Refuting Ubi Petrus

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

I wouldn’t say it’s a false sense of Mysticism. You don’t see any Eastern Catholic schools or hospitals either. Eastern Catholics approach the faith the same way the Orthodox do, and we wouldn’t dismiss the Eastern Catholic approach to spirituality as being “less Catholic” or fake.

And when the pope speaks, the west listens. Conversely when the Moscow Patriarch or Ecumenical Patriarch speaks, the East listens. I’m sure clergy in both communions follow what the leadership of the “other side” speaks, but I know many Orthodox (including here in the United States) who don’t follow Catholic leadership at all. And it’s not out of some anti-catholic zeal, it’s just that the Pope has no direct bearing on their day-to-day life a a Christian. To be honest, this has been my experience in Eastern Catholicism as well. We pray for Pope Francis at every Divine Liturgy, but beyond that we don’t really focus on Rome at all. There’s no need to. The Bishop of Rome when not speaking magisterially to the entire Church is only operating as the Bishop of Rome and as such, is limited to the Roman See. The Roman Church certainly gives the day to day of the Pope’s business more interest than it needs to, and this isn’t a bad thing. But in the sake of fairly representing Orthodoxy, I wanted to give my (name removed by moderator)ut. Thanks!

 

[billsherman]

Youtube is pretty much the same . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I wouldn’t say it’s a false sense of Mysticism. You don’t see any Eastern Catholic schools or hospitals either. Eastern Catholics approach the faith the same way the Orthodox do, and we wouldn’t dismiss the Eastern Catholic approach to spirituality as being “less Catholic” or fake.

No it’s not that. Eastern Catholicism is also somewhat smaller and therefore not under radar. It’s not that approach is wrong in this sense.

And when the pope speaks, the west listens. Conversely when the Moscow Patriarch or Ecumenical Patriarch speaks, the East listens.

To be fair, Eastern Catholic clergy in my country seems to listen when Pope speaks but have little concern for Constantinople and almost no concern for Moscow. In the end, everyone listens when everybody speaks… Orthodox listen when Pope speaks and they evaluate what he said.

We pray for Pope Francis at every Divine Liturgy, but beyond that we don’t really focus on Rome at all. There’s no need to.

Exactly. Pope can intervene but he doesn’t personally manage Eastern Churches. This is how it is supposed to work. However, Orthodox Patriarchs don’t actually manage Eastern Catholic Churches either so why would they ultimately matter? For Ecumenical relations… not because they hold some authority.

The Roman Church certainly gives the day to day of the Pope’s business more interest than it needs to, and this isn’t a bad thing

Sometimes it is. Many Latins think that Pope has to work like that even in the East which is nonsense. Eastern Catholics have all that Church needs to have-

They are One, in perfect communion with Rome and entire Catholic Church.
They are Holy, possessing all the Sacraments that sanctify them.
They are Catholic, under direct rule of their local Bishops up to authority of Patriarchs, united with Primus that is Pope of Rome.
They are Apostolic, adhering to fully legitimate Faith same as Roman Catholicism and other Catholic Churches… perhaps with different approach and emphasis but Faith is same.

And aren’t all Catholic Rites, East and West, perfectly beautiful? It takes my mind away on how they are perfectly united despite fact we Latins have often misunderstood our relationship. How they kept their Faith despite persecution from both sides… how they kept true to prayer and wish of our Lord and Saviour to be one.

Padre Pio, Saint who had Stigmata, got suspended by the Church unfairly- they thought that he falsified those Stigmata. He knew that he was right and didn’t deserve suspension… so what did he do? Did he Schism or rebel? No. He remained loyal to decision of the Church though it grieved him deeply. Similarly, Eastern Catholic Churches remained in perfect unity with us despite our imperfections. How honourable, praiseworthy and faithful is that?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

In a way, the EC can have the “best of both worlds” - not that it’s a bad thing in itself. But, they can “be in communion with Rome” while tending toward Eastern Orthodoxy and spirituality. Kind of caught in-between. When Rome does something they disagree with, “we’re Eastern!” When the Orthodox go off the rails, “we’re Catholic!”

The Orthodox almost operate as ethnic Protestants. You have the Greek Orthodox Church in America which is very liberal compared to ROCOR, for example.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In a way, the EC can have the “best of both worlds” - not that it’s a bad thing in itself. But, they can “be in communion with Rome” while tending toward Eastern Orthodoxy and spirituality.

While this is true… I am kind of worried about the wording about “best” of both worlds. This suggests Latin Spirituality is worse than Eastern spirituality. I love Eastern Catholicism but I don’t think either Rite is better than the other.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

While this is true… I am kind of worried about the wording about “best” of both worlds. This suggests Latin Spirituality is worse than Eastern spirituality. I love Eastern Catholicism but I don’t think either Rite is better than the other.

I meant “best of both worlds” more as a figure of speech, allowing an EC if so desired to claim immunity from the errors of both Rome and the East. I don’t think that many (if any) cradle Eastern Catholics act this way. It seems, from comments I have read on this blog and elsewhere, to be common among Latin Rite transfers to Eastern Catholicism who have become disaffected with Rome, but still want to attend a traditional liturgy.

 

[Isearch]

Ubi Petrus is one of those EO who’s not necessarily anti-western (he did argue for the limbo of the infants from the Patristics in his post on July 15).

But I do not concede to his opinion that St. Gregory the Great had condemned the doctrine of a bishop having universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction on earth in his letter to John the Faster.

No! What St. Gregory the Great had actually anathematized was the opinion that a bishop or even a pope can have the power to remove ALL jurisdiction from ALL his brother bishops. Even with all the divine rights of the pope listed in the First Vatican Council, the pope is still bound by Divine Law to ensure that there are dioceses other than Rome and that there are bishops other than himself.

It is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church that both Episcopal Jurisdiction and Papal Jurisdiction are both directly established by the Lord and are assured to continue until the end of the world.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But I do not concede to his opinion that St. Gregory the Great had condemned the doctrine of a bishop having universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction on earth in his letter to John the Faster.

Even if that were true (and it clearly isn’t)… we know Pope St. Gregory said that he can annul any Eastern Synod with strike of a pen and heavily implied that without his approval Eastern Synods are “null and void”. He did this while talking about Ecumenical Councils. So need of Papal approval for Council to be Ecumenical comes from him. If Orthodox want to really hold to Pope St. Gregory’s writings this is a good starting point…