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

[babochka]

I apologize. I meant to provide that:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a masterful work, but it is not an authority in its own right. I find it strange that you will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to make your point, but reject the Catechism.

 

[AlNg]

In the Western theological understanding of marriage, the couple confers the Sacrament on each other. In the Byzantine understanding, the priest confers the sacrament on the couple.

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.

The Vatican website posts the CCC which says:
1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ’s grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called “Crowning”) is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant.
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P52.HTM

 

[Vico]

…

It was explained by Melkite Bishop John (Elya):

Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: “salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum”. {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-...e-view-of-the-post-schism-ecumenical-councils

 

[twf]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a masterful work, but it is not an authority in its own right. I find it strange that you will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to make your point, but reject the Catechism.

Its not at all strange if you understand the worldview of this particular poster…those of a traditionalist bent are skeptical of St. John Paul II’s Catechism.

 

[Dovekin]

This is an old thread from Byzantine Catholic forum.

On it, some priests testify that they do marriages without the vows, just the Crowning. The vows are either a) a civil requirement or b) an unwelcome Latinization. In either case, they believe the Crowning validates the narriage and the vows are not needed for the sacrament.

 

[babochka]

The vows are definitely and undeniably a Latinization and an unnecessary addition to the Crowning. They were added to the ceremony in 1646 by (Orthodox) Metropolitan Peter Mohyla of Kiev in order to clarify consent, which is a necessary component of a valid crowning. They are not used in all Byzantine Churches. As far as I know, for example, the Melkites have never used vows.

 

[guanophore]

They have lacked nothing they have been just as ecuemnical as the first 7. Can we say the last 5 of the first seven were lacking because the Assyrians and Oriental Orthodox were in schism and weren’t involved then?

guanophore:

Wandile:

Yes, of course when any part of the Body is separated, unity is lacking. But I do agree with you, truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

What I am saying is that the Schism resulted from cultural, linguistic, political and geographical issues as much as theological. This is the official position of the Catholic Church, and the reason why the Sacraments are considered valid.

It turns out that some of the issues with the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox are turning out to be misunderstandings due to linguistic differences also. Jesus wants unity in the Church, and we all have an obligation to work toward it.

If you didn’t know the west practically weren’t at any of the first 7. The only one is maybe Nicaea I. The rest we weren’t present.

That is because there was no “we” and “them” at the time.

The reason why the Latins were only included was because the latin Church effectively was the church .

I understand this point of view. What I am saying is that, from the Orthodox point of view, the Latins were the ones who departed. Their separation then spawned continued separations (the Protestant Reformation) where further departures from the One Faith occurred. The Eastern Church sees the Latin Church (and rightly so) as the source of Protestantism.

No the mutual excommunications were never deemed to be ecumenical. There is no such thing as an ecumenical excommunication.

Nor did I claim there was. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, and you have interpreted a misplaced object. The Latins and the EO excommunicated each other. Excommunication is not the fruit of ecumenism. It is the opposite.

All the councils after the schisms were considered ecumenical, whether other communions participated, or not.

 

[guanophore]

I’m starting to think that you aren’t aware that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not part of the same church.

Jesus only established one Church, Wandile, therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. The EO are most certainly part of Christ’s one church.

Further that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are two different things.

Eastern Catholics that are the victims of forced Latinizations still have Orthodox roots. In some Eastern Catholic Churches there is very little observable difference from EO. They are governed by a different canon law and use different liturgy (non-Latin).

Nobody has ever demanded this of the easterners.

Clearly you have some history to explore.

 

[steve-b]

Have you read the Chieti document?

ZP

Your question has been answered before HERE

That document is an ongoing dialogue. It’s a dialogue not law. And that ongoing dialogue will change greatly Given the recent schism in Orthodoxy, where a majority of Orthdoxy (the Russians) boycotted the recent PAN meeting making it NOT PAN but a local meeting of the minority of Orthodoxy.

links :
Pan Orthodox council meeting Jun 27 2016
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council 1100+ yrs and they still can’t get together.

. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...absence-saves-patriarchate-of-constantinoples. Note: The pope sent delegates to that council. and they were refused attendance. Also note: The Orthodox can attend an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Statistics
the Antioch Patriarchate and Orthodox churches in Georgia and Bulgaria and Russia stayed away.

Who are they who boycotted in relation to the whole?

Russian Orthodox = ~ 50-100 m + Bulgarian Orthodox = ~ 6 m + Georgian Orthodox = ~ 2m + Antioch =~1.4m

That’s a considerable break.

Looking back 15+ years, We have the following statement

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

“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

Kasper’s comment is demonstrated.

 

[steve-b]

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.

For some additional thoughts

According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “the Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of churches and ecclesial communities” Dominus Iesus, #17 The CDF went on to say that the faithful can’t say the one Church of Christ doesn’t really exist or that it is merely a goal toward which all Christians should strive. They must instead acknowledge that “the elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church” as taught by John Paul II Ut Unum Sint, #14 _The Second Vatican Council taught that this one Church of Christ: [C]onstituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church [emphasis added], which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity Lumen Gentium, #8 in addition to #8 It should also be quoted #14, of Lumen Gentium, tucked in amongst all the ecumenical language, “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”… “They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops”.

“Whosoever” covers everyone…not just Catholics

To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.

Re: “subsists in”

 

[ziapueblo]

That document is an ongoing dialogue . It’s a dialogue not law.

I’ve never said it was law but as you said a dialogue where both Churches are finding common ground on the role of the Bishop of Rome during the first millennium.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That document is an ongoing dialogue . It’s a dialogue not law.

I’ve never said it was law but as you said a dialogue where both Churches are finding common ground on the role of the Bishop of Rome during the first millennium.

ZP

And why didn’t that intriguing suggestion produce any unity from that? Simple. The role THEN of the bishop of Rome in the first millenium , was still too much for the E Orthodox to accept towards the see of Peter…

 

[ziapueblo]

Like you have said, it’s an ongoing dialogue and from there they will be discussing the second millennium. Once all the pieces have been looked at and hopefully put together, we will have communion with each other once again, God willing.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

Like you have said, it’s an ongoing dialogue and from there they will be discussing the second millennium. Once all the pieces have been looked at and hopefully put together, we will have communion with each other once again, God willing.

ZP

Even with ongoing dialogue, NOW The biggest of the “Orthodox” are in schism with all the others.
. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

 

[Dovekin]

To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.

What is the significance of the word “fully”? Doesn’t that imply that there are some who are partially incorporated? Are they not “in” the Church?

And what about the next sentence of LG that you left out:

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” LG 14

Is it not possible that someone can be present in the Church “in his heart” even though he is not present in a “bodily” manner? The Anglican martyrs in Uganda, for instance, were not “fully incorporated” yet their equal participation in martyrdom reflects a true passion for Christ. Do you think they are excluded from our communion?

 

[guanophore]

To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.

Thanks be to God, that persons do not need to be visibly Catholic in order to be in the Church!

 

[guanophore]

The role THEN of the bishop of Rome in the first millenium , was still too much for the E Orthodox to accept towards the see of Peter…

Actually there was not a schism until the second millenium. There was not argument over the role of the successor of Peter in the first millenium. It was not until the Bishop of Rome attempted to force Latinizations onto the Eastern Christians, compelling them to reject what they had received from their apostles, that the “supremacy” issue became a problem.

I agree with you, though, the role of the Bishop of Rome was quite different up until the Reformation. Subsequently, when lands and assets of the Church were confiscated by various political figures, and the Church property was reduced to Vatican City (loss of the Papal States), the secular power that had been exercised over most of Europe since the Emperor moved the seat of the Roman Empire to Constantinople evaporated.

The EO have had their own difficulties interfacing with politicians and governments. They often had to placate secular rulers in order to maintain a presence.

The rebellion of the Reformation brought about some very direct statements about the role of the Papacy that, although held in the West, were likely an affront to Eastern ears.

“Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’).”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, n. 9

“And since it arises from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’) that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, just as we are taught by the testimony of the divine Scriptures and of the holy Fathers, and as is declared by the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which begins ‘Unam Sanctam,’ for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, and by the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy See, and by the unity and power of the Church, his spouse, the same Constitution, being approved by the sacred Council, we renew and approve.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 19 December 1516.

“For it is revealed that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’).”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, opusc. contra errores Graec. fol. 9.

 

[guanophore]

Even with ongoing dialogue, NOW The biggest of the “Orthodox” are in schism with all the others.

It certainly does seem to emphasize why Jesus wanted there to be one specific visible sign of unity in Peter, and his successors.

Unfortunately, human beings are not above politics.

What is the significance of the word “fully”? Doesn’t that imply that there are some who are partially incorporated? Are they not “ in ” the Church?

Yes, you made a good catch. All who are validly baptized are made members of the Church. There are varying degrees of unity, the Orthodox being at the highest levels, which the Catechism calls “profound communion”.

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Is it not possible that someone can be present in the Church “in his heart” even though he is not present in a “bodily” manner?

Absolutely! The Church has always taught that people can be saved who don’t know Christ, and may never have heard of the Church. In this day and age, those individuals are fewer and farther between.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This is known as “invincible ignorance”.

The Anglican martyrs in Uganda, for instance, were not “fully incorporated” yet their equal participation in martyrdom reflects a true passion for Christ. Do you think they are excluded from our communion?

They are excluded from communion on this earth because Catholic communion is the sign of unity in faith. This is why our communion is closed. However, God knows all those who are His, and though we may be separated by differences in doctrine here on earth, there is only one Church, and He alone knows the members therein.

Anyway, everyone in heaven is Catholic, so if they were not in union then, and they may be now!

 

[AlNg]

Guanophore cited these statements:

For it is revealed that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation

that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation

it arises from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’) that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff,

So a Jew who does not subject himself to the Roman Pontiff will not be saved? Why does the Roman Church allow Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion if they cannot be saved since they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff?

The Church has always taught that people can be saved who don’t know Christ, and may never have heard of the Church.

First you tell us that you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Then later on it appears that you say that you do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. What you have said implies that you do not have to be in the Catholic Church to be saved? Do you claim that people, such as Jews, are subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they know about it or not and whether they agree to be such or not?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

I’m starting to think that you aren’t aware that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not part of the same church.

Jesus only established one Church, Wandile, therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. The EO are most certainly part of Christ’s one church.

This is not the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Members of the church are the Catholics and a few people known to God who through no fault of their own are in invincible ignorance of the faith. Note, that’s its a few, not many. The EO are in schism. We are not part of the same church. The church is Christ is the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium of Vatican II made that VERY when they used the word “subsist” which could only apply to the Catholic Church. You do know the church still teaches extra eccelsiam nulla salus (Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation)

We are not anglicans. What you are saying is Anglican branch theory which the church has condemned them and time again as an error.

Wandile:

Further that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are two different things.

Eastern Catholics that are the victims of forced Latinizations still have Orthodox roots. In some Eastern Catholic Churches there is very little observable difference from EO. They are governed by a different canon law and use different liturgy (non-Latin).

Look man, I’m not some novice in this stuff. I’m well aware of who the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are.

Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Orthodox. They share the same traditions yes but are not in the same communions. In some places Eastern Orthodox literally abhor the existence of Eastern Catholics.

Wandile:

Nobody has ever demanded this of the easterners.

Clearly you have some history to explore.

Mtge Holy See has never mandated these hints of Byzantines. Only of the maronites properly. Most of the time these Latinizations were self imposed or imposed by local catholic hierarchies against the wishes of Rome. That’s why Pope Leo XIII had to authoritatively ban this behavior towards Eastern Catholics l.