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


[quote=“guanophore, post:343, topic:521602, full:true”]

Count up my quotes used on this thread . I have 60 posts on this thread. Be absolutely specific. Which sources I quoted have my name on them? None. I quoted scripture, tradition, the magisterium of the Church, and qualified Catholic articles all of which are properly referenced.

Give examples


You are not listening, Steve. I don’t have any issue with your sources… It is the conclusions and the attitude.

You have been given Examples by myself and other members. We have followed the Scripture, and gone to our brother, and told him his fault. He has refused to listen.

In the meantime, here is another thread that could really use your Sources.


You are the one not listening. Where are the posts in question, properly referenced?


I thought it was the Roman Catholic authorities in 1054 which condemned the Orthodox because they (the Orthodox) had married priests and that they would not say the filioque in their creed and a few other issues and so they (the RC) broke away from the Orthodox Church ?


Yes. That is what it looks like to me also. Of course, I would not agree with Steve on this.


However, the E. Orthodox would say that to go deeper into history is to see why you should embrace their religion.


It doesn’t matter because this is not the official name of the EO Church. Their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church . So they are the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church with the orthodox teachings, according to their teaching.


No. They are the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church according to them. Their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church which is to indicate that their teachings are Orthodox.


At one time there were three Popes. Peter had split into three and it took a Council of the Church to decide on one Pope among the three. Without such a Council, no one would know who was the Pope.


Orthodox and Roman Catholics have apostolic succession, but they do not venerate exactly and 100% the same saints.


As long as Roman Catholics persist in this line of discussion as we see from Steve, I doubt that EO will be enthusiastic about embracing reunion with RC.


From a logical POV, I guess you are right on this point. It is simple logic, except that I think that the ergo should be: where there is either no harmony or no unity, there is no virtue. IMHO, the statement in the CCC is wrong. I think you can find virtue in people belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, even though they may not be in union with the Roman Catholic Church. IOW. I think you can have virtue in situations where there is not complete unity.


OK, the way this works then, using that quote “to go deep in history”,

Then show the evidence , as in going back to the 1st century on, quote from sources, where / when “Orthodox Church” 1st appears in history, in writing, properly referenced… right?


Orthodox who came back to the Catholic Church would disagree.

Allow me to quote an Eastern Catholic bishop whose Church was previously Orthodox.

In a Q/A (emphasis mine)

A: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
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.”


This is a good place to give references properly referenced.


Are you aware of the recent schism of the Russians and Constantinople, meaning the Russians are not in union with those Orthodox who are in union with Constantinople as well.


You know full well that his views don’t represent the Catholic Church. On the other hand, there are Orthodox clergy who not only condemn us as schismatics and heretics, but also proclaim even our baptism to be null and void. You will never find a Catholic polemicist who goes to the length some Orthodox do in their contempt for Catholicism. Orthodoxy has no official / consistent teaching on Catholicism… while Catholicism officially recognizes the Orthodox Churches as sister churches with valid sacraments.


Re: “sister churches” and context


THEN later

  1. (clarification )


Your right. I was speaking to those saints of the first millennium, although, maybe even then there could be some that are not venerated by both Churches. However, we do have Saint Gregory Palamas on our calendar.



You have referenced this document several times and the last paragraph is interesting, “12. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.”

So a sister Church is one who’s “ecclesial communities have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.” Let’s look at the Second Vatican Councils Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, “These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

This Decree on Ecumenism states that the Churches of the East who are not in communion with Rome possess “apostolic succession” and “the Eucharist.” According to the document you referenced, what make a Church a sister Church(?), " . . . those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist."


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