www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites: an Addendum of thoughts

There is, of course, volumes to be said about the specifics of the Petrine ministry which make is unique both in scripture and in history. This is not about sacramental equality, it is about authority which is a separate matter. The eucharist confected by any priest is sacramentally identical to that confected by a bishop or patriarch. But there are distinctions of authority. A patriarch is sacramentally identical to any other bishop, but his role is distinct.

The real question is whether Rome's authority in relation to other patriarchs, or college of bishops, is analogous to the authority of a Patriarch to other bishops.

From a Western point of view it is not analogous. It seems we should look more specifically at the historical and specifically the scriptural evidence rather than to repeat dogmatic formulae.

What status does the Ravenna document have? Isn't it purely advisory?

Joe

The petrine ministry is possessed by all the bishops, and not simply by those sees founded by St. Peter.

It is more than purely advisory, that is, unless Rome is simply saying things in order to trick the Orthodox into an agreement that would turn them into vassals of a papal king.

As I see it the Ravenna Document is one foundational stone in a necessary rapprochement between East and West.

The role of particular bishop within a synod of bishops, even the role of the bishop of Rome within the universal episcopate, is not by divine institution, but is by historical circumstance and by the decrees (horoi) of the ecumenical councils.

Primacy and synodality are inseparably bound together (and are both divinely instituted), but who acts as primate within the synod is not a divinely revealed truth.

While I personally agree with you, I don't think that Rome has this notion in mind. Rome interprets the papal ministry as being instrinsic to the Church and not just to the Church universal but to each local Church. This is precisely Pope Benedict's ecclesiology.

Joe

Scriptural evidence is vital to the discussion. Sadly, for the Roman bishop there is nothing in sacred scripture that says he is primate within the college of bishops. In fact, the primatial position accorded to the bishop of Rome was given to him by the ecumenical councils (see V. Nicolae Dura's excellent article "The Petrine Primacy: The Role of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canonical Legislation of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millennium," in the book The Petrine Ministry, published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity).

Thus, he is primus inter pares within the original pentarchy of patriarchal sees.

Todd, is the current teaching of Rome (expressed in Vatican I, II and related documents) a doctrinal error?

Joe

Joe,

Yes, I would say that the teaching enunciated at those two particular synods of the Latin Church is theologically erroneous, because it evinces a clear misunderstanding of the nature or primacy, confusing it with the secular concept of supremacy. I also agree with Archbishop Zoghby, who said that Vatican I and II are not ecumenical councils.

Todd

If this is true, then doesn't it follow that the eastern and western Churches do not profess the same deposit of faith?

Joe

Since Vatican I and II are not ecumenical, the most that can be said is that Rome has an exaggerated view of its own importance, and there is nothing new in that.

Read Fr. Klaus Schatz's book "Papal Primacy."

Todd, I must say you are an enigma to me!

You could maybe make argument for your position?



What a dichotomy - either Ravenna is the law of the land or it is a rather ominous (dare I say "jesuitical"?) plot to turn Orthodox into vassals of a papal king?

I don't have time to read the Klaus Shatz book right now... Maybe you could some up the convincing arguments you find for it vis the assertion that Vat I & Vat 2 are not ecumenical?

The burden of proof lies with those who affirm that those two local synods are ecumenical.

I do not need to make an argument, because St. Cyprian made one more than 1700 years ago, for he spoke of the "cathedram Petri" without restricting it to the see of Rome, as Fr. Maurice Bevenot (S.J.) explained in the notes to his translation of St. Cyprian's treatise entitled, "The Unity of the Catholic Church." Here is what he said about St. Cyprian's use of the phrase chair of Peter:

As St. Cyprian himself said, "The authority of the bishops forms a unity, of which each holds his part in its totality. And the Church forms a unity, however far she spreads and multiplies by the progeny of her fecundity; just as the sun's rays are many, yet the light is one, and a tree's branches are many, yet the strength deriving from its sturdy root is one. So too, though many streams flow from a single spring, though its multiplicity seems scattered abroad by the copiousness of its welling waters, yet their oneness abides by reason of their starting point." [ACW, volume 25, pages 47-48]

Thus, each bishop possesses the fullness of Episcopal orders, just as the persons of the Trinity possess simultaneously the whole Godhead; and in this multiplicity in unity, and unity in multiplicity, no bishop is over any other bishop, but all are sacramentally equal.