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

[Dovekin]

Jurisdiction exists only in the Catholic Church

You were asked for “something of equal or higher authority” that says this. I doubt that your bald assertion qualifies.

If you can show the “jurisdiction” is not equivalent to “the power to govern,” that might suffice.

 

[babochka]

Jurisdiction exists only in the Catholic Church

How have you reached this conclusion? What resources did you use? What councils, Church Fathers, or definitions from canon law can you use to support it?

It seems like you believe this to be true because you say it is and you are your own authority.

Maybe we’re talking past each other and it would help to define terms. I am using “jurisdiction” as in this way:

JURISDICTION

Definition​

In ecclesiastical law, the right to exercise official and public authority in some capacity. Thus a bishop has jurisdiction in his diocese, a pastor in his parish, priests in the administration of the sacraments, priests and deacons in preaching, and religious superiors in directing the members of their respective communities. (Etym. Latin ius, right + dicere, to say: iurisdictio, official authority.)

Source: Dictionary : JURISDICTION | Catholic Culture

How do you define jurisdiction?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

What about the theology of grace? I find the Latin teaching on grace to be more in harmony with Scripture than the teaching of Gregory Palamas (which is actually condemned in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott).

 

[steve-b]

Lumen Gentium 14 is very clear, but it does not support this principle. “Fully incorporated” is not the same as “in.” “Fully” would not be used if “incorporated” were all that is meant. What is the significance of the word “fully”?

In context, Fully means “in”.

“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 ”.

Dovekin:

Your quote from Florence has the same problem. It uses a binary position, in/out, while the Church’s understanding is more nuanced, fully/almost/partially/even less/outside.

Florence is speaking for the entire Church. It is an ecumenical council. The quote is clear.

Dovekin:

You have shown a remarkable ability to not hear nuance, so I do not really see the point of pursuing this again. I am just trying to make clear that there are oher understandings wihin the Church, some of which actually incorporate Church teaching.

And no matter how clear a statement is made, there will always be those who want to disagree, or attempt to see something else.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Perhaps my statement about incomplete communion with God was not right- I guess it makes sense, although God’s union with Church is perfect, it is not with every single member of Church.

And the argument about Sister Churches means that in more of a worldly sense of fraternity between Christians- if it wasnt, there is virtually no reason to be in union with Pope and being in Catholic Church more so than being in Orthodox Church- that is of course, not true. Sacraments are validly administered by Orthodox priests but because they lack union with Church they can not fully lawfully administer them- however whether or not it is sin depends on actual will and intent of the one who administers them. It is however primary property of entire Catholic Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma- in a sense that every sacrament comes from Church and so does salvation. Orthodox are not part of Catholic Church (atleast not fully, I believe you would agree with this) and hence they are not part of community to which sacraments rightfully belong. There is fullness of Christ in Catholic Church aswell as fullness of truth- One Holy Apostlic and Catholic Church estabilished by Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not estabilish more Churches, they are our Sister Church in sense of having valid Eucharist and Sacraments, while having no dogma contrary to ours and sharing most of our beliefs. They are however not part of Catholic Church and do not possess fullness of Church (that is why their bishops do not vote at Ecumenical Councils nor are they bound by our canon law).

 

[twf]

Yes, likewise the sacraments exist only in and through the Catholic Church. Yet, Orthodox sacraments are valid. The Orthodox Churches, by virtue of apostolic succession, retain an IMPERFECT union with the Catholic Church. Protestants, by virtue of their baptisms, have an imperfect communion with the Church as individuals. The Orthodox are imperfectly united to the Church as particular CHURCHES. That’s the fundamental difference.

It’s not always as black and white as we would like to think. For example, most date the schism at 1054. What of Antioch (Greek, not Syriac)? They remained in communion with both Constantinople and Rome for many decades after the schism between Rome and Constantinople… so on what date did their bishops lose jurisdiction?

 

[semper_catholicus]

I see what you’re saying. But does this mean that the Orthodox celebrate the Sacraments lawfully, or licitly?

 

[twf]

In accordance with Catholic canon law? No, of course not. So not licit in that sense. But I would argue that the bishops, as members of particular Churches in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, would exercise jurisdiction as per the norms of the first millennium. This is different from “rogue” bishops who go off on their own apart from a lawfully established Church body.
I don’t know how else to view it. The Catholic Church seems to recognize their jurisdiction. For example, if a Catholic goes off and marries an Orthodox Christian in an Orthodox ceremony without permission from his or her bishop, the marriage is considered valid, even if the Catholic sinned by disobeying canon law. It’s not invalid as it would be in any other case of “avoiding” Catholic form.

 

[babochka]

Especially in light of the fact that SSPX weddings are invalid because of lack of jurisdiction. Orthodox priests have jurisdiction and are not subject to Catholic law.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, likewise the sacraments exist only in and through the Catholic Church. Yet, Orthodox sacraments are valid. The Orthodox Churches, by virtue of apostolic succession, retain an IMPERFECT union with the Catholic Church. Protestants, by virtue of their baptisms, have an imperfect communion with the Church as individuals. The Orthodox are imperfectly united to the Church as particular CHURCHES. That’s the fundamental difference.

It’s not always as black and white as we would like to think. For example, most date the schism at 1054. What of Antioch (Greek, not Syriac)? They remained in communion with both Constantinople and Rome for many decades after the schism between Rome and Constantinople… so on what date did their bishops lose jurisdiction?

Canon law puts it this way Re: licit vs illicit

. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

Q’s:​

Does illicit = invalid?

in this case of the Orthodox

1. Illicit ≠invalid
2. illicit ≠lawful
3. illicit = unlawful yet valid

 

[Dovekin]

I see what you’re saying. But does this mean that the Orthodox celebrate the Sacraments lawfully, or licitly?

Yes, as long as they are according to the laws of the Church to which they belong, the sacraments are licit, or lawful. That is what it means that the Churches of the East “have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them.” This does not mean that the Pope does not have full supreme universal authority over them, just that Orthodox bishops have made the legal structure within their own communities. They have done that with the same authority over the Church entrusted to the Pope along with the bishops.

 

[AlNg]

Canon law puts it this way Re: licit vs illicit

. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07/30/can-a-catholic-ever-attend-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

A Catholic bishop told me differently.

 

[semper_catholicus]

You have to be kidding. The Orthodox have jurisdiction, but the SSPX don’t?

 

[babochka]

Q’s:​

Does illicit = invalid?

in this case of the Orthodox

1. Illicit ≠invalid
2. illicit ≠lawful
3. illicit = unlawful yet valid

It might be illicit for a Catholic to receive sacraments from an Orthodox priest, depending on the circumstances. It would be illicit if the Catholic individual violated Catholic canon law.

Since an Orthodox priest doesn’t fall under Catholic canon law, his celebration of that same Sacrament would only be illicit if he violated the law of his own Church in his celebration of the Holy Mysteries.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Orthodox are in kinda ancient schism- they are not freshly schismed church and as such they mostly are in schism not of their own fault- SSPX however schismed while maintaining to be in the Church and are internal issue of Catholic Church- as such they have no valid jurisdiction (as they themselves state) needed for marriage from their own point of view.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Q’s:​

Does illicit = invalid?

in this case of the Orthodox

1. Illicit ≠invalid
2. illicit ≠lawful
3. illicit = unlawful yet valid

Since an Orthodox priest doesn’t fall under Catholic canon law, his celebration of that same Sacrament would only be illicit if he violated the law of his own Church in his celebration of the Holy Mysteries.

He falls under a law alright, even though he doesn’t recognize it at the moment. Schism is condemned activity.

1. Heresy / divisiveness./ schism αἱρετικὸν, & Titus 3:10-11 IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences? Paul says to Bp Titus, “After admonishing such a person once or twice, have nothing more to do with them, They are perverted, and in serious sin, That person is self condemned.”
2. Division / dissension / sedition διχοστασίαι, That same Greek word is used in both the following passages
   Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21
   Why is schism grave (mortal) sin? Note the consequences? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW one goes to hell when they die in that sin.

I would just say, NOTHING is worth THAT

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Canon law puts it this way Re: licit vs illicit

. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07/30/can-a-catholic-ever-attend-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

A Catholic bishop told me differently.

what did he say?

 

[twf]

The SSPX have jurisdiction in some cases. Pope Francis has granted their priests faculties to hear confessions and they may witness marriages with the consent of the local ordinary. They never, of course, have jurisdiction as pastors of souls.

 

[babochka]

You have to be kidding. The Orthodox have jurisdiction, but the SSPX don’t?

Perhaps Fr. Z can explain it better.

ASK FATHER: Valid absolution from Orthodox priest, but not from SSPX priest? | Fr. Z's Blog

Keep in mind that this is outdated, as Pope Francis has given faculties to the SSPX to hear confessions. But Father Z does an excellent job of explaining the situation.

By contrast, an Orthodox priest is in communion with a bishop who has a diocese. That bishop, while in schism, has jurisdiction over his flock. Since he has jurisdiction, he can share that jurisdiction with priests that are subject to him. They have both orders and jurisdiction. Therefore, their absolution is valid.

A Catholic – unless he had no reasonable recourse to a Catholic priest (reasonable time to find one, distance to travel, other moral reasons) – would illicitly confess to an Orthodox priest, but the absolution would be valid. Both the sacramental and jurisdictional required for validity would be met.

 

[guanophore]

But you claim that EO are valid members of the Church?

Can a person be un-born again? We are baptized into Christ. All who are validly baptized are members of His One Body, the Church.

How can a person be a valid member of the Church if he is excommunicated?

Do you believe that all the EO are “excommunicated”?

Do you not accept the Catholic teaching that EO have valid Holy Orders & valid sacraments?

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?

I would probably throw the tea into the harbor. As a matter of fact, I recently learned one of my ancestors was at the Boston Tea Party.

Even if you reject the authority of Her Majesty the Queen of England, you are still subject to Her.

I guess we weren’t going to get out of that Revolutionary war, were we?

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

Well, it was certainly not false from the point of view of the Colonies prior to the Rev. War.

Jesus did not give Peter any politics, or boundaries. He put Peter in charge of feeding and caring for the flock. The WHOLE flock. That includes members of the flock who reject the role of the successor of Peter.

Do Anglicans fit the profile for being “in” the Catholic Church? No

I think the more appropriate word wold be “fully”. Obviously they are “in”, just not in perfect unity.

? please explain

I will agree to disagree with you, steve-b. We have been around this bush many times, and neither of us is going to change his mind.

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

The Catechism indicates that there are members of the Body of Christ that are not fully incorporated, so your rendering seems to contradict.