The Pope in the eyes of Eastern Catholics

[crazzeto]

Pastor Aeternus does not agree with you there. Sadly it states that the Pope has authority even over that of an Ecumenical Council. Just one more reason that I regard Vatican I only as a “general synod of the West,” not Ecumenical, and therefore not universally binding.

Well first and foremost, this is not something we are individually free to do. By definition as Catholics we submit to the authority of the Church, and to the Pontiff which by extension shows our submition to the rule of Christ. Vatican I is Ecumenical, that is universal across all Churches and you must accept Pastor Aeternus. In fact from the document it’s self rather directly states just this, regardless of Rite the teaching must be accepted.

Now that said, I don’t think you are putting Pastor Aeternus in proper context. I beleive that where you’re getting your information from is more than likely Chapter 3, paragraph 8:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Indeed, it states rather directly that no person or persons my ever appeal to a so called (because it would be illegitimate if they tried this) ecumenical council in order to over throw the judgement of the pontiff, as if it were superior to such judgment.

This is a direct response to the fallout from the so called “great western schism” which deposed and excommunicated two antipopes.

What this does not say however, is that it is right and proper for the Pope to be “Lording over” the other bishops and even councils. The Pope is not to be a ruler with an iron fist, and in fact Paragraph 5 of the same document states:

1. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

Thus local authority is not subverted by the authority of the Pontiff. Rather, in keeping with his servent leader role, the authority of the Roman Pontiff is to uphold and defend the local authority of the other Bishops whom as stated are also the Apostles successors.

I hope this helps some, God bless

Edit
BTW so we’re all using the same doc, my source is:
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well first and foremost, this is not something we are individually free to do. By definition as Catholics we submit to the authority of the Church, and to the Pontiff which by extension shows our submition to the rule of Christ. Vatican I is Ecumenical, that is universal across all Churches and you must accept Pastor Aeternus. In fact from the document it’s self rather directly states just this, regardless of Rite the teaching must be accepted.

Now that said, I don’t think you are putting Pastor Aeternus in proper context. I beleive that where you’re getting your information from is more than likely Chapter 3, paragraph 8:

Indeed, it states rather directly that no person or persons my ever appeal to a so called (because it would be illegitimate if they tried this) ecumenical council in order to over throw the judgement of the pontiff, as if it were superior to such judgment.

This is a direct response to the fallout from the so called “great western schism” which deposed and excommunicated two antipopes.

What this does not say however, is that it is right and proper for the Pope to be “Lording over” the other bishops and even councils. The Pope is not to be a ruler with an iron fist, and in fact Paragraph 5 of the same document states:

Thus local authority is not subverted by the authority of the Pontiff. Rather, in keeping with his servent leader role, the authority of the Roman Pontiff is to uphold and defend the local authority of the other Bishops whom as stated are also the Apostles successors.

I hope this helps some, God bless

Edit
BTW so we’re all using the same doc, my source is:
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

Pope Paul VI referred to the “Post-Schism Councils” as “general synods of the West.” Pope Benedict XVI has said on multiple occasions that, should there be reunion between Catholicism and Orthodox, the Orthodox would not be bound by any of the “dogmatic” definitions defined since the 1054 Schism. This relegates all 14 Post-Schism councils to the realm of “general synod.” That being said, however, Pope Benedict has also said that the Orthodox would not be permitted to condemn western theological developments as heretical. So “dogmatic” things such as papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. all become the theological opinion (i.e. theologoumena) of the West, not the dogmatic belief of the Universal Church. This recognizes that one particular church (e.g. the Roman) does not have the authority to replace another particular church’s (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, etc.) theology with its own. To do so would be to ignore the Apostolic roots and Patristic, theological, liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage of the other particular churches, thus affirming their status as “second-class citizens.” But this is not what the Church teaches. All particular churches are equal in dignity and must be respected as such.

That being said, I think I was wrong in turning to Vatican I with regards to papal authority over an Ecumenical Council. That doctrine, if I remember correctly, was formulated as a response to the “conciliarist movement” shortly after the Reformation. I believe it was here that the Pope first affirmed his authority over an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Contarini]

Pope Paul VI referred to the “Post-Schism Councils” as “general synods of the West.” Pope Benedict XVI has said on multiple occasions that, should there be reunion between Catholicism and Orthodox, the Orthodox would not be bound by any of the “dogmatic” definitions defined since the 1054 Schism. This relegates all 14 Post-Schism councils to the realm of “general synod.” That being said, however, Pope Benedict has also said that the Orthodox would not be permitted to condemn western theological developments as heretical. So “dogmatic” things such as papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. all become the theological opinion (i.e. theologoumena) of the West, not the dogmatic belief of the Universal Church. This recognizes that one particular church (e.g. the Roman) does not have the authority to replace another particular church’s (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, etc.) theology with its own. To do so would be to ignore the Apostolic roots and Patristic, theological, liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage of the other particular churches, thus affirming their status as “second-class citizens.” But this is not what the Church teaches. All particular churches are equal in dignity and must be respected as such.

Has Pope Benedict said this recently (i.e., since becoming Pope)?

Even if this is a possibility, I wonder where it leaves folks like me? I am increasingly convinced that the Orthodox criticisms of Western Christianity have considerable merit (I’ve always thought they had some merit but was inclined to think that the Orthodox made mountains out of molehills–after studying Orthodox theology in more depth recently, I’m no longer sure). If there were to be a united Church, and if I were to convert to it (I would certainly do so, as a matter of fact), would I as a once-separated Western Christian have to conform to these “theologoumena of the West” or not? If not–in other words, if I could just choose to join the “Eastern” half of the Church–then how is that really different from Protestant denominationalism, in which people pick the church that “feels comfortable” for them while acknowledging other churches as true ones? Either the Church has one Faith or it doesn’t. But if it has one Faith, then surely no doctrine should be binding on one part of the Church that isn’t binding on another part.

Isn’t this proposal, as you describe it, blurring the differences between doctrine and theology? One can be a Thomist or a Molinist, because these differences are not matters of doctrine. One could, before 1854, believe or not believe in the Immaculate Conception. If Rome is willing to “un-dogmatize” the IC, then for God’s sake let the Pope say so plainly and let this apply to *all *those who wish to unite with Rome.

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

Pope Paul VI referred to the “Post-Schism Councils” as “general synods of the West.” Pope Benedict XVI has said on multiple occasions that, should there be reunion between Catholicism and Orthodox, the Orthodox would not be bound by any of the “dogmatic” definitions defined since the 1054 Schism. This relegates all 14 Post-Schism councils to the realm of “general synod.” That being said, however, Pope Benedict has also said that the Orthodox would not be permitted to condemn western theological developments as heretical. So “dogmatic” things such as papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. all become the theological opinion (i.e. theologoumena) of the West, not the dogmatic belief of the Universal Church. This recognizes that one particular church (e.g. the Roman) does not have the authority to replace another particular church’s (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, etc.) theology with its own. To do so would be to ignore the Apostolic roots and Patristic, theological, liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage of the other particular churches, thus affirming their status as “second-class citizens.” But this is not what the Church teaches. All particular churches are equal in dignity and must be respected as such.

That being said, I think I was wrong in turning to Vatican I with regards to papal authority over an Ecumenical Council. That doctrine, if I remember correctly, was formulated as a response to the “conciliarist movement” shortly after the Reformation. I believe it was here that the Pope first affirmed his authority over an Ecumenical Council.

Could you please directly link your sources, thanks.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Could you please directly link your sources, thanks.

Actually I can’t directly link my sources because they all come from extensive book reading. I can’t read off of a computer screen for too long because it starts to irritate my eyes. If you would like I could provide a bibliography of recommended reading.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Has Pope Benedict said this recently (i.e., since becoming Pope)?

Even if this is a possibility, I wonder where it leaves folks like me? I am increasingly convinced that the Orthodox criticisms of Western Christianity have considerable merit (I’ve always thought they had some merit but was inclined to think that the Orthodox made mountains out of molehills–after studying Orthodox theology in more depth recently, I’m no longer sure). If there were to be a united Church, and if I were to convert to it (I would certainly do so, as a matter of fact), would I as a once-separated Western Christian have to conform to these “theologoumena of the West” or not? If not–in other words, if I could just choose to join the “Eastern” half of the Church–then how is that really different from Protestant denominationalism, in which people pick the church that “feels comfortable” for them while acknowledging other churches as true ones? Either the Church has one Faith or it doesn’t. But if it has one Faith, then surely no doctrine should be binding on one part of the Church that isn’t binding on another part.

Isn’t this proposal, as you describe it, blurring the differences between doctrine and theology? One can be a Thomist or a Molinist, because these differences are not matters of doctrine. One could, before 1854, believe or not believe in the Immaculate Conception. If Rome is willing to “un-dogmatize” the IC, then for God’s sake let the Pope say so plainly and let this apply to *all *those who wish to unite with Rome.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,
I understand your struggle. I myself have struggled through similar questions. If you’d like to send me a message, you are welcome to. I don’t know how much true insight I can give, but I am willing to share what little I know and what struggles I’ve gone through and continue to go through.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[crazzeto]

Actually I can’t directly link my sources because they all come from extensive book reading. I can’t read off of a computer screen for too long because it starts to irritate my eyes. If you would like I could provide a bibliography of recommended reading.

Whatever you have, but this is the first I’ve heard that the dogmatic teaching of the church is anything but a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Whatever you can remember would be appriciated, but at least for the moment I have no choice but to stick with what I know…

Regardless, Pastor Aeternus doesn’t really say exactly what what some of our Eastern and/or Oriental bretheren in communion with our Church says. It says no Council can over rule the pope, it doesn’t say the Pope rules the council. That’s a significant difference. More over, the recorded teaching also states

Introduction

1. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

Ch 1 (Would seem to reference the Schismatic Eastern Bretheren)

1. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

Immediatly followed by Protestants

1. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Ch 2

1. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

1. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Ch 3

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

This is all very Universal language if you ask me.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Crazetto,

Here’s a list of books off the top of my head:

“Principles of Catholic Dogma” by Cardinal Ratzinger. There’s a section dealing with Catholic/Orthodox relations where Ratzinger declares his “formula” that the Orthodox ought not to be bound by any post-Schism dogmatic declarations of the Roman Church, but that they can’t reject those declarations as heretical. The nuance is that Easterners simply reject them because they are outside of their Eastern Patrimonial heritage, not because they are heretical.

“The Ratzinger Formula” I can’t remember the author off the top of my head, but the book is available through Eastern Christian Publications. It’s sometimes a little bit overly Roman, almost completely ignores the Eastern Catholic Churches, and in some places tends to over-simplify the situation, but overall it’s actually a very good book and a pleasant read. It is, however, the author’s doctoral dissertation, so it is extensively footnoted and has a wonderful bibliography.

“Uniatism,” “History of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate,” and “Metropolitan Sheptytsky” all by Fr. Cyril Korolevsky. These will give you a great introduction into the historical situation of Eastern Catholics and the problems inherent in Eastern Catholicism, which are really problems stemming from the 1054 Schism and not from the formation of the “Uniate” Churches themselves. Again these are available through Eastern Christian Publications.

“Ecumenical Reflections,” “We Are All Schismatics,” and “A Voice from the Byzantine East” all by Archbishop Elias Zoghby. I know Kyr Zoghby is somewhat of a controversial figure, but the fact is he rejected all the post-Schism “dogmatic” teachings of Rome and still died in the good graces of Rome. In fact he was even commended for his ecumenical efforts. These are available through the Melkite Eparchy of Newton’s Office of Educational Services.

“Courage to be Ourselves” by Archbishop Joseph Tawil. I don’t know that this is even available anymore. It isn’t so much about the relationship of Eastern Catholics to Rome as it is about encouraging Eastern Catholics to embrace the fullness of their Eastern heritage instead of trying to be “Roman Catholics who celebrate Mass funny.”

“Ecumenical Documents Vol. 1, 3 and 4” are also a great resource. Volume 3 specifically deals Orthodox/Catholic relations.

I hope this helps.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks, I when I have time I will try to scan the documents for anything that might suggest that dogmatic and infallible proclimations of the Church are anything but just that… And if what you say is true, then that does make null and void Catholic dogma about Infallibility, after all it’s kind of hard to make an infallible declaration about the Immaculate conception but then add an astrisk *infallibility applicable only in the Roman Rite.

At least for now my position remains the same, as does my exhortation to my eastern bretheren about meditation a little more on the dogmatic teachings of the Church. These dogmatic teachings in no way offend any of the beliefs of any other Rite, nor do they negate the long and beautiful heritage of the Eastern Rites.

 

[crazzeto]

Crazetto,

Here’s a list of books off the top of my head:

“Principles of Catholic Dogma” by Cardinal Ratzinger. There’s a section dealing with Catholic/Orthodox relations where Ratzinger declares his “formula” that the Orthodox ought not to be bound by any post-Schism dogmatic declarations of the Roman Church, but that they can’t reject those declarations as heretical. The nuance is that Easterners simply reject them because they are outside of their Eastern Patrimonial heritage, not because they are heretical.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

Having trouble finding any one of these books actually, but this is the closest thing I can find to your first recommendation:

amazon.com/Principles-Catholic-Theology-Building-Fundamental/dp/0898701333

Is this the book you’re talking about?

 

[malphono]

Regardless, Pastor Aeternus doesn’t really say exactly what what some of our Eastern and/or Oriental bretheren in communion with our Church says. It says no Council can over rule the pope, it doesn’t say the Pope rules the council. That’s a significant difference.

Forgive me for butting in, but I don’t think it’s significant at all. If a “Council cannot “overrule” (whatever that means) the Pope” how is it possible that a “Pope doesn’t “rule” (whatever that means) a Council”? It all sounds like the “Absolute Petrine” position to me, and when taken to that degree, it obviates the need to ever convene an Oecumenical Council. If Papal authority is that absolute, what would be the point in doing so?

It could be that I have misread or misinterpreted the butt of this discussion, and if so I apologize.

 

[crazzeto]

Forgive me for butting in, but I don’t think it’s significant at all. If a “Council cannot “overrule” (whatever that means) the Pope” how is it possible that a “Pope doesn’t “rule” (whatever that means) a Council”? It all sounds like the “Absolute Petrine” position to me, and when taken to that degree, it obviates the need to ever convene an Oecumenical Council. If Papal authority is that absolute, what would be the point in doing so?

It could be that I have misread or misinterpreted the butt of this discussion, and if so I apologize.

They are not logically connected, to suggest that the pope rules the council would them demand that he be present at them and that he make desicive proclamations at council leading and guiding the other Bishops.

History has proven this to not be the case, rather at best the Pope might send legates to the council, and their involvement (if there is any at all) is limited. The council is lead by the Bishops them selves, not by the Pope.

You can’t get “The Pope Rules the council” from Pastor Aeternus, rather what it does say is that the council can come up with no teaching contrary to any Papal declaration made EX CATHEDRA because this declaration is infallible, there for is equal to a council. Thus just as no council overrules the dogmatic teaching of a previous council, neither can a council over rule the dogmatic proclimation of the Pope made EX CATHEDRA.

In short, Popes don’t rule councils, but councils also don’t rule popes.

 

[malphono]

They are not logically connected, to suggest that the pope rules the council would them demand that he be present at them and that he make desicive proclamations at council leading and guiding the other Bishops.

History has proven this to not be the case, rather at best the Pope might send legates to the council, and their involvement (if there is any at all) is limited. The council is lead by the Bishops them selves, not by the Pope.

You can’t get “The Pope Rules the council” from Pastor Aeternus, rather what it does say is that the council can come up with no teaching contrary to any Papal declaration made EX CATHEDRA because this declaration is infallible, there for is equal to a council. Thus just as no council overrules the dogmatic teaching of a previous council, neither can a council over rule the dogmatic proclimation of the Pope made EX CATHEDRA.

In short, Popes don’t rule councils, but councils also don’t rule popes.

In “shorter” and taken right down to the quick, there’s no need to ever convene an Oecumenical Council.

I should add here that I don’t really care one way or the other. The “Absolute Petrine” view is de facto the way things are. And it ain’t gonna change anytime soon, no matter how much anyone disagrees with it.

 

[crazzeto]

In “shorter” and taken right down to the quick, there’s no need to ever convene an Oecumenical Council.

I should add here that I don’t really care one way or the other. The “Absolute Petrine” view is de facto the way things are. And it ain’t gonna change anytime soon, no matter how much anyone disagrees with it.

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to drive at with this, but council is called because this is the tradition of the Church. A tradition which has been carried forward by the Catholic Church.

The Bishop has never been, nor will he ever be an aboslute dictator over the Church… Honestly as a Catholic I find any such suggestion rather uncharitable, and quite dishartening that any Christian would pretend this to be true.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Having trouble finding any one of these books actually, but this is the closest thing I can find to your first recommendation:

amazon.com/Principles-Catholic-Theology-Building-Fundamental/dp/0898701333

Is this the book you’re talking about?

Yes, that’s the one. I don’t think you’ll find any of the others on Amazon. You’ll have to go straight to the source, i.e. Eastern Christian Publications (ecpubs.com), or the Office of Educational Services for the Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton (melkite.org.

 

[malphono]

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to drive at with this, but council is called because this is the tradition of the Church. A tradition which has been carried forward by the Catholic Church.

The Bishop has never been, nor will he ever be an aboslute dictator over the Church… Honestly as a Catholic I find any such suggestion rather uncharitable, and quite dishartening that any Christian would pretend this to be true.

I’m “driving at” nothing. I merely made an observation.

In any case, as I said earlier, I no longer care one way or the other. As I reread my own prose, though, I realized that perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been in that I am one of those who disagrees 100% with the “Absolute Petrine” view. Always have and always will. But my (or anyone else’s) position is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

[LoyalViews]

Thanks, I when I have time I will try to scan the documents for anything that might suggest that dogmatic and infallible proclimations of the Church are anything but just that… And if what you say is true, then that does make null and void Catholic dogma about Infallibility, after all it’s kind of hard to make an infallible declaration about the Immaculate conception but then add an astrisk *infallibility applicable only in the Roman Rite.

At least for now my position remains the same, as does my exhortation to my eastern bretheren about meditation a little more on the dogmatic teachings of the Church. These dogmatic teachings in no way offend any of the beliefs of any other Rite, nor do they negate the long and beautiful heritage of the Eastern Rites.

Yep! All Catholics, no matter what rite must believe what the church teaches, and follow what the Pope declares, and that’s that. [period]

 

[Ignatius]

Many Eastern Catholics, in obedience to the Vatican’s mandate that we be fully what we are, i.e. “Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome,” maintain a vision of the papacy that is somewhat more in line with what Holy Orthodoxy sees as being the papacy’s role. Christ is the head of the Church, not the pope. The pope is the “Patriarch of the West” (a title sadly not adopted by Pope Benedict XVI), and as such he has direct relevance only for Western (i.e. Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.) Catholics. The Eastern Catholic Churches all have their own heirarchical structure. For example, the primate of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham). He occupies the first chair within the Synod of Bishops for the Melkites. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say he is the “head” of the Melkite Church. He is more like the “older brother” among the other Melkite bishops, each of whom are the primates of their own eparchies (diocese) and are equally entrusted with preaching the Gospel and maintaining Holy Tradition in their own eparchy.

On the Universal level the Pope operates in much the same “older brother” fashion. He is there to guide and give advice when that guidance and advice is sought after, but he ought not to meddle in the affairs of other particular churches unless called upon by those churches to do so. Sadly this is not always lived out.

I hope this helps a little. The situation of Eastern Catholics is really somewhat of a gray area, maybe better understood as a battlefield. We are the Easterners who live out that future communion between Catholics and Orthodox that is being so ardently sought after right now. As such we are often misunderstood by our Western brethren because we “think like Orthodox, act like Orthodox, walk like Orthodox, talk like Orthodox, celebrate Liturgy like Orthodox,” etc. Many of us, taking seriously the words of Cardinal Ratzinger in a number of his writings and lectures, even reject Western dogmas that were declared after the East/West Schism. We don’t reject them as heresy; we simply reject them as being outside of our Patrimony, outside of our Tradition (a Tradition equally as ancient and venerable as that of the Latin West). As a result of this we are often seen as not “Catholic enough” for Roman Catholics. Conversely, however, since we recognize that there is something important about the “Petrine Ministry,” we are also often seen as not “Orthodox enough” for the Orthodox.

Be that as it may, we are what we are. Personally I believe that when unity is finally achieved both the Orthodox and Catholic parties will have much to be grateful for to those Eastern Catholics who were courageous and bold enough to fully live the Eastern Tradition, despite the opposition, misunderstanding, oppression, and persecution that they have suffered through over the centuries.

This is the most beautifully explained exposition of the Eastern Catholic understanding that I have seen. Kudos!

 

[diggerdomer]

Yep! All Catholics, no matter what rite must believe what the church teaches, and follow what the Pope declares, and that’s that. [period]

Not exactly. It depends on what and how the Pope is declaring in a given teaching. If the Pope declared that pizza is the best food on earth, Catholics are not obliged to follow that.

 

[cadee]

Many of the popes themselves came from the Near East. This is understandable when we consider that the Mediterranean basin formed an historical nucleus imbued with Greek and Syrian culture, especially in Sicily and parts of Italy and Spain. Greek was used in Rome in most of the liturgical documents of the second and third centuries. The early theological controversies required popes familiar with the East, from a political as well as from a religious point of view. In fact, at the time of these reigning pontiffs, the Patriarchate of the West embraced many Eastern Bishoprics in Sicily and Greece.

The Greek popes were: Cletus (91), Telesphorus (139), Hyginus (142), Eleutherius (192), Anterus (235), Sixtus II (258), Eusebius (310), Zosimus (418), Theodore I (649), Agatho (681), Leo II (683), John VI (705), John VII (707), and Zacharias (752).

The Syrian popes were: Evaristus (107), Anicetus (168), John V (687), Serguis I (701), Sisinnius (708), Constantine I (715), and Gregory III (732).

---

SEO Agency
SEO Newcastle