Not many (any?) Catholics today will disagree with you here. The Pope cannot condemn someone to hell; only Christ has the authority to do that. A pope who uses the power of the papacy to do something bad does not divest the papacy of that power, it just means that person is not being a good pope.
The difference being, the SSPX profess belief in the Supremacy of the Office of the Papacy and acknowledge it’s necessity, and it’s more rather a dispute about things that certain individual Popes have said recently. On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Supremacy of that office and does not believe in the Papacy, by that I mean, they do not believe that Christ divinely instituted an office with supreme authority to rule the entire universal church, but believe that all bishops are equal rather and that the Pope can be excommunicated by another patriarch.
@OrbisNonSufficit would disagree…He recently posted on another thread the following: “…canonizations were never believed to be completely infallible (neither ones done by Latin Church or the Pope). Hence one can privately disagree with veneration of Photius, veneration of Palamas, but also all Latin Saints … however no one can deny their theology as it was accepted by the Church (hence, one can be against veneration of Palamas but not against Palamism as theology).”
According to St Augustine, sacraments can be valid without being salvific:HomeschoolDad:
If the sacraments are salvific, and it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, then yes, receiving valid sacraments is, ipso facto, to be subject to the Pope. Can there be valid sacraments that are not salvific?
Might it be more correct to say that the Orthodox admit that the papacy exists, and that it has some authority — a pride of place and primus inter pares — but not the extent of authority that Rome claims for herself? To my mind, that is not the same thing as “not believing in the papacy”.
By having ex opera operato succession, a Christian group is a church. Therefore the orthodox church is given the title church. Why is the Church of England not also considered a church? There is only one reason and Cardinal Ratzinger Head of the CDF (later Pope Benedict XVI) answered this:
Yes, as even Vatican II itself states (which everyone seems to keep mentioning):
Forgive me, but we Orthodox count St. Augustine as one of our own as well, and we too confess ourselves to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Secondly, if the doctrine of Papal Supremacy was so vital and necessary for the eternal salvation of each Christian soul, then do you not think that it would have been included in the Creed? Such an important matter would obviously not have been overlooked by the Early Church Fathers assembled in Council to define the salvific doctrine of the Church. Thirdly, if the Patriarch of Constantinople (Michael I) had so greatly erred in anathematizing Pope Leo IX, do you not think that he would have immediately been called into account by the other Patriarchs of the remaining Sees in the Pentarchy? Such an offense against the Papacy (if it were necessary for salvation) would have elicited an outcry from the rest of the Church…Let the historical record speak for itself.
I’ve wondered that myself, but England did not constitute by itself a separate rite of the Church, rather, it was merely an ecclesiastical province (or provinces), comprised of dioceses, under the Pope of Rome.
I don’t know. What you say makes sense, but does not the Orthodox Church admit in some way a certain primacy of Rome, even though in her judgment Rome has far “overshot the runway” on the matter with her alleged excesses? And that attenuated primacy isn’t in the Creed either.
I can’t answer that either. Never gave it any thought, to tell you the truth.
That is not accurate. It is somehow popular to view them as infallible, but there is nothing that suggests it outside popular notion. Church does not regard canonizations as absolutely infallible.
So do SSPX, but they also have valid views on Papal doctrines.
Then Church has lost one of it’s four marks by not being One, and as such Church did not survive as Christ’s Church, and Christ broke His promise to protect the Church, and Holy Spirit failed. Orthodox people have quite good communion with the Church herself, but not same as Catholics do. Every baptized Christian is in some way in communion with the Church (though not all in full, not all in as good as Orthodox people are).
All Catholics are subject to Ecumenical Councils, to Pope and infallible dogmatic declarations. Yet, at the same time, some deny this to varying degrees and some view it as nominal submission, some don’t view it as being subject to them at all. Same with canon law, same with secular law etc etc… and same with Christians being subject to Pope.
And it seems counterproductive to set up Church in way that several fallible people can screw it up by calling a fake council or something… that happened in history quite a lot. Every single time there was controversy in the Church, Rome stood on correct side (even from Orthodox view, up until Schism of course). Pope can not damage Church horribly at all, he is simply guided by Holy Spirit and prevented from teaching non-sense.
That was not what happened. Read the history before you make those claims… it was completely different. Pope didn’t even play part in excommunications at all. Pope sent his legates to investigate why did chaplain of Patriarch of Constantinople step on Latin Eucharist. Patriarch ignored them and then Pope died- Legates were recalled home. However, one of Legates succumbed to anger of being denied even entry to investigate entire thing and excommunicated Patriarch. People rallied behind Patriarch, Emperor behind Pope. Greek Patriarch of Antioch rejected validity of either excommunication (keep in mind, Legates were called home so they could not validly excommunicate anyone anymore). Said Patriarch later proved to be quite power-hungry and ended in exile for playing “Emperor-maker” of Byzantium- he even wore shoes reserved only for Emperors and behaved like he was Emperor himself. Only thing Pope did was send Legates because someone stepped on Holy Eucharist.
For Catholics, infallible statements get priority over Chieti Document. If Chieti Document contradicts them, we can not accept them while being in good standing with the Church. Of course, that’s an “if”. Chieti Document actually provides proofs Rome had jurisdiction over Constantinople (appeals made to Constantinople could be re-judged by Rome, as shown in footnotes) and that Primacy was linked with conciliarity. If something can be re-judged based on later’s authority, later has to have authority over former. At the same time, it doesn’t exactly prove “immediate” part, but it proves “universal” jurisdiction of Papacy (and special place Constantinople had, but that is a bit misled because how Constantinople got into being 2nd to Rome was not pretty, neither very canonical and neither accepted by the Church at the time, and not by Latins until Lyons and Florence).
There is nothing in Creed saying only consecrated Priest can administer sacraments (apart from Baptism), neither about True Presence of Christ in Eucharist. Are they not vital though? I do also think that centralization of Rome is wrong… doctrines of Papacy (infallibility, power to intervene if necessary) are all proven even from East by Pre-Schism Church… but centralization like this… never).
In the first millennium and preserved in our Tradition, we certainly gave primacy to Rome, but it was understood that she was first among equals, and since she alone had weathered the early heresies without falling into them while all the Sees of the East had fallen at one time or another, she was esteemed as a bulwark of Orthodoxy and often consulted as the final court of appeals for bickering patriarchates. Further, her position as founded upon the martyrdoms of Ss. Peter and Paul and being the capital of the Empire to which she was subjected to harsh regular persecutions gave her great sanctity…the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. True, this “attenuated primacy” is not in the Creed, because it is not a necessary dogma for the salvation of Christians. The Creed was defined and formulated to protect the Holy Faith against perversions that would lead Christians away from God and His Life-Giving Gospel.
Good point.
I don’t think that is by far, what Vatican would do. I can’t imagine current administration, or anything close to it, trying to revise Eastern Liturgies. I can’t imagine anyone more traditional than them doing so either.
Yes, but that is also something Latins should be afraid of. Having East to back us up against that would be nice
It is almost ironical how false Ecumenism actually destroys true Ecumenism.Yeah. From what I have read about, East did to some degree regard Rome as infallible up until Photian controversy and rise of anti-Latin party of clergy in Constantinople, but it was not certainly limited to Pope. It was more of a “Church of Rome is inerrant” kind of scenario. Even those who regarded Rome as such, however, were not always going to Rome with every problem that occurred. St. George the Hagiorite went to his superiors at Constantinople and solved things out there… there was no need for centralization or anything like that. And that centralization was source of Latinization, of East drifting apart from West and many other bad things. Currently, that seems to be going away and more and more authority and autonomy is enjoyed by Eastern Catholic Churches- but that sometimes also results in people who deny Papal dogmas. Either extreme is bad, in my view.
So am IAs a side note, I am a great admirer of Bp. Athanasius Schneider. If he were to become Pope we would heal the Schism in a hot second.
I hope that either he, or some other Pope will heal the Schism but by real charity and not false Ecumenism. Not by throwing Eastern Catholics under the wheels neither by throwing Latins under the wheel… then, and only then, will unity really work.Don’t tell that to the EP. They would politely tell you no (that’s the most charitable way I can put it).
that would definitely be more in line with what the Orthodox say!
As for that, I think any of the three most recent Popes and +Bartholomew could handle the schism in very short order–if not for the bear in the room . . .As a side note, I am a great admirer of Bp. Athanasius Schneider. If he were to become Pope we would heal the Schism in a hot second.
I’m less than certain . . . I would actually expect +Bartholomew to give a rather nuanced answer. The synod as a whole might be another matter, let alone what the MP would say, but . . .