Why do the Greek Orthodox reject the universal jurisdiction of the Pope?

[LexusGs350]

That is debatable. Firstly, if by monophysite, you mean Eutychian, then that is false. If by monophysite, you are referring to the Non-Chalcedonians, then that is still not quite true. Non-Chalcedonian Christianity was not a large force in Jerusalem at the time, and Antioch was split pretty evenly. It was only Alexandria (and it continues to be so to this day) which had an overwhelming Non-Chalcedonian majority.

I am familiar with the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Your Church (if you are part of the church centered in Rome), however, has abandoned that teaching. Two entire generations of Catholics have been taught to the contrary after VII.

absolute nonsense, It’s A DOGMA, it’s the equivalent of saying The Catholic Church abandoned it’s teaching on The Holy Trinity. Any Catholic that denies this is a Heretic.
That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.

 

[LexusGs350]

Do you have evidence of any of this or am I to take your non-sequiturs at face value?

Sure, why did the Greeks all the sudden, actually let me get specific, Michael Cerularius reject Papal authority? The Ecumenical councils called The Bishop of Rome, “The Head of The Church” The Papacy is the easiest Catholic Dogma to prove.

“The Roman Church, which is the head of all the churches.” Victor of Vita (ca. 485 A.D.)

We did not wait until 1054 for the truth.

 

[Cavaradossi]

absolute nonsense, It’s A DOGMA, it’s the equivalent of saying The Catholic Church abandoned it’s teaching on The Holy Trinity. Any Catholic that denies this is a Heretic.
That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.

From the CCC:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation [extra Ecclesiam nulla salus], often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

As you and I are probably both aware, this is not the traditional understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, as it completely contradicts Pope Boniface VIII’s words in Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Why would your church knowingly publish such statements in their catechism, knowing that it could potentially lead people into heresy and damnation, unless they have come to believe that the traditional understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is flawed and needs to be complimented with statements like this?

 

[LexusGs350]

From the CCC:

As you and I are probably both aware, this is not the traditional understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, as it completely contradicts Pope Boniface VIII’s words in Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Why would your church knowingly publish such statements in their catechism, knowing that it could potentially lead people into heresy and damnation, unless they have come to believe that the traditional understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is flawed and needs to be complimented with statements like this?

V2 was not an ecumenical council, was not infallible nor was it meant to be, i have quotes on this. The CCC is not binding, either quote The Roman Catechism or don’t mention it. 3. Are you saying Dogma’s can be revoked?

 

[Cavaradossi]

V2 was not an ecumenical council, was not infallible nor was it meant to be, i have quotes on this. The CCC is not binding, either quote The Roman Catechism or don’t mention it. 3. Are you saying Dogma’s can be revoked?

No, I’m not saying that dogmas can be revoked. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (understood in the way that it is laid out by Pope Boniface VIII as being in submission to the Roman pontiff) is a dogma. The disturbing conclusion then, that I must reach, is that the Roman Catholic Church is harming people’s souls with its catechism which contradicts that dogmatic definition. Surely you cannot believe that your own church would be actively leading people into error.

 

[LexusGs350]

No, I’m not saying that dogmas can be revoked. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (understood in the way that it is laid out by Pope Boniface VIII as being in submission to the Roman pontiff) is a dogma. The disturbing conclusion then, that I must reach, is that the Roman Catholic Church is harming people’s souls with its catechism which contradicts that dogmatic definition. Surely you cannot believe that your own church would be actively leading people into error.

The Catholic Church is The ONLY Church that can save souls. V2 was a pastoral council, the last ecumenical council was the Vatican Council. Ignore V2 and everything makes sense, and yes subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary, or else the flock would scatter, how else you think 1 billion Catholics are united?

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” St. Jerome, “Against Jovinian,” c. 393 A.D.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic Church is The ONLY Church that can save souls. V2 was a pastoral council, the last ecumenical council was the Vatican Council. Ignore V2 and everything makes sense, and yes subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary, or else the flock would scatter, how else you think 1 billion Catholics are united?

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” St. Jerome, “Against Jovinian,” c. 393 A.D.

But the CCC was issued by Pope John Paul II. How then were faithful Catholics supposed to exercise submission to the Roman Pontiff (during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II), if they rejected the teachings of the CCC? The only way I can see that working is if the words of Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam are not dogma.

 

[LexusGs350]

But the CCC was issued by Pope John Paul II. How then were faithful Catholics supposed to exercise submission to the Roman Pontiff (during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II), if they rejected the teachings of the CCC? The only way I can see that working is if the words of Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam are not dogma.

Because V2 was not an infallible council, and Catholics MUST listen to the Pope ONLY when he speaks on faith and morals.(When he binds the ENTIRE Church) So if the Pope says anything against Catholic teaching it can obviously be rejected, Pope St.Pius X, Pope Leo XII and more recommended ALL Catholics to get The Roman Catechism. JP2 also kissed the quran, does this mean all Catholics should do this? obviously not.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because V2 was not an infallible council, and Catholics MUST listen to the Pope ONLY when he speaks on faith and morals.(When he binds the ENTIRE Church) So if the Pope says anything against Catholic teaching it can obviously be rejected, Pope St.Pius X, Pope Leo XII and more recommended ALL Catholics to get The Roman Catechism. JP2 also kissed the quran, does this mean all Catholics should do this? obviously not.

Fair enough. I think I understand what perspective you are coming from. I don’t normally get to interact with with too many traditionalist Catholics (at least, based on what you’ve written, I get a hunch that you hold to traditionalist Catholicism), so I enjoy having the opportunity to hear opinions from people who find themselves aligned with the traditionalist movement. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Why are we even discussing this? Our status of salvation is irrelevant to why the Eastern Orthodox reject the Pope’s universal jurisdiction.

 

[LexusGs350]

Fair enough. I think I understand what perspective you are coming from. I don’t normally get to interact with with too many traditionalist Catholics (at least, based on what you’ve written, I get a hunch that you hold to traditionalist Catholicism), so I enjoy having the opportunity to hear opinions from people who find themselves aligned with the traditionalist movement. Thanks for your honesty.

No Problem, my only goal is to preach the truth, the problem with many Catholics today is there trying to be politically correct. I tried to find a quote that St.Thomas Aquinas said which states something like “Even if a superior in the Church, tells you to do something and it’s wrong, ignore him and don’t do it” But i can’t find it as i have stacks of quotes.

Catholics need to respect the Pope and priests, bishops etc… as long as they don’t contradict something of greater weight or go against Catholic teaching.

God Bless

 

[LexusGs350]

Why are we even discussing this? Our status of salvation is irrelevant to why the Eastern Orthodox reject the Pope’s universal jurisdiction.

“The missionary who is attempting with God’s help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all his effort to the single-objective of delivering them from doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith.”- Allatae Sunt (#19), July 26, 1755. Pope Benedict XIV

 

[Hesychios]

“The missionary who is attempting with God’s help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all his effort to the single-objective of delivering them from doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith.”- Allatae Sunt (#19), July 26, 1755. Pope Benedict XIV

An interesting comment, since there aren’t any Orthodox doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith. Funny that he was not aware of that, being the Pope and all…

 

[Deconi]

An interesting comment, since there aren’t any Orthodox doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith. Funny that he was not aware of that, being the Pope and all…

If fyou do not accept the Roman Pontif as head of the church, are you not at ‘variance’ with the basic doctrine of the Catholic faith?

Then there’s the ‘little’ matter of the list of dogmas rejected;
Papal Infallibility
Marian Assumption / Immaculate Conception (debateable)
Filioque
etc…

 

[Doubtfizzle]

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.” Valentinian III A.D. 445

The wonderful thing about this quote is that, upon closer examination, it actually disproves the claims of papal primacy. Look at the three reasons put forward for the authority of Rome in the passage:

1. Having been established by St. Peter (an honor that was also shared by the churches at both Antioch and Alexandria, by the way.)
2. By Dignity of the City of Rome. The Church at Rome came to prominence because of Rome’s position in the empire, it’s theological orthodoxy at the time, and the wealth that it generously shared with other Chruches. We’re talking strictly temporal stuff, here.
3. By the authority of the Holy Synod. In other words, he has the authority being spoken of because a COUNCIL determined that he should have it. It wasn’t an intrinsic trait of his office. So, while the Bishop of Roman did have, in a limited and mediate sense, authority over the whole church, it was only because the Church saw fit to allow him to have such authority. This is hardly something in harmony with later Roman Catholic developments, and it certainly doesn’t preclude the possibility that Rome could break into schism from the Orthodox Church.

Sorry, dude, but just because the Pope is the “head” of the church doesn’t means he’s an infallible dictator.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending mod review by Eric.