What do the majority of Eastern Rite bishops believe regarding the papacy? If you told your priest that the Pope is first among equals, what would his reaction likely be?

from the consideration, full of sadness for us, of how great are the hindrances men find in the way of salvation in the absence of this union of the Churches of God. From the time of Christ our Savior and his holy apostles, as the canons and councils make clear, our predecessors long continued in this union; they acknowledged one supreme pastor and first bishop in the Church of God on earth, no other than the holy pope of Rome, and obeyed him in all things. While this state of affairs remained in its vigor there was ever order in the Church of God and increase of divine worship

In fact, when he visited the Ecumenical Patriarch last year the Pope indicate that the Seven Ecumenical Councils ". . . are enduring milestones and guides along our path towards full unity." Interestingly, he made no mention at all of the "general" synods of the West.

God bless,
Todd

Originally Posted By: Orthodox Catholic
So why do we need communion with Rome?

Is it something that is not absolutely necessary, from the Eastern perspective? Is the EC insistence on it in and of itself a form of Latinization that, with all the others, needs to be gotten past in some way?

Alex

Communion with Rome is not necessary as some kind of juridical or political requirement within the Church. In fact, as Fr. Garuti said in the book that I referenced earlier in this thread:


Quote:
. . . in the early centuries, 'the Church consisted of a number of communities, completely isolated and independent, without any canonical ties among them, in the sense in which we understand that today,' her unity nevertheless was not impaired, since 'the concept of one single Church was not merely an idea, but a living reality.' This model of 'Church unity in plurality, unity in diversity, is the only one which corresponds to the nature of the Church.' The totality of the local Churches thus constitutes a fraternity or communion of Churches whose internal unity consists above all in internal harmony and solidarity, and in reciprocal spiritual bonds." [Fr. Adriano Garuti, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue, page 13]

In other words, it is necessary for all of the Churches to be in communion with Rome, just as it is equally necessary for Rome to be in communion with all the other Churches throughout the world. That said, the unity of the Church is not established by legal prescriptions or by juridical norms; instead, it is made manifest by the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith.

I am not certain what can be inferred or deduced by this. Rather simply, I see it as the Pope praising what the EO in fact DO affirm. I rather suspect that if and when Orthodox leaders and theologians talk to non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) they focus on the councils they accept together, without repudiating the 7 they do accept.

But then real orthodoxy (right belief not just right worship) is in fact necessary for communion, which is what you denied earlier. Or if you did not deny that orthodoxy was necessary for communion, then why be critical of the Pope when he demands it as well?

Then what do you find objectionable with the Traditional Roman Mass?

Nevertheless, the theological opinions promoted by the later Western synods will never be acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and so their teachings must be seen as nothing more than theologoumena.

Nevertheless, the theological opinions promoted by the later Orthodox synods will never be acceptable to the Western Churches, and so their teachings must be seen as nothing more than theologoumena