"Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I have no issues with your other responses except this one:

This really depends. If you are under the impression that aberrations are deliberately systematically ignored or encouraged, then I think you’d be right to question the commitment of the Church leadership to its own stated principles. This is all that I’ve done in this thread with regard to the Latin Church, for no other reasons than what I have just stated. Of course, the only answers I ever received were “go to a different church”, which to me is a soft way of saying “we don’t see a problem with frivolity and indifference in our church”. If they don’t see it fine, but I know more than one ex-Catholic who became Orthodox who did.

When I have spoke of this with EO, the response I have gotten is, “that’s wrong, but most EO churches are not like that.” How is such a response different from “go to a different church?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure that it is, Mardukm. I would be disappointed with that response, too, because it doesn’t address why such things are allowed to go on when the people in charge know they shouldn’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s what Lumen Gentium #22 says:

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

The highlights are mine which are the points I have been making.

The entirety can be found here → vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

But here’s the thing, how do we know how much he needs to do and when? Can we say exactly when he should be “meddling” with Eastern Churches affairs? There have been examples in the past where the Pope clearly put himself above Canon Law and did his own thing, but this is rare (as far as I know) and of course only out of necessity. And usually this cases happen for instances within the Roman Church. I think by definition itself of Papal Authority, that the Pope is above Canon Law, should indicate that he has absolute authority over the Church. But we just have to get over the idea that just because he has total authority, doesn’t mean he’s going around like a dictator. Remember, he would see himself as the lowest of servants, not the mightiest of rulers. He would conduct himself with extreme humility. Peter didn’t exactly bully the Apostles around just because he received the keys to heaven. I don’t see why the Popes should act any differently. The Pope always sees the Bishops as his brothers, not his subordinates. God values the traditions of the Church and has preserved it for 2000 years, why will the Holy Spirit allow a Pope that will destroy these traditions? All these fear about the Pope doing something we all agree he should not be doing goes against the basic faith we have in the office of the Pope. We believe the Pope is the successor of Peter, chosen by the Holy Spirit through the conclave, and is guided by the Holy Spirit through his pontificate. What should we be afraid of?

I absolutely agree with you. Fear has no place in the Christian paradigm, and I have no sympathy or patience for sensationalist exaggerations of what the Pope could possibly do to harm the Church. This is the ply and trade of Low Petrine polemicists. But my concern is not with what the Pope could possibly do; rather, it is about what the Pope can actually do. Right now, my beef is with the Absolutist Petrine advocates, who don’t deal with possibilities, but - in their eyes - realities. They actually claim that the Pope can do these horrendous things, and that it is his mere will that prevents such things from happening.

I have faith that God will preserve His Church, but I also know full well that God does not do this by depriving people of free will. The idea that it is only the Pope’s mere will that prevents him from abusing a supposedly absolute authority is little protection or security. I know from reading the V1 Fathers that they never envisaged a papacy that has been given the authority to destroy the Church, or any portion of it. It is this knowledge that helped me accept Catholicism, and which helps me remain in it despite the opinions of Absolute Petrine advocates. And it is my prayer that the Absolutist Petrine position (as well as the Low Petrine position) will be rooted out from the Churches.

Isn’t this kind of like the argument, “if there is nothing impossible with God, can he make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”

Well, no. This philosophical quandary is an oxymoron. They are two genuinely contradictory concepts, and it is proposed with no real solution in mind.

My own concern has an actual solution - namely, God really did not give the Pope such absolute authority. The Pope’s authority is determined only and always in the context of the Church and by the need of the Church. The Pope’s authority was given for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. That’s it. There’s no warrant in assuming - as Absolutist Petrine advocates do - that he has any sort of authority that could be destructive of the Church, or any portion of it - such as abolishing an Eastern or Oriental Liturgy, depriving all other bishops of their authority, forcing Eastern or Oriental Catholics to accept the Latin Traditions, etc. I have very recently had a debate with a Traditionalist Catholic in the TCF, and he actually suggested that it is within the Pope’s power to do such things, with the usual sorry mitigation, “He CAN do it, but don’t worry, he won’t.”

The issue comes down to one simple question - Does the Pope’s prerogatives include the authority to tear down the body of Christ? What is your answer?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

I absolutely agree with you. Fear has no place in the Christian paradigm, and I have no sympathy or patience for sensationalist exaggerations of what the Pope could possibly do to harm the Church. This is the ply and trade of Low Petrine polemicists. But my concern is not with what the Pope could possibly do; rather, it is about what the Pope can actually do. Right now, my beef is with the Absolutist Petrine advocates, who don’t deal with possibilities, but - in their eyes - realities. They actually claim that the Pope can do these horrendous things, and that it is his mere will that prevents such things from happening.

I have faith that God will preserve His Church, but I also know full well that God does not do this by depriving people of free will. The idea that it is only the Pope’s mere will that prevents him from abusing a supposedly absolute authority is little protection or security. I know from reading the V1 Fathers that they never envisaged a papacy that has been given the authority to destroy the Church, or any portion of it. It is this knowledge that helped me accept Catholicism, and which helps me remain in it despite the opinions of Absolute Petrine advocates. And it is my prayer that the Absolutist Petrine position (as well as the Low Petrine position) will be rooted out from the Churches.

I think we shouldn’t miss the fact that like I said, the Pope views the other Bishops as his brothers (as he should) and he works with them, not against them. Like I said earlier in this thread, better to understand fully the role of the Pope before criticizing his authority, because his authority is defined by his role. My post before this one with the quote from Lumen Gentium clarifies that.

Well, no. This philosophical quandary is an oxymoron. They are two genuinely contradictory concepts, and it is proposed with no real solution in mind.

My own concern has an actual solution - namely, God really did not give the Pope such absolute authority. The Pope’s authority is determined only and always in the context of the Church and by the need of the Church. The Pope’s authority was given for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. That’s it. There’s no warrant in assuming - as Absolutist Petrine advocates do - that he has any sort of authority that could be destructive of the Church, or any portion of it - such as abolishing an Eastern or Oriental Liturgy, depriving all other bishops of their authority, forcing Eastern or Oriental Catholics to accept the Latin Traditions, etc. I have very recently had a debate with a Traditionalist Catholic in the TCF, and he actually suggested that it is within the Pope’s power to do such things, with the usual sorry mitigation, “He CAN do it, but don’t worry, he won’t.”

The issue comes down to one simple question - Does the Pope’s prerogatives include the authority to tear down the body of Christ? What is your answer?

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, pending a correction from someone more knowledgeable, I find that the language in Lumen Gentium does point to such an authority from the Pope. But the examples you gave is indeed an oxymoron because those would be counter to the mandate of the Pope in his role as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff. Its like electing a president to abolish the nation or secede to another country and give up independence.

I do agree in the principle, “he can but he won’t.” Again, the Pope works WITH the Bishops, not AGAINST the Bishops. That is the most important thing to understand about this and its clear too in Lumen Gentium. It is that very nature of the Pontiff that would prevent him from turning into this proverbial bully out to destroy the Church.

EDIT:
Just to add, given that such authority is documented in Church documents, so we know its pretty well spelled out. Given that there is not huge objections by the Eastern Patriarchs, why should we be concerned when they are not? Surely they know better by working directly with the Pope and understanding their relationship and roles better than any of us here could.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Constantine,

I think we shouldn’t miss the fact that like I said, the Pope views the other Bishops as his brothers (as he should) and he works with them, not against them. …

Wouldn’t this depend upon the individual?

It seems to me that this is not built-in to the job, it is not built-in to any job.

… Again, the Pope works WITH the Bishops, not AGAINST the Bishops.

Can it be said that EVERY Pope who ever lived always did this?

Are you willing to make that assertion? I am just curious.

It is that very nature of the Pontiff that would prevent him from turning into this proverbial bully out to destroy the Church.

If we could find just one example, how are we to take this?

Surely they know better by working directly with the Pope and understanding their relationship and roles better than any of us here could.

Does the Papacy hold to the theory that the authority of all Patriarchal offices is delegated?

 

[Hesychios]

dcointin;7319069:

That’s what upsets me, Catholics are very positive about eastern traditions, but I don’t see that reciprocated with Eastern Orthodox. If I reposted this in an Orthodox forum, I guarantee you the response I would get is “what positive things in western Christianity?”

Sadly, from personal experience, I agree with you.

Sad, sure.

By that token it is also sad when Catholics take that attitude about Anglicans and Lutherans, but one sees that all the time. Is it justified?

We should not be shocked that some Orthodox don’t see anything else positive coming out of western Christianity that they don’t already have access to themselves.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Constantine,
Wouldn’t this depend upon the individual?

It seems to me that this is not built-in to the job, it is not built-in to any job.

But the person selected is not just every person. Remember, the Pope is the successor of Peter, not Judas. Jesus gave him the authority (keys) and made him a promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church.

Can it be said that EVERY Pope who ever lived always did this?

I would look at the results rather than the accounts. Of course some people will interpret every situation differently. But the Church is still here today, there is no major revolt by the bishops, the Pope must be doing something right.

Are you willing to make that assertion? I am just curious.

Of course as a Catholic I have faith on God that the Pope He chooses will not destroy His Church on earth.

If we could find just one example, how are we to take this?

As I mentioned above, it can be treated subjectively. But ultimately we have to look at where we are now. Today is the sum of all the events of the past. If the Pope were to do one thing damaging to the Church, the Church would be in shambles today.

Does the Papacy hold to the theory that the authority of all Patriarchal offices is delegated?

To be honest I don’t know the exact answer. I would say I think so, but fact is I’m not sure. Some people may see any “meddling” by the Pope as abuse of power. We’d have to look to the Patriarchs and see what they say.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Sad, sure.

By that token it is also sad when Catholics take that attitude about Anglicans and Lutherans, but one sees that all the time. Is it justified?

We should not be shocked that some Orthodox don’t see anything else positive coming out of western Christianity that they don’t already have access to themselves.

You’re right-----I just wish it was different.

 

[Hesychios]

But the person selected is not just every person. Remember, the Pope is the successor of Peter, not Judas. Jesus gave him the authority (keys) and made him a promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church.

I see it a bit differently.

To me a bishop, any bishop, has the potential to follow Peter or Judas (or fall somewhere in between), and is a successor to them both.

I would look at the results rather than the accounts. Of course some people will interpret every situation differently. But the Church is still here today, there is no major revolt by the bishops, the Pope must be doing something right.

Well, he gets to pick them.

If that’s what it takes to get and hold agreement in the college of bishops it is a strong argument for one human person controlling the church.

Of course as a Catholic I have faith on God that the Pope He chooses will not destroy His Church on earth.

I find this a most interesting comment (not a bad thought though), considering the history.

First the assembled synod of the church in the city of Rome, including the priests, picked it’s bishops, just like bishops everywhere else were picked.

Then there were various episodes when the local power-brokers picked the Popes. The Emperor at Constantinople, or his agents at Ravenna picked a few. The Holy Roman Emperors had a swing at it and the great families of Italy took turns picking one of their own. The bankers in Florence and elsewhere got into the game (the Medici family got their start in papal politics backing the candidacy of John XXIII, the anti-Pope who started his career as a pirate of some sort).

It is reassuring that behind all of that was the hand of God.

… fact is I’m not sure. Some people may see any “meddling” by the Pope as abuse of power. We’d have to look to the Patriarchs and see what they say.

Let us assume that God picked the Pope.

How much true authority does he have? Does he have the right to delegate his own authority to others? If he wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop him?

 

[JohnVIII]

…It is the right of the mother church to determine the orthodoxy of any non-communing body which descends and dissents from it, for the purposes of clarifying just who is Orthodox (or Catholic, as the case may be with SSPX, Old Catholics, etc).

All things being equal I would be in general agreement with this.

The ROCOR is a bad example of this because the “mother church” of ROCOR was driven underground by the Bolshevik revolution, and the official church became an obedient slave of the Communist government. This kind of so-called “mother church” cannot speak of the orthodoxy of ROCOR, and ROCOR was justified in braking communion with the ‘Soviet’ (not really ‘Russian’) Church.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I see it a bit differently.

To me a bishop, any bishop, has the potential to follow Peter or Judas (or fall somewhere in between), and is a successor to them both.

Well, he gets to pick them.

If that’s what it takes to get and hold agreement in the college of bishops it is a strong argument for one human person controlling the church.
I find this a most interesting comment (not a bad thought though), considering the history.

First the assembled synod of the church in the city of Rome, including the priests, picked it’s bishops, just like bishops everywhere else were picked.

Then there were various episodes when the local power-brokers picked the Popes. The Emperor at Constantinople, or his agents at Ravenna picked a few. The Holy Roman Emperors had a swing at it and the great families of Italy took turns picking one of their own. The bankers in Florence and elsewhere got into the game (the Medici family got their start in papal politics backing the candidacy of John XXIII, the anti-Pope who started his career as a pirate of some sort).

It is reassuring that behind all of that was the hand of God.
Let us assume that God picked the Pope.

How much true authority does he have? Does he have the right to delegate his own authority to others? If he wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop him?

Ok, Hesychios------
Let me ask this a certain way-----

Let us assume God Picked the EO Patriarch.
How much authority does He have? Does He have the right to delegate His own Authority to others? IF He wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop Him?

BTW, I’ not totally being flip here. There is a honest spirit of Inquiry here.

The authority of the EO Patriarch/Patriarchs does NOT extend to the OO Patriarchs, though. I personally prefer the Overarching, Across the Board Authority of the Pope.
Personally, I feel there is alot to be said for it.

You will almost certainly disagree with it, though. that’s fine. What is your take, though?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Ok, Hesychios------
Let me ask this a certain way-----

Let us assume God Picked the EO Patriarch.

The EO Patriarch? We have more than one patriarch my friend.

How much authority does He have?Does He have the right to delegate His own Authority to others?

I fear you have it backwards my friend. A patriarch has the same authority as any other bishop. He rules his own diocese within the bounds of the canons. Any additional authority he may have has been ceded to him by his brother bishops. It’s not a matter of the patriarch ceding authority to them.

IF He wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop Him?

He has no right to act outside of his own diocese, much less outside of his own local Church. The only exception would be if the local synod had ceded certain duties and authority to him. Then he could exercise those duties within the bounds of the canons.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

Ok, Hesychios------
Let me ask this a certain way-----

Let us assume God Picked the EO Patriarch.
How much authority does He have? Does He have the right to delegate His own Authority to others? IF He wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop Him?

BTW, I’ not totally being flip here. There is a honest spirit of Inquiry here.

The authority of the EO Patriarch/Patriarchs does NOT extend to the OO Patriarchs, though. I personally prefer the Overarching, Across the Board Authority of the Pope.
Personally, I feel there is alot to be said for it.

You will almost certainly disagree with it, though. that’s fine. What is your take, though?

You have to understand, I don’t necessarily see the patriarchates as divinely instituted organizations. They were evolutions, and the authority they have was decided upon by the church body politic. Each bishop has his place and there are therefore limits, even the EO does not have any actual authority over sister churches, it has to accept that. It uses it’s stature to persuade.

The stature and honor of some Metropolitanates have changed around over time: Jerusalem was eventually elevated over it’s mother church the Archdiocese of Ceasarea Maritima for one example (there have been others, east and west).

Usually though, the eastern church has taken a more conservative approach and reinforced tradition.

Consider this: the patriarchs of Antioch desired, in fact asserted, that they had the right to confirm the bishops of Cyprus in their positions. This matter must have alarmed at least a few church fathers because they took up the matter in Council at Ephesus and declared that the ancient and venerable church on Cyprus was completely free and independent of the control of any other Metropolitan or Patriarch anywhere. It is truly autocephalic, but it did not actually become autocephalic in 431AD, the Council recognized that it had always been self-governing, they based this on a tradition.

Canon 8

The Judgment of the same Holy Synod, pronounced on the petition presented to it by the Bishops of Cyprus:
Canon VIII.

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood. Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

It seems that these church fathers did not get the memo on Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You have to understand, I don’t necessarily see the patriarchates as divinely instituted organizations. They were evolutions, and the authority they have was decided upon by the church body politic. Each bishop has his place and there are therefore limits, even the EO does not have any actual authority over sister churches, it has to accept that. It uses it’s stature to persuade.

The stature and honor of some Metropolitanates have changed around over time: Jerusalem was eventually elevated over it’s mother church the Archdiocese of Ceasarea Maritima for one example (there have been others, east and west).

Usually though, the eastern church has taken a more conservative approach and reinforced tradition.

Consider this: the patriarchs of Antioch desired, in fact asserted, that they had the right to confirm the bishops of Cyprus in their positions. This matter must have alarmed at least a few church fathers because they took up the matter in Council at Ephesus and declared that the ancient and venerable church on Cyprus was completely free and independent of the control of any other Metropolitan or Patriarch anywhere. It is truly autocephalic, but it did not actually become autocephalic in 431AD, the Council recognized that it had always been self-governing, they based this on a tradition.
It seems that these church fathers did not get the memo on Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

I guess they indeed did not “get the memo.”

That’s fascinating that you do not see the Patriarchates as Divinely Inspired but as Evolving over time.

Is that a General Feeling across the Board for most EOs? Do you know if OOs tend to feel the same way?

Whatever answer—still fascinating. I still tend to disagree with the Idea of the RC vs. EC authorty-wise but it is certainly thought-provoking what you say.
(You posts always are, BTW.)

I’ll have to study the EO and OO “structures” more closely. Thanks for the answer, My Friend.

 

[ciero]

I guess they indeed did not “get the memo.”

That’s fascinating that you do not see the Patriarchates as Divinely Inspired but as Evolving over time.

Is that a General Feeling across the Board for most EOs? Do you know if OOs tend to feel the same way?

Whatever answer—still fascinating. I still tend to disagree with the Idea of the RC vs. EC authorty-wise but it is certainly thought-provoking what you say.
(You posts always are, BTW.)

I’ll have to study the EO and OO “structures” more closely. Thanks for the answer, My Friend.

Not only do the Orthodox see it this way, but so do the Catholics. No one sees the Patriarchs as being Divinely Inspired.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see it a bit differently.

To me a bishop, any bishop, has the potential to follow Peter or Judas (or fall somewhere in between), and is a successor to them both.

Figuratively yes. But the Pope of course takes the office of Peter and through the power of the Holy Spirit and by the promise of Jesus, he will not be corrupted to the point of Judas.

Well, he gets to pick them.

Yes but that doesn’t mean they’re lackeys. Besides, over years as Pope live and pass from this life, not every Bishop is picked by one specific Pope. I don’t know that stats but I think its pretty safe to say over half of the Bishops today in the Catholic Church have been chosen and/or approved by Pope John Paul II and not Pope Benedict XVI. If there would be any personal loyalty to the Pope who chose you, then most Bishops today would not have such to Pope Benedict.

If that’s what it takes to get and hold agreement in the college of bishops it is a strong argument for one human person controlling the church.

Again, we don’t have to look far for examples that prove that Bishops are not the Pope’s lackeys. SSPX anyone?

I find this a most interesting comment (not a bad thought though), considering the history.

First the assembled synod of the church in the city of Rome, including the priests, picked it’s bishops, just like bishops everywhere else were picked.

Then there were various episodes when the local power-brokers picked the Popes. The Emperor at Constantinople, or his agents at Ravenna picked a few. The Holy Roman Emperors had a swing at it and the great families of Italy took turns picking one of their own. The bankers in Florence and elsewhere got into the game (the Medici family got their start in papal politics backing the candidacy of John XXIII, the anti-Pope who started his career as a pirate of some sort).

It is reassuring that behind all of that was the hand of God.

God always thinks in terms of eternity, not just now and today. I mean, that is what we are always taught, and history would point to that fact. Questionable events and actions that involved a Pope always led to better things in the future. Like I said, the Church is here today and we have learned from the past. If you look at the Old Testament, the Israelites didn’t always have a rosy time even if they are God’s Chosen People.

Let us assume that God picked the Pope.

How much true authority does he have? Does he have the right to delegate his own authority to others? If he wants to exercise his own authority in any particular church anywhere does anyone anywhere have the right to stop him?

As Catholics we don’t assume, we believe it.

How much authority? Look back on my post on Lumen Gentium. Does anyone have the right to stop him? God does. As far as I know he cannot be “impeached” by the Bishops, even the Cardinals.

 

[Hesychios]

I guess they indeed did not “get the memo.”

That’s fascinating that you do not see the Patriarchates as Divinely Inspired but as Evolving over time.

I did not say they were not divinely inspired. I said they were not instituted by God.

There is no point in making an idol of the institution. The institution of the church exists for one purpose only, and when it ceases to do that, it has lost it’s mandate.

The patriarchates, and I am including the bishop of Rome in that august collection, are not a separate order (there are the three higher orders of bishop, priest and deacon, that’s it), they are bishops.

Their offices exist essentially due to the human condition, human history. The Israelites needed a king, and they got Saul.

We need patriarchs, popes and catholicos.

But ultimately the authority in the church is the bishop, to work in concert with each other (and not at cross purposes) these gather into synods (for convenience the synods originally gathered according to their political provinces in the Roman empire, but other criteria were used outside of the empire) and the chair of the synod (not as the ruler, but the chair) is the Metropolitan, the bishop of the greatest city. This pattern repeated all over Christianity, not just a few times but dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times, it is a principle of the organization.

Some Metropolitan churches carry a great deal of prestige because of their great age, because they were established in great cities by apostles (often martyrs for Christ) and developed larger, closely knit congregations. I think we can say that apostles often brought their closest associates, their disciples and “camp followers” with them as they traveled. We can assume that these founders. the apostles and their disciples, lent a special character to the churches where they stopped. There was a closer connection to Christ where there was so much orthodox learning and study abut Him concentrated in one place. These were the places to go for answers.

That made the bishops of those churches special to our eyes, and they were seen not just shepherds, but ‘great fathers’ (patriarchs/popes). That was our doing, we saw them as special, it was an evolution in our thinking, and that was reflected in the canons.

 

[Matariel]

From a Greek Orthodox (modern day) point of view there is at least one council that can be considered of ecumenical authority that anathematized the following Latin Church teachings:

1. 
   *]Baptism not done in an Orthodox style (i.e. triple immersion)
   *]Does not confess the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypothetically
   *]In the Mystery of Holy Communion contained in the Body is both Flesh and Blood
   *]That our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystic Supper used unleavened bread
   *]Christ God, when He comes to judge us, does not come to judge souls together with the bodies, or embodied souls, but instead comes to sentence only bodies
   *]Christians who repented while in the world but fail to perform their penance go to purgatory
   *]Hell (i.e. purgatory) is not everlasting
   *]The Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ
   *]The Pope has authority to admit persons to Paradise with his letters of indulgence
   *]The new formula to calculate the date of Easter
   *]Use of the new Gregorian Calendar
   
   This is known as the Sigillion of 1583, it is an official document that bears the Byzantine seal and was signed by the patriarchs Jeremiah of Constantinople, Sylvester of Alexandria, and Sophronius of Jerusalem.

1. 
   Wow, Patriarch Jerimias, Sylvester, and Sophronios really didn’t know what they were talking about. A lot of these are misinterpretations (at best) of Catholic dogmata.

 

[Augustus24]

I see some of you have “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, etc.

Can someone explain what that means? I am Eastern Orthodox and I am not aware of any Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Sorry for being a newbie on the this.

I am a Latin Rite Catholic who is interested in Eastern Catholicism and occasionally attends a Byzantine Catholic Church.

I personally dont like the title “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. I think its posturing and confusing for people who are unfamiliar with it. I also think it is a title that Eastern Catholics use to emphasize their connection with the Orthodox and to downplay their connection with the Pope. The Eastern Catholics I know simply call themselves Eastern Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, or Maronite Catholics etc, because by virtue of them being in submission to the Bishop of Rome, they are by definition Catholic.