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


In some places yes. I know that in places like the Middle East there is a lot of intercommunion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox.



So Jews in Israel are subject to Pope Francis? Even the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of universal papal jurisdiction. The Council of Carthage confirmed that the African bishops had the right to excommunicate Bishop Urban and rejected the attempts of Pope Zosimus to restore the priest Aparius of Sicca. IOW, the African bishops were not subject to a decision of the Roman Pope. If the African bishops were not subject to the Roman Pope, how can it be that the Jews in Israel are subject to the commands and decisions of Pope Francis?


I read a case where a Roman Catholic was excommunicated when he joined the EO Church.
If the EO are valid members of the Church, why would the Roman Church excommunicate a Roman Catholic who joined the EO Church? Since the EO are valid members of the Church, should it not be all right for a Roman Catholic to join the EO Church without any sanctions?


It is not for you to determine how many Jews will or will not be saved.


The African bishops were subject to him. They were just upset with him as he disregarded their local porcedures. Which was pretty rude. The council of Carthage says nothing of the pope not having aurthity over them. They just asked him to politely step back in respect of their local canons which Rome has earlier approved in previous synods. Bear in mind this could of Carthage was held in attendance and approved by the papal legates. However they were violating the council of sardica which established that the pope had enjoyed this privelage. The Africans were being disobedient.


It’s a fact most men will not be saved. That’s straight from scripture.


I’m well aware. What I was emphasizing is that we are not in communion but in schism.


Because members are subject to the canon law under which they are baptized. There may also be other issues related to the issues for joining. Specifically if it is an act of rebellion against the doctrines or disciplines of the CC.

Excommunication just means that the individual is no longer in communion with the CC, and the successor of Peter. It has nothing to do with the EO sacraments being valid.

In some cases they do, or they are given a dispensation to practice under EO canon law (especially in cases of intermarriage, or living in areas where the CC is not feasible).

There are valid sacraments, then there are licit sacraments.

Nor for anyone claiming to be “Christian”, either. It is only up to God.

Steep and narrow is the road.


What would you say if a Brit told you that whether they know it or not, all Americans are subject to her Majesty the Queen of England, since His Majesty George III did not recognize the right of the Americans to refuse subjection to him?
Even if you reject the authority of Her Majesty the Queen of England, you are still subject to Her.


But you claim that EO are valid members of the Church? How can a person be a valid member of the Church if he is excommunicated?


Catechism of the Catholic Church
1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.


yet it is the case. Agree with one another on essentials, show respect to each other on non-essentials, and with all things: charity.


The queen is not spiritual monarch but a political one with clearly defined boundires. So that would just be blatantly false.


I didn’t leave anything out. I gave the link to ALL of LG. I gave a direct quote from Luman Gentium #14 , in its sequence, saying tucked in amongst all the ecumenical language of the document, it says

  1. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

the thought continues

  1. They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ( i.e. baptism) accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops".

Why does LG bring that up unless it is an important point to clarify, should one reading the document, asks the question as you are doing about “could not be saved”?


Do Anglicans fit the profile for being "in" the Catholic Church? No


? please explain


Just a few thoughts

In the beginning the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish.


The rules changed from what Jews originally understood

All the writers of the NT were writing to the Church they belonged to and were building.


  1. Heresy / divisiveness./ schism αἱρετικὸν, Titus 3:10-11 IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences? Paul says to Bp Titus, “After admonishing such a person once or twice, have nothing more to do with them, They are perverted, and that person is self condemned.”

  2. [Division / dissension διχοστασίαι]( , ), That same Greek word is used in both the following passages
    Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21
    Why are those sins all grave (mortal) sins? Note the consequences? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW they go to hell when they die in that sin.
    Could someone say today, Gee Paul that’s not “nice” of you to say that.

  3. add to it Schism σχίσματα , = schism (division) Note Re: the Ref: of Clement of Rome, Clement’s letter to Corinth, written ~80 a.d., Note: in that link (Strong’s) shows a rent took place in Corinth which any kind of division is condemned. When it is division from the pope it is schism


Actually in the first millenium

1st among equals, AND the pentarchy had a big hand in what would ultimately become Eastern schism.

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. 4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

Yet Jesus established the papacy. Peter and his successors are the head of the entire Church, by Jesus own decree.

those who argue today against Peter being the greatest among the apostles, and the leader of the Church on earth, are merely showing who they are being sifted by… SATAN . (Lk 22: 31-32)
explained HERE you liked this answer :sunglasses:


What is the basis for your assertion “ To be “in” the Church therefore, one must be Catholic fully incorporated into the Church.”? The text provides 2 indications that this principleis inadequate. First, the text says “fully,” suggesting the possibility of being partially incorporated. Second, it talks about being in the Church bodily, but not in the heart. This suggests at least a possibility of being in the Church in one’s heart though not bodily.

I believe the One Church of Christ is the Church of the martyrs. If your principle excludes Christian martyrs from the Church, there is something wrong with your principle. If the Ugandan martyrs had never been baptized, the Church would recognize a “baptism of blood” and acknowledge them. But because they were baptized, we exclude them? Something is not right about your answer.

Similar problems are apparent in applying your principle to the Orthodox. They have true particular churches, but are not part of the One Church? Christ is present at their Eucharist, but that is outside our Church? It doesn’t make sense.


There is much confusion about what “Church”, “Sacraments” and “subject to” all mean. I will try to present explanation that sounds very plausible to me on each of these.

Church is communion of believers- while “perfect” communion is attained by Saints in Heaven- everybody who is saved, they all are Catholic and in Catholic Church as they are united with God- that means even if they were Jews/Orthodox/any other religion in life, now in Heaven they know full truth because of grace of God- and therefore are Catholic.

Every believer is subject to Pope- yes, indeed that SHOULD be the case. However, as we all are subject to God, sometimes we choose to disobey. Atheists are subject to God but they disregard that and they therefore do not follow His teachings nor laws- even if naturally and lawfully speaking, they are His subjects. Even believers who try their best sometimes disobey God while remaining willfully subject to Him. Same concept applies to being subject to Pope, as every believer should be subject to Papacy because of God’s Laws.

Sacraments are by their nature property of God. They are also what God gave to Catholic Church so they are property of Catholic Church. When Eastern Orthodox priest administers confession, baptism or sacrament of Holy Orders, he administers Catholic Sacrament- but it is not his right to do it. It is “stolen” or “borrowed” in a sense- therefore while it remains of course valid as he used property of the Church, lawfully speaking he had no right to use it because he himself is not part of the Church. They possess the valid sacrament of Eucharist- and therefore we recognize them as “church” but not as Church. They possess incomplete union with Catholic Church and therefore with God. (I do not mean to offend anyone by this, it is just analogy from Catholic viewpoint as far as I understand)

Now, because every human is subject to God, every human is also in some kind of communion with God (even if human himself denies it). Some are in perfect communion- Saints. Almost all living humans are in imperfect communion with God. Our communion with Church is based on many things. While one’s communion with Church is officially determined by the faith and submission to authority of Church (which comes from God), our communion with God is dependant on our sins and virtues- after confession we have more perfect communion with God than while in mortal sin. I will just skip over this part and say that everyone who has part of True Faith has part of Communion with Catholic Church- after all, just like with sacraments, True Faith belongs to the Church. What we generally call full Communion applies to someone who has same faith as Church, isnt in anathema and is submissive to authority of Church.


If the Orthodox have apostolic succession, therefore a valid Eucharist, how can it be that they are administered unlawfully? The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “Sister Churches.” Sister Churches are churches that have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.

I agree, an incomplete or partial communion with the Catholic Church but I would not say it is incomplete with God.


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