Top 5 reasons Eastern Church can't accept Roman Rule ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first reason you have pretty much already stated.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox number #1 reason for not being part of the Catholic Church is because they do not want to be “ruled” by the Pope. Communion with the Pope is one of mutual respect and dignity, not one of submission and until the Church can prove that to the Orthodox Churches they will always be wary of any reunion with the Catholic Church.
 
BRB said:
After 1000 years, … what would they be in order of priority ?
Click to expand...
You are aware that this is the Eastern Catholicism forum and that we are in communion with Rome, are you not?

I do not think any of us can speak to why someone else chooses not to be in communion. To do so would require us to judge what we can not know.

Also the thread title is very offensive to us Eastern Catholics. We are in communion with Rome not under its “Rule”.

My Church has its own bishops.
 
I think that speaking in terms of reconciliation and mutual forgiveness and understanding will bring more fruit than thinking in categories such as “rule” and "submission."

After 1000 years, … what would they be in order of priority ?

**Since all the Catholic Churches are of equal dignity, this is a pointless question.

BTW–if the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter, the Abp. of Nazareth and Galilee of the Melkite Church is the successor of… 😃 **
 
ByzCath said:
Also the thread title is very offensive to us Eastern Catholics. We are in communion with Rome not under its “Rule”.
My Church has its own bishops.
Click to expand...
Your bishops are required to give obedience to the Pope, under the encyclical “Satis Cogitem”, among other documents. In addition, the Pope has “full, immediate” jurisdiction over every parish. If he wished, Benedict XVI could intervene in the smallest of matters in your church, without any approval by your bishop.
So under current official Catholic ecclesiology at least, perhaps the thread title is more accurate than you (understandably) wish to believe.
 
If he wished, Benedict XVI could intervene in the smallest of matters in your church, without any approval by your bishop.

But since he’s a gentleman, he’s not likely to do so.
 
“…He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who **together with *the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” - found in Lumen Gentium 18

Its hard to govern under the rule of someone that you are governing the Church together with 🤷 . Leo XIII 's encyclical does not provide the full context of the governance of the Church that the councils provides and the idea of “ruling” over the other Sui Irus Churches is not something that our current Pope holds as is evident from his own writings on the subject of ecclesiology.
 
Alethiaphile said:
Your bishops are required to give obedience to the Pope, under the encyclical “Satis Cogitem”, among other documents. In addition, the Pope has “full, immediate” jurisdiction over every parish. If he wished, Benedict XVI could intervene in the smallest of matters in your church, without any approval by your bishop.
So under current official Catholic ecclesiology at least, perhaps the thread title is more accurate than you (understandably) wish to believe.
Click to expand...
Its not worth the it to fight with you on this.

Seems that is all this thread can truly generate is argument.
 
BRB said:
Top 5 reasons Eastern Church can’t accept Roman Rule?
Click to expand...
Roman rulers are:
  • 2.3% too short.
  • Made of the wrong type of wood.
  • Much too heavy (though very good for knuckle-wrapping).
  • Usually, though not always, bi-material, having that little “metal straightedge” thingy along one side of the wooden base.
  • The etched graduations are poorly visible in low light and high incense situations.
EDIT: You’re not talking about measuring “rulers”? Oops.

Never mind!
View attachment 4600

:shamrock2:
 
Formosus:
“…He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” - found in Lumen Gentium 18
Its hard to govern under the rule of someone that you are governing the Church together with .
Click to expand...
Not when being “in communion with” is defined as “being obedient to” as is done by Satis Cogitem. Seriously, are you saying that, in theory or in practice, the universal Church is governed jointly by the Pope and the bishops? The “together with” is pretty clearly meant as a limitation on the bishops’ power; nothing they agree on can be effective unless the Pope also agrees. And it is made clear in other places that the Pope does not need the agreement of the other bishops on any action. That doesn’t sound like “governing together” to me.
Leo XIII 's encyclical does not provide the full context of the governance of the Church that the councils provides and the idea of “ruling” over the other Sui Irus Churches is not something that our current Pope holds as is evident from his own writings on the subject of ecclesiology.
Click to expand...
I think that’s an overstatement. First of all, if Satis Cogitem is being supplanted or modified, then, as it is a papal encyclical, it needs to be by another encyclical or official document, not by informal comments by the Pope. I agree that what you sy may be B XVI’s attitude, and that is a great thing, but I’m not sure it is “evident”, and it needs to be formalized.
 
Alethiaphile said:
Formosus:

Not when being “in communion with” is defined as “being obedient to” as is done by Satis Cogitem. Seriously, are you saying that, in theory or in practice, the universal Church is governed jointly by the Pope and the bishops? That is what the Vatican II council is saying, yesThe “together with” is pretty clearly meant as a limitation on the bishops’ power; nothing they agree on can be effective unless the Pope also agrees. No because that ignores the principle of Subsidiarity and the historical Tradition that the Pope’s universal jurisdiction has never ment an “unrestrained” parish level jumping in to resolve an issue unless of course the issue had been appealed to Rome as is the case seen in Celement’s letter to the Corinthians. The Pope in the latin church exercised a much greater jurisdiction then Eastern Patriarchs because of varying Tradition, not as a claim of universality in the same sense over the entire Church. Even the Coptic Pope acts much like the Roman Pope when dealing with issues of his own patricular church. And it is made clear in other places that the Pope does not need the agreement of the other bishops on any action. That doesn’t sound like “governing together” to me. Made clear where? Citation please.

I think that’s an overstatement. First of all, if Satis Cogitem is being supplanted or modified, then, as it is a papal encyclical, it needs to be by another encyclical or official documentAnd Lumen Gentium is not an official document?, not by informal comments by the Pope. I agree that what you sy may be B XVI’s attitude, and that is a great thing, but I’m not sure it is “evident”, and it needs to be formalized.Nothing needs to be formally defined unless its a problem. If its always been the Tradition of the Church to follow the principle of subsidiarity, then why does Benedict need to enshrine it any further? It already exists within Sacred Tradition
Click to expand...
Part of what I think your problem is, is that you are looking at times when the Pope has overstepped his bounds and claiming that as Catholic teaching when it isn’t. The Pope, in understanding, is indeed the universal pastor and shephard who posses Universal jurisdiction. This universal jurisdiction means two different things for the Latin and non-latin churches. The Latin church, being the Pope’s own personal patriarchate is subject to his direct authority and the lack of a strong Emperor in the west allowed for the Pope’s jurisdiction to become much stronger then his non-latin counterparts. In the non-latin churches, the Pope posses universal jurisdiction in the form of appeals and emergency authority necessary for the survival of the church. Just my two cents
 
Your communion and unity with the Pope depends on whether you accept his authority or not.

Your Obedience to the Pope cannot be compromised if you wish to remain in full communion with the Pope and ultimately to Christ’s Body.
 
BRB said:
After 1000 years, … what would they be in order of priority ?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “Eastern Church”? Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

If you mean Eastern Catholic, they don’t have to Romanize themselves and it’s probably best that they don’t. They have marvelous customs that are historic, older than Rome’s in a lot of cases, and are every bit as Catholic as we are. The existence of the East’s customs are a beautiful expression of the universality of the Church in its embracing of other Christian customs.

If you mean Eastern Orthodox, this forum is specifically geared toward the Eastern Catholics. Questions relating to the Eastern Orthodox should be put in the Non-Catholic forums.

They used to lump the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic posts into this forum, but they changed it some time ago. Understandable mistake to make, if you’ve been accustomed to posting about the Eastern Orthodox on this forum for some time. Maybe they should open a special forum for the Orthodox Churches? I don’t like how it’s classified as a non-Catholic religion. Even though it is one, it’s so much more than that and it seems like it shouldn’t be combined with discussions about Wiccans and pagans and atheists and stuff like that, know what I mean?
 
nilofc said:
Your communion and unity with the Pope depends on whether you accept his authority or not.

Your Obedience to the Pope cannot be compromised if you wish to remain in full communion with the Pope and ultimately to Christ’s Body.
Click to expand...
Who is this directed at?
 
BRB said:
After 1000 years, … what would they be in order of priority ?
Click to expand...
This Thread is Totally mislabelled. The 21-23 Eastern Churches are in full union with the Vatican, including Papal announcimg of Patriarchs, Mutual validity of the Sacraments and Mass/Divine Liturgy. But they do not want to be called Roman, Because Eastern traditions and Liturgy are different historically, although analogous. :byzsoc:
The Orthodox Churches such as Greek and Russian are Close to similar relationship, having very few details to negotiate, like Patriarchal participation details before Papal major initiatives. I attended the Post Ravenna Principal negotiators presentation at CUA early this year. :byzsoc:
 
CatsAndDogs said:
Roman rulers are:
  • 2.3% too short.
  • Made of the wrong type of wood.
  • Much too heavy (though very good for knuckle-wrapping).
  • Usually, though not always, bi-material, having that little “metal straightedge” thingy along one side of the wooden base.
  • The etched graduations are poorly visible in low light and high incense situations.
EDIT: You’re not talking about measuring “rulers”? Oops.

Never mind!
View attachment 4600

:shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Cats and Dogs is already a Senior member? Going to graduate also? :clapping:
 
ByzCath said:
You are aware that this is the Eastern Catholicism forum and that we are in communion with Rome, are you not?

I do not think any of us can speak to why someone else chooses not to be in communion. To do so would require us to judge what we can not know.

Also the thread title is very offensive to us Eastern Catholics. We are in communion with Rome not under its “Rule”.

My Church has its own bishops.
Click to expand...
Thank You for your important observations, ByzCath. The Very Busy moderators of this Very worldwide now CAF apparently have not realized the Full Communion and appropriate Catholic usage. I welcomed an Archpriest a few weeks ago to CAF, and found that he is similar to a RC Monsignor.

Shouldn’t a more appropriately labeled Byzantine Catholic thread be started? I’ve learned much of Infant Communion, etc.
:blessyou: :byzsoc: :crossrc:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top