What if: the Pope of Rome converted to Orthodoxy?

[Ag_not]

I’d be gutted !

Swimming the Acheloos just doesnt have the ring to it as swimming the Tiber !

 

[Genesis315]

As dave pointed out, it probably can’t happen, but if it could, hopefully he would have the integrity to resign.

Anyway, if he actually believed in Eastern Orthodox doctrine concerning his office, he wouldn’t believe he had any authority to tell anyone what to believe, so I don’t think he would order the rest of the Church to fall in line with his decision.

 

[prodigal-sun]

What a silly hypothetical question…lol! By definition the the Cathoilc Church is Universal. To name any of the eastern Orthodox churches the Universal (one of the requirements of the church of Christ is a complete fabrication as they are merely a bunch of different cultural rites. Nothing Universal about them.

Peace!

 

[StMarina303ad]

To name any of the eastern Orthodox churches the Universal (one of the requirements of the church of Christ is a complete fabrication as they are merely a bunch of different cultural rites. Nothing Universal about them.

Peace!

Poor thing. You ought to read Church History. Your eyes would be open - the Orthodox Church entire is Universal and the Roman Catholic Church left it officially in 1054 ad.

There are no “rites” within Orthodoxy. There are only “rites” in the Catholic Church. - The Catholic Church has less consistancy in regards to Liturgy, Faith, Practice, etc. with in their “rites”.

Orthodox is Orthodox is Orthodox - Each Orthodox Church has the same in Faith, Doctrine and Practices whether: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. - all Orthodox.

Make an Ecumenical Visit to one of the Orthodox Churches - per the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law it’s allowed - and discover it for yourself.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Curious: Does he say who it is in the Catholic Church that would have the “authority” to judge the pope to determine whether or not the pope was a heretic?

Canon law does not require a judgment. The very act of defecting from the faith would mean he is automatically excommunicated. Can. 1364 §1, “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

This means at the moment of his manifest defection from the faith, he would be automatically excommunicated and therefore, would no longer be pope.

However, if the pope’s hypothetical heresy or schism was not public or manifest, but he was only “suspected of heresy,” then a successor pope would be the only person who could judge a former pope on such matters.

 

[Hesychios]

You mean the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was of no importance to the Patriarch of Constantinopole?

I did not say that. Every Christian believer is important, every single one. But I can tell you the UGCC does not represent anything like an Orthodox stronghold. It is hardly Orthodox at all now and hardly representative of a major faction in Orthodoxy. What has survived is (in the main) a greatly Latinized church that does not represent Orthodoxy or set an example for Orthodoxy.

History may be enlightening here: When the Union of Brest was organized there was difficuly getting everyone to go along, but a majority acquiesced eventually. The region affected included all of what is now Belarus and most of Ukraine, plus some parts of modern Russia and Lithuania.Their descendants are still there for the most part and number between 60 and 70 million people.

All of these would have potentially been Eastern Catholics today if the the union had survived. But it did’t last.

The UGCC numbers between four and five million Ukrainians, and there are a few ten thousands of Belarussians remaining from the Union of Brest. They actually exist in the margins of eastern Christianity and the margins of Catholicism.

Well, the Greek Catholic Church and other formerly Orthodox unions such as the Syro-Malabar Church have been enjoying the promises of the CCEO for quite a long time now.

Since 1983 actually. Before that they were under the Latin Code.

If you are aware of the process under which the Syro-Malabar church was incorporated into your communion, you will know that it was not a voluntary affair. They have been changed a lot since that time, having been placed in the care of western religious orders, and are presently engaged in the process of trying to recover what was lost.

Thank you for your comments and link on the Canons of the Orthodox. I will read up more on them and would love to have further discussions with you if possible.

You are welcome!

It is part of your history too.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Poor thing. You ought to read Church History. Your eyes would be open

I have. Which is why I’m Catholic.

St. Maximus of Constantinople: "…from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone * as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him "

I recommend the book from Russian Orthodox author, Valdimir Soloviev, called Russia and the Universal Chruch (an abridged edition called The Russian Church and the Papacy, is available from Catholic Answers).

Here’s an excerpt:

***While true heroes of orthodoxy, such as ***

Maximus the Confessor, could not find words strong enough to extol the preminence and achievements of the Roman See, the orthodox anti-Catholics, though profiting by its achievements, were too jealous of its preeminence to give it recognition…

As a member of the true and venerable Eastern or Greco-Russian Orthodox Church…I recognize as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by St. Irenaeus, St. Dionysius the Great, St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, St. Ignatius, and on and on–namely, the apostle Peter, who lives in his successors. (Vladimir Soloviev, *Russia and the Universal Church, *cited from an abridged edition called *The Russian Church and the Papacy, *Catholic Answers, 2001, pg. 36, 37, 47)
*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

None of them can be classed as examples of Orthodoxy’s strongholds.
The Pope giveth, and the Pope taketh away. There is nothing in the CCEO that is of a permanent nature, at any point a Pope may add, delete or modify any canon on his own authority. That goes for the Particular Law of each Sui Iuris church as well.

It could well be a great sin for him to “take away” - but legally, it is not impossible. As the fuss & palaver over the Roman Mass shows: especially if one bothers to read the publications that sought to vindicate the suppression of the 1962 Missal. This can be done by reading “Pope Paul’s New Mass”, by the late Michael Davies - as well as his other works.​

Back to the topic…

 

[w_stewart]

Does the papal infallibility protect the Pope from converting to Orthodoxy?

 

[cathopologist]

I did not say that. Every Christian believer is important, every single one. But I can tell you the UGCC does not represent anything like an Orthodox stronghold. It is hardly Orthodox at all now and hardly representative of a major faction in Orthodoxy.

It was an Orthodox stronghold once, no matter how you would like to put it.

They actually exist in the margins of eastern Christianity and the margins of Catholicism.
Since 1983 actually. Before that they were under the Latin Code.

What was before, was before. It is true the Syro-Malabar Church had to persevere the unwanted discrimination from the Portuguese. But come the Coonan Cross Oath and all that changed. [

The Coonan Cross Oath was a revolt against the oppressive rule of the Europeans and not against the Pope or the Holy See…There were continuous attempts for reestablishing the lost communion. But nothing succeeded mainly because of the opposition from the European missionaries. It was to obtain permission for receiving this group into the Catholic Church that Fr. Joseph Kariattil and Fr. Thomas Paremmakkal, two priests from the Church of St.Thomas Christians, went to Rome in the 18th century. Fr.Kariattil was ordained archbishop of the St.Thomas Christians, and had received a mandate to receive the dissident group with its bishop to the Catholic communion. Unfortunately Bishop Kariattil on his way to Kerala died in Goa

in 1786****1930](http://www.smcim.org/history.htm) Your suggested year of 1983 is not consistent with historical accounts. The above quote is directly from the website of the Syro-Malabar Church.

If you are aware of the process under which the Syro-Malabar church was incorporated into your communion, you will know that it was not a voluntary affair. They have been changed a lot since that time, having been placed in the care of western religious orders, and are presently engaged in the process of trying to recover what was lost.

Actually i am aware of certain ‘informative’ sites which are biased against the Catholic Church and such authors of sites are in the least bit honest about presenting actual historical accounts.

You are welcome!

It is part of your history too.

As it is yours.
[

**Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say ‘either enforce them all or discard them completely.’ But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life — theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual — these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. **

— From An Explanation of Canon Law - Orthodox Church in America](http://www.3saints.com/canons.html)

 

[Hesychios]

It was an Orthodox stronghold once, no matter how you would like to put it.

Well, you cannot represent it as one now. The Orthodox stronghold you refer to (the Kyivan Metropolitante) is Orthodox today (as the numbers show) and rejects the Union of Brest,

What was before, was before. It is true the Syro-Malabar Church had to persevere the unwanted discrimination from the Portuguese. But come the Coonan Cross Oath and all that changed. Your suggested year of 1983 is not consistent with historical accounts. The above quote is directly from the website of the Syro-Malabar Church.

You may be conflating two separate assertions I have made.

When they were taken over in the early Sixteenth century there was no CCEO. They had to deal with church law as administer by their Latin rite bishop, and the later native bishops trained under that system.

At Coonan Cross (150 years after being absorbed into Catholicism) most of the clergy abandoned the Catholic church. It is a huge and thus far continuing schism. The Pope at the time responded by withdrawing the Portuguese Jesuits who created the mess in the first place. He replaced them with Carmelites from Italy and instructed them to be more sensitive. A portion of those parishes had subsequently been recovered, the rest were determined to get bishops from elsewhere and connected to the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch. These days they have several parishes around Chicago here. Some of that body followed Mar Ivanios back to Rome circa 1930 and this became a separate Sui Iuris church, the Syro Malankara. Still, they had to work under the Latin Code.

The CCEO was promulgated in 1983AD, the first serious attempt of the church to accommodate the special needs of non-Latin churches. However as a “one-size-fits-all” document it is not quite the best answer. To make up for it’s deficiencies, each Sui Iuris church has a supplemental set of “Particular Law” outside of the CCEO. That particular law must also meet with the approval of the Vatican.

Actually i am aware of certain ‘informative’ sites which are biased against the Catholic Church and such authors of sites are in the least bit honest about presenting actual historical accounts.

It goes both ways. Which is why I spend most of my time here correcting errors placed here about Holy Orthodoxy and church history. These people usually don’t make this stuff up, they innocently enough bring it in with them from some other site or book they “trust”.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[adstrinity]

I personally know 5 people who each prayed the Rosary Daily, each attended Daily Mass - receiving the Eucharist each day and who recited the Creed with the Filioque Clause added at Mass every day who each in their own way, at different times and places in the United States had powerful conversions to the Orthodox Church.

Did they know what separated the two Church’s before their conversion? Anybody who has a chance of becoming the Pope has a VERY good idea of the distictions and what he will represent and what he believes and WHY he believes it. Attending Mass is not the same as celebrating it; the priest gets a more special role in the Divine Liturgy…and this is AFTER years of discerning if becoming a priest is right for him.

 

[steve_b]

I personally know 5 people who each prayed the Rosary Daily, each attended Daily Mass - receiving the Eucharist each day and who recited the Creed with the Filioque Clause added at Mass every day who each in their own way, at different times and places in the United States had powerful conversions to the Orthodox Church.

God can touch the heart of anyone to bring them to the fullness of the Truth and to His Church.

With all due respect, God doesn’t move people into schism

 

[StMarina303ad]

Did they know what separated the two Church’s before their conversion?

Yes. It was when they began to pray about the issues that separated the two Churches that they began to realize that they could not remain in a Church which split from the Original Church that Christ established.

Each of them became much closer to Christ when they joined Orthodoxy - their relationship with Him grew and strengthened. Their appreciation for Divine Liturgy (called Mass by R.C.s) deepened dramatically - this happened through the preparation for each Divine Liturgy - Saturday Night Vespers, during Great Lent the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy - the Fasting leading up to the reception of Holy Eucharist, etc.

Their praying of the Rosary transferred to the practice of the Jesus Prayer - as St. Paul refers to: praying without ceasing - literally. It transforms the heart of a person at a deeper level than the Rosary (Not that saying the Rosary is bad, it just is a lower level of prayer).

One of them visited Mount Athos and has seen a monk who literally glow with the Divine Light of Christ because they have reach such a close relationship with Him through the Jesus Prayer - the Prayer of the Heart.

One of them even became a Russian Orthodox Priest - he and his wife and 7 children (last count) have never been happier.

Prior to their conversions to Orthodoxy, they had so much respect for the Catholic Church, the leadership of the Pope, the Mass, the Rosary, etc. They had believed the lies that many in the Catholic Church say about the Orthodox Church: “the Orthodox Churches are hopelessly divided amongst themselves” and the lie that “the Orthodox Churches are just like Protestants divided by Nationalist Lines”

They just simply hadn’t been enlightened to the fullness of the Truth that can only be found in Orthodoxy - once they were…let’s just say their still on their honeymoon with Christ (one couple it’s been just 5 years another couple it’s been more than 15 years).

They had witnessed the lack of respect most Catholics have for Holy Eucharist and for the Divine Liturgy/Mass itself - this has never happened in Orthodoxy. It is impossible to get ones hands on the Eucharist to do evil things - such as dropping Him on the floor and walking over Him, or taking Him to do Black Mass, etc. Because in the Orthodox Church - Holy Eucharist is given to the people only from the Priest or Bishop and only to those He knows by name (& knows they have confessed & are not currently living in sin) and Holy Eucharist is given on a spoon directly into the mouths of the people & then they are given blessed bread to eat immediately after receiving Jesus in Holy Eucharist.

They have also been amazed at how much Oral Tradition has been lost to Catholics - like the name of “the woman at the well” and what she went on to do after her encounter with Christ, the name of the child who sat on the lap of Jesus when He said, “let the little children come unto Me” - Plus the Orthodox maintain the original tradition of giving Holy Eucharist to children begining after their Baptism and Confirmation as an infant - “let the little children come unto Me” was not lost in Orthodoxy.

 

[cathopologist]

Well, you cannot represent it as one now. The Orthodox stronghold you refer to (the Kyivan Metropolitante) is Orthodox today (as the numbers show) and rejects the Union of Brest, You may be conflating two separate assertions I have made.

Well, i actually had Metropolitan Mikhail Rohoza of Kiev, Halych in mind. He severed ties with the Orthodox ecumenical patriarchate in Constantinople and the Orthodox patriarchate of Moscow and accepted the primacy and authority of the Bishop of Rome and formed what is called today the Greek Catholic Church. In return, they were promised privileges that included retaining their Byzantine liturgical rites, customs and allowed them to have married clergy and their method of electing bishops.

When they were taken over in the early Sixteenth century there was no CCEO. They had to deal with church law as administer by their Latin rite bishop, and the later native bishops trained under that system.

Whilst it is true there wasn’t a proper CCEO during that time, they were however, allowed to retain their very own customs and traditions as did with all other formerly Orthodox churches.

At Coonan Cross (150 years after being absorbed into Catholicism) most of the clergy abandoned the Catholic church.

The Coonan Cross Oath wasn’t about rebellion against the Catholic Church, it was about not receiving orders from the Portuguese hierarchy of the Church, as they wanted to retain their own identity. The others, who didn’t want anything to do with Catholicism, simply went back to their own ways. The St Thomas Christians before the arrival of Portuguese missionaries, did not consider themselves either Catholic nor Orthodox. They simply followed the faith and rituals as was imparted to them by the Apostle Thomas. It was only much, much later, did people realize their similarity with that of the Eastern Syriac Catholic churches.

The Pope at the time responded by withdrawing the Portuguese Jesuits who created the mess in the first place. He replaced them with Carmelites from Italy and instructed them to be more sensitive. A portion of those parishes had subsequently been recovered, the rest were determined to get bishops from elsewhere and connected to the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch. These days they have several parishes around Chicago here. Some of that body followed Mar Ivanios back to Rome circa 1930 and this became a separate Sui Iuris church, the Syro Malankara. Still, they had to work under the Latin Code.

This, i agree. But i do not think you understand that despite being under the Bishop of Rome, they are entitled to appoint their own bishops and retain their own litugical customs and traditions, of which Rome does not interfere.

The CCEO was promulgated in 1983AD, the first serious attempt of the church to accommodate the special needs of non-Latin churches. However as a “one-size-fits-all” document it is not quite the best answer. To make up for it’s deficiencies, each Sui Iuris church has a supplemental set of “Particular Law” outside of the CCEO. That particular law must also meet with the approval of the Vatican.

The CCEO of the Orthodox Church is no different in its share of deficiences. That is why our Popes have insisted several times that we both (Catholics and Orthodox) need two lungs to breath, so that we may all be One (John 17:21) Body.

It goes both ways. Which is why I spend most of my time here correcting errors placed here about Holy Orthodoxy and church history. These people usually don’t make this stuff up, they innocently enough bring it in with them from some other site or book they “trust”.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

Sad but true. I hope you will pray together with me that one day, our dream of becoming One again in Our Lord’s House will indeed come true, hopefully during our lifetimes.