An Eastern Catholic can’t deny the Filioque for example but they can word it in a different way (commonly they say “through the Son”).

 

[AlNg]

The case of Pope Zosmius is not a good example at all. Members of the African church who were against his intrusion were against it out of disobedience and stubbornness.

Did the Council of Carthage support the African bishops in this case or not? Further did the undivided Church say in Canons 3,4,and 5 of the Council of Sardica that the Pope of Rome had the right to judge only those bishops subordinated to him.

 

[Wandile]

semper_catholicus:

That’s false. That can’t be the case.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Yes in eastern theology the priest confers the sacrament. However that doesn’t mean there aren’t cases of nullity. That is a difference between us and them. Also their priests confer confirmation too.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The case of Pope Zosmius is not a good example at all. Members of the African church who were against his intrusion were against it out of disobedience and stubbornness.

Did the Council of Carthage support the African bishops in this case or not? Further did the undivided Church say in Canons 3,4,and 5 of the Council of Sardica that the Pope of Rome had the right to judge only those bishops subordinated to him.

There were many councils of Carthage. However the one in 418 politely asked Rome to respect their synodal procedures and canons. Which is reasonable. It didn’t say he couldn’t intervene. During the controversy of Pope St Zosmius he errenously tried to strengthen his claim by saying that Nicaea also affirmed his authority to judge cases when in fact it was Sardica.

Sardica said that the pope can judge all cases not only those surbordinated to him. Sardica upheld the already established tradition of Rome as the final and highest court of appeals.

Here are the canons of sardica :

• Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case – the trial court – should “honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle” and write to the bishop of Rome about the case; if the bishop of Rome – the court of second instance – decides that the case should be retried, then “let that be done, and let him appoint judges;” if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should not be retried, then he shall confirm the verdict.[vii]
• Canon 4: if a bishop is sentenced with deposition in a case by a verdict “of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places,” and if the deposed bishop “announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome,” then the execution of the sentence is suspended, in that a replacement bishop shall not be ordained to the see of the deposed bishop until after the case has “been determined in the judgment of” the bishop of Rome.[viii]
  [*]Canon 7: if a bishop is deposed from his office by bishops of his region acting as a court, and if the deposed bishop takes refuge with the bishop of Rome and seeks recourse by asking the bishop of Rome for a retrial, and if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should be retried; then the bishop of Rome may write to those bishops of a neighbouring province to investigate and conduct a retrial. The deposed bishop may ask the bishop of Rome to delegate priests to the retrial; at his discretion, the bishop of Rome can send priests acting as legates with his authority to serve as judges in cases where the bishop of Rome decides that the bishops of a neighbouring province alone are insufficient.[ix]
  

 

[AlNg]

There’s is only one Catholic faith and believe the same things in the west, east north and south.
… An Eastern Catholic can’t deny the Filioque for example but they can word it in a different way (commonly they say “through the Son”).

In the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Church in our area, the creed is said without the filioque. They say that they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (PERIOD and FULL STOP).
If there is only one Catholic faith, how come in the Roman Church the creed has the filioque and in the Eastern Church the creed does not have the filioque.
Also as was pointed out, in the Roman Church, it is believed that the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage. But in the Eastern Church it is believed that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Further, in the western Church the Bread and Wind become the Body and Blood of Christ at the words of Consecration. But in the Eastern Church this occurs at the time of the epiclesis.
So there are serious differences in beliefs.

 

[AlNg]

We need to pray for reunification because they have the most in common and it would be huge in Christendom if we did come together again.

How will reunification occur if the Roman Church insists on having the authority to make changes in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

There’s is only one Catholic faith and believe the same things in the west, east north and south.
… An Eastern Catholic can’t deny the Filioque for example but they can word it in a different way (commonly they say “through the Son”).

In the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Church in our area, the creed is said without the filioque. They say that they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (PERIOD)

I know… this doesn’t equate to denial of the Filioque. It’s just allowed to not be said because saying it in Greek would be heretical and because the Greeks historically have never said. The Latins only demanded that the Greeks accept the legitimacy of its use in the latin tradition which they did.

If there is only one Catholic faith, how come in the Roman Church the creed has the filioque and in the Eastern Church the creed does not have the filioque.

Because the creed in Greek is the original version which does not touch on the later issues that would arise in the West which brought the Filioque to the fore.

Secondly because the Greek word for “proceeds” relates to ultimate origin which could only be the father. Thus to say and the Son would be heretical. However in Latin the the word for “proceeds” does not denote ultimate orgin but just “movement” thus it can be said that the proceeds from the father and the son. However the latin Church has always taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately (ultimately) from the father and mediately from the Son. This was said explicitly at Florence. This equates to the eastern non liturgical expression of the same doctrine when they say from the father through the Son. This is said in many Eastern fathers and even by the second council of Nicaea

Also as was pointed out, in the Roman Church, it is believed that the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage. But in the Eastern Church it is believed that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage.

That’s disciplinary and not dogmatic or at most theological opinion… There’s is legitimate variation in discipline and theological opinion. All that matters is that we both acknowledge that marriage is a sacrament. That is dogmatic and all Catholics must profess this.

Further, in the western Church the Bread and Wind become the Body and Blood of Christ at the words of Consecration. But in the Eastern Church this occurs at the time of the epiclesis.
So there are serious differences in beliefs.

That is actually not historically true. The east also used to believe it was the words of the institution as even St John Chrysostom said and he authored the current Byzantine rite. Even as late as the council of Florence the east agreed it was the words of the institution. However all that’s necessary for faith is that you believe the liturgy is consecratory.

 

[Wandile]

Genesis1989t:

We need to pray for reunification because they have the most in common and it would be huge in Christendom if we did come together again.

How will reunification occur if the Roman Church insists on having the authority to make changes in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church?

They will have to accede to this becaue Rome is never letting go of this claim. It’s implied by universal jurisdiction.

However realistically Rome’would never excercise it’s authority to do so (just like she doesn’t today) as that would just cause scandal.

 

[Wandile]

Just adding the proof that the easterners used to also believe it was the words of the institution, here are some examples in the eastern fathers:

Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa in Catechetical Orations 37:

“It is at once changed into the Body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’”

St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople says in Homily 1:6 On the Betrayal of Judas:

“He [Christ] says: ‘This is My Body.’ This word changes the offering .”

The reason why the Roman canon does not have an epiklesis is because it’s the oldest Eucharistic prayer in Christendom and preceded all the disputes over Holy Spirit that would later influence the eastern liturgies with the introduction of the epiklesis into their Eucharistic prayers.

 

[guanophore]

the easterners used to also believe

Of course they still believe this, or they would not be considered to have a valid Eucharist. They have valid sacraments, including Holy Orders.

 

[guanophore]

How will reunification occur if the Roman Church insists on having the authority to make changes in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and there have already been issues in the past with Latinizations being forced onto non-Roman Rites.

Jesus gave Peter the responsibility to feed and care for His flock. Jesus did not imply that this authority was only effective within certain geographical areas.