Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[sasg]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I am just guessing here, but I don't think reconciliation will come about through one all-encompassing meeting of the minds as a single Council. Most especially because the Latin church has enough bishops and abbots and other voting hierarchs that just putting them together in one place would swamp the proceedings.

In other words ... if two groups meet in a binding assembly with one group having 3000 members while the other has 450, there will not even be dialog necessary. Just one vote and it's all over, the smaller group would never agree to that 'steamroller' kind of Council.

Likely selected representatives of both parties will meet and hammer out some kind of agreement, which would go back to both parties separately for review and possible ratification in their own assemblies convened at a separate time and place. The back and forth could take years.

We have not even come close yet, all the dialog so far for the last forty years has been mostly discussing terminology and describing beliefs. The danger that we could be talking passed one another is huge. Once we really understand one another there is a great big process of sorting out what can be compromised on from what can not.

Then, after the inevitable impasse, everyone will go back and see if maybe they didn't actually mis-understand one another after all ...

I think it will take many decades, if ever.

I agree with everything you said. Nevertheless, I think Orthodox fears of the Pope exercising undue authority over the East are overblown, because the current status is itself insurance against future union-destroying actions.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by steve b

Yes, like Florence.

Some might say that the most we can hope for in the next few decades is for Catholic-Orthodox relations to get back to the point they were at around the time of Florence. Others would be more optimistic.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by sasg

I agree with everything you said. Nevertheless, I think Orthodox fears of the Pope exercising undue authority over the East are overblown, because the current status is itself insurance against future union-destroying actions.

Actually, probably all that is necessary to bring confidence into a possible reconciliation is for the Pope to admit he does not have universal jurisdiction.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by steve b

Yes, like Florence.

Florence wasn't quite like that.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Florence wasn't quite like that.

Well, for a while it was.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Florence wasn't quite like that.

Actually there was agreement at the close of the council. That's why the council ended. Things hit the fan for the Eastern bishops however, when they arrived home. Ending a very short lived agreement

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Actually, probably all that is necessary to bring confidence into a possible reconciliation is for the Pope to admit he does not have universal jurisdiction.

And deny the commission Jesus gave Peter?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by steve b

And deny the commission Jesus gave Peter?

We must have very different bibles.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by steve b

And deny the commission Jesus gave Peter?

What commission would that be?

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by steve b

Actually there was agreement at the close of the council. That's why the council ended. Things hit the fan for the Eastern bishops however, when they arrived home. Ending a very short lived agreement

But the Byzantine Christians were in great danger of being overrun by the Muslim Ottomans, and the emperor was hoping that if the Orthodox hierarches reached an agreement with their Latin Catholic counterparts to heal the separation, he would receive sufficient aid from the Western Christians to defend against the menace at his doorstep. So, the delegates from the East at the Council of Florence were in a very tight spot, whether because of pressure from the emperor or dread about the demise of their Christian state--the only bulwark standing in the way of their subjugation to Islam. I would not take the assent of those Orthodox hierarches to Latin Catholic doctrines as holding much water given the dire political circumstances they and their coreligionists were facing back home.

[Carefree T]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

It depends.

If a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a major archepiscopal church, then yes, the pope does get to accept or approve the appointment of that synod's head bishop.

If, however, a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a patriarchal church, then no, the pope does not confirm the appointment of the patriarch. He is simply notified of the result.

There are more patriarchal eastern Catholic churches than major archepiscopal ones.

As Vico pointed out, though, in the event of reunion we would not expect the Orthodox to conform to the existing ecclesiastical structure; it would be worked out anew.

Interesting, thank you for the input. I was previously under the impression that all the Eastern Catholic Churches had to have the elections of their patriarchs approved by the Pope of Rome. Is there anything official that states that the current Roman ecclesiastical structure will be reworked at reunion to establish one that's more akin to the pre-schism situation? Does that assertion have any bearing on whether or not the Roman Catholic doctrines would then be expected to be held by all the churches?

And what exactly is "the existing ecclesiastical structure" and why would it have to be reworked if the Pope of Rome doesn't approve the appointment of the patriarchs of churches in communion? Does the Pope approve other synods, local or "ecumenical?" I'm not trying to bait, I'm honestly uninformed, so thanks for your patience.

It just seems to me that if Rome doesn't have to approve the appointment of eastern patriarchs, bishops and synods that reunion is easily possible if the Orthodox can accept the Roman doctrines as legitimate in the West and if the Roman church can not require adherence to those doctrines by the eastern churches.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by steve b

Yet everybody seems to know of the statement around here.

I'm only thinking out loud on this, but I think then Card Ratzinger, meant that statement to be a provacative exercise to get the East into a different dialogue. I think he knew of what he was advancing as a conversation starter. I think he also knew it would be an eye opener or he wouldn't have suggested it. Did the East investigate that suggestion back when it was suggested? Things didn't seem to advance.......right? .......why?

Well, I can guess why it hasn't advanced. Its mainly because the West doesn't want to relinquish universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope. Perhaps when Cardinal Ratzinger is suggesting to "return to Papal authority as it was in the First Millennium," he is speaking of it from the Catholic point of view which is what it is today. Of course the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, to say otherwise is to admit Vatican I introduced new doctrine and therefore heretical. I doubt then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually suggesting that we reverse Vatican I. He is endorsing that we take a look at the First Millennium and believe in the interpretation of Vatican I that it has always been like this since the beginning.

Originally Posted by steve b

I think we have to be more specific when we talk of "Eastern Churches"

All Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, are affected by it.

Originally Posted by steve b

I've quoted this many times already. This applies to Eastern Churches in union with the pope. If they don't agree to this then they aren't in union with the pope, and they aren't Catholic

It does affect the Orthodox if both sides desire unity.

Originally Posted by steve b

(all emphasis mine)

"The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church."

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...ited-with-rome

And I am not denying that. Again, my point is we either accept this as it is stated. If we do not, then we should think why we are Catholic. We cannot accept a position other than this one and remain Catholic. It does not make sense.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Who said anything about compromising the truth?

Well, each side has a stand that is completely the opposite of what the other side has. How do you give way then? One has to compromise their beliefs and admit they were wrong for the last 1000 years. Do you think that will happen? It is about compromising the truth, or at least the truth that each side holds on to.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

You can by being vague. I expect to see vague statements in the SSPX agreement with Rome, for example.

I heard an SSPX priest who is against the Society's reconciliation with Rome give an analogy that went something like this (major paraphrase coming):

Imagine one person likes light bulbs and one hates light bulbs.

- The one who likes light bulbs says let's write a statement that says we like light bulbs.
- The one who hates light bulbs, says no way. I hate light bulbs and I'm not going to agree to such a statement.

So then they come to an agreement. They will write a statement that says they both are near light bulbs.

The first party still likes light bulbs. The second party still hates light bulbs, but they are reconciled under the banner of being near light bulbs. LOL.

So yeah. Vagueness is the key and "clarification". I dont' see any other way of going back on those Vat I statements.

Vagueness is one sure way to make sure nothing happens. The Orthodox are specific which things they want taken out. The Vatican cannot be vague about it. They cannot be, "yeah, we won't revoke Vatican I but let's just pretend it is not there." Actually, if this is the solution the Vatican has for the SSPX, then I'm afraid I cannot have faith in the Papacy. Peter is supposed to be the Rock, yet the Vatican opts to be vague? That is a gateway to heterodoxy.

Originally Posted by Peter J

Catholics will have to "budge" quite a bit, if we decide to become Orthodox. (Of course, Orthodox will have to "budge" quite a bit, if they decide to become Catholic.)

You are correct. One side has to budge. It cannot be a compromise. Do we admit that we are both wrong and the solution is somewhere in the middle? In my office that is sometimes how we settle things, but what we are taking here are basic tenets of the faith. Can you imagine the repercussion of both sides admit to be wrong? The neo-Arianists (LDS, SDA, JW) will have a field day! They will say they are right about the Great Apostasy all along given that both sides admitted to be wrong about the faith. And worse, many people will buy it. And given that both sides admit to error, its not far off that the neo-Arianists are right, at least in this aspect. But the conclusion here is that this scenario will never happen. Only one side will have to budge, or no sides budge and this is how Christ will see us at His return.

Originally Posted by sasg

I agree with everything you said. Nevertheless, I think Orthodox fears of the Pope exercising undue authority over the East are overblown, because the current status is itself insurance against future union-destroying actions.

The Orthodox doesn't fear it. They believe the Pope never had such jurisdiction. So why should they go along with something that is not part of the faith?

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Carefree T

Interesting, thank you for the input. I was previously under the impression that all the Eastern Catholic Churches had to have the elections of their patriarchs approved by the Pope of Rome.

There are six patriarchal Synods. The protocol seems to be that after election the patriarch symbolically asks the Pope at Rome to receive him in communion.

Canon 72
1. He is elected who obtains two-thirds of the votes, unless particular law establishes that after an appropriate number of ballots, at least three, an absolute majority of the votes suffices, and the election is to be conducted according the norms of can. 183, 3-4. 2. If an election is not successful within fifteen days from the opening of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, the matter devolves to the Roman Pontiff.

If I remember correctly, when the most recent vacancy came up in the Chaldean Catholic church, the synod was deadlocked for some reason or could not convene and the Pope intervened. I am not exactly sure what the Supreme Pontiff actually did in his intervention. Someone here probably remembers that.

Canon 76
1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches. 2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77
1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law. 2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

This seems to indicate that the Patriarch is checked until the Supreme Pontiff approves. As Metropolitan of the synod he cannot convene his fellow bishops without papal approval.

Canon 78
1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases. 2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

This is the famous restriction to home territories, the actual formal limits of which are determined by the Pope.

Another interesting canon ...

Canon 81
Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case the Apostolic See has directly communicated it.

I don't really know why they bothered to mention it at all.

Originally Posted by Carefree T

Is there anything official that states that the current Roman ecclesiastical structure will be reworked at reunion to establish one that's more akin to the pre-schism situation?

I don't think so. No prior commitments.

Originally Posted by Carefree T

Does the Pope approve other synods, local or "ecumenical?"

A church has to be at least a Major Metropolitanate or Patriarchate to be considered a synod. That would be eight altogether, I think, perhaps nine.

All of the other Sui Iuris churches have all of their bishops appointed for them by the Supreme Pontiff. That would probably be fourteen churches, I think. Some of them have no bishops, the faithful in that case are usually under the care of Latin bishops, unless other arrangements have been made.

[Carefree T]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction were defined as such by the First Vatican Council, which is considered an ecumenical council. If a pope can undo an ecumenical council, then all the others - Nicaea I, Ephesus, etc. - are dispensable, too. But they're not dispensable... so neither is Vatican I.

Only one patriarch of the five presided over Vatican I, so it was not ecumenical and it is only a local synod of the western church binding only to the Church/Patriarch of Rome's jurisdiction. It likewise should not be taken as any more binding than just that in reunion. Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc. were convened with the Whole Church and decided by the same, so of course they aren't "dispensable," especially not dispensable by only the Patriarch of Rome.

Originally Posted by Hesychios

There are six patriarchal Synods. The protocol seems to be that after election the patriarch symbolically asks the Pope at Rome to receive him in communion.

Canon 72
1. He is elected who obtains two-thirds of the votes, unless particular law establishes that after an appropriate number of ballots, at least three, an absolute majority of the votes suffices, and the election is to be conducted according the norms of can. 183, 3-4. 2. If an election is not successful within fifteen days from the opening of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, the matter devolves to the Roman Pontiff.

If I remember correctly, when the most recent vacancy came up in the Chaldean Catholic church, the synod was deadlocked for some reason or could not convene and the Pope intervened. I am not exactly sure what the Supreme Pontiff actually did in his intervention. Someone here probably remembers that.

Canon 76
1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches. 2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77
1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law. 2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

This seems to indicate that the Patriarch is checked until the Supreme Pontiff approves. As Metropolitan of the synod he cannot convene his fellow bishops without papal approval.

Canon 78
1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases. 2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

This is the famous restriction to home territories, the actual formal limits of which are determined by the Pope.

Another interesting canon ...

Canon 81
Acts of the Roman Pontiff for the patriarchal Church concerning bishops or others to whom it may concern, are to be communicated through the patriarch unless in a case the Apostolic See has directly communicated it.

I don't really know why they bothered to mention it at all.

I don't think so. No prior commitments.
A church has to be at least a Major Metropolitanate or Patriarchate to be considered a synod. That would be eight altogether, I think, perhaps nine.

All of the other Sui Iuris churches have all of their bishops appointed for them by the Supreme Pontiff. That would probably be fourteen churches, I think. Some of them have no bishops, the faithful in that case are usually under the care of Latin bishops, unless other arrangements have been made.

Thank you for all that material! I'll consider all of the implications for myself, for it's a lot to consider.