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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

I didn’t leave anything out. I gave the link to ALL of LG. I gave a direct quote from Luman Gentium #14 , in its sequence, saying tucked in amongst all the ecumenical language of the document, it says

1. “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.”

the thought continues

1. “They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ( i.e. baptism) 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".

Why does LG bring that up unless it is an important point to clarify, should one reading the document, asks the question as you are doing about “could not be saved”?

Therefore

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

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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!

? please explain

 

[steve-b]

Guanophore cited these statements:

guanophore:

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?

Just a few thoughts

In the beginning the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish.

However,

The rules changed from what Jews originally understood

All the writers of the NT were writing to the Church they belonged to and were building.

AND

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 that person is self condemned.”
2. [Division / dissension διχοστασίαι]( , http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm ), That same Greek word is used in both the following passages
   Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21
   Why are those sins all grave (mortal) sins? 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 they go to hell when they die in that sin.
   Could someone say today, Gee Paul that’s not “nice” of you to say that.
3. add to it Schism σχίσματα , http://bibleapps.com/greek/4978.htm = schism (division) Note Re: the Ref: of Clement of Rome, Clement’s letter to Corinth, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm written ~80 a.d., Note: in that link (Strong’s) shows a rent took place in Corinth which any kind of division is condemned. When it is division from the pope it is schism

 

[steve-b]

There was not argument over the role of the successor of Peter in the first millenium…

Actually in the first millenium

1st among equals, AND the pentarchy had a big hand in what would ultimately become Eastern schism.

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. 4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

guanophore:

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.

Yet Jesus established the papacy. Peter and his successors are the head of the entire Church, by Jesus own decree.

guanophore:

“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.

those who argue today against Peter being the greatest among the apostles, and the leader of the Church on earth, are merely showing who they are being sifted by… SATAN . (Lk 22: 31-32)
explained HERE you liked this answer

 

[Dovekin]

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

What is the basis for your assertion “ To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.”? The text provides 2 indications that this principleis inadequate. First, the text says “fully,” suggesting the possibility of being partially incorporated. Second, it talks about being in the Church bodily, but not in the heart. This suggests at least a possibility of being in the Church in one’s heart though not bodily.

I believe the One Church of Christ is the Church of the martyrs. If your principle excludes Christian martyrs from the Church, there is something wrong with your principle. If the Ugandan martyrs had never been baptized, the Church would recognize a “baptism of blood” and acknowledge them. But because they were baptized, we exclude them? Something is not right about your answer.

Similar problems are apparent in applying your principle to the Orthodox. They have true particular churches, but are not part of the One Church? Christ is present at their Eucharist, but that is outside our Church? It doesn’t make sense.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There is much confusion about what “Church”, “Sacraments” and “subject to” all mean. I will try to present explanation that sounds very plausible to me on each of these.

Church is communion of believers- while “perfect” communion is attained by Saints in Heaven- everybody who is saved, they all are Catholic and in Catholic Church as they are united with God- that means even if they were Jews/Orthodox/any other religion in life, now in Heaven they know full truth because of grace of God- and therefore are Catholic.

Every believer is subject to Pope- yes, indeed that SHOULD be the case. However, as we all are subject to God, sometimes we choose to disobey. Atheists are subject to God but they disregard that and they therefore do not follow His teachings nor laws- even if naturally and lawfully speaking, they are His subjects. Even believers who try their best sometimes disobey God while remaining willfully subject to Him. Same concept applies to being subject to Pope, as every believer should be subject to Papacy because of God’s Laws.

Sacraments are by their nature property of God. They are also what God gave to Catholic Church so they are property of Catholic Church. When Eastern Orthodox priest administers confession, baptism or sacrament of Holy Orders, he administers Catholic Sacrament- but it is not his right to do it. It is “stolen” or “borrowed” in a sense- therefore while it remains of course valid as he used property of the Church, lawfully speaking he had no right to use it because he himself is not part of the Church. They possess the valid sacrament of Eucharist- and therefore we recognize them as “church” but not as Church. They possess incomplete union with Catholic Church and therefore with God. (I do not mean to offend anyone by this, it is just analogy from Catholic viewpoint as far as I understand)

Now, because every human is subject to God, every human is also in some kind of communion with God (even if human himself denies it). Some are in perfect communion- Saints. Almost all living humans are in imperfect communion with God. Our communion with Church is based on many things. While one’s communion with Church is officially determined by the faith and submission to authority of Church (which comes from God), our communion with God is dependant on our sins and virtues- after confession we have more perfect communion with God than while in mortal sin. I will just skip over this part and say that everyone who has part of True Faith has part of Communion with Catholic Church- after all, just like with sacraments, True Faith belongs to the Church. What we generally call full Communion applies to someone who has same faith as Church, isnt in anathema and is submissive to authority of Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

When Eastern Orthodox priest administers confession, baptism or sacrament of Holy Orders, he administers Catholic Sacrament- but it is not his right to do it. It is “stolen” or “borrowed” in a sense- therefore while it remains of course valid as he used property of the Church, lawfully speaking he had no right to use it because he himself is not part of the Church.

If the Orthodox have apostolic succession, therefore a valid Eucharist, how can it be that they are administered unlawfully? The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “Sister Churches.” Sister Churches are churches that have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.

They possess incomplete union with Catholic Church and therefore with God.

I agree, an incomplete or partial communion with the Catholic Church but I would not say it is incomplete with God.

ZP

 

[semper_catholicus]

They are administered unlawfuly, becuase the Eastern Orthodox are separated from the Church.

 

[semper_catholicus]

If it is the case that, in the east, the ministers of Matrimony, why is it, then, that the Eastern Code of Canon Law says that, under certain circumstances, a couple can marry without a priest?

To say that the ministers are different between the East and the West is to say that there are theological differences between the Sacrament in the East and the West. The essence of the Sacrament, as it hasn’t been understood from the beginning of the Church, is the mutual consent exchanged between the man and the woman.

 

[babochka]

They are administered unlawfuly, becuase the Eastern Orthodox are separated from the Church.

They are not administered unlawfully. Bishops do not have authority that is delegated by the pope. They have authority in their own right. Orthodox priests administer the sacraments lawfully because they do so under the authority of their own bishops, under the jurisdiction of those bishops . These sacraments are not unlawful in any way.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Schismatics never lawfully celebrate the sacraments (except in cases where Ecclesia Supplet would apply), because they are schismatics.

In fact, the reason for which you say that they don’t celebrate theirnSacraments unlawfully is exactly the reason why they do celebrate them unlawfully.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

What is the basis for your assertion “ To be “in” the Church

paragraph 14 is clear

Dovekin:

the text says “fully,” suggesting the possibility of being partially incorporated. Second, it talks about being in the Church bodily, but not in the heart. This suggests at least a possibility of being in the Church in one’s heart though not bodily.

It says
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.

IOW a person, even if baptized, doesn’t remain in charity, is in trouble. As an aside, one refusing to enter the Church, is an offense against charity.

Dovekin:

I believe the One Church of Christ is the Church of the martyrs. If your principle excludes Christian martyrs from the Church, there is something wrong with your principle. If the Ugandan martyrs had never been baptized, the Church would recognize a “baptism of blood” and acknowledge them. But because they were baptized, we exclude them? Something is not right about your answer.

Yet an ecumenical council addressed this very issue you describe… Before there was anything called Protestantism.

Ecumenical Council of Florence

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.” Session 11

That’s from scripture.

Where you ask?

I listed the scriptures HERE

Dovekin:

Similar problems are apparent in applying your principle to the Orthodox.

yet Schism is schism.

 

[XXI_4]

If it is the case that, in the east, the ministers of Matrimony, why is it, then, that the Eastern Code of Canon Law says that, under certain circumstances, a couple can marry without a priest?

Canon 832, 1 covers 1: in danger of death, and 2: prolonged cases (over one month) where there is no access to a priest. However, Canon 832, 3 the Canon explicitly states that "if the marriage was celebrated in the presence of only witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the nuptial blessing from a priest as soon as possible.

Further, Canon 828 says that marriages are only valid celebrated with a sacred rite and that the assistance and blessing of a priest is regarded as a sacred rite for that purpose.

 

[semper_catholicus]

That is a different thing from saying that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament.

A priest (or other sacred minister) is also required for the validity of marriage in the Western Church, but that does not mean that he is the minister of the Marriage.

 

[babochka]

Schismatics never lawfully celebrate the sacraments (except in cases where Ecclesia Supplet would apply), because they are schismatics.

In fact, the reason for which you say that they don’t celebrate theirnSacraments unlawfully is exactly the reason why they do celebrate them unlawfully.

Do you accept Vatican II?

Proof that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of Orthodox Church laws

#16 Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East , while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them , since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.
Vatican II
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[semper_catholicus]

That does not mean that they celebrate the Sacraments lawfully, or that they have Jurisdiction (which would be required to do so).

 

[XXI_4]

From “Marriage in the East & West” by Chorbishop John D. Faris in “Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America”

" In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the competent minister for the celebration of marriage is the local hierarch, pastor or priest who has been given the faculty to bless the marriage. The form also includes the element of a ritus sacer, which is described as the “intervention of a priest who assists and blesses.”

Since the obligation to observe this form binds all Eastern Catholics, even those Eastern Catholics who marry according to the Latin rite are obliged to receive the priestly blessing. Therefore, it is not possible for an Eastern Catholic to be married in the Latin Church by a deacon or lay person."

And from “APPLYING THE LITURGICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES” Congregation for the Eastern Churches"

"82. The obligation of the sacred rite:

It should be noted that the obligation of the sacred rite, and thus of the priestly blessing, for the validity of the Marriage is specific to Eastern law. In the Latin Church, simply the presence of the local Ordinary, or the parish priest, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them is required. In the Eastern tradition, the priest, in addition to assisting, must bless the Marriage. To bless means to act as the true minister of the sacrament, in virtue of his priestly power to sanctify, so that the spouses may be united by God in the image of the flawless nuptial union of Christ with the Church and be consecrated to each other by sacramental grace."

 

[babochka]

That does not mean that they celebrate the Sacraments lawfully, or that they have Jurisdiction (which would be required to do so).

Of course it does. They govern themselves according to their own laws (disciplines). It really cannot be any more clear. Likewise, a Catholic bishop or pastor has no jurisdiction over a member of the Orthodox faithful. For this reason, a member of an Orthodox church must seek permission from his or her pastor in order to receive Communion in a Catholic Church. Because it is the Orthodox bishop or pastor who has jurisdiction, not the Catholic bishop.

To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East , while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them

Can you quote something of equal or higher authority that says otherwise? Yes, higher authority than an ecumenical council is what I’m looking for.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Jurisdiction exists only in the Catholic Church

 

[Dovekin]

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

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”?

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.

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.