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

Dear friends,

I appreciate the dialog here on this thread, and the thoughtful answers people have posted. I also appreciate the kind words of encouragement that both Catholic & Orthodox posters have given me in response to my last post.

I am Eastern/Byzantine in my spirituality, world-view, outlook, phenomenology, etc. I have found my voice and heart in my late 40's, by arriving at this place religiously.

I live and die in the first millennium church. One of the reasons I have for staying Greek Catholic rather than Orthodox is to live in the unity of the first millennium Orthodox Catholic Church.

My misgivings are not about being anti-Latin or necessarily rejecting anything. I think that there are real doctrinal differences, purgatory being one of them. Sacred Scripture says, "The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment shall touch them."- Wisdom 3.1. I cannot conceive of purgatory as a place of expiatory suffering.

I have profound respect and warm admiration for nearly all of the 20th century popes, especially John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is quite simply that I see the primacy as one of honor, of an eldest brother among equal brother bishops; a leader, but not a ruler or supreme bishop. I believe all bishops share apostolic succession and Petrine ministry, although the Roman Pope is the successor to Peter's See (but then so is the bishop in Antioch).

I find it odd that our Ruthenian Catholic Church in the US, of which I am a member, is purportedly a Sui Iuris (autonomous) Church, yet, Rome selects our Metropolitan. That does not makes sense to me. In the union of Uzhorod, we were to choose our own bishop, with confirmation from the Roman See (and I think that too, is problematic; and it is also problematic that priests without bishops entered into communion with Rome). What can the Orthodox look forward to?

I think it is reasonable to challenge Orthodox and Catholic alike to examine closely the nature of the first millennium Church. I think it is a valid opinion that the papal claims of the 2nd millennium stretch beyond the 1st millennium understanding, especially in 1870.

If the pope alone possesses the charism of infallibility, could not he alone settled all of the Christological controversies dealt with in the first Seven Ecumenical councils?


blessings,

Lance

There is much more to it, my friend. I have seen the contraception debate rage on various fora. Are you attempting to justify papal infallibility and supremacy via the issue of contraception? I have seen the mind boggling numbers in polls that show the percentage of Catholics who practice or accept the practice of contraception. I have seen a convincing case made for NFP being another form of contraception (when being used to prevent conception). I have seen convincing arguments for the Orthodox acceptance of condom use as an issue between the couple and their spiritual father/confessor/pastor.

Economia/mercy is brought up by the Orthodox side when there are extreme circumstances regarding life threatening implications for the wife or extreme poverty of the couple. It is not a cut and dry argument. Neither Church condones abortive contraception.

Personally, I am against all forms of contraception--including NFP.

But this is an issue for another thread--and I guarantee you it will get heated.

Peace and blessings,
R

Such a descent, of course, is not, and never has been a part of legitimate understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome. Papo-ceasarism is sort of the opposite of the Caesaro Papism so elequently spoken of by Soloviev that great defender of "Orthodoxy!" Bad cases make bad law or in this case, no law at all. [And so we all must be reminded that if the Bishop Rome woke up and declared that one plus one eqauls three, we would suggest that he returned to bed to recover from his illness. ]

This reminds me that I do believe, with Newman and Cardinal Ratzinger, that without the voice of conscience -- as Newman calls it, the "aboriginal Vicar of Christ" -- there would be no Papacy.

Pope, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, married (including married deacosn and priests) and lay men, women and children -- all working in the Body of Christ for the Glory of the Father--this is the ideal which we must seek to make real.

Yes. It would have rendered the Great Councils meaningless.

Peace and blessings Recluse!

I can only be reminded of what Cardinal Ratzinger once said when asked about the state of the Church. He said it was quite good--just smaller than some people realized!

I am not justifying papal infallibility via the issue of its teachings on human life--just using it as an example of the Bishop of Rome speaking with the voice of the Fathers in the Modern world. And yes I agree that NFP can be inherently against conception and hence the Vicar of Christ states that there must be "just cause" for a couple to avoid conception -- but never can it be avoided by artificial means.

And here is where I agree that if a couple subscribes to the "just cause" argument, condom use and NFP are both valid options. As a matter of fact, I think I have read that odds of conception are greater with condom use, than they are with NFP (used correctly).

PS.--When was the title "Vicar of Christ" first used in history?

Dear Todd,

I see how you'd say there is no "sacrament of primacy", but I don't think anyone is arguing that primacy is a sacrament. Primacy pertains to good ecclesial order - all bishops are equal in sacrament and status, yet there is some kind of primacy within the temporal affairs. However, can it be said that our Lord didn't have this in mind? I'd argue that when the Ecumenical Councils affirm the order of the Church, there is something more to it than merely the declaration of men - a Divine blessing on some level.

Referring specifically to the decisions of Trullo (which Rome opposed) - it would seem odd that Constantinople hadn't overtaken Rome as prime See, why didn't it, since Constantinople was the new seat of the Empire? It would make better logical sense if Constantinople were made the primary See, especially considering that according to Trullo, Constantinople had out"ranked" Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Episcopacy is ontologically one, which means that no bishop can have power over any other bishop sacramentally, because all the bishops are � through the gift of episcopal consecration � equal in authority.

Thus, as I have come to understand it, primacy within synodality is not about power or jurisdiction over anyone; instead, it is about service and love in support of communion. In other words, the protos of the synod does not "rule" over it, for he cannot act in separation from the synod, nor can the synod act without its protos (cf. Canon 34 of the Apostles). Reciprocity is the key to understanding both primacy and synodality, but this is not what the West has taught over the course of the second millennium; instead, it has focused all its efforts on juridical notions that have no theological foundation in sacred scripture or in apostolic tradition.

I hate to say it, but I believe we are at an impasse, because I will never again believe that the papacy is divinely instituted. In fact, there is nothing in divine revelation about the bishop of Rome being the exclusive successor of St. Peter, and Pope St. Gregory himself admits this fact in his letters when he speaks of the historic See of Peter, which exists in three geographic locations.

Finally, in your concluding remarks you mentioned something about Constantinople gaining the primacy after Trullo, and you wondered aloud why Constantinople hadn't overtaken Rome as prime See? The answer is that Constantinople did ultimately replace Rome for the East, because in the events surrounding the schism the East ultimately did not deny the existence of primacy; instead, the Eastern Churches merely denied an unyielding attempt at legal supremacy by one Church over another Church, or group of Churches. In fact, the actions of the East after the schism reveal that the Byzantine Churches never confused primacy with supremacy, because Constantinople never made the kind of outrageous claims found in a document like "Dictatus Papae," which asserted the false notion that the Roman Church was founded directly by God Himself, and that the pope could be judged by no man, and that the bishop of Rome alone could be rightly called "universal," even though more than five centuries earlier Pope St. Gregory the Great denied explicitly that any bishop, including the bishop of Rome, could be called "universal."

Now, I have no doubt that my comments in this post will have offended some people at this forum, but that is not my intention, because as an Eastern Catholic I believe that the bishop of Rome does hold primacy within the universal synodal structure of the Church, but as far as the nature of that primacy concerned, I accept it only as it was lived and understood during the first millennium.

Recluse,
The title "Vicar of Christ" is a secular term given to Constantine and the Roman Emperors. It does not have the religious implication that Roman Catholics construe. The Pope is the "Vicar of Peter" -- still one of the official Papal titles. "Vicar of Peter" referes to the apostolic authority to "bind and lose" -- religious authority. "Vicar of Christ" refers to the secular power to judge and enforce the moral order -- to punish and execute criminals. The Bishops are to act like apostles saving souls and the Emperor acts on Earth as Christ will at the final judgment.

In my opinion, unless the Pope as the monarch of the Vatican State intends to preside over public executions, the "Vicar of Christ" title should be abandoned. Ascribing "Vicar of Christ" to the Pope has its origins in the fictitious "Donation of Constantine" anyway...

Amen. I agree that the more ancient title, "Vicar of Peter", is a far better expression of his proper role. Understanding the noble intent, I would also say that the title "Vicar of Christ" was a real stretch for the Emperors and more of an issue than when it was applied to the Pope of Rome.

Just my two cents...

Gordo

Regarding "Vicar of Christ" - aren't all bishops the vicars (representatives) of Christ?

Does Rome teach that it is the "exclusive successor of St. Peter"?
I have never believed that Rome is the exclusive successor of St. Peter - I agree with Pope St. Gregory's tri-partite model of Petrine succession with Rome holding a particular primacy. Yet all three Petrine Sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch exercise jurisdiction in a way that is different from the Byzantine model (when I refer to Alexandria and Antioch I am referring to the Coptic and Syriac Patriarchates, not the Greek). Of course the Copts and Syriacs don't exercise jurisdiction according to the Latin model either.



Trullo was in 692 (?), but the Schism didn't ultimately come to fruition for many hundreds of years. So within that timeframe, why wasn't Rome replaced by the Empire's new Seat?


Whether you believe Orthodoxy has never blurred the distinction between conciliarity, supremacy, and primacy, I suppose it depends who you ask.. See what Fr. Peter Alban Heers says in UnCut Mountain - �Reach out a Helping Hand to the Churches� [uncutmountain.com] -- He seems to think all Orthodoxy is under the neo-Papal model..


Todd,
I, for one, am not offended in the least - in fact I agree with most (but not all) of what you write.. and I thoroughly enjoy reading it the way you have articulated your response.

And just were did you find this information.
Perhaps this is correct but as far as I know the term "Vicar of Christ" was the title of the Roman Pontiff in the 8th century, from the 13 th century it was the prefered title over the more ancient one "Vicar of Peter". It expressed the claim of universal jurisdiction in virture of christ's words to St Peter, "Feed my sheep" John 21:15 ff. Up until the 9th century, other bishops sometimes called themselves Vicars of Christ.

Stephanos I