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


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.


The churches unity can never be compromised. There is one church and it’s the Catholic Church. The EO used to be part of the church but left in schism. The catechism makes this very clear as well as Dominus Iesus


That sentence refers to Eastern Catholics not Eastern Orthodox


Or the Church in Rome left? I’m Catholic but it’s interesting the main Churches were Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome at the time; and for the most part only one of them aren’t in communion anymore.
Honestly I feel for the Orthodox position. If you look at the history of the Church their view of the Bishop of Rome is much more correct then the current infallible position given him. He was first of equal bishops. The Orthodox didn’t leave. They were ravaged in 1204. If anyone did that to Rome I doubt the Church would have hung around and been cool.


Yeah for formal schism the members would actively have to make a distinct and knowledgeable act of separation.

They are still in schism. It’s just material schism. Schism means to divide. If there is no perfection communion then there is a schism.


Not possible as Rome is indefectable and even the fathers and ecuemnical councils acknowledged this many times. Sadly today the EO deny this.

This is not correct

Antioch and Alexandria left in the 5th century at the council of Chalcedon. They are Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox I.e not in communion

Jerusalem and Constantinople left in the great schism. Jerusalem wasn’t a major see but just had honorary importance because of Our Lords crucifixion there. It had very little influence and a small flock.

Rome was with the west (which was bigger) although even the Greek line of bishops of the church of Antioch (not the legitimate claimants to the chair who are the OO) came back to communion with Rome in the 18th century forming the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. The modern Antiochan Orthodox Church of EOy is a rival line set up to counter the Melkites. The Melkites are the legitimate successors of the greek line of bishops from Antioch who recognizes the council of Calchedon.

It isn’t, many of their fathers and the 7 ecumenical councols acknowledged the infalibility and universal jurisdiction of the pope. Although these words weren’t around they acknowledged, very clearly, these concepts with regards to the pope. I can show you numerous example of eastern bishops and councils saying as much.

This phrase is not found anywhere in the first millennium. They made it up around the time of the schism when Constantinople was trying to elevate itself.

Further neither Rome nor Alexandria ever accepted this pentarchy theory.

They most definitely did and Lyons II and Florence.

Yeah after they murdered 60000 latin in Constantinople just a few decades prior or how they opened up the tabernacles and trampled on the holy eucharist of the Latin churches under foot in the 11th century in Constantinople… They never tell you that do they.

Lol look up the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople.


The arrogance of the Roman pope?

The pope was responding to the sacrilege that was occurring in Constantinople by their clerics with regards to the Latins their when they opened up the tabernacles and trampled on the Holy Eucharist under foot. They also closed all latin churches and accused us of heresy and struck the pope’s name from the commendation in the liturgy.


You just described yourself. Unlike you I give my references in context all properly referenced. you give your opinion backed up by your opinion.

You just described yourself. Unlike you, I let my references make the conclusion.

My conclusions?

  1. Gal 5:19-21 what is the conclusion for those sins, particularly dissension/division διχοστασίαι ? Did I make up that conclusion? No.

You just described yourself. AND I’ll just say Paul is writing to the Church and they know about the sins described. Just like when Paul wrote the following. Note the same word “in Greek” in Gal 5:19-21, is used in this passage from Romans as well.

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 .

the conclusions ?

  1. such people don’t serve Our Lord but their own selfish appetites
  2. “THEY” deceive the simple-minded, ἀκάκων

Why did Paul say this?
"I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil;"

The HS inspired Paul to write what he does. Does the HS speak on His own? No. He takes from Jesus

To deliberately NOT share the truth, is an offense against charity.


Hope you are feeling better.


It does not.

It is from the section in Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) entitled “Churches and Ecclesial Communities Separated from the Roman See” in a subsection specifically dealing with the Eastern Churches.

If you read the entire document, perhaps you will understand the context better.


schism is NOT profound communion.


Yes, there was arrogance and abuse of power on both sides. The Eastern Catholics were reacting to improper forcing into the Eastern Liturgy. Fortunately we have gotten past that, at least formally.

Wounds to unity

[817](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/817.htm’):wink: In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

For there to be healing, we must stop blaming, take responsibility for the hurts that have occurred, and look to affirm one another in our faith, which lacks little for perfect unity.


This was posted already, but…

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."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 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.”

Paragraph 838, CCC

So you reject the Catechism?


Pope Francis didn’t deny the schism that exists. And as far as ecumenical councils, look how many the Orthodox don’t accept. Not to mention the current schism between the Russian Orthodox and Constantinople.


Actually, my perceptions are supported by others on the forum who observe a lack of charity in your posts. Truth is part of charity, yes, but it can be accompanied by brotherly love.

I understand that you see it that way. But all the more reason that your posts might be accompanied by some filial affection and expression of the desire for unity. If the quotes are speaking for themselves, then it would seem unnecessary for your conclusions to be offputting.

What is most curious is that you don’t seem to see that your attitude is divisive, and not unitive.

I guess you are saying, since I choose to focus on the fact that Catholic unity with EO "lacks little for perfection) that I am “simple minded”?

You are right, it is about focus and attitude. You are choosing to focus on what separates, and choosing to have a standoffish attitude toward your siblings in Christ.

I don’t disagree, of course. I am giving you feedback about the tone and attitude that accompanies your Truth. Does it subtract from Truth if you offer it with filial affection?

“If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1).

“Steve-b is patient, Steve-b is kind. Steve-b does not envy, Steve-b does not boast, Steve-b is not proud. Steve-b does not dishonor others, Steve-b is not self-seeking, Steve-b is not easily angered, Steve-b keeps no record of wrongs. Steve-b does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Steve-b always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Steve-b never fails.” (Adapted from I Cor. 13)

Will your readers find these other evidences of love in your posts, or will you confine yourself to the “texts that speak for themselves”?

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