A
AlNg
Guest
There have been Byzantine Popes in the past. As already pointed out:
- Status
J
Jbrady
Guest
He lived there seven years, almost certainly at the Monastery of Studios. Some of his reforms of the Mass reflect the monastic Liturgy and Hours said there, which was a lot less elaborate than that said in the Imperial Basilica of Hagia Sophia.
Oddly, even though he spent his childhood in Greek speaking Sicily (Rome was besieged and occupied several times during the Gothic Wars by both sides), was an imperial official (Prefect of Rome) in his youth, and lived seven years in Constantinople, he never mastered Greek. On the other hand, he is one of the last native Latin speakers we know about, and that shows in his writing.
I suppose it could, what is more interesting is the big what if?
This is a completely made up scenario, but…
What if, let’s call him Eastern Rite Cardinal X were elected pope, Pope X then calls for Vatican III and invites every major player in the EOC and says something to the effect of:
I as Pope X am speaking Ex Cathedra (infallible) and I recognize all issues the EOC has with the current model of the RCC, and so in an act of charity, as our lord prayed that we would be one, I am infallibly declaring all issues that are preventing full unity between EOC and RCC officially permanently shelved, and not absolutely required to be believed by all the faithful (perhaps only recommended as good to believe for RC), the Roman Papacy will enjoy the title of first among equals, will have the ability to call ecumenical councils, will have the ability to intercede between his brothers (equals) and his judgment must be recognized as per role of first among equals and will have immediate jurisdiction over the entire Latin church. Both the RCC and the EOC will be known as The Holy Catholic Church, to be differentiated by descriptors such as The Holy Roman Catholic Church, The Holy Constantinopolitan Catholic Church, The Holy Antiochian Catholic Church and so forth.
I am quite positive that the above scenario will never happen (at least probably not as played out above, one can sure hope and pray for unity between RCC and EOC), but the what if sure is fun, I mean if the scenario did play out as above, what do you think the RCC as a whole would think?
What would be the reaction of the public?
Who knows?
Perhaps this made up Pope X would be applauded, on the other hand maybe he’d be condemned as a heretic.
How so?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Speaking as an Eastern Christian, it depends on what the role of the Pope of Rome has over the Church. In the Catholic Church, Rome has supremacy over the entire Church. From Lumen gentium, “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 937, “the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.” This is kind of a big deal for the Orthodox.
ZP
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That is either impossible because it is contradiction (Pope can not infallibly decline his or his predecessor’s infallibility), or we would be dealing with an Anti-Pope. Either uncanonically elected, or someone who lost Papacy in “virtue” of heresy (excommunicating himself and losing his ecclesiastical office of the Pope). Sedevacantism would be obvious choice for quite a lot of people. I myself would be stuck between that or Oriental Orthodoxy
By the way, fun part is that Orthodox Patriarchs were invited to Vatican I but declined (that was before Papal Infallibility was defined).
In the end, Eastern Catholic Cardinals are Catholics. They understand why they are Catholics and not Orthodox.
Basically Pope would be saying that Orthodox Church is true Church of Christ and Catholic Church has Schismed from it and been in error for 1000 years. So Catholic Church would indeed be False Church. Either that, or Sedevacantists would be correct about us having invalid Popes and True Catholic Church being underground.
This is already issue between Russia and Constantinople. At the same time, this intervention of first among equals is as powerful as intervention of my grandma on Papal Conclave. Both can speak out but impact is practically non-existent unless other party wants it.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
In the early Church Eastern bishops consulted frequently with Rome, and the East often let Rome act as court of final appeal in ecclesiastical disputes (appeals where also made to Constantinople and the other Eastern sees). What Rome did not do, however, is exercise any jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. Also, until the 9th century, the Bishop of Rome, like every other bishop, had both to send a profession of faith (Synodikon) to all the other bishops of the world, and have his position ratified by the Emperor in Constantinople.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html
ZP
W
Wandile
Guest
Well that’s not true. Pope St Victor commanded eastern churches to hold synods in Asia Minor on the date of Easter which they all did and reported back to him. Something he wouldn’t be able to do if he didn’t have jurisdiction in the east.CathBoy1:
In the early Church Eastern bishops consulted frequently with Rome, and the East often let Rome act as court of final appeal in ecclesiastical disputes (appeals where also made to Constantinople and the other Eastern sees). What Rome did not do, however, is exercise any jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. Also, until the 9th century, the Bishop of Rome, like every other bishop, had both to send a profession of faith (Synodikon) to all the other bishops of the world, and have his position ratified by the Emperor in Constantinople.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html
ZP
Pope St Julius overturned the decision of an eastern synod with the stroke of his pen and reinstated St Athanasius of Alexandria as Pope of Alexandria by his letter.
The pope had a legate in Thesalonica for over a century responsible for appointing bishops in the east (between the 4th and 5th centuries if IIRC). The asked the Jerusalem representatives at the Lateran Synod under Pope St Martin to renew this practices which the eatery legates had no opposition to.
At the Council of Chalcedon the Roman legates made a stunning claim (under EO outlook) that was not challenged by any of the fathers when the legates were challenging the 28th canon saying:
“But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and [pray] let us [know] clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic [bishop] who is the ruler of the whole church so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.”
This was accepted by the fathers and the council ended.
Last edited:
For the sake of this fun what if?
Let’s say Pope X still has supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls same as he enjoys right now only under his (Roman) see, let’s say he relinquishes some of his power, in an act of charity to unite the EOC with the RCC.
Well let’s pretend here for a moment, say Pope X isn’t declining or denying papal infallibility, let’s say he affirms papal infallibility, but uses his infallibility to permanently shelve its usage in the case of EOC, while leaving the possibility to declare things Ex Cathedra to the RC (actually leaving the papacy to work much as it does now, just only over the Roman branch of the church), and in his declaration makes clear that he isn’t denying papal infallibility (or anything else), instead only agreeing to permanently not use this power in the case of the eastern churches as an act of charity.
Also let’s pretend that the leaders of the various eastern churches have no objection to this sort of agreement.
Again, just for fun, let’s say all the EO Patriarchs attend, and also the leaders of the OO attend, allowing Pope X to make the same accommodations for the OO, uniting all 3 churches.
Again let’s pretend, that Pope X isn’t saying anything of the sort, only making accommodations to the eastern churches in an act of charity.
I’m thinking something to the effect of the RCC operates almost identical to the way it does now, the only caveat would be that the Roman pontiff would only have supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls same as he enjoys right now only under his (Roman) see.
The Roman Pontiff would also have the ability to convene ecumenical councils.
And the Roman Pontiff would work as sort of a final court of appeals for any issues that arise between Patriarchs.
Otherwise the EOC’s and the OOC’s would operate much as they do now.
In make believe land let’s pretend that all of this would be agreed upon by each party, and intercommunion of the 3 churches would be achieved.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
While plausible scenario for Orthodoxy, Pope has no right to do that. He can relinquish his power, but his successors would retain full power…
Basically, Council of Chalcedon recognized that anyone can appeal to Rome from anywhere for re-trial if he is not satisfied with how local one ended. It also granted similar powers to Constantinople. Council of Sardica codified that Rome can overrule Constantinople. So one could end up with bad judgment… appeal to Constantinople… end up with bad judgment and still appeal to Rome. Line can get even longer if one appeals to his Bishop, then Archbishop, then Patriarch and then Constantinople and Rome. Of course, anyone could just skip straight to Rome. Historically speaking, that is. This model of Church is the best one in my opinion and conforms with Pope St. Gregory’s model of Church (pre-Schism Saint). He famously said that every Bishop is judged by Rome if they have fault, otherwise they are equal. He said this while talking about Constantinople, so he did not mean Latin Church solely.
Sure, but one can not deny anything Popes have ever infallibly declared. Otherwise you are denying Papal infallibility itself. Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and everything else stays.
Truth is universal. If something is true, it is true in the West and in the East all the same. Yes, Popes should only administer Western Church directly… but inerrancy of Rome is something that is also true in the East.
Fomenting someone in their misconceptions/false beliefs is not charity. Which is why Church does not tell Protestants that they can have invalid Eucharist and be part of Church or anything like that. It applies to Eastern Orthodox too.
Oriental Orthodoxy has no problem with Papal Infallibility as defined afaik (or at least Armenians don’t). Purgatory and other issues could be clarified. Also, OO have ecclesiology model where Alexandrian Pope holds some real power over other Churches (some, not universal one). I really think returning to that model (one different from Eastern Orthodox, but also different from Catholic) would be pretty cool. Pope can have universal and immediate power, but it’s exercising won’t happen directly unless needed.
That requires jurisdiction. Add “Roman Pontiff can intervene if he sees danger to unity of Church or Faith” and we’re done. Practically speaking, Popes of Rome have intervened in cases where Patriarch was arguing with his Bishop in history.
Basically, Council of Chalcedon recognized that anyone can appeal to Rome from anywhere for re-trial if he is not satisfied with how local one ended. It also granted similar powers to Constantinople. Council of Sardica codified that Rome can overrule Constantinople. So one could end up with bad judgment… appeal to Constantinople… end up with bad judgment and still appeal to Rome. Line can get even longer if one appeals to his Bishop, then Archbishop, then Patriarch and then Constantinople and Rome. Of course, anyone could just skip straight to Rome. Historically speaking, that is. This model of Church is the best one in my opinion and conforms with Pope St. Gregory’s model of Church (pre-Schism Saint). He famously said that every Bishop is judged by Rome if they have fault, otherwise they are equal. He said this while talking about Constantinople, so he did not mean Latin Church solely.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
What sources do you read?
ZP
ZP
W
Wandile
Guest
- Pope St Victor and the easter situation : Primary source of Polycrates (his actual response to St Victor). If you want an easy place to access this quote you can look at Upon this Rock by Stephen K. Ray or Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.)
- Pope St Julius : The ecclesiastical history of the Church by Greek church historian Socrates Scholasticus (380-450 AD). It’s available at the New Catholic Encyclopaedia
- Papal Vicar in Thessalonica: multiple sources but an easily accessible one for you is Delineation of Roman Catholicism by Charles Elliot
- Claims of the Papal legates at Chalcedon: The Acts of the council of Chalcedon available online at the New Catholic encyclopaedia
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
Could you let me know more about the Armenians and Papal infallibility?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
It was mentioned on different thread. Armenian Church has very strong sense of obedience to their Patriarch. They are very centralized and regard him with utmost respect. One of the posters on CAF talked to Armenian Priest and basically, Papal Infallibility properly understood (given to successors of Peter not to invent new religion but safeguard what has been handed down) is something Armenians can get behind. It isn’t anything official, but it is not the only time I heard someone say stuff like that. Armenians were very close to union with Rome several times historically, and most of the time union only fell down because of political or logistical reasons. Unlike Eastern Orthodox, they hold down to model where Patriarch exercises real authority over those beneath him and so on…
W
Wandile
Guest
You know what’s crazy is that I was reading a paper on the History of the Council of Florence by Sergey Fedorovich Dezhnyuk. It had some gems like the Armenian delegation to Florence and the completely striking things they said in their address to the Pope Eugene IV:
“You hold the see of Christ. You are the Vicar of Christ in the see of the the Apostles. We have come to you our head. We have come to you our shepherd. You are the foundation of the church. Every member that has left you is sick, and wild beasts have devoured the flock that has separated itself from you. Churches that have not followed you or been upheld by you have been utterly overthrown. You, the head, be compassionate to the members. You, the shepherd, gather the flock. You, the foundation, confirm the churches. You, who have the power of the heavenly keys, open to us the gates of eternal life.”
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Thanks for that. I’ll look into them.
I would say however, issuing orders and making claims is one thing; having others assent to them is something else.
ZP
I would say however, issuing orders and making claims is one thing; having others assent to them is something else.
ZP
W
Wandile
Guest
Pleasure
Definitely true but I would propose another outlook. Authority is true regardless of who assent to it.
As law exists in state, the breaking of those laws by some of its citizens does not negate the reality of the true authority in those laws. So too when the Roman Bishops issued decrees, orders, claims etc those had real authority and the instances of people not following does diminish the reality of the authority of those decrees, orders, claims etc. In both cases the instances of persons not following only evidence dissent/dissidence.
D
dochawk
Guest
Pope John spent a long time in the East, and was greatly respected by many Orthodox prelates.
I’ve seen it reported that he called the council to lay the groundwork for discussions on unification, but it took off in its own direction, further complicated by his death.
A
AlNg
Guest
No. It is true that Easter was April 12, 2020 in the west and it is true that Easter was April 19, 2020 in the East (i.e. E. Orthodox Church). The date of Easter was not the same in the East and in the West this year.
A
AlNg
Guest
Is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in favor of unification with the Russian Orthodox Church?
W
Wandile
Guest
The date of Easter is not a dogma. I think you have missed the point @OrbisNonSufficit was making.OrbisNonSufficit:
No. It is true that Easter was April 12, 2020 in the west and it is true that Easter was April 19, 2020 in the East (i.e. E. Orthodox Church). The date of Easter was not the same in the East and in the West this year.
- Status