Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?



I don’t need to have an answer. I trust the many Catholic & Orthodox theologians who are working together in commissions to figure that out in a way that respects and is faithful to both our churches.


You tell me what you can’t do then you go right into doing what you say you can’t do. :roll_eyes:

The conclusions given, ARE part of the quotes given. I don’t make the conclusions. My name isn’t on the conclusions of those quotes. :roll_eyes:

Again, my name isn’t on the quotes I gave. I don’t set the parameters of our faith. I don’t create the rules for what I’m to believe.


But you are in 100% control of how much charity and grace you extend to others in explaining your faith.


Exactly. No human being is in a position to judge the heart of another. When you assign culpability to another person, you have made a judgment on the state of their heart. Only God can do this. Priests in the confessional make this kind of judgment during confession, but even they cannot read the whole human heart. They will grant or withhold absolution based upon what they have been told.

I can read your posts, and respond to what you have written, that is all.

Your name is on the conclusions I am citing.

You are interpreting what you have read, and drawing conclusions. It is your conclusions (and attitude) to which I am responding, not the parameters of our faith.

Actually, I think you have, in some cases. This is also your prerogative, and between you and God. You are convinced your interpretations are the right ones.

I wonder if this is really true? I mean, some people have deficits, and are just unable to exercise charity, for some reason…

Here is a little Paul for you, Steve:
Philippians 2:3

Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves

I am very impressed with your references (I know you did’'t post them to impress anyone) but it sure seems like you think of your own apprehension of the One Faith as “better” than our Eastern brothers and sisters.


There will never be, and has never been, “union,.” There is no movement or clamoring for “union” (save from some belligerent RCC, but this is a fringe position.).

There used to be communion between the churches, and that is what might be restored .



Just, no.

This is latin-centric imperialistic bigotry.

It is Roman interference that has gone too far.

You don’t seriously believe that communion would survive such a vicious attack, do you?

Similarly for the distinction of mortal and venial sin. Neither EO nor EC recognized the distinction, yet there are bodies of literature on the subject . . .

But it is, and Rome acknowledges this . . . to the point that if one of the parties is eastern and a deacon presides, annulment is automatic upon petition.

It’s your understanding that’s off.

That’s a separate issue–there should be no such thing, and the Eastern churches should get their acts together and reject it in toto.



I thought there was an annulment process in Orthodoxy…or maybe that was only in Oriental Orthodoxy? …but it applied only in very rare circumstances.


What took you so long to get here?!


It’s called Ecclesiastical divorce, and it is very different than an annulment. I think this link has a good summary, but honestly I am not very familiar with the process.


More interestingly, why is it absent from the creed over the doors of the Pope’s own basilica? :thinking:

Actually, we more believe that it happens, and don’t really draw the distinction. Offer us a list to choose from, and we’ll reply with “yes” :slight_smile: Many will have opinions, but . . . :man_shrugging:

Uh, this is exactly what was demanded of EC in the US . . .

Perhaps best put in the first article of the Union of Brest, which noted that we talk past one another because we do not want to understand . . .

Not quite–the Maronites and the Italo-Greco-Albanians were never out of communion, and others were OO, not EO.

No, it’s communion, not submission, that is necessary.

They exist in Orthodoxy, but don’t go much farther than abduction and forced marriage.

Roughly, the notion of “abandonment” that allowed the injured spouse to attempt another marriage is stretched. Marriage is seen as permanent, but the reality that it sometimes breaks anyway is recognized. Divorce is not “permitted”, but handled pastorally.

It’s been a hectic few days, but, wow, the first post said seven days . . . I got smacked pretty hard with a cold from my wife’s pre-school, I think.



No, I know that ecclesiastical divorce is a thing… but I understood that there was also annulments for rare cases. For example, if two Orthodox Christians were biological siblings separated at birth, got married in an Orthodox crowning ceremony, and later their relationship was revealed…surely that marriage would be declared null and void, without any need for a “divorce”.


Annulments were pretty rare in the Latin Church once upon a time as well - and limited to very extreme case such as your examples above. The Church has developed her understanding of what constitutes grounds for an annulment. Much as the Orthodox Churches have developed their understanding of what constitutes a broken marriage.


I don’t know how often they are used these days, especially in the U.S., but annulments do exist in Orthodoxy. @dochawk listed forced marriage and abduction. Deceit (such as in the case of bigamy) and consanguinity can also be grounds for annulment. In practice, most of these cases are easier treated as divorces. I’ve seen a list of possible grounds (from a Russian Orthodox source) and used to link to it regularly, but the link is no longer working.


I have 41 posts in this thread.

Did Paul or any of the quotes I gave in this thread, teach uncharitably ? Which ones? And which quotes should I have eliminated in explaining the faith?


Again, you’re judging the quotes I posted.


I gave quotes in context. The teaching of those quotes does NOT come from me. The conclusions of those quotes don’t come from ME…

Here’s another quote I gave and have given. Since people don’t open links, therefore don’t read them,


1.are you judging Paul (quote follows) for reading hearts etc? How is one to apply Paul’s instruction?
2. Am I reading hearts by quoting Paul for someone elses benefit?

Rm 16: (all emphasis mine)
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions διχοστασία and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[a] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Seems clear to me.

See that word “dissension”? I gave the Greek study bible translation for that word, given there are many different translations for that word into English. The meaning is [disunion, division, sedition, forming factions].

IOW, to the topic of the thread, this is a supreme universal jurisdiction question regarding Peter and Peter’s successor(s) the Popes of Rome over the entire Church.

Where did Jesus restrict Peter on his jurisdiction?


I’m not arguing with the writings of St. Paul you have quoted, nor do I believe St. Paul’s words lack charity. What I do object to is that you’ve used his words to imply I am condemned to hell for being an Orthodox Christian. No other poster in this thread has done so, but has rather engaged in productive and positive conversation. Frankly, it’s very fortunate that I know you don’t speak for the Catholic Church, otherwise you would be guilty through utter lack of charity for driving me away from the very Church you think I need to be a part of.


What is the title of this thread?

What activity is Paul specifically teaching against in his writings I quoted?

  1. Schism, sedition, dissension, division,
  2. What is the consequence?

Does any of that come from me? No

Are E Orthodox in schism from the pope, (the successor to Peter) and those in union with the pope? Yes.

I’m merely quoting scripture. Is my name on the passages I quote? Who is doing the condemning? ME? No.

Would you agree that Paul is being inspired by the Holy Spirit? Does the HS speak on His own? Who does the HS speak for? Jesus

Please show me in my 44 posts where I have spoken uncharitably?


No, just how you are applying them. Your conclusions from the quotes. It is the manner in which you focus and pull out the parts. Like saying that one must be “fully in” or one is “out”. I think you need to do this for yourself, and it is a form of private revelation that makes sense to you, but private revelation should not be forced upon other people. God has given you insight for your own benefit.

I understand that you believe your conclusions follow from the quotes, and that you cannot accept that there are any other conclusions.

No, it is the conclusions you make, not the text itself.

Exactly. The clarity you have for yourself, and you would like to apply this clarity to others. The result is that you are creating dissention and separation in the process. Rather than embracing your siblings in Christ, you preach that they are going to hell if they do not conform to what you think is right.


The Church does not teach that we are in a formal schism with the Orthodox. It’s more so an issue of upper management.

Here’s a section of a letter written by Pope Francis to the Ecumenical Patriarch for the feast of St. Andrew that was read by the Ecumenical Patriarch during the Divine Liturgy (Eastern calendar):

“Our Churches have safeguarded the Apostolic tradition with great care, along with the teaching of the first Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers, despite the differences that developed in local traditions and in theological formulations, which need to be more deeply understood and clarified. At the same time both Churches, with a sense of responsibility towards the world, have sensed that urgent call, which involves each of us who have been baptized, to proclaim the Gospel to all men and women. For this reason, we can work together today in the search for peace among peoples, for the abolition of all forms of slavery, for the respect and dignity of every human being and for the care of creation. With God’s help, through encounter and dialogue on our journey together over the last fifty years, we already experience being in communion, even though it is not yet full and complete.”



Honestly, I think this has been happening since before the schism. Human beings have a drive to homogenize, and we tend to cluster to others like ourselves, and project “other” onto those who are different. Our pride of our own way, and our believe in our own “rightness” is actually a form of arrogance.

“3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3 ).

This is why the Latins Catholics in the Crusade slaughtered the Eastern Catholics who were dressed like Arabs and spoke Arabic. They were so myopic, they thought “real” Catholics would be just like them!

Steve, beloved and passionate brother, you are creating this by your attitude. Your lack of charity and refusal to respect the faith of your siblings in Christ drives a wedge.

This little article has a simple summary of how the split was not theological but political, and a reaction to the arrogance of the Roman Pope.

> 838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Instead of focusing on the profound communion we share with the Orthodox, you seem to feel it is your God given mission to focus on the “little” that is lacking.


I understand it seems that way to you, because you cannot help but draw the conclusions you do from what you are reading.

This is a critical question for all of us, as each of us has a duty to do so. You have applied them to yourself with great passion and conviction.

Ultimately the Church teaches us how they should be applied, and this application does not occur in a vacuum. They are to be applied ALONG WITH the other instructions about charity and humility.

But there are elements of the separation that cannot be solved by the laypersons. They need to be solved by those who created them, the leadership.

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

Let us pray that our patriarchs can resolve this issue, removing a centuries old barrier that makes the Orthodox believe that we have added to the once for all divine deposit of faith.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit