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

[guanophore]

I don’t think this is the problem, as the Eastern Liturgy is as Catholic as the Western. There are many Rites, all of them valid. I think the problem is the nationalities - the tendency of the Eastern Churches to be too tied to certain languages and geographical areas.

 

[Wandile]

I don’t think this is the problem, as the Eastern Liturgy is as Catholic as the Western. There are many Rites, all of them valid. I think the problem is the nationalities - the tendency of the Eastern Churches to be too tied to certain languages and geographical areas.

In fact I remember hearing of one Greek priest lamenting that in greece its very common to hear people saying they are Greek first and Eastern Orthodox Second.

 

[guanophore]

In fact I remember hearing of one Greek priest lamenting that in greece its very common to hear people saying they are Greek first and Eastern Orthodox Second.

This has been a problem for Latin Catholics as well, especially during various European wars throughout history. There is on Orthodox church in my city. I once attended Divine Liturgy, and was surprised that there was a pause where each of six nationalities/languages prayed the Lord’s Prayer in their own tongue.

 

[Vico]

I can see the Orthodox being insulted by the requirement to submit all liturgical texts to Rome. Did St John Chrysostom submit his Divine Liturgy texts to Rome for review?

Eventually, the thanksgiving prayers used in each part of the Church were written down, replacing the extempore prayers of individual bishops. Each major city had its own anaphora, often composed by or attributed to one of its notable bishops…
The Divine Liturgy (MCI)

 

[XXI_4]

there have already been issues in the past with Latinizations being forced onto non-Roman Rites.

Which, thanks be to God, Vatican II reversed. Although I think that’s ironic considering what it did to the Roman rite, but that’s for another discussion.

 

[ziapueblo]

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.

Patriarch Gregory II Youssef fought for the rights of the Eastern Churches during the First Vatican Council and only agreed to sign off on the definition of infallibility after adding the clause from Florence which protects the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches.

Again, if Rome wants to develop its own expression of the faith It has every right to do so, but as Saint John Paul II said in Euntes in Mundum, the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches is granted by God and not Rome.

ZP

 

[guanophore]

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.

While I do agree with your conclusion (Catholicity is not a matter of geography), Western Catholics behoove themselves to learn about the history of all these “dogmas” you have mentioned, and how they were developed and imposed upon the faithful. Geography and politics have had a role in separating members of the One Faith, as well as language.

When dogmas were imposed upon the Latin faithful without the participation and knowledge of the Eastern faithful, it appears that it is the Latin Church that has departed from the One Faith they once all shared.

One of the fundamental values of each lung of the Church is that we are not at liberty to change what was handed down to us - the Sacred Tradition that has been infallibly protected in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Among these expressions of the faith are the Creeds. Adding a phrase to the Creed that appears to change the meaning of what was preserved is an affront to Eastern sensibilities.

And the proclamation of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope is even difficult for Latin Catholics to bear. Jesus was clear that His kind of leadership was not one of supremacy - to be “lorded over” others, yet this proclamation appears to be the opposite.

There are good reasons why it is prudent to withhold judgment about our Eastern brethren “denying core dogmas of the faith”.

 

[babochka]

That’s false.

You can choose to believe this or not, but this statement is incredibly arrogant. I don’t have time right now to do the research for you and provide links for you to read, but I encourage you to research this topic for yourself.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Don’t worry, I have been researching it.

The only places I’ve ever heard that the priest was the minister of Matrimony in the Eastern Churches was here on CAF and on Wikipedia.

 

[twf]

I recognize that this is the Eastern understanding, both among the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and I don’t have an issue with it… but I have often wondered how Eastern theologians reconcile it with the practice of the early Church? Liturgical wedding ceremonies (such as the Byzantine Rite of Crowning) developed many centuries after the inception of Christianity. In the early Church, both Western and Eastern, Christians married in civil ceremonies.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

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.

Patriarch Gregory II Youssef fought for the rights of the Eastern Churches during the First Vatican Council and only agreed to sign off on the definition of infallibility after adding the clause from Florence which protects the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches.

Well this is true it misses the real reason they were opposed to the infallibility definition. Patriarch Gregory II Yousef in the prepatory commission for Vatican I already affirmed his undoubted belief in papal infallibility. His sole contention was that it would further estrange the EO and was bad for ecumenical relations.

His exception clause from Florence was not something that was ever under threat as Florence made the same boisterous claims as Vatican I about papal authority.

Again, if Rome wants to develop its own expression of the faith It has every right to do so, but as Saint John Paul II said in Euntes in Mundum, the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches is granted by God and not Rome.

ZP

The rights of Patriarchs are not divine however but the traditions of eastern churches are. I think in seeking to defend your traditions you tend to miss that we are not attacking your autonomy but only seek to emphasize catholicity in faith. There is one catholic faith not multiple. There are multiple expressions of it however.
Just to be clear what I means is all Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity. That’s non negotiable. The way a login would word that teachings is different to how a Byzantine might word it.

Hence it’s very problematic when some Eastern Catholics literally deny dogmas. Dogmas are not negotiable. The Trinity is not up for debate. The hyoistatic Union is not up for debate. The real Presnece is not up for debate. Same with Filioque, purgatory etc which are all dogmas.

It’s a totally different thing to say you express these dogmas in different ways. That is okay. But I have seen my fair share of easterners (mostly Melkite) who literally are EO in faith but in communion with Rome which would actually place them under anathema because the EO deny certain dogmas we Catholics uphold.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

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.

While I do agree with your conclusion (Catholicity is not a matter of geography), Western Catholics behoove themselves to learn about the history of all these “dogmas” you have mentioned, and how they were developed and imposed upon the faithful. Geography and politics have had a role in separating members of the One Faith, as well as language.

When dogmas were imposed upon the Latin faithful without the participation and knowledge of the Eastern faithful, it appears that it is the Latin Church that has departed from the One Faith they once all shared.

One of the fundamental values of each lung of the Church is that we are not at liberty to change what was handed down to us - the Sacred Tradition that has been infallibly protected in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Among these expressions of the faith are the Creeds. Adding a phrase to the Creed that appears to change the meaning of what was preserved is an affront to Eastern sensibilities.

And the proclamation of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope is even difficult for Latin Catholics to bear. Jesus was clear that His kind of leadership was not one of supremacy - to be “lorded over” others, yet this proclamation appears to be the opposite.

There are good reasons why it is prudent to withhold judgment about our Eastern brethren “denying core dogmas of the faith”.

Denying dogmas are not negotiable no matter how hard. We must believe.

Did the westerners balk at the formulation of the the Holy Trinity dogmas or the dyothelite dogma or other dogmas preserved and taught at the first 7 ecumenical councils? No because despite these formulations being formulations in a solely Greek Byzantine outlook and theology, it’s the core dogma being taught that matters. The westerners said “we believe” and then went on to formulate those dogmas in their own words.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Canonical form didn’t even exist until Trent, proving that canonical form is necessary for validity because the Church said so, not God Himself. It is necessary by the Church’s ecclesiastical law, not by divine institution. Likewise, the Eastern crowning ceremony, though necessary for validity, is NOT essential to the sacrament itself by divine institution. Therefore, it logically follows that the nuptial blessing by the priest has NOTHING to do with administering the sacrament.

 

[guanophore]

Denying dogmas are not negotiable no matter how hard. We must believe.

I think you are speaking from the point of view of a Latin Catholic?

From the Eastern point of view, declaration of dogmas in which they did not participate leaves them outside of that obligation.

From antiquity, dogmas were created ecumenically. That ecumenism was lost through politics and wars, and the Latin Church continued to develop doctrines and create dogmas without the participation of the Eastern Church. From an Eastern point of view, the freedom does not exist to alter what has been handed down from the fathers. Latinizations are considered alterations of the deposit of faith.

I think you are confused about the nature of the first 7 ecumenical councils, and the role of the Latin Church in those councils. Rome was never “left out” of any of them.

The westerners said “we believe” and then went on to formulate those dogmas in their own words.

I think that our differences today are largely linguistic and cultural. God is able to create unity among us.

 

[guanophore]

Liturgical wedding ceremonies (such as the Byzantine Rite of Crowning) developed many centuries after the inception of Christianity.

This is a good example of how Sacred Tradition becomes intermingled with human customs (traditions with a small “T”). It is one of the biggest impediments to East-West Unity, as both sides have their Sacramental practices intertwined with human cultures. The same could be said for a wedding ring.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Denying dogmas are not negotiable no matter how hard. We must believe.

I think you are speaking from the point of view of a Latin Catholic?

No just Catholic.

From the Eastern point of view, declaration of dogmas in which they did not participate leaves them outside of that obligation.

This is absolutely NOT how dogma works. This is relativism plains and simple. We aren’t anglicans.

So can westerners say we are not obliged to believe in the Trinity, hypostatic Union, use of icons or dyothelitism because we were barely involved in the declaration of those dogmas?

From antiquity, dogmas were created ecumenically.

Most of our dogmas barring the assumption and Immaculate conception were proclaimed in Ecuemnical Councils.

That ecumenism was lost through politics and wars, and the Latin Church continued to develop doctrines and create dogmas without the participation of the Eastern Church. From an Eastern point of view, the freedom does not exist to alter what has been handed down from the fathers. Latinizations are considered alterations of the deposit of faith.

Churches outside the communion of the Catholic Church are not needed to hold an ecuemnical Council. They are not part of the church. Such a view point is devoid of any historical reality.

If such reasoning is to be embraced then we haven’t had an ecuemnical Council since Constantinople I.

I think you are confused about the nature of the first 7 ecumenical councils, and the role of the Latin Church in those councils. Rome was never “left out” of any of them.

There were literally no westerners at the second ecuemnical Council. Rome was not present at any of them and most of them had a western representation that would make Florence look like the easterners had their whole episcopate present.

Wandile:

The westerners said “we believe” and then went on to formulate those dogmas in their own words.

I think that our differences today are largely linguistic and cultural. God is able to create unity among us.

Like I said we must belive the same thing. We didn’t necessarily have to formulate it the same way

 

[RyanBlack]

Therefore, it logically follows that the nuptial blessing by the priest has NOTHING to do with administering the sacrament.

This is simply not correct. It is the Eastern Catholic tradition that the priest confers the sacrament upon the couple. That is why when Eastern Catholics are married in the Latin Church (as I was), a priest must be present and give the nuptial blessing. I’m Eastern Catholic, and so is Elizabeth (Babochka). We know our Church’s traditions, and aren’t in need of Latin Catholics to lecture us about them. But if our word isn’t sufficient, I confirmed this with my pastor today. He said that the explicit blessing of the priest is necessary. He has been a priest for 19 years, and holds the Licentiate from the Pontifical Oriental Institute. I’m satisfied that he knows our teachings on the sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

This is absolutely NOT how dogma works. This is relativism plains and simple. We aren’t anglicans.

We are not Anglicans, and neither are the Orthodox. The problem here is not the Dogma, but the manner in which it was promulgated. It occurred after the Schism, and the Councils have been lacking in an ecumenical thoroughness ever since that time. The East and the West drifted apart from the time that the Empire fell in Rome.

So can westerners say we are not obliged to believe in the Trinity, hypostatic Union, use of icons or dyothelitism because we were barely involved in the declaration of those dogmas?

I am curious as to why you say “we were barely involved”? There was no Schism at the time. Do you believe that Latin Catholics were not present at those councils?

I did not say they were not obliged, I said that from their point of view, they are not. The issues that fuel our separation are related to a lack of inclusion and participation between East and West. Clearly development of doctrine in the West, without participation from the East, has not served to foster unity.

All the councils after the Schism and mutual excommunications were said to be ecumenical. That does not mean that the Easter Christians had the same level of participation as the Latins.

Churches outside the communion of the Catholic Church are not needed to hold an ecuemnical Council.

This is exactly my point. A truly ecumentical council includes everyone in the Church, not just one Rite, or one geographical area. The Latin Church acknowledges that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, and affirms the validity of the sui juris Churches, but they were not equal participants in Councils after the first 7.

If such reasoning is to be embraced then we haven’t had an ecuemnical Council since Constantinople I.

Which is the position of the Orthodox, hence, the barriers that persist.

As long as the West continues to proclaim that the East is not “needed” for true unity and ecumenism, then the schism will persist. This is what Pope JP2 meant in Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995) ..

It is not helpful, when trying to reach a consensus among Bishops, for certain Bishops to forcefully impose their will upon others. This is not the type of leadership Jesus described.

 

[guanophore]

Like I said we must belive the same thing. We didn’t necessarily have to formulate it the same way

Indeed, and if we arrogantly demand that the East, who have different theological language and sentiments, do it the way “Rome” does it, it is not going to be very effective, as the last 1000 years have demonstrated.

We know our Church’s traditions, and aren’t in need of Latin Catholics to lecture us about them.

This is a good example of how Latins, insisting on Latin traditions, easily can raise the ire of our Eastern brethren.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Yes. A nuptial blessings is necessary for the validity of the marriage in the Eastern Churches, but that is entirely different from saying that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament.

The nuptial blessing is apart of the canonical form of the marriage, and not the conferral thereof. There is a distinction to be made. In addition, canonical form can be dispensed.