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

[Wandile]

Subjection doesn’t always have to be outwardly visible just as communion with the church isn’t always visible (although in most cases it is)

 

[AlNg]

Subjection doesn’t always have to be outwardly visible

So subjection to the Roman Pontiff is completely invisible and in effect for all Jews, whether they want the invisible subjection or not?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Subjection doesn’t always have to be outwardly visible

So subjection to the Roman Pontiff is completely invisible and in effect for all Jews, whether they want the invisible subjection or not?

Yes they are subject to him. All creatures on earth are.

Most Jews are simply not saved. If any amongst them are saved, they are members of the church and thus de facto under the authority of the Roman bishop

 

[AlNg]

Yes they are subject to him.

How is a Jew in Israel subject to the Roman Pontiff?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Yes they are subject to him.

How is a Jew in Israel subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Just as all creatures are subject to God, all creatures are subject to his church even if they reject his and his church’s authority.

Think of it this way… a citizen may break the laws of his country but still be bound them legally speaking even if he rejects them and never wishes to adhere to them.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Good questions.

The truth is that Jesus gave Peter certain gifts and responsibilities that were not given to anyone else. Peter passed these on to his successor, and so on, until today. Included in the Petrine responsibilities are to feed and care for His flock, and to confirm the brethren (fellow Bishops).

The successor is the visible sign of unity in the Church. There are some that are united with Christ that are not recognizable as being in the visible Church. Only God knows who they are.

The teaching that there is no salvation outside of Christ (the Church) comes from Him, not from any Popes. All the Popes do is preserve what was handed down to us:

"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I
(Jesus) am He.” John 8:24

The Eastern Orthodox are subject to the Roman Pontiff, whether they recognize it, or not. So are Protestants. It is his duty to feed and care for the flock - that means the whole flock, not just a part of it.

Then later on it appears that you say that you do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved.

The culpability for rebellion depends upon one’s knowledge and level of willful disobedience. Those who don’t know or don’t understand are not as culpable as those who are willfully defiant. The strong statements that I cited were directed specifically to the willfully defiant.

What you have said implies that you do not have to be in the Catholic Church to be saved?

Jesus only founded one Church. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. Not all members of the Church are visible as such in this life.

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?

God’s plan of salvation with regard to His chosen people was clearly that they come to Christ, and become the fullness of His Church on earth. But we have no reason to believe that those who have not recognized Christ for who He is, do not still have a plan in God’s salvation. His relationship with the Jews preceded the coming of Christ.

The EO are in schism. We are not part of the same church.

 

[guanophore]

The EO are in schism. We are not part of the same church.

It is not possible to have a state of schism without both sides being part of the Church.

Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church.

The EO are recognized as having valid sacraments, which cannot occur unless they are valid members of the Church, with valid Holy Orders.

What you are saying is Anglican branch theory which the church has condemned them and time again as an error.

The EO existed from the time that Peter ordained the first Bishop in Antioch of Syria. A line of Bishops which is, by the way, older than the line of Peter in Rome. In Antioch, the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (not Rome). The validity of the EO sacraments has nothing to do with Anglicans.

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

I did not claim you did not. On the contrary, it was you who claimed that I was some novice in this stuff.

Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Orthodox. They share the same traditions yes but are not in the same communions.

All Eastern Catholics were, at one time, on the other side of the schism, and belonged to the EO sui juris churches. They have EO theology and traditions. Those that decided to return to unity with the successor of Peter are called Catholic. Those who have not are called EO.

In some places Eastern Orthodox literally abhor the existence of Eastern Catholics.

Yes. there is a sentiment that they have caved in to political, economic, and other pressures, leaving the one true faith, and becoming heretics (that is how those EO consider Latins).

these Latinizations were self imposed or imposed by local catholic hierarchies against the wishes of Rome.

However it has occurred, it has been an ongoing source of division.

That’s why Pope Leo XIII had to authoritatively ban this behavior towards Eastern Catholics l.

Hopefully his and other Popes attitude of fraternization will heal centuries of wounds between these two lungs of the Church.

So subjection to the Roman Pontiff is completely invisible and in effect for all Jews, whether they want the invisible subjection or not?

Jesus placed Peter over His Church. At the time, the majority of the Jews were not members of His Church (though many converted after His death). I dare say that the majority of Jews today do not consider themselves members of His Church. If they did, they would convert, don’t you think?

 

[ziapueblo]

In some places Eastern Orthodox literally abhor the existence of Eastern Catholics.

In some places yes. I know that in places like the Middle East there is a lot of intercommunion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

Just as all creatures are subject to God, all creatures are subject to his church

So Jews in Israel are subject to Pope Francis? Even the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of universal papal jurisdiction. The Council of Carthage confirmed that the African bishops had the right to excommunicate Bishop Urban and rejected the attempts of Pope Zosimus to restore the priest Aparius of Sicca. IOW, the African bishops were not subject to a decision of the Roman Pope. If the African bishops were not subject to the Roman Pope, how can it be that the Jews in Israel are subject to the commands and decisions of Pope Francis?

 

[AlNg]

The EO are recognized as having valid sacraments, which cannot occur unless they are valid members of the Church, with valid Holy Orders.

I read a case where a Roman Catholic was excommunicated when he joined the EO Church.
If the EO are valid members of the Church, why would the Roman Church excommunicate a Roman Catholic who joined the EO Church? Since the EO are valid members of the Church, should it not be all right for a Roman Catholic to join the EO Church without any sanctions?

 

[twf]

It is not for you to determine how many Jews will or will not be saved.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Just as all creatures are subject to God, all creatures are subject to his church

So Jews in Israel are subject to Pope Francis? Even the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of universal papal jurisdiction. The Council of Carthage confirmed that the African bishops had the right to excommunicate Bishop Urban and rejected the attempts of Pope Zosimus to restore the priest Aparius of Sicca. IOW, the African bishops were not subject to a decision of the Roman Pope. If the African bishops were not subject to the Roman Pope, how can it be that the Jews in Israel are subject to the commands and decisions of Pope Francis?

The African bishops were subject to him. They were just upset with him as he disregarded their local porcedures. Which was pretty rude. The council of Carthage says nothing of the pope not having aurthity over them. They just asked him to politely step back in respect of their local canons which Rome has earlier approved in previous synods. Bear in mind this could of Carthage was held in attendance and approved by the papal legates. However they were violating the council of sardica which established that the pope had enjoyed this privelage. The Africans were being disobedient.

 

[Wandile]

It’s a fact most men will not be saved. That’s straight from scripture.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

In some places Eastern Orthodox literally abhor the existence of Eastern Catholics.

In some places yes. I know that in places like the Middle East there is a lot of intercommunion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox.

ZP

I’m well aware. What I was emphasizing is that we are not in communion but in schism.

 

[guanophore]

If the EO are valid members of the Church, why would the Roman Church excommunicate a Roman Catholic who joined the EO Church?

Because members are subject to the canon law under which they are baptized. There may also be other issues related to the issues for joining. Specifically if it is an act of rebellion against the doctrines or disciplines of the CC.

Excommunication just means that the individual is no longer in communion with the CC, and the successor of Peter. It has nothing to do with the EO sacraments being valid.

Since the EO are valid members of the Church, should it not be all right for a Roman Catholic to join the EO Church without any sanctions?

In some cases they do, or they are given a dispensation to practice under EO canon law (especially in cases of intermarriage, or living in areas where the CC is not feasible).

There are valid sacraments, then there are licit sacraments.

It is not for you to determine how many Jews will or will not be saved.

Nor for anyone claiming to be “Christian”, either. It is only up to God.

It’s a fact most men will not be saved. That’s straight from scripture.

Steep and narrow is the road.

 

[AlNg]

Just as all creatures are subject to God, all creatures are subject to his church even if they reject his and his church’s authority.

What would you say if a Brit told you that whether they know it or not, all Americans are subject to her Majesty the Queen of England, since His Majesty George III did not recognize the right of the Americans to refuse subjection to him?
Even if you reject the authority of Her Majesty the Queen of England, you are still subject to Her.

 

[AlNg]

Excommunication just means that the individual is no longer in communion with the CC.

The EO are recognized as having valid sacraments, which cannot occur unless they are valid members of the Church, with valid Holy Orders.

But you claim that EO are valid members of the Church? How can a person be a valid member of the Church if he is excommunicated?

 

[Xystus]

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.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1623 According to Latin tradition, 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 tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.

 

[tafan2]

That’s false. That can’t be the case.

yet it is the case. Agree with one another on essentials, show respect to each other on non-essentials, and with all things: charity.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Just as all creatures are subject to God, all creatures are subject to his church even if they reject his and his church’s authority.

What would you say if a Brit told you that whether they know it or not, all Americans are subject to her Majesty the Queen of England, since His Majesty George III did not recognize the right of the Americans to refuse subjection to him?
Even if you reject the authority of Her Majesty the Queen of England, you are still subject to Her.

The queen is not spiritual monarch but a political one with clearly defined boundires. So that would just be blatantly false.