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

Original Intent.

Catholic scholars like Fr. Garuti, Fr. Spiteris, and Fr. Schatz, all agree that the concepts of "papal universal jurisdiction" and "papal infallibility" were never accepted by, and are in fact foreign to, the self-understanding of the Eastern Churches. They also agree in saying that these ideas developed in the West over a long period of time, and that they are not even seen the earliest writings of the Western Fathers.

The question then is this: Are the historical developments that took place in the West legitimate, especially those that occurred after the schism as exemplified in the Gregorian reform of the papacy, and in documents like, Dictatus Papae, etc.; or are those one-sided Western developments a reflection of the loss of the ancient understanding of the Church as a communion of Churches -- all of which are sacramentally equal -- by the medieval West?

Clearly, the ongoing restoration of an ecclesiology of communion in the Roman Church is a great help to the ecumenical movement. But if the Roman Church returns to its institutional, juridical, and universalist ecclesiology of the past, then it is clear that ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will go nowhere, because they will never accept a vision of the papacy founded mainly upon the views of Western post-schism theologians. In fact, the teaching of the First Vatican Council will never be normative for Eastern Christians, and it does not really need to be, because as Joseph Ratzinger himself said in connection with the tragic events of the 11th century:

God bless,
Todd

In the case of Sayedna Zoghby the original intent is more clear, but let's not forget that then-Cardinal Ratzinger made very similar claims (perhaps before Zoghby, not sure on the time frame) and clearly had a different understanding. Likewise, the Melkite Synod that adopted Sayedna Zoghby's proposition did so with an apparently different understanding than Zoghby's original intent since they said at the same time that the question of the Papacy remained to be worked out between them and the Antiochian Orthodox.

So while one can say "I stand with Zoghby", simply throwing that one phrase around doesn't actually do much to make clear the meanings. Even his own Synod was able to adopt his proposition without his apparent intent, after all.

Apotheoun: Some scholars agree with the Eastern Orthodox, some don't. Their names and positions ultimately amount nothing more than personal opinion if their position doesn't reflect the understanding and approach of the Church, and in this case it's clear that they do not.

Peace and God bless!

How convenient, and how irrelevant, since the whole point of this thread is focused upon determining exactly what the Church teaches about the nature of authority.

Are the Latin synods of the second millennium ecumenical? Does doctrine develop over time? Is there such a thing as a "universal" bishop? Does primacy exist in separation from or over synodality? Etc.

Finally, I would suggest that you read the authors before you simply dismiss them. For example, Fr. Garuti -- who at various points in his book admits that the East never accepted the ideas of "papal universal jurisdiction" or "papal infallibility," nevertheless personally accepts those concepts as legitimate theological developments. Now -- of course -- I disagree with him on those issues, but I still respect his scholarly abilities. Sadly, many Latin Catholics confuse the teachings of the theological schools that arose during the second millennium in the Western Church with dogmas.

God bless,
Todd

I intend on believing, in matters of the papacy, whatever the Eastern Church believed before the Great Schism.

It's not at all irrelevant. Anyone who wants to know what the Church teaches can read the Church documents, including those ascribed to by the Eastern Churches at Vatican II. The debate over whether or not such councils are "ecumenical" is merely a smokescreen: the fact is that they represent the official accepted position of the Church, and that is what we're dealing with. If certain theologians or Bishops disagree with those statements and positions, that hardly means that the Church takes an "open stance" to the degree those individuals would like.

Sayedna Zoghby, while a fine Bishop, does not write for the Church in these matters, not even the Melkite Church, and has been called out for this on other issues before. Saying "I'm with Zoghby" is all well and good, but it's not at all clear that Sayedna Zoghby is "with the Church" in his sentiments and arguments, and in fact evidence points to the contrary both within and without the Melkite Church itself.

As for the scholars, I'm not dismissing their work, I'm merely pointing out that their line and the line of the Church isn't necessarily the same, and what matters here is the understanding of the Catholic Church. Their research has yet to influence the norms of the Catholic Church, and I find it highly unlikely that they will in the long run.

Tertullian:
That's fine, but first you must decide what the Eastern Church believed before the Great Schism. That is a matter of open debate.

Peace and God bless!

What matters is whether Bishop Zoghby is on the side of Scripture, the church fathers, and history.

"Ecclesiastical Communion means that Melkites recognize the Holy See of Rome and that direct successor (the Patriarch of the West) of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter "in the primacy". That direct successor, the Patriarch of the West, is the "first among equals". "Equals" are the other Patriarchs, one of which is The Patriarch of Antioch . (The Patriarch of Antioch is also a direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter, but he is not "in the primacy".)
The title given to the Patriarch of the West (Holy See of Rome) as the direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter "in the primacy" is "Pope". The current Patriarch of the West and Pope is His Holiness Benedictus XVI (Benedict XVI)."
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/

Grace and peace.

Tertullian,

Do not waste your time responding to Ghosty, because as usual he has not read the posts in this thread, or he would have understood that his flippant comment about reading "Church documents" answers nothing. Sadly, whether he wants to admit it or not Eastern Christians are not bound by the decrees issued at the fourteen particular synods of the Latin Church.

God bless,
Todd

For the person who is honestly and truthfully bringing no perspective or bias to this question, these statements are delightfully vague.

Put a Legionaire of Christ (an order that takes a fourth vow of availability to the pope) and a Bishop of ROCOR in a room (for that matter, add an Anglican high churchman and a Copt if you like!), and then ask "Who here grants to the bishop of Rome authority according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation?"

Frankly, I beleive all would raise their hands. And all would be confident that the understanding they have is clearly the understanding the ECF had.

Well, maybe not the Copt.

I just realized that the time lapse between when I wrote the last post and when I actually posted it was so great several similar responses and discussion had already ensued. That being the case, I want to apologize if it appeared I was being redundant.

A Simple Sinner,

I do not think that anyone in this thread is unbiased, nor has anyone claimed to be.

That said, if you read the things that I have written over the course of the last five years (or more), you will see that I started out as a major supporter of the Roman view of primacy, but as I continued my studies, both privately and during my graduate work on my MA in Theology at FUS, my views on the issues discussed in this thread (i.e., ecclesiology and the nature of authority in the Church) gradually changed.

Nevertheless, I remain open to both sides, but I certainly do favor the teaching of the Eastern Fathers and the ecclesiology of the Byzantine (i.e., Orthodox) Church, because I see that teaching reflected in the doctrine of the undivided Church of the first millennium, while the teaching of the West appears to have morphed into something that would be completely foreign to the Church Fathers.

Finally, as I said earlier in this thread, I am not raising these ecclesiological questions in order to "convince anyone of anything." Instead, I simply want to gain a deeper grasp of these points of doctrine so that I can understand -- to the degree that it is humanly possible -- the faith "which was once for all delivered to the saints," and which was definitively lived and expressed by the Fathers of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

Certainly, but that does little to answer whether or not his view is at all reflective of the reality of the Catholic Church. If his view is Truth, but does not reflect the position of the Catholic Church as a whole, the Church of Rome, and the Melkite Church, then his position has little truck in the reality of life for the Eastern Catholics.

We can always stand around and say "I believe such and such", but that doesn't answer your question, which was:


Some gave you a response that it is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but their view does NOT match what the Catholic Churches have said on the matter. Saying "we're not bound by those documents because they're not infallible" is an obvious dodge of the fact that their view is out-of-step with that of their Church. It is no different from those who say that since Humanae Vitae was not an infallible Papal Decree, it's not binding on Catholics. It's a suprisingly legalistic approach for people who would decry Latin legalism.

When considering all of these matters, it's important to remember that the Melkite Church did infact sign on to Lumen Gentium, and even had significant input in its development, input and influence far greater than their size would suggest. If you want to know the position of the Melkite Church, read the Synodal documents and the Catholic documents they helped shape and signed as a Synod.

The question of whether or not they were wrong to do so is another matter entirely. I'm just focusing on whether Zoghby's position is reflective of the Church's.

Apotheoun: Attempting to shut down dialogue with ad hominims is beneath us.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghosty,

I have made no ad homimen attacks against you or anyone else in this thread.

Now with that out of the way, let us focus on the actual topic of this thread, i.e., the relationship of the Pope to the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, which is not one of a master over a servant, but of a protos among his equals and brothers.

That said, it is fairly evident to anyone who has read my posts that I reject the Western theological developments that have taken place during the course of the second millennium in connection with the doctrine of primacy, because I see those developments as contrary to the teaching of the Fathers. In other words, I do not accept that idea that the Pope has "universal jurisdiction" over the Church, or over the bishops taken collectively, nor do I accept the idea that the Pope, taken in isolation from the universal episcopate, is "infallible." And -- of course -- I reject these theological innovations because there is nothing in the teaching of Fathers of the first millennium that would support these later Western theories, and it is interesting to note that Joseph Ratzinger himself admitted as much in his book Principles of Catholic Theology. Thus, as I see it, ecumenical dialogue must strive to restore the ancient understanding of primacy, which is always bound to synodality, for the primate cannot act without his synod, and the synod can only act in union with its primate (see Canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions). I remain open to a clearly reasoned argument in defense of the Western position, but so far you have not provided that type of an argument, and in fact you have not provided an argument at all.

Finally, my theological studies up to the present day have shown me that a Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal Church through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith, is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome.

God bless,
Todd

The following is from a post I wrote for another thread, but I thought I would post it here, because it presents a summary of my ecclesiological thought:

The ecclesiology of the Fathers is both Eucharistic and Trinitarian; but sadly, during the middle ages the West lost sight of this fact, and developed a juridical and institutional understanding of the Church where authority was seen purely as a power over others, rather than being a service of love and truth in maintaining of communion.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I must reiterate something that I said earlier in this thread: Bishops are all sacramentally equal, and so no bishop can be said to be over any other bishop, not even the primate of the synod, and -- of course -- there is no "sacrament of primacy."

Apotheoun: I know your thoughts on ecclesiology, as they come up often. I'm simply challenging the notion that your view accurately reflects the Catholic Church's view in all its nuances, or even the notion that it completely reflects the view of any particular Catholic Churches.

Right or wrong, your view doesn't match up with Catholic reality. Your view is Todd's view, and the view of some others, but it is not precisely the position taken within the Catholic Church by any competant authorities (and I'm including Patriarchal Synods as competant authorities). This must be remembered in any discussion about this topic, because it is those views that ultimately make or break Catholic life, not yours.

Peace and God bless!