When does a marriage end?

[dochawk]

He should neither directly nor regularly be governing, no.

Generally, the only time that there should be any governing from Rome should be when there’s a problem, typically when sent an appeal from the church(es) or bishop(s) involved. (for example, there is currently another bishop in charge of the financial affairs of my own Eparchy, “sent” by Rome [actually the nearest RC bishop]). That is the type of involvement that should occur (although I don’t know how it got to Rome as an issue).

 

[tafan2]

So in other words, he should exercise governing authority when requested to do so? That actually makes sense to me.

 

[dochawk]

Pre-schism, it was exercised in what we’d call appellate fashion today.

And I’ll grant that there could be a situation where it would be appropriate for Rome to initiate, but in that case, he should also be able to get most of the three dozen or so Churches to agree, rather than actually acting unilaterally.

The current dispute between Moscow and Constantinople, for example, is exactly the type of thing that he should be involved in resolving, with prelates of one or the other initiating the appeal,.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, when I said that makes sense to me, I actually thought of going back and adding something along the lines that they would have to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome of who they would turn to for such outside resolution, or to use your better term, appellate help.