www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Benedict XVI speaks on Primacy

I suspect His Holiness is setting the stage for his meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in Turkey this coming November.
It's somewhat clear how the Latin Catholic understanding of Peter's Primacy has changed throughout the ages, and Benedict is trying to clarify.

Brad

From VIS 7-Jun-06

PETER, CUSTODIAN OF COMMUNION WITH CHRIST

VATICAN CITY, JUN 7, 2006 (VIS) - The foundation of the Church upon the rock represented by St. Peter the Apostle, custodian of communion with Christ, provided the theme for Benedict XVI's catechesis during his general audience today, which was held in St. Peter's Square in the presence of more than 50,000 people.
The Pope began by recalling how the Gospel of St. John, "in recounting the first meeting of Jesus with Simon, brother of Andrew, records a curious event: Jesus 'looked at him and said: so you are Simon, the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'."
"This fact takes on particular significance if we consider how, in the Old Testament, a change of name often accompanied a new mission," said the Pope before going on to mention a number of evangelical episodes that highlight "the will of Christ to attribute to Peter a special importance within the Apostolic college," such as when He stayed in Peter's house in Capernaum, or chose his boat on the Lake of Gennesaret.
"Peter himself," the Holy Father continued, "was aware of his special position: it was often he who would speak, also in the name of the others, asking for explanation of a difficult parable or the exact meaning of a precept. ... Equally decided was the profession of faith which, again in name of the Twelve, he made near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus Who asks: 'But who do you say that I am?' it is Peter who replies: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
"In response," the Pope added, "Jesus then pronounced the solemn declaration that defined, once and for all, Peter's role in the Church: 'And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Benedict XVI went on: "The three metaphors Jesus uses are themselves very clear: Peter will be the rock foundation upon which the building of the Church rests; he will hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven to open and close to whom he will; and finally, he can bind and loosen in the sense that he can impose or prohibit whatever he considers necessary for the life of the Church. ... This describes ... what would later be qualified with the term 'primacy of jurisdiction'."
After the resurrection, Peter was the first of the Apostles to witness the appearance of Jesus, and this again marks "the continuity between his primacy among the
Apostles and the preeminence he would continue to have in the community that came into being following the events of Easter."

"The fact that a number of the key texts referring to Peter are associated with the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon him the ministry of confirming his brethren, shows how the Church, which was born from the Paschal remembrance celebrated in the Eucharist, has, in the ministry entrusted to Peter, one of her constitutive elements."

"This is primacy for all time. Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ. He must guide [people] to communion with Christ, and guide in such a way that the net does not break but supports that great universal communion by which together we can be with Christ, Who is Lord of us all. This is his responsibility, guaranteeing communion with Christ, with Christ's charity, and the implementation of that charity in daily life."
"Let us pray that the primacy of Peter, entrusted to weak human beings, may always be exercised in this original sense that the Lord intended; and that it be ever more recognized in its true significance by the brethren not yet in full communion with us."

I don't see anything new, and see a good deal most Orthodox would not agree with.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

We Orthodox are not directly under the Pope, nor are the Protestants, but we, and those Protestants that have as yet not fallen into heresy, are never really willing to say anything, make doctrines or establish anything regarding the Christian faith. Any moral announcements that come out on something new like stem cell research, always comes from the Vatican. We all simply follow suit.

In that sense, it shows that the Pope certainly has the primacy. Certainly God must have given him some sort of authority...don't you think?

That the Orthodox are not willing to accept in words the moral authority given the Pope, but are willing to follow it in practice, merely shows an obstinacy on their part. What a pity! :rolleyes:

Zenovia

I am profoundly humbled in the face of your humility. Your simple statement has driven me to my emotional knees. May you be blessed abundantly for the strength of your faith and the clarity of your belief.

With deep regard and with the prayerful hope that we can all share in the charge to strengthen the brethern, and be worthy to share in the cup of salvation.

Thank you,

Eli

I agree with you, there is nothing "new" in the Pope's discourse.

The disagreement between East and West is centered upon the word "jurisdiction." Hopefully a return by the West to an understanding of the doctrine of the primacy as it was held during the first millennium will lead to a resolution of this problem.

Zenovia, there�s several aspects to what you�re saying. Let me address them one by one.

The first thing I would say is that there is no Protestant faction or denomination that hasn�t adopted some heretical belief in some form or another. That isn�t to say there aren�t many nice, caring, wonderful Protestants out there (there are many); but it is wrong to say there are some that haven�t fallen in to heresy. In some way or another, all of the Protestant groups have.

Second, I would say that I believe that moral theology (and I have said this in other threads) is one of the great strengths of the Roman Catholic Church. They are often in the fore front of addressing complicated ethical issues and in that regard they have my admiration. They are however, as history and current events have shown, susceptible to tremendous ethical break downs. I�m not saying that to grind a confessional axe, and I would say we should willingly engage the RCC as allies in ethical issues; but to imagine they have a position of moral leadership that exists on a different plane I think is both dangerous and false.

Regarding Orthodoxy, I would also say that moral theology (at least in terms of addressing contemporary isues) is an area where I think we have a way to go. I would also say however that the answers to all moral questions, old or new are, are really answered by our most basic traditions primarily rooted in the Gospel. I would also disagree vehemently that Orthodoxy is unwilling or unable to define its own beliefs or as you say to �establish anything regarding the Christian faith�. I actually don�t understand how you could come to such a belief and retain confidence in your own church.

Lastly, when you say regarding Protestantism that they �are never really willing to say anything, make doctrines or establish anything regarding the Christian faith.� I would say you could not be more wrong. That is the history of Protestantism. It is in their DNA. Aside from that issue, Protestants are often at the fore front of moral issues, whether you think they are on the right side of the issue or not. Often they are in opposition to what the RCC teaches, some times not. It must be said especially of Evangelical Protestants that they are willing to speak when sadly we Orthodox and Catholics prefer to take a low profile. Do you recall that for instance the appointment of Justice Alito was most strongly contested by practicing Roman Catholics? Can we recognize that there are Orthodox and Catholic politicians who simply disregard the teachings of their own church and that the hierarchies don�t� challenge this. This is a problem for both apostolic churches.

Resting on an argument of morals, no definitely not. History has shown even Popes themselves have been guilty of tremendous sin. The Pope certainly does have a primacy in the sense that he is the highly visible leader of an institution with over a billion members. That can�t be argued with, but I don�t think primacy is about numbers, or I would have to say primacy of truth is shifting to Islam.

I�ll simply return to my earlier post. Nothing new is offered in the statement of the Pope, and it touches on arguments (i.e. exegetical ones) that not too long ago Metropolitan John of Pergamon would go nowhere in resolving the divide between the two sides. I would wish he would say something different, and that the title of Patriarch of the West had not been set aside, but that is not happening.

Now, do I believe God gave authority to the Bishop of Rome? Certainly, I think he entrusted all bishops with authority. Do I think the Papacy as it is defined now is in line with the original intent of the office? No, absolutely not, for if I believed that I would have one of two choices. One is obviously that I would become Catholic, but the other is this. If I believed (and I hope I�m paraphrasing this correctly according to current teaching) that what the Popes proclaimed about themselves were correct and true, but willingly and obstinately remained outside of the Catholic Church, I would be guilty of the sin of schism. Last I checked that is still a mortal sin, and to die in mortal sin, well that�s not a good thing.

Andrew

Delivered at a lecture in 1976 at the University of Groz:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy that had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Principles of Catholic Theology
(San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1987), page 199.

Yes. A beautiful and humble concession and you missed it clean.

That is a shame.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Actually, having come to know Andrew, I can say you are wrong to say that he has missed anything in Zenovia's poignant post.

Andrew is an extremely well-read individual with an amazingly deep commitment to his Orthodox Christian faith!

Rome has and does speak out on many moral issues (it's silence on the persecution of the Eastern Catholics when they needed support, and its machinations with Eastern Catholics in Russia are another side of the coin).

But the issue of Papal Primacy affects doctrine and the Orthodox can no more accept the current framework of papal primacy any more than Catholics can accept Hinduism because of an admiration for Ghandi.

Catholics and others of like-minded ecumenical perspectives have sometimes relegated divisive theological issues to a kind of relativistic "what does it really matter if we all believe that . . .

But real unity on the basis of a papacy that does more than inspire is the issue on which it all ultimately hinges.

And that involves a realistic and objective assessment of what the Churches truly do believe about it.

That is what our brother Andrew has and, I sincerely hope, will continue to always provide us with.

And Andrew has never hidden his admiration for the Catholic Church. He has always approached contentious issues here with tact, respect and great sensitivity for the feelings of all involved.

I wish I could be like that. And, I daresay, I wish you could as well.

Alex

What does this mean, Andrew? Is there anyone who isn't subject to "tremendous ethical breakdowns?" Are you simply referring to people's sins? With all due respect, I think that you are failing to address Zenovia's point.

I know you don't want to start this kind of exchange or you'll have my Albanian and Croat God-parents standing over you asking where the Orthodox Church was when their families were being slaughtered, and that is just in the 20th century. It's never good to take sides in an effort to hold some sort of comparative moral high ground in a fallen world.

Zenovia's point holds on moral teaching with the Vatican taking the lead globally. That is even acknowledged among Orthodox faithful.

There is the doctrine of primacy, and then there is the historic exercise of the papal office. I, of course, say that it is not in the doctrine but in the exercise where we find irreconcilable differences, and I think that will become more evident as the bi-lateral dialogue resumes in the fall.

PS: I am allowed to think Zenovia's point was missed without condemning the person who, I think, missed the point.

I've told you before, however difficult in this medium, I deal in ideas not personalities or the credentials appurtenanced thereunto.

Eli

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI delivered this in part at a lecture he gave in 1976 at the University of Groz:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy that had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Principles of Catholic Theology
(San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1987), page 199.

Alex,

Great post!

I have to agree with what you said, because Andrew (Rilian) clearly understood Zenovia's point, he simply disagreed with it.

God bless,
Todd

I think we can all agree as to the primacy of the first thousand years as being stantard for understanding the Papacy but just what was that primacy. The West has believed and will believe it was more than what the East admits.
How it is administered in another matter and that is were the question of universal jurisdiction come into play.
Stephanos I

That is a wonderful quotation. Now, hopefully Rome will follow through and accept the doctrine of the primacy as it has always been understood in the East, that is, without the unnecessary baggage of the legal concept of "jurisdiction," which only arose in the Western Church during the second millennium.