www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ravenna Document

It's hard for me to believe that the Orthodox position that there is no extraordinary magisterial authority, or that the Papacy is not a divinely instituted office, or that the Pope does not have universal and immediate jurisdiction in every part of the church (which are all precursors to reconciliation) would:

A. Be accepted in the first place.
B. Even if accepted as a compromise wouldn't touch off a firestorm of dissension in the RCC.

Catch-22.

Hence the problem.

Joe

I am not sure I agree entirely. There may be room for some give on the part of all parties. We are beginning to see Rome recognize the autonomy of the Eastern Churches in their internal affairs. This is the clear direction in which things are moving. It may be that Rome will accept being for the East simple the court of last resort or appeal if one church is getting out of whack. I hope we can all admit that any church can get out of whack from time to time. This gives Rome ultimate jurisdiction in extreme cases but not in ordinary affairs.

Now TAC is presently going through a similar process of appealing to Rome for communion with autonomy. We will see where that goes.

I dont think it is justifiable to see Rome as just another bishop. The scriptures and the patristic evidence is there for a universal role for Rome as acknowledged in the Ravenna Document.

What the first see can have is the ability to arbitrate or moderate, but not formulate binding decisions on its own. The document says

"when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches - in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils."

Which I think would be inline with Orthodox thinking. The document also notes appeals were made to all the various major sees.


The document says this

"Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that "presides in love" according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium."

Primacy of honor does not deny a universal role, but anything more than primacy of honor sets oneself outside of the bounds of Orthodoxy. A bishop(s) who move beyond that are on the road to conversion, not reconciliation.

I think that is all fine, and would be acceptible to Rome, as long as it still has jurisdiction in the Latin rite.

Father, I just don't see how that could be. I realize the church and faith is itself in many ways a paradox, but it seems to me that would be too difficult of a paradox to manage. Simultaneously claiming universal authority, but then limiting its exercise to one particular church and no more. I just can't see how it could be.

For one thing it, practically speaking, has to be that way. Imagine the dioceses of California, New York and Massachusetts all electing their own bishops without possibility of Roman intervention. In 20 years we'd have enough heresies to make the Anglicans blush!! As it is the pope only names bishops in the Latin rite and only recognizes the bishops elected in the East. Once you have bishops independently elected, the rest of church governance is easy to follow. The biggest hurdle is the naming of bishops. If we can have two very different practices in the Church on bishops, we can on many other things as well.

I don't believe that's quite right. Some of the Eastern Churches in their home territory, like the Ruthenian, are still immediately subject to Rome and don't have an independent synod. Even the patriarchal churches that elect their own bishops in their own territories, do not control their flocks outside their territories. Melkites for example may eventually be majority controlled by Rome, because their flock is moving outside of their patriarchal territory, and Melkite bishops in the diaspora are appiontments of Rome. I do believe there are complaints by some eastern patriarchs even about undue influence in their own elections in their own churches. It's a sad situation in my opinion.

That's really a side issue though. Laying aside Orthodox objections to the following idea - if the Roman see has an established dogmatic claim to have universal jurisdiction, but limits the application of this authority, it has actually reqlinquished that authority. It has re-shaped its own dogma. Having total power, but restricting yourself to never, ever using that power, means you actually don't have total power. This is the paradox of which I am speaking.

Well, as usual, you resort to absolute, black and white thinking. The exercise of primacy is still something that is negotiable. No one is saying that Rome would never ever use its authority, but rather under certain specific conditions perhaps with certain protections in place.

You really must free yourself from this black/white thinking.

Why not a Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church in North America, self policing it's own members? It has always worked for us. But I must admit being somewhat taken aback at your observation that if left unchecked, bishops of your Church would devolve into heresy? If the bishops are not catholic(small c) who is?

Alexandr

My point is only partially about the US episcopate. National synods can go wrong because whole nations and whole cultures can go wrong. Early Christian heresies covered whole spans of the Church, including Patriarchates. Nazi Germany is an example of an entire nation (virtually) going mad. Would it have been safe for the German episcopate to speak out? Would they have been tempted to silence or complicity? The Dutch bishops spoke out and had the worst repression in the War. The French were complicit along with the rest of the population. The German episcopate was silent.

Do we really need to go into collaborationism under the Soviets?

So, no I dont think it has always worked anywhere, East or West.

But, again, back to the US. The Episcopal Church has fallen into error 107 dioceses out of 110. You could argue that the Holy Spirit has left them since the Reformation and that this could not happen to the Catholics or the Orthodox, but dont be too sure. Remember the early heresies that virtually swallowed up the entire Eastern church?

This is where a universal authority in times of emergency is critical.

There is some evidence that the Moscow Patriarchate is becoming once again the possession of the State. All kinds of atrocities may ensue with their complicity or even collaboration. And who would or could step in?

But Father, how did having a pope prevent what occurred? If I remember correctly the Vatican cooperated with Mussolini. We must remember that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Even if entire national Churches fall into heresy, there shall always be at least one Orthodox bishop. St Mark of Ephesus, once again, comes immediately to mind. When Russia fell under the Bolshevik yoke, the Russian Church Abroad maintained the Church militant when those in the motherland were unable to do so.

As far as the current situation in Russia, I view it as the state coming under the influence of the Church, praise be to God, as Russia continues on her journey back to once more becoming Holy Russia, and the eventual return of the God anointed emperor.

Alexandr

Primacy doesn't exist as such anymore there, I think that is really one of the main sources of confusion. What does exist is Papal Supremacy, and it has dogmatic defition. My thinking may be black and white in this regard, but dogma is a black and white topic. Again what's really at stake are the ideas that the Papacy is intrinsically different than all other bishops and something that is a necessary component of the church, or that the Pope can singularly exercise sole authority in even specific situations. Those ideas have the backing of dogma, and in Orthodoxy, they are not acceptable theories. We're not talking of a matter of practical governance, in which there could be a latitude of interpretation.


I have to say again, I think this is another area where the approaches are different. The laity are just as much guardians of the faith as the clergy, if all that's holding things together is the force of a single bishop, that is quite a precipace to be standing at.


Exactly.

I think you overstate the case here, AMM. While Papal jurisdiction is a matter of dogma, how it is exercised it not. That is negotiable. There is clearly a justification for a universal role of the Petrine Ministry both in scripture and in the patristic record. There really isnt a justification for saying Rome is just like any other bishop. So the specifics of how papal authority is exercised is a matter of flexibility. It is well recognized within the Latin Church that the papal office has been exercised in different ways through history. This is a constant matter of discussion in the West, which is less monolithic than conversations on this board suppose.



Interesting. It was never the laity that saved the church from the ancient heresies. It was one party of bishops against another party of Bishops. And, history shows that the bishop of Rome was always on the side of orthodoxy, even when at times it was a minority opinion, say in the case of the iconoclasts. This is a matter of the patristic record.

In the case of Mussolini, there is no evidence that the Pope was involved with his statecraft. Rather, the pope signed a concordat with him to end the dispute over the papal states and guarantee the disentanglement of the papacy from state affairs. This took place in the late 20's, well before Mussolini's adventures with German Nazism, which the pope was broadly known at the time to oppose. Papal opposition to Naziism is actually one of the best examples of the value of supranationality in the papacy. I daresay that Eastern Patriarchs have a terrible record of identification with brutal governments in the modern period and that with Russia, this trend appears to be repeating itself.