www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West JP II ON SUPREME JURISDICTION

Lance, my brother!

A few things...

1. It is not a given that all Orthodox will never accept Vatican I. If interpreted in continuity with the first millennium and in light of Vatican II, it actually says far less than some uber-Latinists would have us to believe. Sometimes what we are rejecting is merely what is understood at a popular level regarding official Church teaching.

2. If one looks at Papal ministry as a whole, it actually is quite a sensible ministry. No authority can arbitrate a decision when two equal parties are in dispute unless it draws on a greater authority. Otherwise, why should they listen and obey his ruling on the matter in dispute? Read about the history of St. Athanasius and his appeal to Rome. If ever there was a Patristic witness to the need for a Petrine ministry embedded in the Apostolic See of Rome, INDEPENDENT of the Imperium and the semi-Arian Eusebius' Imperial Ecclesiology and over the authority of the bishops, it is the account of Athanasius.

3. Ghosty has offered some tremendous insights lately on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You might review those. Also be sure to swim a bit in the Syrian patristic teaching on this matter. All that Eve possessed, Mary did and more. Also, bear in mind that "Original Sin" is nowhere authoritatively rejected within Orthodoxy. What is often passed off as "official" Orthodox teaching is usually the opinions of certain bishops or theologians, however esteemed and well known they may be.

4. One need not "reject" Latin doctrines to be Orthodox, unless one defines Orthodoxy as a negation of all things Latin or Catholic. The doctrine of indulgences, for instance, simply does not even enter my consciousness as an Orthodox Catholic. Do I reject it? By no means! Do I use it? Noop. Nor do I accept the somewhat infantile notions of purgatory that developed in traditional Latin piety. But that does not mean I reject the dogmas...I just understand it through an Eastern lens. Again, with Filioque, why the need to "reject" anything? (The introduction into the profession of faith in the Western Church is an exception. I personally think that the West should embrace a different discipline here and conform to the original text.)

5. Finally, I refer you to many of the writings of Vladimir Solovyov, particularly this text:

The Russian Church and the Papacy [amazon.com]

I believe he offers a very balanced view on the topic.

Again, one can go in any direction and find things to criticize the Latins about. The loss of the Artos and the use of unleavened bread like the Armenians, for instance. The loss of a married priesthood, the unilateral nature of the insertion of the Filioque, etc etc. But beware of well meaning folks who assert a view that SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE such things have been authoritatively rejected. They have not been, since no Council which is binding on the faith of Orthodox Christians has been called which does this, nor do these doctrines contradict the magisterial liturgical texts of the Divine Liturgy.

God bless, my bro...

Gordo

As an Eastern Catholic I hope that the Orthodox will stand firm in rejecting the Roman Church's innovations espoused during the second millennium.

I agree. The theory of the papacy espoused at Vatican I and II is incompatible with the Orthodox faith. The pope does not have universal jurisdiction, nor is he infallible when taken alone.

I also support the Zoghby initiative. It is a sad historical fact of the second millennium that the petrine ministry has been seen as limited to the bishop of Rome by Western Christians, but all bishops are successors of the Apostles, which necessarily includes Peter, and so there is no special charism of primacy exclusive to the bishop of Rome.

I also am attached to the Byzantine Catholic Churches (in particular the Ruthenian Church), but if acceptance of the fourteen Latin synods of the second millennium is required of me as an Eastern Catholic, I will have no other alternative but to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

As things now stand, it is my hope that Eastern Catholics will work diligently in order to help the Roman Church recover the ancient understanding of the primacy, not as a power over others, but as a service in support of communion.

Sadly, if Eastern Catholics fail to take up this task it is unlikely that ecumenical dialogue will move forward in any substantive sense. Thus, for the sake of unity, I believe that all Eastern Christians are duty bound to assist Roman Catholics in restoring the ancient understanding of primacy within the Latin patriarchate.

If I understand correctly what you are defining as "innovations," your hope is incompatible with the Eastern Catholic faith.

Dear Todd,

How do you reconcile the view that the bishop of Rome has no special charism of primacy with the view of Nic�a, the Syriac Patriarchate, and the Latin Patriarchate? I thought that the Orthodox disagreed with the idea of "Papal supremacy", but recognized "primacy" as a given.

It seems to me that there is an impasse here even in the East, as the Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, Assyrians, agree more with the Latins in the West in regard to the "primacy" of the Bishop of Rome and even how it is exercised at times in a singular fashion; while the Byzantine Churches prefer a more synodal structure.

Quite simply, the Byzantines of Constantinople were more endeared to the views of the semi-Arian Eusebius because it artificially upheld the role of the Imperium effectively supplanting the proper unifying role of the Apostolic See of Rome as had been traditionally held. The Armenians, Syraics, Copts and Assyrians had NO such affection (to say the least) or attachment to the Byzantine Emperor in the East. The 117 year iconoclast crisis opened the eyes of many, such as Theodore the Studite, to the dangers of an Imperial center of Church unity. Unfortunately, Rome and Constantinople were already set on opposite courses (made much worse by Iconoclastic emperors, councils and patriarchs in the Byzantine East) which were later only exacerbated by a growing cultural and social divide as well as the West's insistence upon upholding the notion of a "Frankish" Western Empire and the later appointment of Patriarchs of Constantinople by Muslims who were hostile to the West and wanted to guarantee continuity with their anti-Western policies.

The issue of the proper role of the Apostolic See of Rome goes back much further than simply Vatican I and II. I would, echoing Father Vincent Twomey, a former doctoral student of Father Joseph Ratzinger while at Regensberg and an acquaintance of mine, see it laid squarely at the feet of a semi-Arian heretic, hostile to the interventions and orthodoxy of Elder Rome. (See his Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and the historico-apologetic writings of Saint Athanasius the Great.)

God bless,

Gordo

There is no sacrament of primacy.

Ultimately, the bishop of Rome is just that, a bishop, who -- because his See has been granted by the ecumenical councils a degree of oversight -- holds a primacy of honor within the synodal structure of the Church, but not supremacy over the universal episcopate.

Now, I have touched on this in previous threads, and would simply refer you to those earlier posts, since they give a basic summary of my position:

The Papacy and the Eastern-Rite

Ecclesiology

I do not agree, and there is no historical evidence to support this claim. The papacy is not of divine institution, and the petrine ministry is shared by all bishops.

God bless,
Todd

I say--no compromise.

Amen. St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

Hi Lance,
Slava Isusu Christu!

Wow! I could have written this post word for word! It is why I now find myself in the loving embrace of Holy Orthodoxy. Everything you have posted here was also a soul searching challenge for me. I was standing on the edge of the cliff teetering back and forth. When the RDL was promulgated, it was the gust of wind needed to take the plunge!

Only if you are willing to ignore some significant passages from the Gospels, the Fathers of the Church and much of the evidence of history.

Apart from that, unfortunately you have no authoritative magisterial basis for such assertions. As with most things, it is ultimately your opinion and your read on history, the Gospels and the Fathers.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Todd,

Peace and God's blessings! You stated:


I would only add that this was the understanding of JPII. As he stated:



Primacy and faithful service in love for the unity of the Church are not, and cannot be demonstrated to be, mutually exclusive.

Without the voice of the Papacy, Modernism, which is indeed the very "air" that we all breath (both East and West) reduces truth to some "historical idea" always dependent on time and place. Many of the things which the Fathers squarely rejected become acceptable to modern believers. I take as an example, contraception, which many (both East and West) take to be compatible with the faith. Such teaching was rejected by all orthodox Christian believers until the Anglicans held the Lambeth conference in 1930. I can't think of anything more devastating to Christianity in modern times than that event. The Popes' clear and constant rejection of contraception in modern times, despite its unfavorable reception, is an example which shows that the primacy of the Successor of Peter keeps those who are willing to listen in the Truth.

The Petrine Primacy is not in service of itself, but in the service of Truth in Love. And interestingly enough, without it, the Orthodox East has yet to convene an Ecumenical Council. As JPII himself said, "Be not afraid!"


PS - The style of pallium with red crosses that Benedict XVI wore in his official inauguration Mass was last worn by another German Pope, Leo IX, who died about three weeks before "the Great Schism" in 1054. See Benedict XVI, Servant of the Truth by Peter Seewald, p. 135.

Im,

Unfortunately the witness of the Papacy has not always demonstrated "faithful service in love." Rather, to borrow a phrase coined by Father Louis Bouyer, it unfortunately descended in practice into a form of Papo-caesarism. I thank God for the reforms of Vatican II which seemed to set this ministry in its proper context: the Pope as Bishop of Rome and Successor (I even prefer the early title "Vicar") of St. Peter serving in the midst of the college of apostles/bishops as its guardian of orthodoxy, servant of unity and authoritative prophetic voice.

BTW, Todd is quite right about the Petrine connection to the whole of the episcopate. But I do not believe that the implications of that connection are the ones he asserts.

God bless!

Gordo

That's interesting. I was going to say that the Orthodox position is supported by Scripture, ECF's, and historical evidence.