www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Must we agree to Papal supremacy to be BC?

I know I ask many questions. Usually I do not ask them from a dogmatic perspective. Most questions I've found are unanswered or at least they go through various levels of clarity.

Must BC's agree to the doctrine of Papal primacy which means to many Papal supremacy, in order to be BC's? If we do aren't we making a joke of our claims to be a Sui Iuris Church? If we don't then are we really Catholic? How and where do with find ground to stand on?

Help!!

Dan Lauffer

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

There's a difference between primacy and supremacy. I think the Roman Catholics interpret Primacy as Sumpremacy...which is FLAWED interpretation..and I think that concept have grown from there.

I don't believe that the Catholic Church don't teach the Supremacy in the first place.

I think it's because the Pope is the Roman Catholic's direct leader...that he rules over them because he's the Patriarch of the West.

But...that shouldn't affect the Eastern Churches....if it does...then we wouldn't be who we are...Eastern Catholics!

So...by the way...I'm Byzantine CATHOLIC.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

spdundas,
Could you define primacy and supremacy in this context for us?

Dear Dan,

Apart from the issue of definition, Eastern Catholics agree on the position of the Pope along with Roman Catholics.

We may have a "collegial" understanding of his role that may make us feel more "Byzantine" about it, but the reality remains.

We are "under him" in his role as Universal Pontiff and Servant of the Servants of God. We are not under him as Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Patriarch of the West etc.

Catholic teaching affirms, however, that, unlike Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics are entitled to govern themselves through their Primates and Patriarchs along with the Pope.

There is a rumour that there are a few issues that still need to be worked through to everyone's satisfaction in this department .

As for this business of being "under him," Alexander Schmemann explained the role and authority of Orthodox bishops and Patriarchs as being "Absolute."

Orthodox Christians are as "under" their Patriarchs and Bishops, as we are under ours, including the Pope of Rome.

The Bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, speaks with the authority of the Apostles, an authority they received from Christ Himself.

Alex

Hi Dan --

I was born Roman Catholic, spent time in the Melkite church for awhile trying to discern where I should be and ultimately converted to Orthodoxy.

Your question really hits home because I struggled with this question for a long time. During my study on this issue (papal supremacy, must BC's accept this completely), I tried to keep a clear head and work through these issues with prayer and a thirst to find the truth.

Through study, I came to the conclusion (which didn't take that long) that because Byzantine Catholics are truly part of the Catholic Church, and because all dogma is understood as universal within the Catholic Church, then, as a BC, I must hold firm these truths, these dogmas established by Rome with all particular Churches in union with it. Therefore, since papal infallibility is a universal dogma confirmed at Vatican I and re-confirmed at Vatican II, I had to accept this teaching as true, not just for the Roman Church, but true for all Catholic churches. Please read the text of Vatican I @ EWTN's website to understand it from the horse's mouth.

Afterwards, I thought to myself: OK, as a Byzantine Catholic I must and I am bound to hold the dogma of papal infallibility. But, is the dogma of papal infallibility true based on theological, scriptural and historical truth? Well, I guess I will dig in some more and see for myself.

Then, after a longer period of study and prayer, I came to the following conclusion (I will be very brief here):

1) Theologically, the dogma did not hold water. I came to believe that the Church is united and present where the faithful gather to celebrate the Eucharist under the local bishop together in the Faith. Not in the supremacy of the bishop of Rome.

2) Scripture - after study of the early church fathers and their exegesis of Matthew 16:18, I found that none of them saw universal supremacy in Peter. Rather, Peter's confession of the true Faith in Jesus Christ.

3) History - I found one or two church fathers who came close to the understanding of the Catholic Church's dogma of papal infallibility: they were both popes! Other than that, all early writing rejects this dogma.

Don't just take my word - look for yourself. I was very fustrated with the lack of concensus on this issue from BC's. In fact, most of them held opinions contrary to the Catholic Church (like SPDundas' comments).

Peter did, in fact, have a primacy of honor (head among equals) but not supremacy.

Dan, please email me privately if you have any other questions. I would be happy to answer any of them.

In Christ,

Greg

Dear Greg,

I understand where you are coming from and respect your conclusions and commitment.

(You sound a bit like Brendan in your writing - do you know him?)

You are absolutely right that ANY Catholic in union with Rome agrees on his role and position.

But that role and position was different in different times of history. It is not written in stone and Pope Urban VIII's understanding of the papacy is not John Paul II's although I grant that you will disagree.

Orthodox theologians in discussions with RC theologians agree with me however . If they didn't, they wouldn't be even talking to RC's about a new understanding of the Petrine Primacy.

John Meyendorff readily admits that the Orthodox prior to 1054 held the primacy of Rome and that that primacy was "good for the Church" in which the Church found its unity.

The jurisdictional issue was also held by the East prior to the Schism.

Popes did intervene in the Eastern doctrinal battles and not one Orthodox Patriarch denied the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, the right to do so in times of crisis, including the issue of St John Chrysostom.

That Patriarchs, Roman and Byzantine, liked to extend their own jurisdictional power, that is a fact.

The Russian Orthodox patriarch continues to try and keep his hold over some Churches that are trying to break away from him.

And I do have an uncle who is a Patriarchal Russian Orthodox priest with a doctorate from the Moscow Academy.

He has often told me that the Patriarch of Moscow is as bureaucratic and as feared as any Pope from Rome. And he says this is necessary for order in the church. His words, not mine.

Moscow also defines itself as the "Third Rome." The reason? It has everything to do with Peter's presence in Rome, Rome's subsequent development as the pre-eminent Christian center and teacher of other Churches and defender of Orthodox faith against heretics of the first millennium, including iconoclastic emperors - and this at at time when the mouths of many Eastern bishops were stopped by imperial decree.

Again, the Orthodox Church does not disagree that Rome had this pre-eminence and that it was based on Peter.

The argument about "Peter's Faith" is largely a Protestant one. Kallistos Ware in his "The Orthodox Church" acknowledges that the Orthodox Church admits Rome's pre-eminence of honour based on scripture and Peter's confession of Christ and his subsequent Apostolic leadership etc.

Are you suggesting that Peter's authority and that of the Apostles as well is not reflected in that of bishops and patriarchs - and popes?

In addition to scripture and the Fathers, the ongoing, living experience of the Church is also something that has to be studied.

Your view of St Peter and the Pope of Rome does not even square with up-to-date Orthodox theology.

And there are different jurisdictional styles practiced even within Orthodoxy today. The way the Moscow Patriarchate operates is quite different than how other, smaller Orthodox Churches operate. And all point to St Peter and the Apostles as the foundation of their canonical, Apostolic authority.

We too, as laity, share in Peter's charism. As the Fathers said, when we confess Christ, we too become a St Peter!

That is the foundation for all teaching and governing authority in the Church, the confession of Christ.

St Peter was the first one who confessed it.

Christ told him that he would be the Rock on which He would build His Church. Not on the sinful Peter, but on the Peter transfigured by Divine Grace that was already operating in him when he made his confession of Christ.

And the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on that Peter.

I trust Christ's words apply today as much as they applied then. For He is the same today and forever!

Did I mention that I'm an Eastern Catholic?

Alex

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Alex --

Thanks for your honesty and thoughful approach.

---"John Meyendorff readily admits that the Orthodox prior to 1054 held the primacy of Rome and that that primacy was "good for the Church" in which the Church found its unity."

I agree.

---"Popes did intervene in the Eastern doctrinal battles and not one Orthodox Patriarch denied the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, the right to do so in times of crisis, including the issue of St John Chrysostom."

True. Rome was known for its purity of Faith and many churches appealed to Rome for clarification.

---"Are you suggesting that Peter's authority and that of the Apostles as well is not reflected in that of bishops and patriarchs - and popes?"

No, not at all. Sorry if it seemed that way. "And popes?" Well, not the authority that the pope enjoys now.

---"That is the foundation for all teaching and governing authority in the Church, the confession of Christ. St Peter was the first one who confessed it."

Yes.

--"(You sound a bit like Brendan in your writing - do you know him?)"

My friend, I have had the ultimate pleasure of meeting the infamous Brendan twice. We have visited each other's churches. He is the epitome of coolness, a deep well of knowledge and a first class Christian.

Greg

Very well put, Alex!

I've been working on a webpage that deals with the subject of the popes and the Eastern Church. It's still in development and I'd appreciate any input from people here. Feel free to send me private email with any criticisms or suggestions for improvement:

Popes of Rome who are Orthodox Saints:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/orthopopes.html

There are also some articles on the main site that deal with some of these issues (the Formula of Pope St Hormisdas, a critique of Abbe Guette's book _The Papacy_ on how it presents Pope St Leo, etc.) :

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/index.html

As Alex is fond of saying--you've got to watch out for us converts! (I'm both a convert and a revert to the Catholic Church!) Seriously, any input in private email would be helpful to me in honing the presentation on these pages. Thanks!

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Alex,

With posts like that, you make me want to switch to the Byzantine Rite!

Alex, again, hitting the nail on the head! However, I would only take it further by stating that the pope's infallibility comes from the fact that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" [The Church], as when the Pope, or the bishops together with the Pope, declare doctrine on faith and morals, and ONLY on faith and morals. Infallibility of the Church would be best realized with the "Pope, together with the Bishops" part because, as you said, each bishop is another apostle, and Christ made it so. This is why it is so important that we all, Orthodox and Catholic (and other Apostolic Churches), become one again, so that we have the "Pope, together with [ALL] the bishops" as a sign of true infallablity and colegiality in declaring faith and morals. We are in and age where technology can make it truly possible to have "one voice" from all the bishops, and this one voice is the Pope. His "job", throughout time, has been to maintain unity over the Church, and be the "one voice" for all of the bishops in declaring matters of faith and morals. He is to guide and care for the Church with the love of a Father. We have had bad popes, but NONE have EVER declared anything contrary to dogma, EVER!

I agree--I take Christ at His word on this--simply because "He said so." This is just my meager interpretation of it.

God bless!

Rich

>>>We have had bad popes, but NONE have EVER declared anything contrary to dogma, EVER!>>>

Um, well, there is the little inconveniene of Pope Honorius I, condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople for teaching that there is only one will in Christ (monothelitism). Latin apologists have tried to squirm their way around this one for centuries, and it was a major objection to infallibility at the First Vatican Council, but none of the arguments used (all of which amount to variations on "He didn't know what he was saying" to "He didn't really mean it") stand up to any rigorous scrutiny. The facts are plain: Honorius taught a proposition that was rejected by the Church while he was sitting as a canonical pope, was anathematized for it, and the Church of Rome accepted the condemnation. In fact, until well into the Second Millennium, the anathema was actually read out in church every year. It's still read out every year in Orthodox Churches on the Feast of Orthodoxy (First Sunday in Lent), including those Byzantine Catholic parishes which actually read the Anathemas on the Vigil of the Feast.

Hence, VCI is not correct and the Pope is not infallible? I guess the lot of humanity is to be illogical. Do you think that there will ever be a meeting of the minds on this issue?

Dan Lauffer

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Stuart wrote:


To see how Catholic apologists actually respond to this see:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

http://catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html

http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?recnum=3301

The issue is: did Pope Honorius teach error ex cathedra?

Notice also how Pope St Agatho (who reigned after Pope Honorius) wrote of the ministry of the popes to the Church (this to the Emperor and the letter was read at the 6th Ecumenical Council):

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all....

Therefore the Holy Church of God, the mother of your most Christian power, should be delivered and liberated with all your might (through the help of God) from the errors of such teachers, and the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [that faith I say] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the Apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls....

And indeed the apostolic predecessors of my humility admonished, begged, upbraided, besought, reproved, and exercised every kind of exhortation that the recent wound bright receive a remedy, moved thereto not by a mind filled with hatred (God is my witness) nor through the elation of boasting, nor through the opposition of contention, nor through an inane desire to find some fault with their teachings, nor through anything akin to the love of arrogance, but out of zeal for the uprightness of the truth, and for the rule of the confession of the pure Gospel, and for the salvation of souls, and for the stability of the Christian state, and for the safety of those who rule the Roman Empire. Nor did they cease from their admonitions after the long duration of this domesticated error, but always exhorted and bore record, and that with fraternal charity, not through malice or pertinacious hatred (far be it from the Christian heart to rejoice at another's fall, when the Lord of all teaches, "I desire not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live;" and who rejoiceth over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety-and-nine just persons: who came down from heaven to earth to deliver the lost sheep, inclining the power of his majesty), but desiring them with outstretched spiritual arms, and exhorting to embrace them returning to the unity of the orthodox faith, and awaiting their conversion to the full rectitude of the orthodox faith: that they might not make themselves aliens froth our communion, that is from the communion of blessed Peter the Apostle, whose ministry, we (though unworthy) exercise, and preach the faith he has handed down, but that they should together with us pray Christ the Lord, the spotless sacrifice, for the stability of your most strong and serene Empire.

It's interesting to read the reply of the Council to Pope St Agatho. They acknowledge his letter to them as "divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles [St Peter]." They then refer to the definition the Council came up with as "clean from all error, certain, and infallible" and then ask for Pope St Agatho's confirmation!

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-130.htm#TopOfPage

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

"And indeed the apostolic predecessors of my humility admonished, begged, upbraided, besought, reproved, and exercised every kind of exhortation that the recent wound bright receive a remedy, moved thereto not by a mind filled with hatred (God is my witness) nor through the elation of boasting, nor through the opposition of contention, nor through an inane desire to find some fault with their teachings, nor through anything akin to the love of arrogance, but out of zeal for the uprightness of the truth, and for the rule of the confession of the pure Gospel, and for the salvation of souls, and for the stability of the Christian state, and for the safety of those who rule the Roman Empire. Nor did they cease from their admonitions after the long duration of this domesticated error, but always exhorted and bore record, and that with fraternal charity, not through malice or pertinacious hatred (far be it from the Christian heart to rejoice at another's fall, when the Lord of all teaches, "I desire not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live;" and who rejoiceth over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety-and-nine just persons: who came down from heaven to earth to deliver the lost sheep, inclining the power of his majesty), but desiring them with outstretched spiritual arms, and exhorting to embrace them returning to the unity of the orthodox faith, and awaiting their conversion to the full rectitude of the orthodox faith: that they might not make themselves aliens froth our communion, that is from the communion of blessed Peter the Apostle, whose ministry, we (though unworthy) exercise, and preach the faith he has handed down, but that they should together with us pray Christ the Lord, the spotless sacrifice, for the stability of your most strong and serene Empire."

Are you suggesting that the Orthodox, and perhaps the Eastern Catholics, should prevail upon the Latin Church to modify VCI and II's declarations about Papal Infallibility in this same manner. For that matter, should Roman Catholics who have some reservations about the modern formulation of Papal Infallibility beseach the Church in this fraternal way?

Dan Lauffer

Dan wrote:


No. Pope St Agatho was writing about "his apostolic predecessors" (the popes who had preceeded him). I as an Eastern Catholic have no problem with papal infallibility properly understood.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com