The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do Major Archepiscopal Churches elect their own bishops? It’s only the primate’s
election that needs to be ratified by Rome?
If so, I believe the Syro-Malabar had to send to Antioch for confirmation of their primate prior to resuming communion with Rome?
They would be the largest after the UGC I think.
 
Churches that came into union with Rome all elect their own bishops, AFAIK. (OK, on paper, but Rome tends to violate the terms of union in practice . . . .)

Metropolitan churches send a list of suggested candidates for their leader to Rome.

Major Archepiscopal churches (a bizarre western term that shouldn’t exist for an eastern church . . .) elect and propose there leader to Rome for approval (again, this approval generally violates the terms of union, as with the Ukrainians . . .)

Patriarchal churches inform Rome of the election, and seek communion.

hawk
 
twf said:
There’s a difference between “illicit” and “invalid”. The SSPX confessions and marriages were, despite their protests to the contrary, presumed invalid prior to Pope Francis’ intervention. The Orthodox sacraments, on the other hand, have always been presumed valid.
Click to expand...
Yes there is a difference which is what I highlighted earlier. You are VERY mistaken in saying SSPX sacraments were presumed invalid. They have always been valid (a real sacrament). They were however always illicit (illegal) until Pope Francis gave them faculties to hear confessions. So only their confessions are valid and licit. The rest of their sacraments are valid.
 
Last edited:
Yes I’m very much aware of them. The church does not change her teaching neither do those document overturn anything the church has defined. Dominus Iesus reestablished what was decreed here at Florence.

Secondly those documents (although nothing contradicts Florence in them) only belong to those commissions and are not official or magisterial documents with any ecclesiastical weight at all.
 
I was referring specifically to confession and marriage - the two sacraments you mentioned. Until Pope Francis intervened, these two sacraments were null and void in SSPX circles, because both require faculties / jurisdiction for validity. Their Eucharist has always been valid of course.
The Orthodox on the other hand have always validly absolved and witnessed marriages.
 
twf said:
I was referring specifically to confession and marriage - the two sacraments you mentioned. Until Pope Francis intervened, these two sacraments were null and void in SSPX circles, because both require faculties / jurisdiction for validity. Their Eucharist has always been valid of course.
The Orthodox on the other hand have always validly absolved and witnessed marriages.
Click to expand...
Oh in the case of those two that’s true. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Supplied jurisdiction is not necessary for the Orthodox. Canon Law cannot bind those who are not Catholic. Orthodox sacraments are valid in virtue of the ordination and apostolic succession of their priests and bishops.

-Fr ACEGC
 
As Father points out in the post above me, the Orthodox do not require supplied jurisdiction. Their schism occurred before modern canon law was formulated. They were true particular Churches in full communion with Rome, but when they severed that communion, they didn’t cease to be true particular Churches under true bishops… their bishops continue to provide jurisdiction for the sacraments as they did before the schism. If a group of bishops were to schism today, it would be a different story, as canon law is now more precisely defined.

At least that’s my understanding. Would you agree with that Father @edward_george1 ?
 
What you’ve quoted does not actually say anything about the jurisdictional requirements for sacramental validity as stemming from divine institution. It also does not make the point that a priest needs faculties to absolve, but rather that one must have jurisdiction over the person whom he absolves for it to be valid, which is certainly no longer the case. I was granted faculties by my Bishop and I do not have jurisdiction over anyone, since I am not a pastor and do not hold an office that carries jurisdiction.

I think it’s very telling that when I search “supplied jurisdiction Orthodox,” the only pages that show up are SSPX and sedevacantist pages. There aren’t any canonists in the mainstream who are saying anything about this. So either every canonist on earth is actually wrong, or else the minority here is.

-Fr ACEGC
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
Actually it is a BIG problem for one’s soul who is separated
Click to expand...
True, but when it comes to the Orthodox, the Catholic Church recognizes that salvation is found within their Churches. The Irthidox have apostolic succession, therefore, they have the sacraments.

ZP
Click to expand...
Can you show me where schism is an approved action without grave consequences ?
 
The Orthodox have apostolic succession therefore a valid Eucharist. The Church recognizes the Orthodox as being “true Churches.”

Why would the Church forbid the proselytizing of the Orthodox?

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
The Orthodox have apostolic succession therefore a valid Eucharist. The Church recognizes the Orthodox as being “true Churches.”

Why would the Church forbid the proselytizing of the Orthodox?

ZP
Click to expand...
forbid Proselytizing, yes, forbid Evangelizing, no.

Do you know the difference between them?
 
Last edited:
Sure I do.

The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “Sister Churches”, as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio. The Catholic Church has also declared that the Orthodox Churches have true orders and sacraments, and since the Orthodox are considered by Rome to be “true Churches”, and since the Church is one, they must, of course, be Catholic, too (just as they confess in the Creed), and that the separation between us and them is WITHIN, not FROM the Catholic Church.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Sure I do.

The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “Sister Churches”, as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio. The Catholic Church has also declared that the Orthodox Churches have true orders and sacraments, and since the Orthodox are considered by Rome to be “true Churches”, and since the Church is one, they must, of course, be Catholic, too (just as they confess in the Creed), and that the separation between us and them is WITHIN, not FROM the Catholic Church.

ZP
Click to expand...
Re: “sister churches” in Unitatis Redintegratio, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html the phrase is mentioned once.

Here

“Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.”

How is “sister churches” defined by the Church?
  1. Sister Churches (2000)
  2. Sister Church clarification (2013)
 
Last edited:
INOTE
ON THE EXPRESSION
« SISTER CHURCHES »:
  1. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.
The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as having a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

If you don’t want to follow Rome’s lead, be my guest.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
INOTE
ON THE EXPRESSION
« SISTER CHURCHES »:
  1. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.
The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as having a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

If you don’t want to follow Rome’s lead, be my guest.

ZP
Click to expand...
The 2nd link had the following quote (maybe you missed this)

. “when it is a question of the principles on which to build unity, … the [Universal Catholic] Church [3] cannot be considered a sister [e.g. to the Orthodox Churches (2)], but rather the Mother of the local Churches.”

AND

officially, “particular” churches is the way the Catholic Church refers to the Orthodox churches.

Also

When you said
Re: the phrase “true churches”

From Dominus Jesus footnote # (56)
“The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium . “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff : AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).”

Re: Lumen Gentium, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html how do you interpret paragraph 14

NOT directed to the ones in complete union with the chair of Peter and those in complete communion with him.
 
Last edited:
We could play this game all night long.

How do you interpret this from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common ( communicatio in sacris ), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

Why not look at the shared spiritual heritage between the two Churches?

Not in the mood to play this game anymore. Good night to you and God bless!

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
We could play this game all night long.

How do you interpret this from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.** Therefore some worship in common ( communicatio in sacris ), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

Why not look at the shared spiritual heritage between the two Churches?

Not in the mood to play this game anymore. Good night to you and God bless!

ZP
Click to expand...
For the record, I don’t consider this a game.

BTW “separated” appeared 28 times in that document. Schism is not a small sin.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, I expect that that can be expected almost immediately once someone, anyone, figures out how to not shatter Orthodoxy in the wake of the hissy-fit that the MP will throw over that . . .

An entire Orthodox church seeking communion with Rome was turned away over this concern, it’s the only reason Rome doesn’t call the UCC Patriarch a Patriarch, and we could probably go on with the list

hawk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top