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

Gordo,

I have to admit that I have growing concerns about the way that Western Catholics view the magisterium, which is a conceptual theory that arose only during the 19th century, and by this I mean the precise theoretical division of the magisterium into the ordinary magisterium, ordinary and universal magisterium, extraordinary magisterium, and the papal extraordinary magisterium. That said, all of these scientific divisions of the concept of the magisterium are predicated upon an ultramontanist view of authority within the Church that is -- in my opinion -- questionable to say the least. In fact, it is this ultramontanist understanding of authority in the West, which is seen primarily as a juridic power over the Church, that concerns me more than the 19th century theoretical divisions of the so-called magisterium into canonical levels of power.

As I see it, the modern conceptual theory of the magisterium has in many ways replaced Tradition itself in the Western Church, because immemorial practices and beliefs are no longer accepted by the simple fact that they are the living expression of the Apostolic paradosis; instead, the Pope now issues directives, which in many cases over turn things that have been done or that have been believed for uncounted centuries, and the faithful are expected to simply assent to these changes as if they are the Apostolic Tradition. Thus, as I said above, in Western Catholic praxis the modern notion of the magisterium has in some sense replaced Tradition, and it is this fact that concerns me most, because when I talk to many of my Western Catholic friends, they -- without openly saying it -- act as if the Pope is Tradition.

Now, this modern perspective is most evident when looking at the Latin Church's revised liturgy, which was imposed upon the Latin Church by papal decree, and which -- in my opinion -- reflects the interests and sensibilities of the committee that created it back in the 1960s. But this modern viewpoint is not restricted to liturgical matters alone, because it can also be seen in other areas (e.g., whether or not it is moral to use the death penalty, etc.), and -- of course -- if the innovative positions put forward by the magisterium are questioned, or if they are seen as untraditional, then the modern theory of "doctrinal development" is invoked in order to silence all criticism.

Ultimately, I think that the Western Church needs to de-emphasize its present focus upon the magisterium, and this is particularly the case in connection with the papacy; because sadly, for some Westerners, the papacy has become the most important thing in the Church, even more important than the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Quite frankly, as I see it, the constant Western focus upon magisterial power is unhealthy, and must be replaced with a proper sense of Tradition, which is the primary means for passing on and expressing the Orthodox faith within the Church.

God bless,
Todd

Robster,

There have only been 7 or 8 Ecumenical Councils. Vatican II was a General Council, not Ecumenical, because there was no participation by the Orthodox and it was not called to order by an Emperor. Ecumenical means "of the whole world" and the Orthodox are true particular Churches with "valid" sacraments that do indeed exist in the world.

Yes, the pope is the steward, just as every other bishop is. If the pope does indeed have the powers of a super bishop then we must call a council to canonically remove those powers. History shows that popes NEVER use that power in the best way! You should never give a loaded weapon to a toddler!

Can you give an example of any time that the supposed superpower was used for the common good? It has just been a bunch of reactionary tinkering and blunders that inflict damages on the faithful that last for centuries. An "over-correction" can be worse than doing nothing at all..

Well said! That's why the West needs the East.

But we in the East should not strip the Papacy to a mere first among equals. Without the Papacy, the West would have sunk into the abyss of modernism which was not actually the fruit of prayerful Western theological discourse, but rather its distortion. The West's problems which you point out are not necessarily because of the Papacy, but often in contradiction to it.

The East too needs the voice of Peter. Modernism is creeping into the Eastern Churches--divorce and contraception are cases on point. And as Soloviev argued, without a Universal Father, the Churches of the East tended to be nationalistic and often ended up to be accountable to the secular leader and not Christ.

The East has never lacked the voice of St. Peter, because all the bishops are successors of all the Apostles (including St. Peter).

God bless,
Todd

I think folks like James Likoudis and Dave Armstrong could do a better job of championing the Roman papacy than I can.

But off the top of my head, I suppose I would point to the Robber Council, all of the 1st millenium heresies that were combatted by the Roman pontiffs, as well as preserving teachings in divorce/remarriage and artifical contraception as some of its successes.

I still fail to understand this idea that there have been no ecumenical councils since Nicaea II. I actually once sat through a homily given by my Byzantine Catholic priest saying the same thing, with Roman Latin Catholic visitors present, that really upset me. He was fortunate I did not just get up and walk out.

For starters, one could probably claim that most, if not all of these 1st mil. councils were little more than General Councils of the East, all held in the East, attended mostly by Easterners and dealing with various Eastern problems. As well as the fact that I think our brethren in the Armenian, Assyrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Coptic, and Malnakara churches would take note of their lack of participation and assent to the majority of these councils. As well as that there are any number of other councils that enjoyed signficant participation and assent to teachings that are now considered erroneous.

Without the Roman papacy, I tend to think it is unlikely that Christendom would have survived at all, at least in anything remotely resembling the basic preservation of Mere Christianity (as CS Lewis liked to call it) that we have today.

Regards to all,
Robster

As far as the Seven Ecumenical Councils are concerned, it is true that they were often dominated by the East, but it is also true that the Patriarch of the West accepted their ecumenicity, albeit sometimes many years later.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I would have no problem with a Western Christian reducing the Seven Ecumenical Councils to "general" synods of the East, because as an Easterner they would still apply to me. That said, it is unlikely that Pope Benedict will agree that a Western Christian can demote the Seven Great Councils to "general" synods applicable to the East alone. In fact, when he visited the Ecumenical Patriarch last year the Pope indicate that the Seven Ecumenical Councils ". . . are enduring milestones and guides along our path towards full unity." Interestingly, he made no mention at all of the "general" synods of the West.

God bless,
Todd

I believe it is "informed" conscience, is it not? Some consciences are erroneous.
Stephanos I

ByzanTN,
getting back to your idea: wouldn't it it be easier if I sent a letter to the East Tennessee Catholic to that effect?anyways, Holy Resurrection announces that it holds Liturgy, and it appears in the diocesan paper. wouldn't it be more effective if Holy Resurrection did the outreach in Chattanooga, whether it be in the diocesan paper or the Times FreePress?
Much Love,
Jonn

Todd,

Bravo! A most excellent discussion on the subject of magisterium.

I have often thought that the problem with the West's (particularly on a popular level of a most ultramontanist bent) concept of magisterium is that it seems to be reduced to either a department in the Vatican or to the point at the end of the papal pen!

I see magisterium as the messianic charism given to the whole Church to teach and proclaim faithfully the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The authority to guarantee the integrity of this proclamation rests squarely on the shoulders of the bishops as shepherds and pastors who must teach in conformity with Holy Tradition and the one voice of the apostolic college going back to Pentecost.

The somewhat legalistic distinctions between extraordinary and ordinary magisterium seem far removed from the ethos of authentic Christian discipleship. Did anyone ask whether St. Peter's sermonizing in the midst of the crowds at Pentecost was an act of ordinary or extraordinary papal magisterium? How about St. Paul's "Men of Athens!" speech? Christ said "He who hears you hears me." to His apostles. We need to discern the voice of the Divine Shepherd in the shepherds He has appointed to have authority to teach through kerygma, to govern through diakonia and to sanctify through leitourgia the Church of God (ecclesia).

To my mind, it is extremely relevant that all four of these concepts - kerygma, diakonia, leitourgia and ecclesia - converge in the Eucharistic assembly. I believe that the West has slowly divorced the notion of magisterium from its Eucharistic root ("Our teaching is in conformity with the Eucharist." as St. Ignatius of Antioch said, which is another way of expressing "lex orandi, lex credendi".) The virtual devastation of the Latin Church's worship over the past 40 years and its coincident confusion among the faithful - and some of the clergy - even in matters of apostolic belief (with many notable exceptions, of course) illustrate this principle. That is one of the reasons why I am thankful that Pope Benedict has seen fit to reassert the fullest expression of the unified rite of the Latin Church.

That being said, as I shared before, I choose to read curial and papal documents as a function of this pastoral and eucharistic magisterium. Some, quite frankly, are more spiritually luminous than others. But all should be seen as an extension of the common life of ecclesia as opposed to the halls of academia.

Perhaps some of the issue is that the curia often must respond to the largely speculative halls of academia, and so the writings in response might tend to look less like pastoral letters and more like a purely academic exercise.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

It is unlikely that we are going to agree about the importance of documents issued by the Roman Curial bureaucracy, because -- as I see it -- they do not render Christ present as the liturgy does, nor are they prophetic in the same way that the bishop is prophetic when he proclaims the truth about Christ in the liturgical synaxis.

Moreover, when talking about the Roman Curia it is important to remember that the sacramental authority of a bishop (including the bishop of Rome) cannot be delegated.

Nevertheless, I agree with much of what you said in your post about the "magisterium," and so we are not that far apart on that specific issue.

Finally, I would simply conclude by saying that it is the Eucharist that makes the Church, and each particular Church through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith is the full and complete manifestation of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

God bless,
Todd

If we were informed by what the Church taught before the Great Schism, what would we believe in matters of papal authority?

Todd,

I don't know that I have said that entirely, equating Roman Curial documents with Christ's presence in the liturgy that is. I see any pastoral letter of a bishop as an extension of his pastoral ministry rooted in the eucharistic assembly.



That is an interesting point I had not considered. I need to chew on that one for a while. I recall Archbishop Joseph Raya, of blessed memory, making a similar point in "The Face of God".

One question I would have is how does that differ from the usage of papal legates (especially at general councils) that was a common practice in the first millennium?


So you don't have the Code of Canon Law on your lectio divina reading list either?


Not sure if you have heard about the book by Father Paul McPartltan entitled "The Eucharist Makes the Church" which compares the thought of Henri Cardinal de Lubac and Metropolitan John Zizoulas on eucharistic ecclesiology. The second edition has recently been published by Eastern Christian Publications.

https://ssl.webvalence.com/ecommerce/kiosk.lasso?merchant=ecpubs&kiosk=books&set=new

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

Fr. Adriano Garuti's book entitled, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue [books.google.com], gives a fairly accurate presentation of the Orthodox view of the doctrine of primacy, especially in the opening portions of chapter two. It is well worth reading.

God bless,
Todd

Gordo,

I had not heard of the book. When I have time (and the money) I will have to take a look at it.

God bless,
Todd

If we were to recognize the Pope as first among equals, rather than supreme and infallible, would we have reason to believe in the Immaculate Conception?