www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

Dear Friends, interesting discussion on the Papacy.

Let me quote in full a comment I posted in answer to a question on my blog:

"In my view, the 1870 Vatcian I definition of the Papacy goes beyond the understanding of the Church of the First Millennium; and yet, it seems to me that the Petrine Ministry has a geater significance than most Eastern Orthodox are willing to acknowledge.

The Pope should be the first bishop among equals. His primacy should be primarily one of honor, as the older brother among the college of bishops.

Yet, I think that the Pope's primacy in the Church goes beyond merely honor; I think the Papacy represents the center of Christian unity in the visible, universal church. Although the Pope should not interfere with the internal jurisdictions of other Patriarchs, the pope can serve a role in providing a final court of appeals in helping to settle disputes among bishops and jurisdictions, as he sometimes did during the first millennium.

The Pope of Rome has also served as the great defender of Orthodoxy through out the history of the Church. The Pope ratified the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils."

- Lance

Robster,

Why would you want to emphasize *not* being in communion with Constantinople?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Yes

Deacon Richard,
While I have no genuine motivation to emphasize a lack of full communion with anybody, it is intended as my tongue-in-cheek response to the nomenclature that says somebody is Orthodox in communion with Rome. I believe either one is Catholic or one is Eastern Orthodox (or Oriental Orthodox). If one is in communion with Rome, then I believe one is, or should be, Catholic. I suppose I agree with the Eastern Orthodox that there is no such thing as being Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Upon entering Catholicism via the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, I assumed and expected that I would be seen and viewed as a Catholic. Being bombarded with the constant refrains of being told by my priest and weekly bulletin that I was to be an 'Orthodox Christian' who has a 'Byzantine faith' and is to undergo 'Eastern Christian education' was not in keeping with my ideals of a Catholic identity and Catholic life and one of the reasons I am undergoing change of rite at the present time.

Regards to all,
Robster

Interesting. I would say that I am a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church who holds the Orthodox faith.

Christians should be both Catholic and Orthodox.

Todd,

I can agree we all should be lowercased catholic and orthodox. But ultimately, we will have to affiliate and proclaim an allegiance of faith somewhere and I believe that we can only be one in the uppercase sense of the terms as they presently exist.

Regards,
Robster

Servatis servandis means "preserving what must be preserved". The Catholic Church's teaching is that the Petrine Ministry is vested in the Bishop of Rome. The Melkite Patriarch is not drawing your conclusion, because no bishop other than the Bishop of Rome has ever claimed to possess the specific Petrine Ministry of the Successor of St. Peter, including the power to speak "ex cathedra" with the infallibility which with Christ has endowed His Church.

Is it possible that a given Patriarch may have an analogous role within his own "jurisdiction"? Certainly. That's what the Catholic Church means when it says that all the various notes of communio (one Faith, one Eucharist, one Priesthood, in communion with the Bishop of Rome), must be held "from within" by each Catholic, and each Particular Church (diocese)[cf. Communionis notio].

In this regard, servatis servandis, even I can teach my children infallibly when I teach them the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church: I'm not infallible, but the doctrine is. With this in mind, what essential difference does it make whether a bishop is the Patriarch of Alexandria or the Bishop of Trenton, NJ? But the "jurisdiction" of the Bishop of Rome, in what concerns the Petrine Ministry, is universal: in the proper circumstances, servatis servandis, his is the voice, only he speaks in the persona of the Bride of Christ, the Universal Church.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael McD,

We will just have to agree to disagree. I will side with Pope Gregory the Great who clearly accepted the fact that Antioch and Alexandria are "petrine" sees.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Your "Roman" interpretation of the Patriarch's comments turns the rest of his speech in nonsense.

I have already expressed in other threads why I reject the teaching of "Communionis Notio" as contrary to Patristic tradition.

God bless,
Todd

These comments also fall flat, since I do not believe that the Pope has "universal jurisdiction." The primate and his synod work as a unity, and so neither is over the other.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Once again I have expressed my views on this Roman innovation in other threads at this forum.

P.P.S - Pope St. Gregory, in his letters, denied the idea that there was (or is) a single "universal bishop" who speaks for the whole Church.

For what it's worth, as an aside, I have always understood that traditional Church teaching, or perhaps it's Latin theology if you will, held that all of the Apostles individually had the charism of infallibility, not just Peter. However for the others, the charism was extraordinary, ceased to exist with their deaths, and was not passed onto their successors. In contrast, with Peter, due to the nature of the Petrine ministry, his infallibility is ordinary and is handed down to his successors.

Best,
Robster

Yes, that is a fair expression of the modern Latin theory.

Todd,


Different meanings of "Petrine" a) origin of diocese, b) charism for benefit of the universal Church.

Can't help with the speech.

God bless you too.
Michael

Michael,

I know that you cannot help with the interpretation of the speech, and so we will have to disagree about the exact nature of the meaning of the phrase �servatis servandis� within the overall context of the Patriarch's address.



Moreover, it is clear that you and I do not understand the nature of the "petrine" ministry in the same way, since I hold that it is possessed by all bishops through Episcopal consecration, and not simply by the three Patriarchal Sees that have been historically connected to St. Peter.

Ultimately, primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of authority within the Church. That said, I hold that Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria -- due to their historic connection to St. Peter -- together possess a primacy within the universal episcopate, with Rome being the first among equals, originally because of its position as the capital of the Roman Empire. That said, the headship exercised by the Roman Church gives it a certain directive function -- for lack of a better term -- among the bishops, and this function was given to it by the Ecumenical Councils themselves. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a "universal bishop," nor does any one bishop possess "universal jurisdiction" over the Church, or over the bishops taken collectively. Sadly, ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be hampered by the Roman innovations of the second millennium in connection with the nature of authority within the Church.

God bless,
Todd

That the Petrine Primacy is a modern Latin theory hardly jibes with the writings of St Clement, St Ignatius of Antioch and St Irenaeus who all spoke of Rome's pre-eminence over the other churches before the 2nd Century.

Pope St Stephen I (254-257) (a Greek) maintained, according to the testimony of Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea, that he possesed "the succession of Peter, on which the foundations of the Church are errected". He threatened the Asia Minor bishops with exclusion from the church Commonwealth.

Pope St Victor I (189-198) threatened the Asia Minor communities with exclsuion from the Church on account of there adhering to the Quartodecimanic practice.

You can reject the claim of Petrine Primacy, but you cannot deny that's existed for over 1800 years.