www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West compromise on Papal primacy out says Bishop Hilarion

Subdeacon Borislav,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Let me respond a bit.


About "first should be last": Absolutely. And "Am I not a king?.... Yet I have come not to be served, but to serve". So this is essential, and for all Christians, not just Patriarchs.

About the Rock on which the Church is founded being Christ Himself: Absolutely in agreement. This is actually the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so I'd better be in agreement! Yet, Christ did tell Peter: "I tell thee thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church", also. Doing this in the presence of the other Apostles, after the statement that this was the work of Christ's Father, seems to imply to me that this quality of "rock" applies to all the apostles. I think this gets some confirmation from the Apocalypse where John sees the heavenly temple built upon the foundation stones of the twelve prophets and the twelve apostles.

That infallibility is an attribute of God that He communicates to His Church as a whole: Absolutely. Again, this is official Catholic teaching.

That as a man, Peter was weak (and by extension the men who have been Popes are weak): Absolutely. Always possible, although some have been saints!

That the Petrine Ministry cannot be about human power or dominion: Absolutely.

And I don't think the modern Popes of Rome would disagree either!
And yet, there is some kind of unity which Christ obviously did desire, and prayed for at the Last Supper.

And that kind of unity is what I mean (and what I think the Church of Rome means) when it speaks today of the Petrine Ministry. A service (=ministry) that only Peter (the office, not the person, although the office will always be occupied by a person) can provide the rest of the Church.

I believe this is true, even as I believe that Peter may also need the help of John and Paul from time-to-time, by means of their fraternal correction!

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

Michael

Absolutely my friend, but this does not mean there is a need for domination of one Bishop over the others. Besides the Roman Catholic Church knows even greater schisms and breaks of unity than that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am now speaking of Protestantism. I think that we will both agree that protestantism is the child of Roman Catholicism. In fact to me the first form of Protestantism is Roman Catholicism. This astute observation was made both by Mr. Homiakov and Bishop Kalistos Ware and I could not agree more.

Subdeacon Borislav,

I think the Reformation had a lot to do with the Renaissance of the time. If the Renaissance happened in lets say Russia then I think the same result would have happened.

Ray

I still think that the real power struggle that is going to be the strongest in this whole discussion of whether or not there is real primatial power and authority is actually going to be the one that goes on within Orthodoxy.

Mary

Amen!

And you're saying this after Rome has claimed papal supremacy, infallibility, has changed the basis of Christian faith without the council of the other patriarchates.

Of course you may have prophetic powers and the Patriarch of Moscow may decide that He wants to rule the world, but if I was a betting man, I would say that this is not going to happen.

Subdeacon Borislav,

Can you clarify what you mean by "has changed the basis of the Christian faith..."?

As to the other parts, as you know these did not develop in a vacuum and are in fact interpretations of the prerogatives of Petrine primacy that were taught initially by both East and West. The question is, of course, are these legitimate developments and if not, what are the alternatives?

My initial question to Alex regarding primacy of honor has really not been fully addressed. I'm curious about your opinion regarding the difference between mediation of disputes and binding arbitration, as well as how the Pope of Rome might be asked to be involved in disputes and the likelihood as well as the potential for success given the conflict resolution model.

I also worry sometimes that popular notions surrounding the teachings on papal primacy have become caricatures of what is actually taught. Of course, the monarchal tone of some of magisterial teaching and behavior of past pontiffs do not help. To be sure, we have witnessed a radical recasting of the ministry of the Pope of Rome since Pope John XXIII.

God bless!

Gordo

My friend, it can be argued that the Filioque changed the basis of Christian Faith can it not? But instead I submit that the fact that a meter of such importance was decided without an Ecumenical Council with all the Patriarchates represented there IS THE FUNDAMENTAL change of Christian faith. If you will, a complete rejection of collegiality. Profound, is it not?

Yes, the Pope could be called to arbiter disputes between Churches, but never could the Pope make radical changes in doctrine without a Council.

Gordon, please look at some of the changes that were made in the Byzantine Rite Catholicism. The loss by many of things like The Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, changes in the Holy Liturgy....

Aren't these direct results of the union with Latin Catholicism?

Subdeacon,

The following is the Creed of the Armenian Church, read it and tell me if you believe they changed the basis of the Christian Faith:

Michael, and this applies to the filioque and the Papacy how exactly?

Was the Armenian Church a part of the Universal Church in the 11th century when Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Eastern Church?

As far as I know the Armenians split from the Universal Church because they could not accept the humanity of Christ.

Does the Armenian Church accept the Papacy?

As for the reason of the Protestant schism being the Renaissance, i can only say that most of the Splits in the Orthodox Church are due to militant Communism.

Subdeacon Borislav,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your response, although you bring up several important issues. I will do my level best to address each one.



There are differing opinions on this, even within Orthodox circles, as to whether or not the development of the filioque dogma within Latin Catholicism represents a divergence from the faith of Nicea. You may recall Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's distinction between the "hawks" (those who believe it to be heretical) and the "doves" (those who believe that in the very least it is a legitimate theologumena) on this issue, and he presents I think a reasonable case in favor of the "doves" position.



You and I agree to some extent on this. While I believe the filioque was in fact a pastoral response to Arianism in the West, I believe that it should have been addresed very differently through the involvement of the Eastern hierarchs in some manner. I for one believe that the Pope has the authority as the Successor of St. Peter and the head and spokesperson for the college of bishops to do what he did, but just because one can act in a certain way, does not mean that one always should. I take the position of the great French theologian Yves Congar, O.P. who said that the Latin Church should simply drop the filioque since the pastoral need that dictated its insertion no longer exists. The fact that magisterial document, Dominus Jesu, contains the Creed in its original version (sans filioque) speaks volumes here about a possible move in that direction. As an Eastern Catholic this is the Creed that I pray every Sunday and there is no issue insofar as communion with Rome is concerned. While writing as a private theologian, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) asserted that at a minimum for the restoration of communion, the Orthodox would have to say that the filioque is not heretical...NOT that it is the best way to express relations within the Trinity, only that it is not a heresy.



Again it is a question as to whether filioque represents such a radical change. I do not see that it does, and a number of Orthodox theologians agree. Also, the Petrine primacy was called by Christ to "strengthen the bretheren", which implies more than simply a referee status when disputes arise. There is a positive and proactive dimension to that vocation which should neither be neglected nor supressed, since he stands in the midst of his brother bishops as head of and occasional spokesperson for and in the name of the college. Such a ministry requires a degree of independence so that he does not always need the consent of the college to speak or act. But he should also respect the principle of subsidiarity (as defined in practice by Lumen Gentium from Vatican II.) Each bishop is properly the head of his local Church and NOT the delegate of the Pope of Rome. He must still be of a mindset to be the "servant of the servants of God" (Pope John Paul II's favorite title for his ministry). Problems arose when popes became haughty and independent...acting more like the monarchs of their age than hierarchs and pastors of the Church. I'd like to say that Costantinople never suffered such a fate, but just reading about the Iconoclast controversy alone makes it clear that was not the case.



Are you referring to the current mess within the Metropolia of Pittsburgh? They did in fact restore the Presanctified...

If you are referring to the practice of Latinization, that represents a certain historical period of the Church that we are attempting to move out of. For an interesting read on this topic, I would recommend Father Serge's text that is now available on-line:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/238950/page/1#Post238950

I think that those who embracd Latinization did it for a number of reasons:

1. Clergy were generally formed in Latin schools or by Latin trained professors.

2. A certain misunderstanding crept in as to what precisely communion with Rome implied as to teaching and common life.

3. Orthodox reactions (and persecutions in some cases) against Eastern Catholicism caused Eastern Catholics to exaggerate their differences with their Orthodox brothers and sisters in order to differentiate themselves from the Orthodox. Plus they felt that they had a great defender in the Pope of Rome - so why not conform themselves to the practices of the one who was defending them?

4. These things occured during a time, often lamented by Father Alexander Schmemann, of the "Western captivity" of Orthodox theology. Let's face it - the Latins had the best theological schools and the were the most organized and systematic in their teaching and apostolic methods. Some of the distinctives of Orthodox theology, practice and iconography were lost as a result. But as Metropolitan Zizoulas, the ressourcement movement, which originated within Catholicism and was a precursor to Vatican II, was of tremendous benefit to Orthodoxy because it involved a rediscovery of the original Patristic sources. The Latin schools that created the Western captivity (and that was not always deliberate) also became the source of the East's liberation from it!

Anyway, I need to run. God bless bro and have a good day!

Gordo

without being mean: I can see that you've missed the point, by your last sentence.

No pope or patriarch has any real power or authority to "rule" the world in any earthly sense.

In fact we all only truly have the power and authority to rule ourselves.

That's why the papal charge is to strengthen the brethern and be the servant of the servants of God, who are really the other patriarchs and bishops. Then patriarchs are charged with strengthening their brother bishops and bishops are charged with strengthening priests and priests are sent out to shepherd the flock. [Bishops are also charged with continue the line of Apostolic Succession but that is not the central issue here yet.]

When one looses sight of that very very basc principle of eccliastical hierarchy, then you have moved out, as some of our primates have done, into the world and are subject, at those times, to the possibility of abusing their magisterial charge.

So you do not want to discuss principles in terms of the abuses of them.

You want to set out principles and then discuss how certain practices either support or detract from the principles and their purpose.

One of the things that is not clear in universal Orthodoxy is whether or not there is any kind of real primatial power and authority or if it is just "one bishop, one vote" with no other power or authority to exercise in the working of the ecclesia.

I can show you dozens, perhaps hundreds now, of notes in my files from Orthodox clergy, monks, laity and a bishop or two that deny all and any real primatial power or authority in Orthodoxy.

Also, if you go, for example, to the white papers prepared for this latest round of bilateral discussions, one of the core questions in papers of the Orthodox is "Is there real primatial power and authority?"-- and the second question in the Orthodox papers is whether or not the Pentarchy functions as it once did in the governance of Orthodoxy.

You cannot even begin to address the Petrine Ministry until you've answered that question. It has clearly been answered in the affirmative in the west. There is primatial power and authority. The question arises then, loosely, 'How does it work?'

With Orthodoxy you get all kinds of answers and few really want to say flat out that there is real primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy. But some have the courage to say "Of course there is."

But we cannot address the principles of the source and purpose of the Petrine Ministry till we are all on the same page with the question of primatial power and authority and whether or not it real.

Bishop Hilarion, presenting for Pat. Alexei II, has indicated that there will be no discussion on the part of the MP. A position will be presented and that will be that.

Quite clearly the other Orthodox Bishops, Metropolitans, Metropolitan Archbishops and Patriarchs are not going to simply line up behind a de facto "pope" in Moscow.

So the real issue of primatial power and authority is going to have to be worked out among the Orthodox as we go along.

That is the real struggle and the real question in all of this.

The issue has long been cartooned to look as though the Pope of Rome is looking to "rule the world"...but that has been simply to deflect the attention from the real seat of the conflict which sits squarely in Orthodoxy, and has since the de facto dissolution of the Pentarchy many centuries ago.

Mary

The point is that the Papacy isn't alone in emphasizing a certain portion of the Creed, for reasons of heresy/etc.


Since we now know that none of the 'Oriental' Churches were in fact "monophysite" - theologically, liturgically, and doctrinally, YES - Byzantine, no; Orthodox, YES.

Then how is it that they in fact truly accept the humanity of Christ?


They are not influenced by the Papacy, which is my point. The Papacy isn't the only Synodical/Patriarchal body that emphasizes a portion of the liturgy/Creed/etc to combat heresy, etc. After all, which Ecumenical Council told Patriarch Nikon to make his changes in the Russian Church?


Each Church has it's local 'heresies' to combat. It is understandable for a Church to emphasize a particular teaching in certain situation without having it called a heresy - for example, the Coptic Church always emphasizes the Oneness of God, they normally pray, "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God. Amen."

That being said, I think the Latin Church should drop the [and the Son], as it tends to add confusion rather than deter it nowadays.

Mary,

I tip my hat to you. Very well said!

Gordo

Kind of you, Gordo.

M.