Papal Prerogatives revisited

[jimmy]

This is becoming a pointless discussion. We talk past eachother and we don’t get anywhere. It only makes me more frustrated and uncharitable. We have been discussing papal authority for over a year probably, and neither of us is any more convinced of the others perspective. I am done with it.

 

[malphono]

Brother Jimmy, you really have a tendency to put blinders on when reading documents regarding papal primacy. You consistently and purposely neglect passages that contradict your preconceived notions, and instead look for little snippets that on their own, devoid of any context, you think somehow support your point of view. I can’t conceive that such a mindset gives you the peace of Christ, but I pray you have it.

When I read such statements as those quoted I have to look at them practically. From my Oriental perspective, of course I continue to agree with you in principle: the theory is wonderful, but in practical terms things are just not that way. I truly wish it were otherwise, and perhaps it will be at some point, but it hasn’t happened yet.

I cannot speak for jimmy, but perhaps he looks at it in a similar way?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

When I read such statements as those quoted I have to look at them practically. From my Oriental perspective, of course I continue to agree with you in principle: the theory is wonderful, but in practical terms things are just not that way. I truly wish it were otherwise, and perhaps it will be at some point, but it hasn’t happened yet.

I cannot speak for jimmy, but perhaps he looks at it in a similar way?

I agree with you. And we should all promote the realization of that ideal. I hope this is not the case, but sometimes I think that brother Jimmy is promoting the Low Petrine view. I mean, if he was complaining about certain papal actions that were or are not in the spirit of the High Petrine position, I would support him. But his criticisms never specify that, but instead seems to focus more on the principles themselves. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Malphono,

I agree with you. And we should all promote the realization of that ideal. I hope this is not the case, but sometimes I think that brother Jimmy is promoting the Low Petrine view. I mean, if he was complaining about certain papal actions that were or are not in the spirit of the High Petrine position, I would support him. But his criticisms never specify that, but instead seems to focus more on the principles themselves. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am done arguing but I will just point out that I haven’t supported either the low or the high petrine view. I really don’t have any problem with either one. My only problem is with the fact that the absolute petrine view is the reality.

malphono, I would agree with what you said.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy

I am done arguing but I will just point out that I haven’t supported either the low or the high petrine view. I really don’t have any problem with either one. My only problem is with the fact that the absolute petrine view is the reality.

Well, I certainly have to disagree with you. Though the praxis is not perfect (primarily because the Absolutist Petrine view has not been formally condemned, though the document from HH JP2 that we have been discussing certainly condemns it), and our canons could use some changes, the Absolutist Petrine position is definitely not the reality in the Catholic Church.

Are you aware that of all the Decrees from Vatican 2, the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, reflecting the High Petrine view, obtained the greatest degree of unanimity? Are you aware that it passed by a landslide vote of 2319 placets to 2 non-placets? Are you aware that even the Melkite bishops, the most stalwart proponents of the rights of patriarchs, make appeals to the Decrees of V2 in support of their position? You keep arguing “these documents and decrees support an Absolutist Petrine position.” But our Oriental and Eastern bishops obviously disagree with you.

As I’ve stated several times already, though the praxis may not be perfect (which we can agree on), the Catholic doctrine of the primacy itself cannot be impugned. Nevertheless, you spend a lot of time doing just that, and in doing so oppose the mind of our Eastern/Oriental bishops.

If you’ve got specific complaints on the praxis, or the canons, air them out. I’ll likely be agreeing with you. But if you seek to criticize the doctrine of the primacy, then I’m afraid I’ll have to keep refuting you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy
…
As I’ve stated several times already, though the praxis may not be perfect (which we can agree on), the Catholic doctrine of the primacy itself cannot be impugned. Nevertheless, you spend a lot of time doing just that, and in doing so oppose the mind of our Eastern/Oriental bishops.

If you’ve got specific complaints on the praxis, or the canons, air them out. I’ll likely be agreeing with you. But if you seek to criticize the doctrine of the primacy, then I’m afraid I’ll have to keep refuting you.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve spent a lot of time explaining it how I see it. I am done though with the arguments on this issue. I have had enough of them. Arguing about the same thing over and over gets old and repetitive. I never really minded you refuting me; these forums would be boring if there was no disagreement.

 

[Mickey]

I never really minded you refuting me; these forums would be boring if there was no disagreement.

Correction: [his attempts to refute you].

 

[malphono]

Though the praxis is not perfect (primarily because the Absolutist Petrine view has not been formally condemned, though the document from HH JP2 that we have been discussing certainly condemns it), and our canons could use some changes, the Absolutist Petrine position is definitely not the reality in the Catholic Church.
Are you aware that of all the Decrees from Vatican 2, the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, reflecting the High Petrine view, obtained the greatest degree of unanimity? Are you aware that it passed by a landslide vote of 2319 placets to 2 non-placets? Are you aware that even the Melkite bishops, the most stalwart proponents of the rights of patriarchs, make appeals to the Decrees of V2 in support of their position? You keep arguing “these documents and decrees support an Absolutist Petrine position.” But our Oriental and Eastern bishops obviously disagree with you.

As I’ve stated several times already, though the praxis may not be perfect (which we can agree on), the Catholic doctrine of the primacy itself cannot be impugned. Nevertheless, you spend a lot of time doing just that, and in doing so oppose the mind of our Eastern/Oriental bishops.

If you’ve got specific complaints on the praxis, or the canons, air them out. I’ll likely be agreeing with you. But if you seek to criticize the doctrine of the primacy, then I’m afraid I’ll have to keep refuting you.

Again, marduk, while I cannot speak for jimmy, I really don’t see him supporting the “Low petrine” view (actually, quite the opposite), nor do I see his comments as either criticizing the “High Petrine” view or supporting the “Absolute Petrine” view. It seems to me that he is arguing from practice, not from theory. Which is essentially what I am doing.

The problem is that the “High Petrine” position is non-existent in practice. I hate repeating myself, (too much typing ) so I’ll simply reference a [post=6650779]comment[/post] I made earlier in this thread. What is (or at least can be argued as being) de jure has little (if any) relation to what exists de facto. What I will repeat here is my earnest wish that this were not so. But unfortunately for me (and in truth, for all Orientals), the situation on the ground, so-to-speak, is that the “Absolutist” position is alive and doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Further, this would appear to be the case overall: just look at the steady erosion of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees in the West. About the only one that still reflects at least some of its former self is Milan, and that I think is by virtue of the survival of the Rito Ambrosiano itself since the Archbishop-Primate is capo rito.

As for the Eastern/Oriental bishops, it’s kind of like “monkey see, monkey do” at least for the majority. While in their hearts some might believe differently, in practice they do what they’re told.

 

[twf]

Malphone: In the Latin Church, the national episcopal conferences do exercise a certain degree of autonomy. It is true that their decisions must be ratified by the Holy See, but the Holy See has respected the decisions of the individual conferences on a number of important issues. Canadian Latins, for example, observe different holy days of obligation than American Latins, and in many dioceses, kneel/stand at different times than their American brothers and sisters. I hardly think the Holy See regulates every detail of Latin ecclesiastical life.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I read the statement you quoted. These statements never are convincing to me, and seem to be playing with words to justify the teaching. Like in the above article P. John Paul points out that the authority of the pope is not a contradiction of the episcopate, but then he admits that the Vatican I council specifically did not want to make any restrictions on the authority of the bishop of Rome.

When restrictions are spoken of they are always vague, they are never specific. It seems like smoke and mirrors to make it appear what it isn’t. It appears to be absolute power, but they want to say it isn’'t. They can’t come out and just say the ‘pope has authority to do this, but not this.’ It always remains vague. They will reference the rights of bishops but that could mean anything. The rights of bishops are not what they once were, whose to say they won’t change again. The bishop of Rome has assumed many of the rights of all the other bishops to himself as his personal right that none of the others can exercise.

I can see where they are vague. One problem is that they are translated from Latin, which is more precise. Another is that the terminology used is sometimes specialized.

You said: “The rights of bishops are not what they once were, whose to say they won’t change again.”

Yes, because the Pope has the ultimate authority to determine law.

There has always been more than one way to understand the canons. There is the rational (legalistic) way and then there is the feeling (compassionate) way. In practice the strictness of law should be “animated with charity”.

But the current canons seem incomplete per Vatican II in *Lumen Gentium, *Chapter III of the Schema de Ecclesia:

(Preliminary note 2.)

“For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: “in hierarchical communion.” Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).”

“24. … The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.(38*)”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

You said: “The rights of bishops are not what they once were, whose to say they won’t change again.”

Yes, because the Pope has the ultimate authority to determine law.

I disagree to a great extent. Bishops do have rights that are canonical and thus subject to change, but by far the most important rights that bishops possess are by virtue of divine establishment which, according to HH JP2 and Pope Pius IX, “the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change.”

This includes, the right to teach (his flock), to direct the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qorbono, to vote in an Ecumenical Council, to provide for his flock as he sees fit according to divine and canon laws, to ordain priests, to discipline those under him, and to celebrate the sacraments,

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I disagree to a great extent. Bishops do have rights that are canonical and thus subject to change, but by far the most important rights that bishops possess are by virtue of divine establishment which, according to HH JP2 and Pope Pius IX, “the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change.”

This includes, the right to teach (his flock), to direct the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qorbono, to vote in an Ecumenical Council, to provide for his flock as he sees fit according to divine and canon laws, to ordain priests, to discipline those under him, and to celebrate the sacraments,

Blessings,
Marduk

It can be confusing because there are two hierarchies: power of jurisdiction and power of orders (potestas ordinis) where orders trumps jurisdiction. The bishops are highest in power of orders, and the Pope in the power of jurisdiction. Thank you for the correction.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

The problem is that the “High Petrine” position is non-existent in practice. I hate repeating myself, (too much typing ) so I’ll simply reference a [post=6650779]comment[/post] I made earlier in this thread. What is (or at least can be argued as being) de jure has little (if any) relation to what exists de facto. What I will repeat here is my earnest wish that this were not so. But unfortunately for me (and in truth, for all Orientals), the situation on the ground, so-to-speak, is that the “Absolutist” position is alive and doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Further, this would appear to be the case overall: just look at the steady erosion of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees in the West. About the only one that still reflects at least some of its former self is Milan, and that I think is by virtue of the survival of the Rito Ambrosiano itself since the Archbishop-Primate is capo rito.

As for the Eastern/Oriental bishops, it’s kind of like “monkey see, monkey do” at least for the majority. While in their hearts some might believe differently, in practice they do what they’re told.

I notice that this outlook is more prevalent among EC’s and OC’s who have grown up in the traditional Latin lands. Such cradle “Western” EC’s and OC’s live in an atmosphere where the bishop of Rome is always seen as the Supreme Patriarch, and his influence is felt everywhere.

I wonder what it’s like from the perspective of EC’s and OC’s in their mother country. I suspect it is different since in those lands, the Supreme Patriarch or primate is not the Pope, and his role is kept in the proper perspective.

What do you think?

For myself, even though I grew up in a traditional Latin territory (U.S.), I grew up in the OO communion, so I never had to deal with an atmosphere pervaded by “Pope of Rome this…Pope of Rome that…” When I translated to the Catholic Communion, I knew immediately who I acknowleged as my supreme patriarch was, and it was not the Pope of Rome. Notwithstanding some changes in our canons to reflect a more high Petrine view, I guess that by virtue of our different upbringings, it’s very difficult for me to be as pessimistic or critical about Catholic ecclesiology.

Or ---- I’m still just in my heady honeymoon stage.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I notice that this outlook is more prevalent among EC’s and OC’s who have grown up in the traditional Latin lands. Such cradle “Western” EC’s and OC’s live in an atmosphere where the bishop of Rome is always seen as the Supreme Patriarch, and his influence is felt everywhere.

I wonder what it’s like from the perspective of EC’s and OC’s in their mother country. I suspect it is different since in those lands, the Supreme Patriarch or primate is not the Pope, and his role is kept in the proper perspective.

What do you think?

For myself, I’ve had very close relations with the “old country” for many, many years, so my perspective is not that of the typical child of the diaspora. That said, I can agree with you to a certain extent, but let’s take a couple of examples. Look, e.g., at the big hoop-la that surrounded the Papal visit to Lebanon a few years back. What do you see? And then, of course, one could look at the continued dimunition, yea, destruction, of the liturgy. What do you see?

For myself, even though I grew up in a traditional Latin territory (U.S.), I grew up in the OO communion, so I never had to deal with an atmosphere pervaded by “Pope of Rome this…Pope of Rome that…” When I translated to the Catholic Communion, I knew immediately who I acknowleged as my supreme patriarch was, and it was not the Pope of Rome. Notwithstanding some changes in our canons to reflect a more high Petrine view, I guess that by virtue of our different upbringings, it’s very difficult for me to be as pessimistic or critical about Catholic ecclesiology.

Or ---- I’m still just in my heady honeymoon stage.

Could be the honeymoon syndrome.

But let me say this: do I take a cynical view? Yes, absolutely, and I say that with much experience and good reason. But, critical? No, not so much.

I respect the hierarchical model of the Latin Church, but within in own purview. I equally respect the Synodal model of my own Church, and again, within its own purview. What I am critical of, though, is the incessant heavy-handedness of Rome in subjugating the Orient within its (Rome’s) hierarchical model. The classic example of that is the very existence of the so-called Oriental Congregation, where the Orient and East are grouped together to be administered (one can also read that as: disciplined, as in unruly children) by ***a department within the hierarchical structure ***of the Roman Church.

 

[shawnbm]

I recently converted to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church, and not for the reasons the media has had a field day with over the last few years. As a Western Christian outside the historical reach of the Orthodox Church (until the last century), my study over the years led me to understand that the abuses which were called out and nailed to the door in Wittenberg and were embraced by the nation-states to launch the Protestant Reformation are simply no longer present. The Catholic Church rightly cleaned up its act in terms of how it administers the sacraments and the expected behaviour of those ordained to holy orders. This was the right thing to do. At the same time, though, the Church reinforced that its theology, Chistology and ecclesiology remained the same–no change in that as, indeed, the deposit of faith cannot change. So, I began to question why were we Anglicans/Episcopalians (as well as Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians,. etc.) still separated from the Holy Mother Church in Rome–our “Patriarch” of history? After a while I failed to see why we should still be separated and translated to the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox, since Rome is the Western Hemisphere’s see as I came to understand it.

That being said, I love the Orthodox and Eastern mysticism and like the more “eastern” practices and traditions in the Catholic Church. If I had a Maronite or Melkite eparchy near me, I would certainly attend but I have a lovely Latin Rite parish a mile away that is everything I love about the Catholic Church; it is traditional, warm and vibrant. In light of the topic at hand, I must say that the High Petrine view is the one that seems to me to exist in regards the Roman pontiff and other Patriarchs and Popes of the ancient holy sees. I believe the final recourse must be the CCC and Canon law of the Church, not the mere existence of potential abuses in perceived power deemed to the Pope in hypothetical situations. It seems to me the Pope can do what he thinks necessary to protect the universal Church from heresy and apostacy (things that always come from within the Church), but must respect and give way to fellow bishops in their individual eparhies or dioceses in terms of the bishop’s exercise of his divinely provided power to lead his flock in a given part of the world. The Pope never has–and probably cannot–do something on a whim that is not supported almost unanimously by the worldwide college of bishops. I don’t see how it would be possible, and I believe the Holy Spirit would not permit it.

All in all, I thank all of you for your most informative comments and charitable manner of dealing with what, admittedly, is a thorny issue for many Christians. We hope is that, as the LORD Himslef desires, that we may all be one. Shalom.**

 

[dcointin]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats this subject briefly and accurately summarizes what I’ve come to understand as the the Catholic understanding of the papacy and episcopal college. I would like the quote the relevant section here in its entirely so as not to misrepresent what it states:

The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church: the episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats this subject briefly and accurately summarizes what I’ve come to understand as the the Catholic understanding of the papacy and episcopal college. I would like the quote the relevant section here in its entirely so as not to misrepresent what it states:

The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church: the episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

Many non-Catholics and Catholics alike often don’t realize that these sections of the Catechism are merely different ways of affirming Apostolic Canon 34/35.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

This is the most misunderstood portion of the Chapter, but I think I explained it fully in my post #32 (page 3) of this thread.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

Many non-Catholics and Catholics alike often don’t realize that these sections of the Catechism are merely different ways of affirming Apostolic Canon 34/35.

Point #1
The Apostolic Canon calls for “concord” among LOCAL bishops

con·cord [kon-kawrd] –noun

1. Agreement between persons, groups, nations, etc.; concurrence in attitudes, feelings, etc.; unanimity; accord.

Not exactly the same thing as …

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.”

Point #2
The Apostolic Canon speaks ONLY to LOCAL bishops. There is no mention of “universal” concord via Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, or even Antioch.

Point #3
The Apostolic Canon is completely passive. Read it carefully and you will see that no special authority is given to the one called “the premier or chief”. The Apostolic order is that the bishops should choose to “refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice”. Once again, not the same thing as “no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff”. And it also orders that the chief is not to “do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all”; is there a Roman Catholic order to the Pope to do this? (The answer is “no”).

Point #4
If Apostolic Canon #35 was followed to the letter the Pope would be subject to being deposed for “confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries”. No canon ever said Rome had universal boundaries. As Saint Cyprian said, ”the Church, which is one and catholic, will not endure separation and schism, but is united and consolidated through all its parts by the cement of an united episcopate. Since after the first bishop there can be no second, whoever is after that one who ought to be alone, is not a second bishop, but no bishop at all”. So you see, true church unity comes from never allowing any bishop to have any authority in the jurisdiction of any other bishop; a rule that cannot be enforced by an authority higher than the bishops, because there is no authority over the bishops of the Church, the bishops themselves enforce this locally amongst themselves; else it would not be “concord” among the bishops but rather subjection of the bishops.

Read the Apostolic Canons carefully and you will see what I mean:

CANON 34

It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own perish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the, and the Holy Spirit.

CANON 35

A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained.

 

[Protestant101]

I can’t confirm this, bottom line is the Pope has authority and jurisdiction over all 23 churches. Else he wouldn’t be the Pope, and we wouldn’t have problems with the Eastern Orthodox.

May I ask what you mean by “all 23 Churches?”

 

[Shiranui117]

May I ask what you mean by “all 23 Churches?”

I believe he is mentioning the various Sui Iuris churches, of Western, Eastern and Oriental traditions, that make up the full communion (or body, if you like) of the Catholic Church (such as RomanCC, MelkiteCC, RuthenianCC, etc.)