www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church

Thanks for that link! That's an intensely interesting article.

I'd be very interested to hear what people here think about it. Particularly interesting, I think, is Metropolitan John's repeated insistence that while indeed there must be a primacy, that primacy must not be exercised in isolation. I think this brings the two sides (Catholic and Orthodox) much closer, but I would still be interested to hear what the status of papal "ex cathedra" definitions will be for the Orthodox if and when they approach union. "Ex cathedra" definitions seem to be, at least to some extent, exemplars of the primacy acting in isolation, and thus exemplars of what Metropolitan John would not accept... Though perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

By the way, here is Apostolic Canon #34 which Metropolitan John suggests should serve as the "golden rule" for primacy, for everyone's edification: Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Essentially, the question will redound to the existence, definition, and interpretation of the "Petrine Ministry" in the Church established by Our Lord.

Based on Holy Scripture and Tradition, is there such a thing as the "Petrine Ministry?"

If there is, does it belong exclusively to the Church of Rome and, therefore, to her Bishop and his successors?

Then, what should be the attributes of the "Petrine Ministry" for its efficacious exercise?

To Catholics (at least to us Latins ), we believe that the "Petrine Ministry" was instituted by Jesus Christ himself (the "key")and, therefore, it cannot be done away with.

But how could it be exercised as to be acceptable to all, especially to our Orthodox brothers?

As currently exercised by the Pope and by his predescessors, the attributes of the "Petrine Ministry" include, successively in development:

(1) primacy of honor (inter pares concept);
(2) primacy of jurisdiction;
(3) supremacy of jurisdiction; and
(4) infallibility, as defined by the 1st Vatican Council.

These are BIG hurdles for the Orthodox to tackle. Are they insurmountable? My guess is as good as yours!

Amado

A friend tells me that when he was in high school (back before the invention of the wheel) the Brother who taught his class took the class to visit a local Orthodox Church. Noticing that there was no genuflection or any equivalent gesture, one of the students asked the Brother whether the Greek Orthodox Church reserves the Eucharist. On being assured that they do precisely that, the student then asked the Brother why he had made no genuflection. The Brother then explained "well, you see, this is a schismatic church. That means that Our Lord is truly present here, but He does not want to be".

Incognitus

With all respect, I suggest you set these old debates aside. They have never born fruit.

The Orthodox have always admitted and recognized the first place of the bishop of Rome. It is still written in their canons. And early Christian history is church full of Eastern references to the Chief Bishop (Rome). In any type of reunion - Peter must resume that first place.

Now let me address the two different views of the authority of Peter.

A man who paints will notice every color - while the rest of us do not.

A man who plays piano will hear every note - while the rest of us do not.

A man brought up in fear - will fear when there is no reason.

A man brought up with parents instilling confidence - will not doubt himself while the rest of us will.

You have got to look at - what has formed the man - to know what the man is going to expect.

The key to understanding the Orthodox trepidation regarding any type of primacy for a Pope of Rome - has got to be place squarely in the formation of the Byzantine churches under the time of the Byzantine Empire when the emperor of New Rome (the kings of Constantinople) felt it their right as emperor - to be head of the church. Heaven was almost - on earth - with the peak of Chritendom. The Byzantines were formed in a society where the head of the church (the emperor for them) HAD and PRACTICED an imperial primacy.

This � expectation � that the Eastern churches have of the Pope - exercising militant imperial primacy and authority - is part of the forming heritage of the churches of the East formed to solidification within the social and cultural realities of the Byzantine Empire where such a church primacy was practiced by the Byzantine emperors. Note the tug of war between the Byzantine emperors and the Roman Popes - as to - who would head the church.

In the Latin mind - the Pope of Rome does not have imperial powers. His powers are very limited. Hemmed in on every side by having to satisfy all the right conditions. The concept that every Catholic marches in step with the Pope�s every wish - is absurd to a Catholic who knows the diverse fragmentation of western Catholic world. The Pope is very far from an imperial emperor or dictator. He has not - that authority. It has not been granted to him by history or canon. European Popes tired to have it but that caused the Reformation.

The East - in a very big way - vote their hierarchy into office. By doing that they - invest - a great amount of their own authority into their hierarchy. What I mean by that is it is much more of a democratic process. A thing of �we make you our leader - now - lead us.� So much more blind trust is placed in hierarchy they they trust and place in authoritive positions.

For example - if the laity of an Orthodox parish does not like their priest (keep in mind I am simplifying) they can complain and turn the priest out. In the West - the laity of a Catholic church can complain - but since the bishop does the appointments without consulting the laity at all - a bad priest is seldom removed. Catholic priests are rotated every five years - and once in a great while (when the priest is love by the congregation) the laity has to threaten out right rebellion - to keep that priest stationed with them. And to get a priest removed also takes an outright nasty rebellion by the parish.

So the Eastern clergy and hierarch is much more conscious of the feelings and mood of the laity - as it is the laity which invests into them the right (their agreement) to authority.

Do you see what I am saying?

(I am not describing it well).

It is like this. If we had a club - and we decided to make someone head over us. We would vote and because the majority invested themselves into the leader (we gave them our authority) we want that investment to pay off - so we expect them to lead us. We have - charged them - to lead us and by that have made a conscious choice to - follow.

And if we were members of a club who did not get to vote for our leaders - but our leaders were appointed for us by outside elders - we would listen to them a lot less and be more critical of their leadership - ready to ignore them and not listen if we thought better. After all - we did not elect them to lead us.

So the Orthodox expect the Pope to be much more of an imperial leader - than he really is. They expect (because that is the type of leadership they are used to) that the Pope should demand and judicate - many things. They fear he would exercise a militant like authority over the Orthodox - because - that is the type of authority which the Orthodox invest into their hierarchy.

As an example. The Orthodox have a problem with the Latin filoque - and so they demand the Romans change it before any union can take place. With the same mindset - they expect that the Pope would have the same authority (under reunion) to demand (from his primacy) that THEY change something.

Have you every, when being with a friend who had a very different upbringing than yourself - talked with a third party and then after - found that you both disagreed on the attitude of the guy you had talked with?

�I thought he was very nice and very reasonable� �.
�Well I though he was belligerent and impolite� �
�How can you say that? I did not experience him that way at all.� �
�Are you deaf? He was sarcastic and rude!�

and it all boils down to subconscious factors of - what each expected - because of the way each was brought up. Each experienced - what he had expected - to experience.

The East WANTS and expects - a Pope to be strong and lay down the law! So they will not put themselves under such a Pope - if that Pope is going to be demanding in ways they are not going to like. They feel they must be assured - first - before they will make themselves subservient to him.

While on the other hand - the West - does not have such a militaristic concept of its Pope. And Peter does not take to himself such wide and detailed demanding authority. He is more like a king who is seldom listened to by his subjects.

If anything - the Orthodox need to prepare themselves for the very limited authority of Peter - under any reunion or they might be very disappointed of the strength they had expected and feared.

But these things are all - beyond us. We have enough difficulty paying attention to our own troubles day by day. We have no authrity to fix anything. So all we can really do is watch how these things play out. We are saved! from such great responsibilities and making such errors.

Thank you Good Lord - for making me little and of no real consequence!

I think the first rule for the election of any high position in the church - should be - if you WANT the job - you are obviously the wrong man for the job.

-ray

Jason,
Metropolitan John's idea sounds kosher to me!

Stephanos I

The only universally binding "ex cathedra" statements that I'm personally remember off hand (though I know I've heard of more) are the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was only issued after a consultation with the Bishops of the Catholic Church about what had been taught about Mary throughout the ages and how it could be applied to the Augustinian theological formulation that the Protestants were using to tear down Mary's dignity and, in turn, threaten the dignity of Christ. After a review of the history of "Feasts of the Conception of Mary" throughout the Church, both East and West, and a theological examination of how to articulate an anathemization of the Protestant heresy, the Papal Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" was promulgated expressing the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The language used was peculiarily Augustinian (as discussed on another thread), but the Dogma was not concerned with forcing the Augustinian conception of Original Sin on people, but rather to eliminate the Protestant error that was feeding off of the Augustinian model. It was promulgated unilaterally, but based on wide consultation first.

It represents an eternal truth, but it's really a "Latin thing", or even more specifically an "Augustinian thing". It would be as if a Pope who was into Palamite Theology issued an "ex cathedra" teaching that Grace is a Divine Energy and not a creature. The Thomists and Augustinians would say "Ok, we not only don't argue with that, but it's a non-issue for us anyway". It can be accepted as being true without having to adopt the theology in which it becomes an issue.

The Assumption of Mary, as far as I know, is already widely considered to be "just plain fact" by many, if not most, Orthodox. The Pope, in that case, wasn't really proclaiming anything new, and left a lot of Catholics scratching their heads as if the Pope had just proclaimed Jesus to really be the Messiah. It's kind of one of those "Yeah, duh" moments, but for whatever reason Papa Pius felt it necessary to to reiterate it as official dogma through the Extraordinary Magisterium rather than the Ordinary Magisterium. Who knows, next year the Pope might infallibly define that the water used in Baptism is wet :p

In my opinion and experience, Papal Infallibility is kind of one of those big bad boogeymen that just isn't. What many take as "the Pope is God's voice on Earth" is really more of a "God promised the Pope won't screw up too royally when he's speaking for all of us, fellas". Of course that leaves open the question of "should the Pope ever speak for all of us", and that's a matter of how Petrine Primacy is to be recognized and implemented.

Of course, there's the little forgotten fact that the Church teaches that all Bishops speak infallibly when teaching the True Faith in communion with the Church of Rome, which is ultimately the same rule that applies to the Pope as well, since the Pope can't override previous doctrines and dogmas established by the Catholic Church. Infallibility is so hide-bound with Tradition that it's really a recursive formula; it locks the Pope into Tradition (through Divine promise) rather than allowing him to dictate it.

Peace and God bless!