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

[guanophore]

The arrogance of the Roman pope?

The pope was responding to the sacrilege that was occurring in Constantinople by their clerics with regards to the Latins their when they opened up the tabernacles and trampled on the Holy Eucharist under foot. They also closed all latin churches and accused us of heresy and struck the pope’s name from the commendation in the liturgy.

Yes, there was arrogance and abuse of power on both sides. The Eastern Catholics were reacting to improper forcing into the Eastern Liturgy. Fortunately we have gotten past that, at least formally.

Wounds to unity

[817](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/817.htm’) In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

For there to be healing, we must stop blaming, take responsibility for the hurts that have occurred, and look to affirm one another in our faith, which lacks little for perfect unity.

 

[XXI_4]

schism is NOT profound communion.

This was posted already, but…

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."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 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.”

Paragraph 838, CCC

So you reject the Catechism?

 

[steve-b]

Are E Orthodox in schism from the pope, (the successor to Peter) and those in union with the pope? Yes.

ziapueblo:

The Church does not teach that we are in a formal schism with the Orthodox. It’s more so an issue of upper management.

steve-b:

Check the 2nd line of the article Orthodox Church | Catholic Answers

ziapueblo:

Here’s a section of a letter written by Pope Francis to the Ecumenical Patriarch for the feast of St. Andrew that was read by the Ecumenical Patriarch during the Divine Liturgy (Eastern calendar):

“Our Churches have safeguarded the Apostolic tradition with great care, along with the teaching of the first Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers, despite the differences that developed in local traditions and in theological formulations, which need to be more deeply understood and clarified. At the same time both Churches, with a sense of responsibility towards the world, have sensed that urgent call, which involves each of us who have been baptized, to proclaim the Gospel to all men and women. For this reason, we can work together today in the search for peace among peoples, for the abolition of all forms of slavery, for the respect and dignity of every human being and for the care of creation. With God’s help, through encounter and dialogue on our journey together over the last fifty years, we already experience being in communion, even though it is not yet full and complete.”

ZP

Pope Francis didn’t deny the schism that exists. And as far as ecumenical councils, look how many the Orthodox don’t accept. Not to mention the current schism between the Russian Orthodox and Constantinople.

 

[guanophore]

you give your opinion backed up by your opinion.

Actually, my perceptions are supported by others on the forum who observe a lack of charity in your posts. Truth is part of charity, yes, but it can be accompanied by brotherly love.

I let my references make the conclusion.

I understand that you see it that way. But all the more reason that your posts might be accompanied by some filial affection and expression of the desire for unity. If the quotes are speaking for themselves, then it would seem unnecessary for your conclusions to be offputting.

Gal 5:19-21 what is the conclusion for those sins, particularly dissension/division διχοστασίαι ? Did I make up that conclusion? No.

What is most curious is that you don’t seem to see that your attitude is divisive, and not unitive.

“THEY” deceive the simple-minded, ἀκάκων

I guess you are saying, since I choose to focus on the fact that Catholic unity with EO "lacks little for perfection) that I am “simple minded”?

You are right, it is about focus and attitude. You are choosing to focus on what separates, and choosing to have a standoffish attitude toward your siblings in Christ.

To deliberately NOT share the truth, is an offense against charity.

I don’t disagree, of course. I am giving you feedback about the tone and attitude that accompanies your Truth. Does it subtract from Truth if you offer it with filial affection?

“If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1).

“Steve-b is patient, Steve-b is kind. Steve-b does not envy, Steve-b does not boast, Steve-b is not proud. Steve-b does not dishonor others, Steve-b is not self-seeking, Steve-b is not easily angered, Steve-b keeps no record of wrongs. Steve-b does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Steve-b always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Steve-b never fails.” (Adapted from I Cor. 13)

Will your readers find these other evidences of love in your posts, or will you confine yourself to the “texts that speak for themselves”?

 

[guanophore]

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.

I think you have bolded this section because you are charging EO with the sin of separation?

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

You don’t seem to accept them as siblings in Christ.

schism is NOT profound communion.

This is an example of how you choose to focus. You are focusing on the “little” rather than the profundity of unity.

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.”

Have you considered affirming what the Church teaches about this profound communion, along with your Truth about the dangers of schism? When you set aside the part where we have unity, your posts do not come across with a desire for unity.

 

[twf]

For a person who bangs on about his ultramontanist views of the papacy, he sure is remarkably disconnected from the tone the popes have set over the past 50+ years for ecumenical dialogue.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Irenaeus is a Catholic bishop and saint.

Honestly, steve-b, this possessive attitude is unbecoming. He was a Greek Catholic as well! Since there was no schism at the time, naturally …

How does it further the cause of unity to quibble over who honors what saint?

how many among the “Orthodox” agree / believe with Irenaeus that Rome has preeminent authority over all the Churches. Bk 3 Ch3 vv1-3

And why is Irenaeus correct?

Peter doesn’t split from himself.

guanophore:

If only this were true! Perhaps this is a good time to reflect on the reality of anti-popes throughout history.

How does that disprove what I said? After 2000 yrs, The Catholic Church is still here, the pope is still in charge, etc.
Re: The reformation revolt, that has produced mind boggeling divisions.

Since this is about authority, and primacy of authority

guanophore:

It is clear that some of the Popes have not exercised authority in the manner which Jesus taught. It is expected that the flock will rebel when this happens.

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20).

Luke shows us another example.

Peter never asked to be

1. first, nor leader, nor renamed to Rock, nor have the Church built on him, nor receive the keys to the kingdom, etc .
2. No one lobbied for Peter, unlike the mother of James and John lobbying for her sons to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus (positions of authority)

Peter was the Father’s choice

guanophore:

There is much healing to be done after so many of the successors of Peter acted as tyrants over others.

Jesus never promised perfection in behavior in His Church. Nor did He promise us a Judas free Church.

He promised us a Church that not even the gates of Hell will prevail against it. Peter’s successors will always be with us at the helm, and all the sacraments needed for salvation will be here in His Church. that He builds on Peter and those in union with Peter.

guanophore:

Placing blame and assigning culpability is not the attitude of humility,

steve-b:

judgement day is just 1 heartbeat away

AND

The Church avoids the following errors of indifferentism and latitudinarianism

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.

I think you have bolded this section because you are charging EO with the sin of separation?

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

You don’t seem to accept them as siblings in Christ.

schism is NOT profound communion.

This is an example of how you choose to focus. You are focusing on the “little” rather than the profundity of unity.

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.”

Have you considered affirming what the Church teaches about this profound communion, along with your Truth about the dangers of schism? When you set aside the part where we have unity, your posts do not come across with a desire for unity.

Schism is still schism. That doesn’t go away just because one chooses to ignore it.

 

[XXI_4]

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.”

This has been posted no less than four times in this thread, several times in direct reply to you. Why do you continue to ignore it?

Is it because you reject the current catechism? Or Vatican II for that matter?

 

[guanophore]

how many among the “Orthodox” agree / believe with Irenaeus that Rome has preeminent authority over all the Churches. Bk 3 Ch3 vv1-3

I venture that most EO are more familiar with the Fathers than the majority of Latin Catholics. But they have also most likely been taught that Rome lost that pre-eminence when they departed from the One Faith that both shared with Irenaeus at one point.

And why is Irenaeus correct?

I already responded to this before. I suspect you are making the point that the Church needs to be united with the Successor of Peter whether he manifests the faith of Peter, or not.

How does that disprove what I said?

You seemed to asserting that there were no Schisms in the Latin Church. There have been multiple schisms. From a practical point of view, all of Protestantism is a Schism largely fomented by the corruption of Catholic clerics, including the popes.

Jesus never promised perfection in behavior in His Church. Nor did He promise us a Judas free Church.

Indeed, but an attitude against the EO that the Latin Church has no dirty laundry. The truth about unity with Peter can be asserted with more humility, and will probably be more effective when it is.

all the sacraments needed for salvation will be here in His Church

So what does that mean, when the CC considers the Holy Orders, Apostolic succession, and Sacraments of the EO valid? Is this not evidence that they are members of His Church?

 

[steve-b]

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.”

If it is really sooooooooooo little, why hasn’t that little bit been accomplished, especially given ALL THESE YEARS?

XXI_4:

This has been posted no less than four times in this thread, several times in direct reply to you. Why do you continue to ignore it?

Is it because you reject the current catechism? Or Vatican II for that matter?

Schism doesn’t go away just because of all the ecumenical speak.

AND

The biggest number of Orthodox, maybe ~ 70% of the total, (the Russian Orthodox) are now in schism with Constantinople. I posted that before on this thread with no response.

 

[XXI_4]

If it is really sooooooooooo little, why hasn’t that little bit been accomplished, especially given ALL THESE YEARS?

Schism doesn’t go away just because of all the ecumenical speak.

Even though you refuse to say yes or no to the question, it’s pretty plain that you reject the current catechism and the ecumenism of Vatican II.

Not much doubt at this point you’re just an SSPX or Sede schismatic who yourself rejects that in Rome which you disagree with.

The biggest number of Orthodox, maybe ~ 70% of the total, (the Russian Orthodox) are now in schism with Constantinople. I posted that before on this thread with no response.

Because it has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is about the Pope and the Eastern Churches, not who amongst the Eastern Churches recognize each other.

And one would do well to reread the Pharisee and the Publican. You’re very good at pointing out the letter of the law for sure… “Thank you God, that I am not like other men, even these schismatics in this thread…”

 

[Isaac14]

Honestly, I think this has been happening since before the schism. Human beings have a drive to homogenize, and we tend to cluster to others like ourselves, and project “other” onto those who are different. Our pride of our own way, and our believe in our own “rightness” is actually a form of arrogance.

Indeed. The real challenge to achieving unity is all of us setting aside our pride and realizing we can be faithful to our respective traditions while still accepting those of others. Thank you (and many others) for your kind words in this thread.

 

[guanophore]

The real challenge to achieving unity is all of us setting aside our pride and realizing we can be faithful to our respective traditions while still accepting those of others.

I think this is what Pope Saint John Paul II said it best when he stated, “The Church needs to learn to breathe again with its two lungs – its Eastern one and its Western one. Pope Saint John Paul II, in his effort to bring together the East and West, issued two distinct challenges. Because Eastern Catholics are a minority, they must faithfully preserve their tradition and not be tempted to “Latinize” their practices. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, should seek out some amount of liturgical and intellectual exposure to the Christian East for spiritual and cultural enrichment.

As Pope Saint John Paul knew, in the current war against secularism, both lungs are necessary in order to provide enough “oxygen” for the spiritual battle raging in today’s world. The Eastern perspective expands the arsenal of the Western Church’s theology and prayer life. So, on the one hand, breathing with both lungs reinforces the Church Militant, but it is also an invitation to broaden one’s horizon through a beautiful encounter with Christ, who is new every morning.”

The East and the West need one another, so that the Church can more effectively present the Unity Christ desires in the world. Respect for our different traditions is essential. Let us pray that our leaders can ameliorate those few things that still divide us, so that the world can know us by our love for each other.

 

[guanophore]

If it is really sooooooooooo little, why hasn’t that little bit been accomplished, especially given ALL THESE YEARS?

Possibly because so many people have the same attitude you have? Focusing on what separates, rather than what unites?

These things need to be accomplished by our patriarchs, because they exist because of the actions of the patriarchs.

You do your part by educating others. We can all have a part, but most of all, we must pray for unity, and show love to our siblings, as Jesus would have us do.

Schism doesn’t go away just because of all the ecumenical speak.

What makes it go away, Steve? Implying that people will go to hell if they don’t see things the way you see them?

The biggest number of Orthodox, maybe ~ 70% of the total, (the Russian Orthodox) are now in schism with Constantinople. I posted that before on this thread with no response.

To me this is an ideal time for reconciliation, and for Rome to lead the way in charity. We don’t have a dog in this fight as they do. As a matter of fact, what we see in this schism is not different from how the East and West were separated. Intolerance for the perspectives of the other.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If it is really sooooooooooo little, why hasn’t that little bit been accomplished, especially given ALL THESE YEARS?

guanophore:

Possibly because so many people have the same attitude you have? Focusing on what separates, rather than what unites?

I doubt it. If it is sooooooo little that divides, and keeps us divided, what could possibly be this tiny issue that keeps us divided?

guanophore:

These things need to be accomplished by our patriarchs, because they exist because of the actions of the patriarchs.

Finally I can agree. The pentarchy was an invention of the East for the purpose of neutralizing jurisdiction of the pope. ADD to that the phrase 1st among equals, also an invention of the East, and we see that the issues aren’t really soooooooo tiny.

Schism doesn’t go away just because of all the ecumenical speak.

guanophore:

What makes it go away, Steve?

Where is the fear of God? Where did THAT go?

guanophore:

Implying that people will go to hell if they don’t see things the way you see them?

Again, where is my name on any of the resources I quote? It’s not there.
Therefore the warnings don’t come from me.

point being

as Jesus warned, (NOT ME ) and it happens 24/7, 365, few are saved because people resist truth

 

[twf]

On countless threads about countless different topics, you always seem to bring it back to how few will be saved… but it almost comes across as a rhetorical weapon.

 

[Dovekin]

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. ”

If it is sooooooo little that divides, and keeps us divided, what could possibly be this tiny issue that keeps us divided?

Hwo does it serve even your purposes when you belittle the teaching of Vatican 2 that has been repeated in the Catechism?

This does not foster respect for the truth you propose. All the truth you speak is useless if people have no reason to listen.

 

[steve-b]

On countless threads about countless different topics, you always seem to bring it back to how few will be saved… but it almost comes across as a rhetorical weapon.

It should scare the hell out of everyone. The reason few are saved is because most people don’t obey the one who made that statement. Too many people obviously discount or belittle or ignore the warning.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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. ”

If it is sooooooo little that divides, and keeps us divided, what could possibly be this tiny issue that keeps us divided?

Hwo does it serve even your purposes when you belittle the teaching of Vatican 2 that has been repeated in the Catechism?

This does not foster respect for the truth you propose. All the truth you speak is useless if people have no reason to listen.

I quoted both. It’s you who are belittling

We talked about Vat II, and before Vat II was Florence we also talked about. 2 ecumenical councils, meaning they speak for the entire Church. The same message is given in both councils… AND They both recount scripture