www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West between popes

Dear friends,

Technically speaking, the papal office is NOT necessary to the being of the Church. For example, if His Holiness John Paul II died tomorrow (Lord forbid!) there would be no pope. Yet the Church would continue.

In my research there has been days, weeks, months, and even years where the papal Chair of Peter has been vacant. This being the case, I have two questions - one for Eastern Orthodox, one for Western Catholics:

1. Eastern Orthodox Christians: If there is no pope over the Latin Church (due to death), do you consider yourself again in communion with the Western Church since there is no claiment of "papal supremacy" until a new pope is consecrated?

2. Roman Catholic Christians: How is a pope "created"? E.g. John Paul 2 was already a bishop prior to being pope. John Paul 1 didn't lay hands on John Paul 2 so there is no direct connection. So what made John Paul 2 the pope? Was it a ceremony? Was it merely transfering his episcopal oversight from Poland to Rome?

Thanks for any help.

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

By "Eastern Orthodox Christians" I take it you mean those in communion with Rome. Correct?

If so, I remember when Pope Paul VI died.

Before his successor, Pope John Paul I was selected, some of our married seminarians took advantage of the situation and got themselves ordained priests . . . They said it was always much easier to do so (in those days when it was very difficult) when a Pope died.

But yes, we are still in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome even when the Pope dies, just as the Particular Latin Church is

I think your point raises an important aspect of Eastern ecclesiology with its bent toward conciliarity.

The Church is above (and more than) the Pope, as are the Ecumenical Councils.

Everything the Pope does or says is said for the benefit of the Church and he is ultimately accountable to it and to the Tradition of the Church.

Anything that he says or does that is against that Tradition would be something that would, automatically, see him "de-poped."

Alex

Everything the Pope does or says is said for the benefit of the Church and he is ultimately accountable to it and to the Tradition of the Church.

Anything that he says or does that is against that Tradition would be something that would, automatically, see him "de-poped."

Um, the last Popes don't seem to be very attached to the Roman Catholic tradition. Or not at all.

Dear Remie,

Do you mean liturgically?

Or else how?

And be careful! People here seem testy, and it's beginning to affect me too . . .

Alex

Remi:


(It still sounds feminine! How about Remy?)

The problem with you is that you hang out with the Orthodox in communion with Rome more than with us, dyed-in-the-wool Romans.

That's simply the reason why, sometimes, you get equivocal statements.

Spend more time with us; we know the "ins and outs" of the Vatican. We are forever chained to the Chair of Peter!


AmdG

Dear Amado,

Hey, Big Guy!

We Easterners venearate the Chains of Peter highly!

It's just that we don't feel the need to go around wearing them all the time like some of you guys do . . .

Alex

No, there are anathamas between the Churches. There is nothing that can happen to automatically change our relations. If one day unity were restored, the anathamas would be lifted, and Communion restored.

Also, the absense of a person from an office does not take away the existence of the office. All the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that we disagree with would still be in place.

Unity will only be achieved through prayer, fasting, charity, and the working of God.

If you are talking about the Anathemas between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, these were lifted in the 60's between Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI. This did not automatically restore communion. It was a gesture and it did symbolize a major advance in relations between the Churches.

Yeah the story of this nickname is funny. Two years ago I was working at a store with that name and I used that nickname in Internet (so if the owner revised the computer he would not think that I used Internet for other things beside job's matters).

(It still sounds feminine! How about Remy?)

Lol, Actually Remi is a French male name, but now France isn't so popular these days.

I also know a Cuban called Nora Remy It seems that no matter how many vowels I change it won't work hehe

Dear Marshall,

The Papal office is very much necessary to the being of the Church for Christ Himself established it as continuous throughout all time. If His Holiness was to pass away the Cardinals must meet as soon as possible to elect a new pope. There must be a pope. The pope is the sign of unity of the whole Christian church. He is the successor of St. Peter. Where St. Peter is, there is the Church.
Since your first question as been answered, I will attempt to answer your second.

When a pope dies the Cardinals that are eligible to vote are brought to the Vatican. These eligible Cardinals then vote by ballot. Whoever recieves the most votes is the new pope if the person in question accepts the office. Any baptized Catholic male is eligible for the office. But usually the new pope is chosen from the Cardinals. If I may I would like to correct Orthodox Catholic. No pope can be "de-poped." A pope can not be kicked out of office. He HIMSELF has to resign.

God Bless,
Michael

Dear Marshall,
I am sorry but I did not answer your last question. What made His Holiness the pope is because the Cardinals elected him after the death of the pope reigning at that time(John Paul I). Once he was was elected and he accepted he was then the Bishop of Rome. And of course whoever is the valid Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter since that is the See that St. Peter chose to die as bishop of.

Forever loyal to the Bishop of Rome,
Michael

Dear Michael,

I think we are quibbling with words here.

First of all, the times when a Pope had to resign for heresy are few and far between .

If a Pope fell into formal, public heresy - there is no question, he would no longer be Pope and his resignation would simply be a formality.

And St Catherine of Siena, I believe, actually called on false popes of her day to resign and restore unity to the Catholic Church.

The only time a Roman Pope was condemned for heresy was at the Sixth Ecumenical Council - Pope Honorius was condemned for his involvement with the Monothelite heresy and this condemnation was approved by his saintly successors.

His condemnation was formally reiterated by his successors until the twelfth century.

Again, the removal of a Pope from office for formal heresy is quite the hypothetical case.

The Catholic Church, however, have NEVER said that a Pope espousing heresy would need to resign before he would be considered no longer the Pope.

Many years to His Holiness John Paul II!

Alex

Dear CopticOrthodox,

I believe you are referring to the anathemas of the Council of Chalcedon etc.

Yes, the anathemas are very real and would need to be withdrawn, presumeably within the context of a union council that would have the authority to do it.

Emperor St Justinian himself remarked that the "anathemas against the Oriental teachers could be withdrawn."

However, this would seem to be a formality since the issue of the Person of Christ has been resolved at least through theological agreements with Rome.

There no longer is any difference between Rome and the Oriental Churches with respect to the Person of Christ and this is formally acknowleged by both sides.

Other theological and ecclesiological issues remain, of course.

Alex

Hello:

Yes, of course, because the Church receives its being from Christ and Christ is forever.

The situation of the Catholic Church when the See of Rome becomes vacant is similar to the local situation of a Diocese when the Local Ordinary resigns or is called to the Lord.

That is correct and according to current particular law, necessary, because no proceedings to elect a new Roman Pontiff can be initiated until the See of Rome becomes actually vacant.

No, communion with the Orthodox Churches is not restored when the See of Rome is vacant, because the faith of the Catholic Church, which is presereved integrally during Sede-Vacante, is still that the Bishop of Rome has immediate, ordinary episcopal authority over all the Catholic faithful and that, when speaking Ex-Cathedra, heis prevented from error by the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox find these doctrines unacceptable.

When the See of Rome becomes vacant, the College of Cardinals (actually only those who are electors because of age) assembles in Conclave. The Conclave elects a new Bishop of Rome, and by doing so, gives the Catholic Church her next Supreme Pontiff.

Current law requires that the candidates are already among the Cardinal electors and therefore, it is almost certain that the elected candidate will already be a Bishop. In that case, his simple acceptance of the election makes him Bishop of Rome and therefore, Pope.

If for any reason, the elected is not a Bishop at the time of the election, he has to accept the election, and then be immediately ordained a Bishop, being the main consecrator the Dean of the College of Cardinals of the Sub-Dean if the Dean is unable to, or the Senior member of the College if neither the Dean or Sub-Dean are able to. After the acceptance AND the ordination, Rome has a new Bishop and the Catholic Church a new Pope.

After this, the results (but NEVER the proceedings) of the Conclave are made public, and an "enthronement" ceremony might take place, although it is merely a matter of protocol. By the time the results are made public, the Pope is already a Pope in full exercise of his authority and ministry.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Well, thanks for clearing up the meaning of the original question for me with respect to the Orthodox and the Roman Church when the pope is deceased!

And no, it has no impact on their relations, you are right!

But I know of a few married priests who used the opportunity to get ordained . . .

Alex