www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

This is exactly where serious Orthodox and Catholic theologians engaged in dialogue, official or unofficial, are starting from on this issue. This ought to be acknowledged and accepted. Anything else is a rehash of tired, sinful, old polemics and should be left in history's trash bin. We're Christians, for God sake, and owe it to the world to get over it and on with it!

If anyone is trying to guess; I come from both (Utroque) Traditions.

Here's where we get back to what I was quoting from Unitatis Redintegratio, namely that "When comparing doctrines with one another, [Catholic theologians] should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.
This is the *one* over-arching principle upon which true ecumenism stands, and I believe 1Cor. 13:1-3 outlines this principle:

In other words, there clearly are elements of the Christian life that matter more than others, and charity ranks ahead of all the others. Right below it follows the fact that dogmatic statements are made with human words, but the truth to which they point lies beyond those words.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I agree Utroque. We need to resolve our differences. The radical Muslims and radical secularists would like nothing better than the total destruction of Christianity. It is way past time that the Eastern and Western Church get past the polemics and unite before it is too late.

Anthony, for Christians of the Apostolic churches, it should be a no-brainer. Pardon the expression, and thanks for your support.

Points one through four essentially summarize the points of agreement (more or less) as set forth in the papers of recent Orthodox/Catholic theological dialogues. Point five states the obvious.

I agree. **

I disagree. All bishops are the successors of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome (along with the bishop of Antioch and the bishop of Alexandria) has a historical succession from St. Peter, but that historical succession does not give the Pope of Rome (anymore than it gives the Patriarch of Antioch or the Pope of Alexandria) universal, immediate, episcopal jurisdiction throughout the worldwide communion of catholic Churches.

I agree. The primacy of the bishop of Rome is founded upon the teachings of the ecumenical (i.e., the Seven Great Councils) and several of the local synods.

I agree. But Roman Catholics hold that the Roman bishop's primacy has already been defined through the acts of the ecumenical councils (or as I would prefer to call them . . . the local councils) of the Roman Catholic Church that were held during the course of the second millennium (culminating in the teachings of Vatican I and Vatican II).

Is Roman primacy a divinely revealed dogma? No. Nevertheless, the Roman Church teaches that it is; while the Eastern Orthodox Churches reject this notion as false.

I agree. Fr. Cleenewerck in his book, His Broken Body, speaks about primacy at the worldwide level and I see no reason to reject what he has to say on the matter.

Does the bishop of Rome possess a functional primacy within the worldwide communion of catholic Churches? Yes, I think he does.

Is this primacy a divinely revealed dogma? As I said above, no, it is not.

Does the bishop of Rome have universal and immediate episcopal jurisdiction in every diocese across the world? No.

Is it a divinely revealed dogma that the bishop of Rome, when he ". . . speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals"? No, it is not a divinely revealed truth that the bishop of Rome is - within certain defined parameters - infallible. The bishop of Rome is no more infallible than the bishop of Oakland or the bishop of Cleveland when exercising his apostolic / episcopal ministry.

Are the definitions of the bishop of Rome of themselves, and not by the consent of the Churches, irreformable? No.


Added note: **I do not equate St. Peter (or his position within the apostolic college) with the bishop of Rome, because I hold that all bishops are sacramentally (i.e., through episcopal consecration) the successors of St. Peter.

I think that Stuart's point number two is wishful thinking. I have never seen any Orthodox bishop affirm that the bishop of Rome is sacramentally the sole or unique successor of St. Peter. In fact, all bishops are successors of St. Peter. The episcopal ministry is one, and it is the episcopal ministry that manifests St. Peter's faith and rule within the Churches.

The problem as I see it Fr. Deacon is that Rome, not the Orthodox, has declared papal primacy to be a dogma, i.e., a truth of the highest order. Or is dogma not really all that important in the Roman Church? Have I perhaps overestimated the importance of dogma for Roman Catholics, and does that mean that the dogma of the Incarnation is not really that important either? If dogma is not that important why declare the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome as a dogma?

Fr. Deacon you do not have to answer the questions above, but I do have a question for you: Is the primacy, universal and immediate episcopal jurisdiction, and infallibility of the bishop of Rome a divinely revealed dogma or not?

I would also love to see all the catholic Churches come back into communion with each other, but alas the innovations of the Roman Church during the second millennium as it concerns the position of the bishop of Rome (and his local Church) within the universal episcopate (and the common union of Churches) are preventing the restoration of communion. Nevertheless, I continue to pray for the restoration of communion, even though I do not see it happening any time soon.


Postscript: It is not "polemics" to point out real differences. The fact that I reject the theories (advanced by Vatican I and II) of papal universal and immediate episcopal jurisdiction and papal infallibility as false is in no way polemical.

There's room for different opinions about how important dogmas -- especially the papal dogmas -- are in Catholicism. However, we can at least say that they are important as part of the "law of land", so to speak, of Catholicism. Which, in concrete terms, is to say that if an Orthodox or other non-Catholic Christian wants to become Catholic (which does happen, even if we don't go around encouraging it) he/she needs to agree with those dogmas.

So in your opinion it is not possible to be Catholic (Roman or Eastern) and reject what Vatican I and II say about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome within (and over) the Churches?

Now if the Roman view of the papacy is non-negotiable then it follows that all Orthodox Christians will have to become Roman Catholic (not liturgically, but doctrinally) in order for communion to be restored.

Thank you for your honesty. It is refreshing.

Well I didn't get into that exactly (I was speaking specifically of an Orthodox wanting to "switch sides" but not agreeing with Catholic dogma); but since you ask: my reading of the situation (and canon law) is that the pope could excommunicate any Catholic who disagrees with those dogmas, but generally won't (excepting extreme circumstances). So no I wouldn't say "not possible".

Thank you.

What good is a selectively applied divinely revealed dogma?

Is the dogma of the Incarnation something that can be selectively applied?

Does a Catholic need to believe in the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or is it also a dogma that can be selectively applied?

I do not think anyone is talking about the selective application of dogma, but I believe someone referenced a papal document that spoke of an hierarchy of dogma. In other words, some dogmas are more essential to our faith than others. Those that pertain to the Trinity and the Divine Nature of Christ, the Eucharist, etc. have a higher importance than those that pertain to the Theotokos, or ecclesiastical structure, although they all have a relationship. I'm thinking primarily of the Assumption, Immaculate Conception and the Papacy itself. These dogmas that separate the east from the west are largely dogmas that have been defined by the popes ex cathedra or in Councils that had no, or little significant input from the Eastern churches, and their definitions bear a western imprint. Rome, if you will, understands this and is very willing to carry on a healthy dialogue with those churches separated from her with the hope that understandings and definitions can be arrived at which might be more acceptable to all for the sake of unity. If there's is no give and take, there's a stalemate and we all have to go home to our sinful isolation for another thousand years. That's not going to happen. To dismiss out of hand that such definitions, because they have this western imprint, are theories and mere opinion is highly polemical, and hardly worthy of serious theology.

I think what Peter is trying to say is that, in the meantime, until there is unity, anyone wishing to come into union with Rome ought to be held to all those dogmas that have been defined by her as such by. In serious theological discussion with separated sister churches they are open for review, IMHO. But, I guess, Peter can speak for himself.

I'm not entirely sure how to answer that -- and what partial answer I can come up with, I'd rather not post.

What I would mention here is, the same question could also be asked in regard to intercommunion. That is to say, if Catholicism really teaches Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas (and not merely the "law of the land") then how do we explain admitting a member of the ACoE, PNCC, or Orthodox Churches to communion with requiring agreement with said dogmas? Again, I don't know how to explain that; but there's seems to be a kind of consistency. (I'm not suggesting, of course, that two wrongs make a right.)

If I get the chance at some point, I might try posing those questions to William Tighe or "The Young Fogey".