Does the Pope have to be Roman Catholic
#21
Guingamp, no, according to the primary sources, the Western Church allowed for divorce in situations other than adultery (like the desire of one spouse to enter a monastery, for example). Remarriage is not the same thing as divorce, as you say, but the Western Church also allowed remarriage, again according to the primary sources.

The Orthodox teaching predates concepts like "modernist" and "liberal." The "clear teaching of the Lord" is provided by the Church. While we might come up with an interpretation of what Christ meant through his statements in the Gospel, it is for the Church to tell us the correct interpretation. The Church (and I mean here the united Church of the first millennium) has told us that divorce and remarriage are permissible in certain situations under the close auspices of the Church's authority and guidance.
Reply
#22
I am not very educated, and I will confess, I haven't had the time to delve with any great amount of depth into the historical situation between us, I know there is a lot more to the argument than I have time to get into here, but I will do my best to answer this with Christian charity.  I advise saying three Hail Marys (or 100 Jesus Prayers) before any argument, it helps to keep it from becoming vitriolic and hostile, which is no way to have a discussion. "Iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." 

Quote:And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan.  And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there.  And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:  For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.  They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

Hmm... He seems to be making himself pretty clear to me...

As to divorce in cases of entering a monastery, this happens, but I really wouldn't call it divorce. In fact it isn't. Case in point, Ven. Mary of Agreda's mother and father both entered into the religious life.  They took a mutual and consensual vow of celibacy.  The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph did this, she is ever virgin after all and they still were truly married.  But this in no way dissolves the Sacrament, such a thing is not possible for men, save until they die.  They are in the religious life, and married.  They are are monks and nuns who have a husband or wife, with whom they no longer enjoy marital privileges.

In cases of adultery, yes, a separation is possible, but not a divorce in the modern understanding of the word.  They are not free to take another spouse, because they cannot.  She is still your wife, he is still your husband.  You may not ever want to be near him again, but that does not diminish the oneness of the bond. 

St. Paul makes a great comparison of the Church and Christ in Ephesians Chapter 5 (i.e. God is making a great comparison). 

Quote:Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.  Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:  Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.  Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.  So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:  Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.  This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

Now, the Sacrament of Matrimony is a figure and type of Christ and His Church, Christ and His Mystical Body.  Just as a man and woman are joined in Matrimony and become one flesh, that is Christ to His Church.  And ask yourself, is Christ going to abandon His Bride?  Is He going to run off and wed another? No. He is faithful, now matter what His Church may do (even though she is pure in every single regard, her members may be full of impurity, heresy and schism, and like any diseased member of a body it dies, and it falls off.)

And this is the same with Matrimony.  If I get married, and I have a valid, sacramental marriage, I am made one with my spouse, and she and I are not two, we are one.  And no matter the infidelity, no matter the impurity, no matter the hell that that marriage might be, that does not destroy the oneness God has made.  I am hers and she is mine.  "What God hath joined together, let no man (even a pope, even a national council of bishops, even the spouses themselves) put asunder."

I almost went East, but this is were I realized that the Orthodox isn't His.  I don't care how bad the situation in the Catholic Church gets and I do not care how many people around me have nothing but contempt for God and His holy law, I'm not leaving the boat, I'm not a very good swimmer!
Reply
#23
Right. I understand that is your interpretation of the Scriptures, and it is no doubt the way the Catholic Church interpreted it at the time of the Council of Trent. But the evidence suggests that is not the way the Church has always interpreted it since the Church allowed for divorce and remarriage in the first millennium. Apparently the Western Church continued to not see a problem with the practice until at least the Council of Florence where this practice did not undo a potential reunion.

The point being that it is disingenuous and ahistorical to fault the Orthodox for adhering to a practice that the entire Church held in the first millennium and that was not problematic until at least the 15th Century. And that doesn't even begin to address the utter hypocrisy involved in faulting divorce and remarriage amongst the Orthodox while handing out annulments based on legalistic nonsense, a point that I will not argue further.
Reply
#24
(05-12-2017, 10:14 AM)ermy_law Wrote: Right. I understand that is your interpretation of the Scriptures, and it is no doubt the way the Catholic Church interpreted it at the time of the Council of Trent. But the evidence suggests that is not the way the Church has always interpreted it since the Church allowed for divorce and remarriage in the first millennium....And that doesn't even begin to address the utter hypocrisy involved in faulting divorce and remarriage amongst the Orthodox while handing out annulments based on legalistic nonsense, a point that I will not argue further.

Yep.
Reply
#25
(05-12-2017, 07:54 AM)ermy_law Wrote: Guingamp, no, according to the primary sources, the Western Church allowed for divorce in situations other than adultery (like the desire of one spouse to enter a monastery, for example). Remarriage is not the same thing as divorce, as you say, but the Western Church also allowed remarriage, again according to the primary sources.

The Orthodox teaching predates concepts like "modernist" and "liberal." The "clear teaching of the Lord" is provided by the Church. While we might come up with an interpretation of what Christ meant through his statements in the Gospel, it is for the Church to tell us the correct interpretation. The Church (and I mean here the united Church of the first millennium) has told us that divorce and remarriage are permissible in certain situations under the close auspices of the Church's authority and guidance.
To be honest, right now I cannot prove you to be wrong. Prima facie the orthodox position concerning divorce, remarriage and contraception seems to be a great error but I have not investigated the whole thing with the necessary accuracy yet. However, I will do so in the near future. God willing, I will finish my thesis soon and directly afterwards I will study the whole Orthodoxy-Catholicism controversy as thorughly as possible...
Reply
#26
(05-11-2017, 04:40 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To be honest I'm happy to discuss it, but not if you're going to engage in personal insults.

I'll cut it down a little, I was in a foul mood (as usual) so I apologize. I understand you have your viewpoint, and you like to talk about it a lot. Whether or not it's getting monotonous to listen to for me, should be irrelevant.

Quote:As for the calendar issue, it is not trivial,at least it shouldn't be.  The calendar is part of the tradition ands tampering with it is not good.

Just curious, do you pray according to this calendar? If all else is equal... and ritually it would be. I mean the Revised Julian Calendar is just original Julian Calendar moved back the appropriate 14 days. Then if that is the case, I don't see why anyone, unless they were attached to a church that used the Julian Calendar, would pray according to it. And those churches in the Eastern Orthodox seem to be in the minority, though a concession was made to them on the date of Pascha to avoid complete schism.

Whenever I ask those Eastern Orthodox for why this calendar issue is important, I get all sorts of answers. Most of them which are wrong in various ways. The typical answer is that it's done out of faithfulness to the Church Fathers... except if that was the case, then you should really be praying according to the Revised Julian Calendar. The formula given for when Easter is to be celebrated is: The first sunday, after the first full moon, after the spring equinox. The drift of the Julian Calendar due to its inadequate correction in the form of a leap day every four years... means that the date of the equinox drifts one day ever a hundred years or so.

Eventually, Pascha will be celebrated in February. Or celebrated before the Jewish Passover.

Others bring up a stream of various technical arguments that are wrong, like the Julian Calendar being used by NASA and so is more accurate, when what is actually being used is something called Julian Days which is different.

Some argue that they'd lose the Kyrio Pascha event, when that was actually what they forced those that updated to the Revised Julian Calendar to give up, when they themselves refused to change their calendar.

I can understand them not being happy about it, but I can't see why its so important that you'll start to accuse your brothers and sisters of being schismatic. And apparently no longer part of the Church, since those Eastern Orthodox churches who seem to be rigid on this issue, tend to see their Church as now defining the strict canonical boundaries of The Church. I also have some sympathy for Eastern churches simple hating the west, and being suspicious on anything coming from it, and the scandal they'd see it be if the Eastern Orthodox adopted a calendar created by Roman Catholics. Though you have to agree, that suspicion is not a matter of piety.

It's mind boggling to me. It's a fricking calendar! The original one was a pagan construct, and the date of Pascha was just set according to it. If the Gregorian calendar had existed at that time, it would have been used. No one would lose anything at all by updating to the Revised Julian Calendar. No rituals would change. No prayer books would be thrown out. Nothing of worth would be lost.

That's where I see rigid traditionalism as being poisonous. Because of those churches that refused, there's now, even more, bickoring between the Eastern Orthodox churches that there were before. And it doesn't seem to be motivated by anything either coherent, pious or good.

Again it's not the Akathist Hymn replaced by something "updated". It's just a calendar.

Quote:If Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi means anything it is that inner and outer are related.  You can't destroy the externals and have the same faith, it's like translating Shakespeare into modern English and calling it the same thing, or expecting it to have the same depth and meaning.

While that is true, I do disagree with you on the central thesis you propose a lot. Namely that modern day Catholic spirituality as it is practiced by pious Catholics doesn't teach the true Faith. Note, I say pious, meaning Catholics at least attempting to practice their faith. We can probably both agree that there are always people present on Sunday for mass, who aren't really present. They're there because its cultural, as a Polish explained to me once. "You just showed up and confessed your sins once per month to avoid the old grandmother's scolding you. You made up some new sins each month to satisfy the priest."

At least I disagree that modern day Catholic lay people are completely incompatible with the faith of the Catholic Church a hundred years ago. I agree with you that there's more juice for lack of a better word in the traditional pieties. I also like latin as a language of prayer, because of its softness, timelessness and its foreignness to our ordinary use. But there's no doubt that people were happy to hear the liturgy in their own ears.

I have a strong preference for the rite which is no longer really supported by the hierarchy except for some soft-hearted concessions, with no doubt many bishops yearning for a chance to roll back even those tiny concessions granted to us by Benedict XVIth.

Most Catholics I know, especially those who show up on weekdays, are completely upstanding and orthodox Catholics. And that is despite the Novus Ordo rite mass I go to is known for its eccentrically liberal priests, and it's bordering on heterodox masses. A good young priest friend of mine, once told me that his Jesuit teacher at the Seminary in Rome where he had studied had told him "If you wish to find the Sensus Divinitatis, then come to Church on an early Monday morning, and find those souls waiting outside the confessional, and ask about what they think. There you'll find it."

Either its simple the Holy Spirit mercifully at work, supernaturally giving these people what they aren't provided, or at least the important things are still transmitted, even if the eucharistic prayers are a bit thin, and the offertory leaves much to be desired.

Quote:Honestly I don't see why you seem to take this personally.  All we are doing is discussing.  :)

Mostly foul moods. I have a habit of getting worked up and having to apologize for it afterward. I'm both astounded and frustrated by Eastern Orthodoxy. Their spirituality is very clean and minimalistic (they have so few dogmas), and it is tied more to their prayers and liturgies, than to catechisms. Yet at the same time, they seem incredible hostile to each other, far more so than Catholic groups are. I wouldn't exactly call the relationship between the FSSP and the SSPX without some tension, but neither is calling the other heretics and that their sacraments are invalid, because of such and so.

I do envy (the good kind - appreciating), the Eastern Orthodox their symbols, their iconography, and yes even the bearded priests and their divine liturgy. I don't envy the rest of it.

I'll close off with an apology for the tone I had used against you specifically.
Reply
#27
emy_law Wrote:Contraception is a tougher debate, and one that I'm not enough informed about to comment on. Personally, I can see legitimate pastoral need for it, so long as it isn't abortifacient.

A rejection of contraception by coitus interruptus is every bit as much part of our tradition. At least coitus interruptus is considered overindulging the flesh, and if it was I don't see why condoms wouldn't be. They're effectively the same, both acts were done to make sure the semen is deposited outside of the woman. You'd have to admit that the Church was wrong on coitus interruptus in that case, and go against that tradition.

I'm not one to say that bishops can't do that, and I do wonder, personally, what answer the Catholic Church would have to a population explosion. However outside of hypotheticals, and standing on the outside looking in on the Eastern Orthodox. It does look like they severely compromised their moral doctrine and their tradition.

I mean it's the line of arguments made by many cardinals in our Church. We start to treat the law as an ideal. There is no concept of mortal sin in the Eastern Orthodox church, but I know many of its saints who were mortified by the notion of monks, say, masturbating, prescribing outrageous penances for such a thing and so on before holy communion could be admitted again. And couples engaging in sex when they shouldn't abound and isn't uniquely a Roman Catholic phenomenon, nor is it anything new if you read the saints. How much easier if a hypersexual could pastorally be given an easier conscience. Once however a priest is given the power to dispense with some moral obligation, I don't see where it would end.

Quote:Orthodoxy, which is at least honest when compared with the reality that the vast majority of Catholics contracept without getting priestly advice.

I don't get why people can't just admit that they're sinful. A man lusts after his wife and vice versa. People lie and are vain. We waste our time slothfully. And every coin we keep for ourselves is stolen out of the hand of someone poor (as some saint put it once). Mortal or venial is a separate discussion, but mostly of interest to Roman Catholics. You try to live piously, you fail, you go to the confessional, rinse repeat.

But people do this. And the saints have always complained about lax and luke warm people.

What I can't get behind is the idea that moral laws suddenly are turned optional by the priest, and he can just flip a switch as to which we're obligated to follow. I I get that he can do that Church disciplines, but not with moral laws.
Reply
#28
A pedantic correction, perhaps, but the majority of Orthodox in the world adhere to the Julian calendar.

I don't know enough about the moral tradition to say anything meaningful about contraception. I understand that the permissions for it are supposed to be sparing. Whether that is the reality, I don't know. I can think of reasons that would justify its use. I don't see a huge difference between it and NFP, if the motivations are the same and the reasons justifiable.
Reply
#29
(05-13-2017, 04:08 AM)Leonhard Wrote:
(05-11-2017, 04:40 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To be honest I'm happy to discuss it, but not if you're going to engage in personal insults.

I'll cut it down a little, I was in a foul mood (as usual) so I apologize. I understand you have your viewpoint, and you like to talk about it a lot. Whether or not it's getting monotonous to listen to for me, should be irrelevant.

Quote:As for the calendar issue, it is not trivial,at least it shouldn't be.  The calendar is part of the tradition ands tampering with it is not good.

Just curious, do you pray according to this calendar? If all else is equal... and ritually it would be. I mean the Revised Julian Calendar is just original Julian Calendar moved back the appropriate 14 days. Then if that is the case, I don't see why anyone, unless they were attached to a church that used the Julian Calendar, would pray according to it. And those churches in the Eastern Orthodox seem to be in the minority, though a concession was made to them on the date of Pascha to avoid complete schism.

Whenever I ask those Eastern Orthodox for why this calendar issue is important, I get all sorts of answers. Most of them which are wrong in various ways. The typical answer is that it's done out of faithfulness to the Church Fathers... except if that was the case, then you should really be praying according to the Revised Julian Calendar. The formula given for when Easter is to be celebrated is: The first sunday, after the first full moon, after the spring equinox. The drift of the Julian Calendar due to its inadequate correction in the form of a leap day every four years... means that the date of the equinox drifts one day ever a hundred years or so.

Eventually, Pascha will be celebrated in February. Or celebrated before the Jewish Passover.

Others bring up a stream of various technical arguments that are wrong, like the Julian Calendar being used by NASA and so is more accurate, when what is actually being used is something called Julian Days which is different.

Some argue that they'd lose the Kyrio Pascha event, when that was actually what they forced those that updated to the Revised Julian Calendar to give up, when they themselves refused to change their calendar.

I can understand them not being happy about it, but I can't see why its so important that you'll start to accuse your brothers and sisters of being schismatic. And apparently no longer part of the Church, since those Eastern Orthodox churches who seem to be rigid on this issue, tend to see their Church as now defining the strict canonical boundaries of The Church. I also have some sympathy for Eastern churches simple hating the west, and being suspicious on anything coming from it, and the scandal they'd see it be if the Eastern Orthodox adopted a calendar created by Roman Catholics. Though you have to agree, that suspicion is not a matter of piety.

It's mind boggling to me. It's a fricking calendar! The original one was a pagan construct, and the date of Pascha was just set according to it. If the Gregorian calendar had existed at that time, it would have been used. No one would lose anything at all by updating to the Revised Julian Calendar. No rituals would change. No prayer books would be thrown out. Nothing of worth would be lost.

That's where I see rigid traditionalism as being poisonous. Because of those churches that refused, there's now, even more, bickoring between the Eastern Orthodox churches that there were before. And it doesn't seem to be motivated by anything either coherent, pious or good.

Again it's not the Akathist Hymn replaced by something "updated". It's just a calendar.

Quote:If Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi means anything it is that inner and outer are related.  You can't destroy the externals and have the same faith, it's like translating Shakespeare into modern English and calling it the same thing, or expecting it to have the same depth and meaning.

While that is true, I do disagree with you on the central thesis you propose a lot. Namely that modern day Catholic spirituality as it is practiced by pious Catholics doesn't teach the true Faith. Note, I say pious, meaning Catholics at least attempting to practice their faith. We can probably both agree that there are always people present on Sunday for mass, who aren't really present. They're there because its cultural, as a Polish explained to me once. "You just showed up and confessed your sins once per month to avoid the old grandmother's scolding you. You made up some new sins each month to satisfy the priest."

At least I disagree that modern day Catholic lay people are completely incompatible with the faith of the Catholic Church a hundred years ago. I agree with you that there's more juice for lack of a better word in the traditional pieties. I also like latin as a language of prayer, because of its softness, timelessness and its foreignness to our ordinary use. But there's no doubt that people were happy to hear the liturgy in their own ears.

I have a strong preference for the rite which is no longer really supported by the hierarchy except for some soft-hearted concessions, with no doubt many bishops yearning for a chance to roll back even those tiny concessions granted to us by Benedict XVIth.

Most Catholics I know, especially those who show up on weekdays, are completely upstanding and orthodox Catholics. And that is despite the Novus Ordo rite mass I go to is known for its eccentrically liberal priests, and it's bordering on heterodox masses. A good young priest friend of mine, once told me that his Jesuit teacher at the Seminary in Rome where he had studied had told him "If you wish to find the Sensus Divinitatis, then come to Church on an early Monday morning, and find those souls waiting outside the confessional, and ask about what they think. There you'll find it."

Either its simple the Holy Spirit mercifully at work, supernaturally giving these people what they aren't provided, or at least the important things are still transmitted, even if the eucharistic prayers are a bit thin, and the offertory leaves much to be desired.

Quote:Honestly I don't see why you seem to take this personally.  All we are doing is discussing.  :)

Mostly foul moods. I have a habit of getting worked up and having to apologize for it afterward. I'm both astounded and frustrated by Eastern Orthodoxy. Their spirituality is very clean and minimalistic (they have so few dogmas), and it is tied more to their prayers and liturgies, than to catechisms. Yet at the same time, they seem incredible hostile to each other, far more so than Catholic groups are. I wouldn't exactly call the relationship between the FSSP and the SSPX without some tension, but neither is calling the other heretics and that their sacraments are invalid, because of such and so.

I do envy (the good kind - appreciating), the Eastern Orthodox their symbols, their iconography, and yes even the bearded priests and their divine liturgy. I don't envy the rest of it.

I'll close off with an apology for the tone I had used against you specifically.


Thank you Leonhard.

As far as the calendar goes the answer is yes,I pray according to the Julian calendar used by ROCOR and other old Julian calendar as opposed to Revised Julian calendar churches. I do this because the Julian calendar was the calendar used even by the RCC up to even the Council of Trent. It's being out of step with the ways of the early is also somewhat symbolic of how things are off kilter after the fall. Besides,most religions have had their own calendars for sacred and secular. That being said, there's a difference between being on the old calendar for pious or traditional reasons and bring a fanatical old calendarist who thinks those that don't use it are heretics or whatever.  Many of us are not like that.

The Orthodox world up till 1923 was largely united on the Julian calendar, and some of us find it tragic that a handful of hierarchy decided to change things.  Now the Orthodox world is divided.


I still disagree about ritual though,  as I wonder seriously whether those orthodox Catholics who attend the new rite in new modern churches using updated prayers are orthodox in spite of the new stuff.  I'm not saying this to be provocative, as  I do not wish to judge their faith. I just don't see how changing the externals and in many cases the prayers themselves do not change the faith.

Many orthodox Catholics read old catechisms and pray stuff like the rosary which was never updated. I could be wrong but Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi ought to stand for something,and when I look around I do not see the same Catholicism being offered at many new rite parishes than one finds at old ones.


As for the Orthodox, they have largely preserved the content and the rituals that pass on the content of the Faith of the first seven councils. There is a lot of infighting within Orthodox circles for sure,and I detest it the same as you.

I am not one of those Orthodox characters who hate Roman Catholicism or think nothing good has ever come out of Rome. Heck I even like much about the Sacred Heart devotion, something that would make me probably a pariah in almost any Orthodox parish. I am frustrated because there is so much beauty within the Latin Tradition, but I simply do not see it being passed on in official circles instead it is passed on by laity and groups at odds with the official Church and in spite of the hierarchy. This frustrates me because honestly I never wanted to fall into a crisis where I had to completely question the Church I was baptized intro, and yet I felt I had to.


I guess you and I both get exasperated about certain things.  At any rate is good to have you back Leonhard. I'm glad you're still praying and keeping your Catholic faith alive.  Don't let me frustrate you too  much, it's seriously not personal.  :)
Reply
#30
(05-13-2017, 04:08 AM)Leonhard Wrote: I can understand them not being happy about it, but I can't see why its so important that you'll start to accuse your brothers and sisters of being schismatic. And apparently no longer part of the Church, since those Eastern Orthodox churches who seem to be rigid on this issue, tend to see their Church as now defining the strict canonical boundaries of The Church. I also have some sympathy for Eastern churches simple hating the west, and being suspicious on anything coming from it, and the scandal they'd see it be if the Eastern Orthodox adopted a calendar created by Roman Catholics. Though you have to agree, that suspicion is not a matter of piety.

It's schismatic in the sense that the Ecumenical Patriarch of the time claimed his council was Pan-Orthodox and made the change without the participation of all the Orthodox Churches. The historical pretensions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople aside, the EP is not an Eastern Pope and does not have the authority to demand obedience from other Orthodox Churches. It does not help that Patriarch Meletius IV was a known Freemason, which is just as reviled among the traditional Orthodox as among traditional Catholics. Trad Catholics oppose much of Vatican II's reforms due to the influence of Masonic ideas; does it not make sense they would be suspicious? In the case of the Slavs, the calendar change also would align the Church calendar with the civic calendar introduced by the Bolsheviks - what could be more repulsive? It's easy for us to accept the Gregorian; it's been around for four-and-a-half centuries in the Catholic Church, and even in most Protestant countries has been in use since before the founding of the United States, but it caused consternation even among some Catholics when it was introduced. It's "just" a calendar, but a calendar is not "just" a number - there are questions of identity and faithfulness to tradition involved. Trads are certainly vociferous about their own calendar.

And by the way, there are many Eastern Catholics who celebrate fully according to the old Julian calendar, Pascha included.

Anyway, back to the OP, an Eastern Catholic becoming Pope does not make much sense from the standpoint of Eastern ecclesiology. That's not the same thing as impossible, mind you. Whereas the Western Church thinks primarily in terms of a top-down hierarchy, especially in recent centuries with the Pope appointing the world's bishops, the Eastern Churches are synodical in structure, the patriarch being primus within his Church. Theoretically and certainly theologically, the patriarch is no "more" than any other bishop; any authority he has over the others is ecclesiastical, not divine. The universal Church is the communion of these local [right-believing, i.e., "orthodox"] Churches, each one of which is the Church in its fullness. The Eastern Catholics go a step further than the Orthodox and say that to be authentically part of the universal Church, the local Church must be in communion with the local Church of Rome, the bishop of which see is primus of the universal Church.

There are several issues, though, and I'm not totally sure how Eastern Catholics actually handle these - some seem indistinguishable from Roman Catholics, and others lean Orthodox. First, the Roman Catholic teaching is not that the Roman Pontiff is merely primus of the universal Church, but that he has supreme, immediate, universal, and ordinary jurisdiction everywhere and over everyone, and this is de fide. Also, the idea that the universal Church is the communion of essentially equal local Churches makes sense in theory, and obtains in the Orthodox world, but does not bear out in reality in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches are clearly subordinate to the Roman Church: their canon law is in Latin, approved by the Pope (and whatever one wants to argue about the first-millennium Church, this is an innovation of the period since the Unia); they are subordinate to a Roman Congregation; and many of their patriarchs are cardinals, which is a bit odd since they do not belong to the Latin Church sui juris.

I think that an Eastern Catholic becoming Pope would overall be objectionable to the Orthodox, to the extent they would even care. Most "not on the internet" Orthodox probably think Byzantine Catholics are just Roman Catholics with a different Mass, not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as some BCs would have it. I don't think most lose a lot of sleep about those crafty Uniates stealing their sheep; that seems to be an attitude particular to certain types in majority Orthodox countries with a history of political intrigue by Catholic powers.

To me, it does not make much sense for the Pope not to be Roman Catholic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)