www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

First I would like to thank Adam A.J. DeVille for his new book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects for East West Unity.
And I wish to highly recommend reading this book.
One thing at once struck me, instead of speaking of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope could we not phrase this in another term Universal Responsibility of the Pope for the Unity of the Churches? Just a thought give me your ideas.

Well, we should be completely in union with each other at some point, so why not?

Communion, not union. Too much freight attached to the latter word.

No, because he neither have a universal responsibility for it, nor a prevailing jurisdiction to enforce it.

No communion that doesn't come from unity.

Unity in essentials, diversity in the unessential, charity in everything. Don't make mountains out of molehills. You have a nasty tendency to do so in a very pugnacious manner. Fortunately, most of the Orthodox I know are much more eirenic and if they have a chip on their shoulder, leave it at home.

I agree. And as I see it the papacy is not essential to the Church. The bishops in general are successors of all of the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.

Well, I suppose the Apostles didn't need St Peter, but without him they were headless. Do you not think the bishops need a Bishop?

St. Peter was rather headless himself, at times. So who was HIS bishop? In any case, there is but one Apostolic charism, just as there is but one Episcopal charism--and all members of those orders share in them equally. One is ordained a bishop, but elected Pope. Peter's role as first among the Apostles was not to tell them what to do, but to strengthen the brethren in faith and unity. Peter often did this by yielding to others--as he yielded to James at the Council of Jerusalem (and, indeed, to the entire Council itself, which directed Peter to go as Apostle to the Circumcized and Paul to the Gentiles). He yielded himself to Paul in Antioch, when Peter would not sit at table with the Gentile Christians.

So being the first is just as Christ described: the one who would be first must go last. He who would be great must first humble himself. A Pope who did that--who basically let go of his grandiose titles and perquisites, and presented himself truly as Servus Servorum Dei, would not need universal jurisdiction or claims of infallibility: he would be recognized as having those things by moral authority, without the necessity of sanction of law.

What a perfectly scriptural, Christian idea. Too bad that there are way too many Catholics who won't go along with it.

I'll definitely check this book out, along with, "His Broken Body." A friend of mine (Who's OCA) suggested he and I read it; and talk shop about it, over drinks.

Agreed. I personally don't care much for triumphalism, on either side of the fence. I'm blessed to have the friends I do - within Orthodoxy; and those friends within Catholicism.

Let me remind posters the spirit in which this post was posted.
Let's have posts which try to foster concord and understanding.
Not gripes about the past but how can we go beyond them to build up the Church not tear it down.

In conjunction with the book "Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint, and and the Prospect of East West Unity, let's take into consideration of the Speech of H.B. Patriarch Gregorios III given in Rome 10-24 October 2010 for the Special Assembly of the Middle East.
If anyone can post access to the speech please feel free to do so, thanks. (I am not that adept with computers)

I think this is the speech you have in mind and it's a good, provocative one.

https://www.byzcath.org/index.php/n...gregorios-iii-ecclesiology-and-ecumenism

Thanks.