No, the Patriarch of Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches.
I believe it would stand to reason, in that case, that the Eastern Churches were in communion with him. Yes?
Pastor Aeternus has his Eastern Patriarchs request communion with him:
Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis Canon 76
1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches.
2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.
Of course, as usually, the Vatican has added its own twist to an ancient institution to interject "Roman" into "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic": in this case, the Koinonika and Eirenika, the letters of communion every primate sent to his peers to demonstrate his profession of the Orthodox Faith and introduction to their communion. Even the archbishops of Rome-unlike the Vatican-sent these letters "request[ing] ecclesiastical communion from" "the patriarchs of the other Eastern
Churches"-the Pope of Rome was dropped in 1009 when Pope Sergius sent his letters and perhaps (it is not certain) contained the filioque in it. Hence he was not in communion with them
after that date, a fact that Pope Leo IX sent Card. Humberto to New Rome with the demand to reinsert his name and commune with him.
It is like the Vatican ruling that an Ecumenical Council cannot be held without him, and if the "supreme pontiff" dies during a Council (as happened with its Vatican II), the Council must stop and be reconvened by his successor. The Ecumenical Councils knew of no such rule: the Sixth Ecumenical Council continued on although Pope St. Agatho died two months after it opened and his successor was not consecrated until almost a year after the near year long Council closed.
Or am I missing some unknown subtlety of the English language whereby one of these ideas does not suppose the other?
Not just in English, but more importantly, I am not missing any subtlety that can be misconstrued into a proof for non-facts.
What you describe presupposes the Churches of the East resembled the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem-btw, what sense does that make? The Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? The Latin ordinary of Kiev?
None, if you ask me. What has that got to do with the price of eggs, however? Have I advocated a defense of Latin counter-patriarchates? I don't believe so.
A Church of England outside of England makes no apparent sense, except insofar as it followed the expanding British Empire. Even then, it's illogical. A Church of England of the East, however, makes no sense whatsoever. It's like having, say, a "Church of England of Scandinavia".
Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, however, make perfect sense. That was once universally the case, of course. I ask one to recall a time before, say, the year 1054.
You don't see any sense in the spread of Anglican/Episcopalian churches across the globe, but somehow Latin ordinaries sent by the Vatican across the globe make sense.
All those "Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome" that you speak of are, with the sole exception of the Maronites (who alone constituted the Monothelite church), are ALL "counter-patriarchates," spawned from Latin inspired schisms in their Mother Churches (which, except for Alexandria, wasn't Rome). In Jerusalem, it's not even a counter-patriarchate. Just Latin.
he Church of Rome outside of Rome makes as much apparent sense as the Church of England in the British Empire/Commonwealth. And pretty much resembles the mode of expansion-how did it expand into Latin America to produce your present supreme pontiff?
The Catholic Church is not a national Church confined to a certain country or culture. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.
Yes, that was the excuse given for dropping the title "Patriarch of the West," but no matter how big the parish, it still leaves you parochial: insisting on one language (up until recently) anywhere in the world. Latin is a language of a nation, confined to a certain culture. And it is only one sign of the Vatican's confines in a particular-sui juris?-culture.
The Church of England makes no claim to be the Catholic Church; it claims, on the other hand, to be that part of the Catholic Church that subsists within England (thus its name).
Hence the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States that "subsists" in the USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church "subsists" in Scotland, the Church of Ireland "subsists" in Ireland, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East "subsists" in the Middle East, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church subsists in South India, etc.
My Church is not known as the Church of Rome.
LOL. That is exactly what many know it as.
The Church of Rome is simply the Diocese of Rome.
So Pope Francis could have gone back to Buenos Aires, and ruled as supreme pontiff from there, no?
My Church is known as the Catholic Church.
You call it that (as do many). You don't speak for all of us. Btw, in many languages like Arabic, Slavonic, Romanian etc. the word that means "Catholic"=Vatican differs from the word used in "One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church.
It is that Church, not the Church of Rome, to which I refer.
Pastor Aeternus refers to the Church of Rome and "the Roman pontiff."