OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 04:11:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Necessity of Submission to the Pope of Rome in the RCC?  (Read 2535 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« on: December 19, 2007, 02:41:30 PM »

Split from "Catholic (ish)" an explanation

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13799.msg196539.html

-- Friul


Herein lies part of my problem.  The Orthodox have valid Sacraments. That means they have the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, correct? To me, that is the fullness of the faith.  Since they have valid sacraments, would I jepordize my salvation by becoming Orthodox? How so?  If not, then in a way, it does come down to what is more comfortable.  I feel more at home with Divine Liturgy, icons, etc. From what I've read so far, it seems I agree more with the Orthodox beliefs on things. They have the Apostolic faith too. They have great Saints too.  They have apparitions in the form of weeping icons as well.
So, I am confused.

***I hope anyone reading this will go easy on me as I am still learning, so if I have made errors, I apologize.

The whole point of being Roman Catholic is being under the Pope. Simple!

All things are negotiable except being subject to Rome which isnt negotiable.

If you were to ask a Roman Catholic who is hip on ecumenism and is familiar with east west relationships whether we have all this fullnesses of faith in our sacraments, succession of bishops, ancient Liturgies, and the like they will still insist that fullness is NOT all of these things but fullness is being under the authority of the Pope.  This simple doesnt make sense to the average Orthodox Christian. This is a foriegn concept to them. The Eastern church had no proclivity in believing in this all powerful and dominating office of Roman Pontiff, set aside the claims of Infallibility.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 03:56:02 PM by Friul » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2007, 02:42:33 PM »

A note on reconciliation. Reconciliation isn't only about formal reunion. It's also about mutual love, respect and understanding. That in itself is a worthy goal of ecumenism, worthy of God, even without a formal reunion. I hate triumphalism, and I know God is calling us to grow closer to each other, in spirit at least if communion is not possible right now.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2007, 02:46:49 PM »

The whole point of being Roman Catholic is being under the Pope. Simple!

All things are negotiable except being subject to Rome which isnt negotiable.

If you were to ask a Roman Catholic who is hip on ecumenism and is familiar with east west relationships whether we have all this fullnesses of faith in our sacraments, succession of bishops, ancient Liturgies, and the like they will still insist that fullness is NOT all of these things but fullness is being under the authority of the Pope. This simple doesnt make sense to the average Orthodox Christian. This is a foriegn concept to them. The Eastern church had no proclivity in believing in this all powerful and dominating office of Roman Pontiff, set aside the claims of Infallibility.

Wrong. Being under the Pope is not enough.



Your description of the papal office is a
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 02:49:52 PM by lubeltri » Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2007, 02:54:59 PM »

Wrong. Being under the Pope is not enough.



Your description of the papal office is a

But, But, But, But but, it is the apex of your being in Roman Catholic faith is it not?

You cant have what you all believe and not have the Bishop of Rome being the Infallible and Supreme one can you?

« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 02:55:40 PM by JoeS » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 03:02:45 PM »

But, But, But, But but, it is the apex of your being in Roman Catholic faith is it not?

You cant have what you all believe and not have the Bishop of Rome being the Infallible and Supreme one can you?

Really, eh? The apex? More important than believing in the Virgin Birth or Christ's divinity? The fullness of faith is to be taken as a whole. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is his Vicar and a sign of the unity of the Church. It isn't entirely or the "apex" of what the Catholic faith is about. The apex of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ.

And please stop throwing around the word "infallible" unless you intend to use it as we Catholics have defined it for the Petrine office. I've always found it tiresome to get beaten over the head by non-Catholics about our "infallible pope."
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 03:03:38 PM by lubeltri » Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 03:05:54 PM »

Really, eh? The apex? More important than believing in the Virgin Birth or Christ's divinity? The fullness of faith is to be taken as a whole. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is his Vicar and a sign of the unity of the Church. It isn't entirely or the "apex" of what the Catholic faith is about. The apex of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ.

And please stop throwing around the word "infallible" unless you intend to use it as we Catholics have defined it for the Petrine office. I've always found it tiresome to get beaten over the head by non-Catholics about our "infallible pope."

So not having the Pope as one's head is defined as being in the Church?

When did this come about?

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2007, 03:22:02 PM »

So not having the Pope as one's head is defined as being in the Church?
When did this come about?

Sigh, another cliche. No, we Catholics do not see the Pope as the "head" of the Church as you mean it. Christ is the head.

See St. Thomas Aquinas: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4008.htm#1

Also from St. Thomas:

Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2007, 03:24:52 PM »

Sigh, another cliche. No, we Catholics do not see the Pope as the "head" of the Church as you mean it. Christ is the head.

See St. Thomas Aquinas: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4008.htm#1

Also from St. Thomas:

Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm

I cant remember exactly which Pope (post great schism) it was, but this one Pope actually said that he was literally GOD on earth. A little infallibility drum roll please.

 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 03:26:14 PM by JoeS » Logged
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2007, 04:41:25 PM »

I cant remember exactly which Pope (post great schism) it was, but this one Pope actually said that he was literally GOD on earth. A little infallibility drum roll please.

St. Catherine of Siena referred to the pope as Sweet Christ on Earth. Could you be thinking of that?

BTW, John Paul II made reference to that "title" as recently as 1996 in the Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata (On the Consecrated Life and its Mission in the Church and the World)

Quote
[...] In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church's life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff. Against this background of love towards Holy Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for "the Lord Pope",the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth",the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola,and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: "I am a daughter of the Church".We can also understand the deep desire of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus: "In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love".

[see para. 46 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031996_vita-consecrata_en.html]
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2007, 06:14:16 PM »

Grace and Peace,

As I understood it the Pope was only the Pope in his observance of Defender of Holy Tradition...

Lubeltri what is your view of this?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2007, 06:14:16 PM »

The whole point of being Roman Catholic is being under the Pope.

Nice try Joe. Roll Eyes

You cant have what you all believe and not have the Bishop of Rome being the Infallible and Supreme one can you?

You've got a couple extra letters in there. The pope is fallible, not infallible.

I cant remember exactly which Pope (post great schism) it was, but this one Pope actually said that he was literally GOD on earth.

I don't know which pope said that either, but doesn't that just demonstrate what I've been saying? The pope is fallible, i.e. capable of making mistakes. (Some popes have made worse mistakes than others.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2007, 06:54:10 PM »

Grace and Peace,

As I understood it the Pope was only the Pope in his observance of Defender of Holy Tradition...
   

You know, that's interesting. Traditional Catholics insist that all popes up to (and possibly including) Paul VI took a so-called Papal Coronation Oath.  There is, however, no extant evidence (per se) that Paul's immediate predecessors ever took such an oath.

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

Quote
I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;

To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.

(from: "Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum", pp 54, 44, P.L. 1 a 5).

Source: http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?lang=eng
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 06:54:54 PM by Navigator » Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2007, 07:11:01 PM »

   

You know, that's interesting. Traditional Catholics insist that all popes up to (and possibly including) Paul VI took a so-called Papal Coronation Oath.  There is, however, no extant evidence (per se) that Paul's immediate predecessors ever took such an oath.

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

Source: http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?lang=eng

The first statement right out of the box has been violated over time:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;"

HELLO!
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2007, 07:15:10 PM »

The first statement right out of the box has been violated over time:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;"

HELLO!

Yep, personally, I'd have to admit that looks as if it has been violated post-vatican II.  Cry
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2007, 08:44:09 PM »

Traditional Catholics insist that all popes up to (and possibly including) Paul VI took a so-called Papal Coronation Oath.

Funny how St. Luke never mentioned St. Peter's "Papal Coronation Oath" when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

I can't speak for any Orthodox Christians, but I for one found the triumphalism/ultramontism of the following paragraph to be objectionable:

Quote
To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2007, 08:57:19 PM »

Funny how St. Luke never mentioned St. Peter's "Papal Coronation Oath" when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

He left out the "on bended knee" obediences from the Cardinals too. And reference to vestments and pallia were absent as well..

Besides, Peter was first installed as the Bishop of Antioch and the Syriac customs may have varied Smiley


I can't speak for any Orthodox Christians, but I for one found the triumphalism/ultramontism of the following paragraph to be objectionable:


That's why I wrote: "There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable." And not "Any Orthodox Christian can agree with every jot and tittle.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 08:57:48 PM by Navigator » Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 44 queries.