Papacy and Eastern Catholics

[Aelred_Minor]

Infallibility only applies to “doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”. The pope is not able to do anything and everything that he desires. Each sui iuris Church has certain rights which cannot be taken away by the pope.

Papal infallibility and Papal jurisdiction are separate issues with different implications for what the Pope can and cannot do. For example, Papal jurisdiction includes disciplinary matters which do not flow immediately from matters of faith or morals. Fasting and abstinence disciplines would be a real-life example. What they have in common is that both are related to the intersection of two necessary ideas: that moral paradoxes are impossible and that breaking communion with the Pope is never justifiable.

 

[Godric2]

Thank you I have often wondered about this and found the explanation clear and helpful.

 

[Zekariya]

Papal infallibility and Papal jurisdiction are separate issues with different implications for what the Pope can and cannot do. For example, Papal jurisdiction includes disciplinary matters which do not flow immediately from matters of faith or morals. Fasting and abstinence disciplines would be a real-life example. What they have in common is that both are related to the intersection of two necessary ideas: that moral paradoxes are impossible and that breaking communion with the Pope is never justifiable.

Disbanding the Eastern Churches and removing their bishops is the topic of the post of mine that you responded to. Fasting and abstinence disciplines have nothing to do with disbanding say, the Church of Antioch or removing her bishops. Unless the bishop is a heretic or immoral, the pope oversteps his bounds if he removes him.

I do not support breaking Communion with Rome as you have seen in my previous posts.

Remember:
We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.

• Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Disbanding the Eastern Churches and removing their bishops is the topic of the post of mine that you responded to. Fasting and abstinence disciplines have nothing to do with disbanding say, the Church of Antioch or removing her bishops. Unless the bishop is a heretic or immoral, the pope oversteps his bounds if he removes him.

I do not support breaking Communion with Rome as you have seen in my previous posts.

Remember:
We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.

• Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

Acknowledged. I was simply pointing out that Papal infallibility and Papal jurisdiction are separate issues. Whether the “privileges and rights” in question here are part of the unalterable structure of the Church like the papacy itself or whether they are the sort of thing that could be changed I’ll continue to remain uncommitted on.

 

[Zekariya]

Acknowledged. I was simply pointing out that Papal infallibility and Papal jurisdiction are separate issues. Whether the “privileges and rights” in question here are part of the unalterable structure of the Church like the papacy itself or whether they are the sort of thing that could be changed I’ll continue to remain uncommitted on.

I see.

 

[malphono]

I cannot help but comment that, while the issues of “papal infallibility” and “universal jurisdiction” may be, and actually are, separate, unfortunately they have become so intertwined as to be nearly indistinguishable.

If one looks at the First Millennium reality, one finds neither. Wouldst that we were in that position today. However, as I have held for well over 40 years, it seems to me that the “Council” known as Vatican I took care of that.

 

[Peter_J]

I do not support breaking Communion with Rome as you have seen in my previous posts.

Not trying to get off onto a tangent, but I’m always reluctant to say “I don’t support breaking Communion with Rome”. I know people say that a lot, but personally I’m more inclined to just say “I don’t support breaking Communion” and leave it at that.

 

[Zekariya]

Not trying to get off onto a tangent, but I’m always reluctant to say “I don’t support breaking Communion with Rome”. I know people say that a lot, but personally I’m more inclined to just say “I don’t support breaking Communion” and leave it at that.

Breaking Communion with whom? What does it mean when you don’t define which Church it is?

 

[Peter_J]

Breaking Communion with whom?

That’s my point: I don’t believe that there is just one person (i.e. the pope) with whom we should try not to break communion. (Perhaps rather than “I don’t support breaking Communion” I should have said “I don’t support breaking Communion with anyone.” except then it would sound like I’m saying that even if someone is a heretic I still wouldn’t want to break communion with him/her, which of course isn’t what I meant.)

 

[Zekariya]

That’s my point: I don’t believe that there is just one person (i.e. the pope) with whom we should try not to break communion. (Perhaps rather than “I don’t support breaking Communion” I should have said “I don’t support breaking Communion with anyone.” except then it would sound like I’m saying that even if someone is a heretic I still wouldn’t want to break communion with him/her, which of course isn’t what I meant.)

I understand now. Thanks. I agree.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand now. Thanks. I agree.

Glad you said that, I still wasn’t very confident that I was saying it well. It’s not that there’s a particular statement that I’d like people to say instead of “I don’t support breaking Communion with Rome”, it’s more that I just don’t like singling out the pope as though he is the one person with whom we should try not to break communion.

 

[Zekariya]

Glad you said that, I still wasn’t very confident that I was saying it well. It’s not that there’s a particular statement that I’d like people to say instead of “I don’t support breaking Communion with Rome”, it’s more that I just don’t like singling out the pope as though he is the one person with whom we should try not to break communion.

Yes. I also don’t support breaking Communion with Melkite Antioch, Syriac Antioch, Coptic Alexandria, etc.