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


I asked for the name “Orthodox Church”, in writing.

I can show with evidence, where and when the name “Catholic Church” is seen in writing.


Yes. And in spite of the disunity there, I believe that you can still have people who have virtue in the Russian Orthodox Church and in the Greek Orthodox Church. IOW, as pointed out above, IMHO the CCC is wrong when it declares that
" Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity ,
Your example of the one way RO and GO schism is an example of where virtue may exist, even though you do not have complete unity.


About 2 years ago I asked about the Egyptians as well. Today we have Egyptians even in the Bible… we should probably think they are the same today because of the “names”…


You can ask for whatever you want, but that is not their official name. It is like someone saying: I asked for the name “Vatican Church” in writing.


Why did the Catholic authorities excommunicate His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers, citing the fact that they omit the filioque from the creed and that they allow married clergy? If the RC and the EO are truly loving sister churches, it seems that the RC Church would not object to the EO having married clergy and would not excommunicate them mentioning that issue as a reason.


Speaking of virtue,

Those in complete union with the successor to St Peter are by definition one in the Catholic Church, because that means in extension, they are in union with all those in union with the Chair of Peter as well. I’d say that’s virtuous.

unity with Peter and his successors and everyone united with them is the prayer of Jesus. That’s what He wants. “Perfect” unity. I’d say that’s virtuous


can you show me where schism is approved in scripture?

What’s the consequences for those who die in that sin?

what does that sin do to virtue in the individual?


You’re talking about events that occurred a thousand years ago. There are plenty of married clergy within the Catholic Church today.


I see no contradiction. The Latin Church is a particular church. Each Orthodox Church is a particular church. These particular churches are sister churches.


You’ve already kindly and gently provided the quotes above that reveal me and all my fellow Orthodox Christians are condemned to hell.


If this is the Catholic Church’s position, it is all the more alarming that our 1983 code of canon law permits Orthodox Christians to commune with us under certain circumstances…

The poster in question didn’t seem to think much of some aspects of St John Paul’s Catechism… so perhaps his codification of canon law is also suspect.


If a married clergy is acceptable, was it absolutely wrong for the Roman Church to mention it as one reason why His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers should be excommunicated.

It is not. Then was it right for the Roman Church to cause a schism by mentioning a married clergy as a reason for excommunicating His Holiness Michael Cerularius and all his followers?


The question I would have is that if all the Orthodox Christians are going to hell, why then does the Roman Church allow an Orthodox Christian to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Church (Remembering though that this only goes one way in the sense that the Orthodox Church does not generally allow a member to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church).


AINg: I apologize for any confusion. I’m only pressing on Steve’s mistaken and repeated assertion about my status as someone, in his judgement, that is culpable (to the point of condemnation to Hell) for the sin of schism simply for being Orthodox. Many others have tried to point out to him, as you have, that the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is much more complex than his black and white view of things.


You were right. It was my formatting error. I was referring to the fact that I could not make sense of what Steve had implied.


Again, the Catholic Church as a whole and the Orthodox Church as a whole cannot be called sister Churches. To many Latin Catholics believe that “Roman Catholic” is synonymous with the Catholic Church but the Catholic Church is made up of 24 sui juris or particular Churches. The Latin Church being one of these particular Churches. As quoted from the Note on the Expression Sister Churches, “In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.” So the Latin diocese of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox diocese of Constantinople, or for that matter, the Latin Church (as it is a particular Church) and the Greek Orthodox Church (as it is a Patriarchate) can refer to each other as sister Churches.

Here is a quote from an article by Father Ronald Roberson, CSP on the theme “Sister Churches: Fact or Fiction?” form this years Orientale Lumen Conference. I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about and I assume he attended the conference since he is the associate director for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs at the USCCB. “Thus it is appropriate for Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs to refer to each other as heading sister churches which in this case are the diocese of Rome and the diocese of Constantinople.”




While those quotes are there, and they aren’t from me, the question is, what does one do with those quotes?



And that’ reiterates the points of the quotes already given , for the clarification of “sister churches” True?


Note the conclusion to your article

“The presentations at the 22nd Orientale Lumen Conference examined this situation from various points of view. The theme was introduced at the first plenary session by Dr. Will Cohen, a professor at Scranton University, who published in 2016 an in-depth examination of the question in his book, The Concept of ‘Sister Churches’ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since Vatican II. Other speakers included Patriarch Emeritus Gregorios III of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church; Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (by video), Professor Emeritus, Oxford University; Father Robert Kaslyn, SJ, School of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America; Father John Ford, CSC, Professor Emeritus of Ecumenism at The Catholic University of America; Father Hyacinthe Destivelle, OP, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Unity in the Vatican; and Mr. Michael Haldas, a Greek Orthodox author, lecturer, and educator. Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, attended the Tuesday evening session to hear Fr Destivelle’s presentation.
None of the speakers took a position with regard to the appropriateness of the Catholic and Orthodox churches as a whole referring to each other as sister churches,

Which has been the clarifying point…true?


The “poster” in question, has posted all the appropriate Church quotes unredacted and unchanged.

Reverse the example.

Catholics are NOT to think attending an Orthodox liturgy on Sunday satisfies A Catholic’s obligation for attending mass.

Canon Law

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

The reason an Orthodox liturgy doesn’t satisfy our obligation is because it is NOT a Catholic rite, AND in communion there is to be a unity of community which in that case does not exist. It maybe valid but without it being a Catholic rite, and that unity of community is not there , it is illicit.


You misunderstood. What I said is “our 1983 code of canon law permits Orthodox Christians to commune with us under certain circumstances”… meaning, Orthodox Christians may receive communion at a Catholic Mass. Catholics may only receive communion at an Orthodox liturgy under very particular circumstances - but that wasn’t the topic of discussion.

From Canon 844:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.


Considering the large majority of your fellow Catholics have quoted both your Code of Canon Law and Catechism to state that I (and my fellow Orthodox) am NOT condemned to hell, I will kindly and gently ignore your misapplication of St. Paul’s words.

Indeed, I have read with my own eyes, in the missal at my wife’s church, that Orthodox are welcome to receive the Eucharist. If, as you contend St. Paul says, the Orthodox are under blanket condemnation, how then can we be welcome to receive the Eucharist?

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