Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[louis91766]

Wait, Abp. Lefebvre isn’t a local ordinary, isn’t he? He is the archbishop of the society, thus he is directly under Rome even from an Orthodox perspective of hierarchy.

One rule which i heard about was that it is required that there be 3 bishops for the consecration of another bishop. In the case of the SSPX, there were only two.

 

[Dan_Daly]

This is like asking, why does the President of the United States have authority over Canada? I mean, its in the same land mass, same continent. In most places you can’t even distinguish if you’re in the US or Canada (its the world’s largest unprotected border). Because Canada didn’t join the union, therefore we are not part of the United State. The same that the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, therefore are not part of the “Catholic Communion”.

But Canada is not part of the United States. The President of the US has no jurisdiction. The Pope is the earthly head of the universal church. He’s the pope of Protestants, Atheists, and Orthodox as much as Roman Catholics.

It’s also true that while the Pope is the patriarch of the Roman Church, he is not ONLY the patriarch of the Roman Church. He also holds authority over the Byzantine Catholic Rite (along with all the others). According to the Catechism, I quoted earlier, the Orthodox Churches are part of the Byzantine Rite.

So either way- if the Orthodox are non-Catholics, as some have stated in the thread, or they are Catholics, as others have stated in the thread, the Pope has jurisdiction.

The point is, that Christ founded one Church, and the Pope is the earthly head of that Church. Whether or not the Orthodox choose to recognize that authority or the Pope chooses to exercise it, the authority still exists, because it comes from God.

Do the Orthodox believe in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as the Catholic Church has definied it?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

You know, something that really bugs me in dealing with the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church is that one is lying. Either or both are lying. So, how does one discern truth in light of the facts of known or written history. Prayer doesn’t help, it only subdues it. It doesn’t seem to lead to truth, because all I ever wanted is truth… to please God, not man. So then, why does God continue to allow man to subdue truth so effectively?

One things for sure. I don’t trust anyone with too much authority… they are smitten with power.

 

[Madaglan]

You know, something that really bugs me in dealing with the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church is that one is lying. Either or both are lying. So, how does one discern truth in light of the facts of known or written history. Prayer doesn’t help, it only subdues it. It doesn’t seem to lead to truth, because all I ever wanted is truth… to please God, not man. So then, why does God continue to allow man to subdue truth so effectively?

One things for sure. I don’t trust anyone with too much authority… they are smitten with power.

I don’t think it’s a situation where one is lying and the other is telling the truth, or where both are lying. When there are differences in history, either sacred or secular, the presented facts often are the same, while the interpretations of these facts are different. It may be the case that the facts presented are true enough, but that other facts which lend themselves to a better interpretation of the given facts are excluded or marginalized–often unintentionally and without malice.

History is important, but truth can be known without the aid of history. Study the lives of the Christian saints, Catholic and Orthodox, read Scripture, participate in the liturgical services. All this leads to truth in addition to history.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I don’t think it’s a situation where one is lying and the other is telling the truth, or where both are lying. When there are differences in history, either sacred or secular, the presented facts often are the same, while the interpretations of these facts are different. It may be the case that the facts presented are true enough, but that other facts which lend themselves to a better interpretation of the given facts are excluded or marginalized–often unintentionally and without malice.

History is important, but truth can be known without the aid of history. Study the lives of the Christian saints, Catholic and Orthodox, read Scripture, participate in the liturgical services. All this leads to truth in addition to history.

I agree. My point is that along with the interpretations of sacred tradition, scripture and history, it becomes obvious that some of the facts are over emphasized, underemphasis, and/or twisted. All are forms of lies. Playing word games is a matter of Satan’s dealings…for he is the father of lies. he’s dont’ a pretty darned good job at it since the beginning. Semantics, is a word that comes to mind.

“I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have through my own fault, by what I have done and by what I have left undone [what I have not done]…”

Notice the part that says by what we have not done. I see sinful behavior throughout Christendom on all sides. The Saints have lead exemplary lives in both the East and the West, and lots of them overlap. My own leanings is towards Orthodoxy, with loyalties to Rome, as in Peter. Both the East and the West seem to be in the wrong, which really confuses the bageebees out of me. How? The why is relatively simple to answer. Man has a propensity to do evil. It takes hard work to avoid the kind of sin that harms people. The Saints that seem to fascinate Catholics the most are the ones that didn’t live long enough to create enough havoc or weren’t married.

We all sin, and to say otherwise is really wrong. Even Popes and Patriarchates sin and sometimes gravely as we all hear about scandals in both Churches. I have figured out one thing that makes sense and neither Catholic nor Orthodox would ever care to hear it. But I believe that somewhere in my suspicions there is enough truth to believe at least some of it. I see a shifting in Rome towards Orthodoxy… I see a less hostile treatment of Papist by some Orthodox Christians. Something is happening. But I don’t know how long it will take to reunite.

I believe in valid sacraments on both sides, which is basically actually the same side. Only we twists words in such ways as to make the other look like they are wrong.

 

[Madaglan]

But Canada is not part of the United States. The President of the US has no jurisdiction. The Pope is the earthly head of the universal church. He’s the pope of Protestants, Atheists, and Orthodox as much as Roman Catholics.

It’s also true that while the Pope is the patriarch of the Roman Church, he is not ONLY the patriarch of the Roman Church. He also holds authority over the Byzantine Catholic Rite (along with all the others). According to the Catechism, I quoted earlier, the Orthodox Churches are part of the Byzantine Rite.

So either way- if the Orthodox are non-Catholics, as some have stated in the thread, or they are Catholics, as others have stated in the thread, the Pope has jurisdiction.

The point is, that Christ founded one Church, and the Pope is the earthly head of that Church. Whether or not the Orthodox choose to recognize that authority or the Pope chooses to exercise it, the authority still exists, because it comes from God.

Do the Orthodox believe in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as the Catholic Church has definied it?

Pax and God Bless.

Your comment about the Pope of Rome being the pope of Protestants, Atheists and Orthodox makes me wonder: to whom is he not pope? If the Pope is pope to non-Christian atheists, why not other non-Christians: the long gamut of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Wiccans, cultists, New Agers, native practitioners, etc.? Is he only the earthly head of the Church, or more, the earthly head of all humanity?

 

[ConstantineTG]

One rule which i heard about was that it is required that there be 3 bishops for the consecration of another bishop. In the case of the SSPX, there were only two.

The 3 is not for validity, but just to insure validity. Just in case one Bishop turns out to be invalidly ordained, at least two other Bishops would have done the laying of hands. Also the symbolism is akin to Mathias being received by the other Apostles to the office vacated by Judas.

But Canada is not part of the United States. The President of the US has no jurisdiction. The Pope is the earthly head of the universal church. He’s the pope of Protestants, Atheists, and Orthodox as much as Roman Catholics.

It’s also true that while the Pope is the patriarch of the Roman Church, he is not ONLY the patriarch of the Roman Church. He also holds authority over the Byzantine Catholic Rite (along with all the others). According to the Catechism, I quoted earlier, the Orthodox Churches are part of the Byzantine Rite.

So either way- if the Orthodox are non-Catholics, as some have stated in the thread, or they are Catholics, as others have stated in the thread, the Pope has jurisdiction.

The point is, that Christ founded one Church, and the Pope is the earthly head of that Church. Whether or not the Orthodox choose to recognize that authority or the Pope chooses to exercise it, the authority still exists, because it comes from God.

Do the Orthodox believe in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as the Catholic Church has definied it?

Pax and God Bless.

To further stretch my analogy, the US thinks the world is her jurisdiction. She acts as a world police and also gets into political and economic matters of other countries. The US thinks its right, Americans mostly I believe think its right. Other countries don’t.

Don’t go to Orthodox see them with a Catholic light. They definitely see things differently from their point of view and cannot be held to how we as Catholics see things.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Your comment about the Pope of Rome being the pope of Protestants, Atheists and Orthodox makes me wonder: to whom is he not pope? If the Pope is pope to non-Christian atheists, why not other non-Christians: the long gamut of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Wiccans, cultists, New Agers, native practitioners, etc.? Is he only the earthly head of the Church, or more, the earthly head of all humanity?

The Pope is the Pope of all people. I didn’t list every group of people simply for the sake of brevity. This is because all people are called to be members of the Church, and one of the marks of the Church is that there is ONE Church.

I do agree that there are many, both within and outside of the Church hierarchy, who misunderstand or misapply the principal of subsidiarity. Because the Pope is the head of the Church, does not mean he has to make every decision within the Church.

I appreciate the conversation on the topic. I have a great respect for the Eastern Churches, and I do appreciate that what led to schism was in large part political, not theological, and there was plenty of blame to go around. There are significant issues to deal with, but they are far from insurmountable. I pray for greater unity of all Christians.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Good post Dan. I agree with you. Probably because you’re right.

 

[louis91766]

The 3 is not for validity, but just to insure validity. Just in case one Bishop turns out to be invalidly ordained, at least two other Bishops would have done the laying of hands. Also the symbolism is akin to Mathias being received by the other Apostles to the office vacated by Judas…

Wasn’t 3 a rule established by a council decision and which even the Orthodox Church today requires for validity? For example, the 13th Canon of the Council of Carthage (AD 394) states “a bishop should not be ordained except by many bishops, but if there should be necessity he may be ordained by three.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wasn’t 3 a rule established by a council decision and which even the Orthodox Church today requires for validity? For example, the 13th Canon of the Council of Carthage (AD 394) states “a bishop should not be ordained except by many bishops, but if there should be necessity he may be ordained by three.”

Its still a rule. Its like saying that a married bishop is still a valid bishop, even though a council has forbidden a married man from becoming a bishop. It doesn’t change validity. I’m pretty sure in the long history of persecutions in our Church until the modern age, there have been bishops who have been ordained by just one bishop, just because it wasn’t possible to gather any more bishops due to persecution.

 

[Hesychios]

if the Orthodox are non-Catholics, as some have stated in the thread, or they are Catholics, as others have stated in the thread, the Pope has jurisdiction.

No.

The Orthodox are Catholic and the Bishop of Rome never ever had jurisdiction over the other synods and patriarchates. In the early church the Pope of Rome didn’t even have jurisdiction (as it is understood today) over the entire west. He had direct jurisdiction (in the modern sense) over the Synod based in Rome, which was the city of Rome and suburbicarian Italy. The rest of Italy and the rest of the church worldwide was under the jurisdiction of various other synods. They were bound by a common faith and mutual recognition.

The point is, that Christ founded one Church, and the Pope is the earthly head of that Church.

Universal jurisdiction of one bishop over all the others did not exist in the sense most Roman Catholics understand it today.

 

[ciero]

No.

The Orthodox are Catholic and the Bishop of Rome never ever had jurisdiction over the other synods and patriarchates. In the early church the Pope of Rome didn’t even have jurisdiction (as it is understood today) over the entire west. He had direct jurisdiction (in the modern sense) over the Synod based in Rome, which was the city of Rome and suburbicarian Italy. The rest of Italy and the rest of the church worldwide was under the jurisdiction of various other synods. They were bound by a common faith and mutual recognition.
Universal jurisdiction of one bishop over all the others did not exist in the sense most Roman Catholics understand it today.

Great post! It’s about time that modern Latin Catholics get a grasp on this. The pope as a super bishop is very new.

 

[dcointin]

No.

The Orthodox are Catholic and the Bishop of Rome never ever had jurisdiction over the other synods and patriarchates. In the early church the Pope of Rome didn’t even have jurisdiction (as it is understood today) over the entire west. He had direct jurisdiction (in the modern sense) over the Synod based in Rome, which was the city of Rome and suburbicarian Italy. The rest of Italy and the rest of the church worldwide was under the jurisdiction of various other synods. They were bound by a common faith and mutual recognition.
Universal jurisdiction of one bishop over all the others did not exist in the sense most Roman Catholics understand it today.

This is an historical fact. The pope simply did not have universal jurisdiction in the early church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Universal jurisdiction of one bishop over all the others did not exist in the sense most Roman Catholics understand it today.

The funniest part here is that the die hard absolutists are the traditional Catholics who among their numbers have more people who doubt the validity of the post-Vatican II Popes than Eastern Catholics who subscribe to the Low Petrine view.

 

[Vico]

Blessed Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) said in general audience February 24, 1993:

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said:

“The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.”
The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).
​

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

 

[Dan_Daly]

Great post! It’s about time that modern Latin Catholics get a grasp on this. The pope as a super bishop is very new.

Ah, there is a difference between being a “super bishop” and the Pope having God given authority over the entire Church.

While the technology of travel and communications has allowed greater exercise of central authority over a large area- in the Church and secular governments now more so than any time in the past, spiritual authority comes from Christ. The primacy of Peter and his successors is not a modern invention. There’s clear evidence that the Bishop of Rome exercised his position as leader of the entire Church from the time of Peter on.

That some people misunderstand or defy the authority- as they have from the beginning until now, does not mean the authority does not exist.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Ah, there is a difference between being a “super bishop” and the Pope having God given authority over the entire Church.

While the technology of travel and communications has allowed greater exercise of central authority over a large area- in the Church and secular governments now more so than any time in the past, spiritual authority comes from Christ. The primacy of Peter and his successors is not a modern invention. There’s clear evidence that the Bishop of Rome exercised his position as leader of the entire Church from the time of Peter on.

That some people misunderstand or defy the authority- as they have from the beginning until now, does not mean the authority does not exist.

Pax and God Bless.

Pope Benedict disagrees with you. In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, he remarks that the Orthodox adhere to the historic and traditional understanding (concerning the primacy of Rome). The current western belief would, in his view, be a result of doctrinal development.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Pope Benedict disagrees with you. In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, he remarks that the Orthodox adhere to the historic and traditional understanding (concerning the primacy of Rome). The current western belief would, in his view, be a result of doctrinal development.

Can you elaborate? So which belief does Pope Benedict adhere to? The historic, traditinal one? Or the modern doctrinal development? Who is the “current west”- The Catholic Church? The Latin Rite? Certain individual Catholics?

If you can explain more that would be great. I’ll also have to check out the Pope’s book. Thanks.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Found the book on Amazon. It is worth noting that it was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict XVI. That doesn’t speak to the quality of the book, which I obviously can’t do since I haven’t read it, but the writings of a Cardinal are different than the writings of a Pope.