www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Cardinal as Pope?

Well, the primacy is not based on being the bishop of Rome. The primacy is, from the Catholic pov, based on Christ's promise to St. Peter. It is not because he is the bishop of Rome that a Pope holds the primacy; rather, it is because the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Does that make sense?

I've never studied it in depth, but were any of the Avignon Popes valid Popes (i.e., not anti-Popes)? If so, it would seem that holding the primacy is not absolutely dependent on the See of Rome, but on being the acknowledged successor of St. Peter in the primacy of the divinely-established College of bishops.

Blessings

Pope Gregory acknowledged three sees being Petrine in nature: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, with Rome having its primacy because that's where Peter was martyred, in addition to having a seat there.

An unfair question to ask since it was obvious by the time he visited Ukraine that his health had declined significantly to prevent him from celebrating.

Saint John Paul II was the main celebrant for 3 Byzantine Divine Liturgies during his pontificate:

July 10, 1988: Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite for the Millennium of the Baptism of Saint Vladimir. Video. [youtube.com] (Note: It erroneously states the liturgy is from 1996.)

August 18, 1991: Divine Liturgy celebrated in the Shrine of Our Lady of M�riap�cs, Hungary. Photo and article. [cnewa.org]

July 7, 1996: Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite on the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest. Video. [youtube.com]

This is not counting 3 other Divine Liturgies in which he presided.

Plus...

Feb. 8, 1986: St. John Paul II wears Syro-Malabar vestments and inaugurates the restored Holy Qurbana with beatifications during apostolic visit to India: Photo 1. [forums.catholic.com]
Photo 2. [forums.catholic.com]


That's easy to answer. A Pope has never visited the Russicum.

Considering the liturgical gifts that the Popes have received from Orthodox patriarchs, they may well have a suitable collection of liturgical vestments to begin using. Photo. [i.huffpost.com]

Looks like His Beatitude Gregory III has no problem gifting Popes with Byzantine liturgical vestments. Maybe he can become their official supplier: Photo. [3.bp.blogspot.com]

That's an interesting consideration into the matter. QUESTION: When the See of Rome is vacant, should primacy automatically devolve on the Pope of Alexandria, instead of the Cardinal Camerlengo? As a Copt, I would personally like that.:)

It's both.


I'm no historian either, but I believe the answer to your first question is yes. However, this means nothing in regards to the See issue because, as I understand it, the popes were not in Avignon because they got tired of living in Rome and decided to up and move one day "just 'cause." They were fleeing persecution there - for a time.

Dear brother Talon,

The See of Rome is unique and accorded special honor because of it was watered with the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul, and the blood of the martyrs is the wellspring of the Church. But the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not because he is the bishop of Rome, but because of he is the successor in the primacy of St. Peter.

I've met not a few (both Catholics and non-Catholics) who often wonder why St. Paul is not more explicitly included in V1's teaching on the primacy. That is because though St. Paul is just as important as St. Peter for establishing the Church of Rome, it is the succession of primacy itself from St. Peter himself that is the cause of the primacy, not the See of Rome.

Blessings

Then explain the Petrine attribution to Alexandria, and Antioch, as well. Because, in reality, bishops are successors of Peter, too.

Dear brother Lester,

I'm not sure if this question was addressed to me (your post indicates it was a reply to 2lungs - I'm not sure how that works)

Anyway, the Petrineness of the See of Antioch is obvious. The Petrineness of the See of Alexandria is due to the Alexandrian Tradition that St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter and it was St. Peter who sent St. Mark to evangelize Egypt.

I do not see any evidence from the Fathers that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. I have asked for proof several times in the past from various boards, and I've never gotten an answer. I believe the bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively, not of St. Peter alone. I think the closest proof is St. Cyprian's statement that "all bishops are as St. Peter was." St. Peter was the preeminent representative Apostle, and so as successors of the Apostles, all bishops are indeed as St. Peter was. But that is far from saying that all bishops are actually the successors of St. Peter.

In any case, I seriously believe the idea that all bishops are particularly the successors of St. Peter diminishes the importance of the divinely instituted College, as if St. Peter was the sole foundation of the Church. I believe the idea that bishops are the successors of the Apostles (as distinct from just St. Peter) is a much more orthodox and patristic understanding of the matter.

In any case, the teaching of V1 is very specific. It teaches that the bishop of Rome is the successor in St. Peter's PRIMACY. That certainly leaves open an admission that other particular bishops ordained by St. Peter share in the apostolic succession from St. Peter (in the same sense as other bishops having apostolic succession from other particular Apostles). But being the successor in the PRIMACY is a unique thing. Primacy designates an office of one. Having every bishop share in the succession of PRIMACY is antithetical to the very purpose of primacy. Even within the primatial status of Rome/Alexandria/Antioch among all other Churches, Rome itself had a particular primatial place among those three.

Blessings

For what it's worth (since there have been a number of references to V1), a quote from Pope Emeritus Benedict via Fr. John Hunwicke (of the Ordinariate and his blog, Fr. Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment): "In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word."

But for the most part "absolute monarchs" are not elected. We all know elections are always flawed and there is nothing divine about them and never was.

A distinction without a difference, brother...

http://www.legatusmagazine.org/what-is-papal-primacy/

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

Even the Orthodox recognize the primacy of the See of Rome itself. Obviously, the difference lies in the manner in which that primacy is exercised.

Dear Talon,

Orthodoxy does not recognized the primacy of Rome since Rome has fallen into heresy re: the Filioque and other issues.

Orthodoxy today affirms the Petrine Primacy being exercised by New Rome.

You should check your facts.

Alex

Dear Brother Marduk,

And both Sts Paul and Peter ordained bishops for the early communities at Rome.

Papal robes always have both Chief Apostles depicted on them.

Alex

And you should probably exercise a little more grace, Alex. Do you honestly think I'm suggesting that the Orthodox recognize the primacy of the See of Rome in practice, right now?

I think we Orthodox recognize Rome's primacy both in historical terms as well as in any future reunited Apostolic community - but never in the same manner as the exercise of such primacy is understood by the Church of Rome in the present day.