www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology About the Papacy and the Early Church

Do the Eastern Catholics view the Papacy like the Orthodox, in the sense that he is the first among equals? I understand that they might, because the early Church Fathers didnt speak of the Papacy like the Church does today, and Eastern catholics tend to be more patristic.

Just curious. Thanks!

drewmeister2
which church fathers, there are plenty who give a witness of more than a first among equals
stephanos I

CHRIST IS RISEN! First among equals - Primus inter pares in Latin - is not a dogmatic expression, but it is often used as a handy summation of how the Roman primacy is viewed.

It is correct to use this expression, provided that we realize that each of the three words counts:

Primus: the Bishop of Rome REALLY IS FIRST. This is not an "honorific" primacy; it may and must function (precisely how it should function is a topic concerning which John Paul II several times invited assistance from the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox).

Inter: the Bishop of Rome is a Bishop among Bishops, not a "super-bishop" over the bishops.

Pares: in the order of sacramental grace, all the bishops are equal (this does not take into account the problems posed by auxiliary bishops, titular bishops and curial bishops - or the medieval pseudo-bishops).

Thus Saint Gregory the Great could and did write to the Patriarch of Alexandria "in rank you are my brothers, in manner of life you are my fathers". Saint Gregory also objected when Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" because, as the Pope wrote, no one should use such a title. At the same time, Saint Gregory the Great was no shrinking violet in the exercise of the primacy.

But I've only scratched the surface. I suggest Tillard's excellent study *The Bishop of Rome*.

Incognitus

I'm Orthodox, but since no one Catholic has answered your question, I'll attempt to so do:

Eastern Catholics are Catholics and believe the same dogma as any other Catholics. Therefore, what Vatican I said about the Roman Pope, being dogma that all Catholics believe, is what Eastern Catholics are bound to believe.

Photius

Since an Orthodox has answered for Eastern Catholics I dont suppose they'll mind a Latin doing the same. These links come are from Byzantines.net [byzantines.net] a very good source of information on Eastern Catholicism. They are extracted from one of the online books hosted at the website and give a decently broad conception of how Eastern Catholicism sees the Roman Pontiff:

Chapter 8: The Papacy [byzantines.net]

Chapter 9: The Papacy [byzantines.net]

Chapter 10: The Papacy [byzantines.net]

The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church was never completed by Vatican I because of the Franco-Prussian war, which ended the Council prematurely. It was finalised at Vatican II in the form of what is called 'Lumen Gentium'. This finished presentation does not by any means contradict what was written in 'Pastor Aeternus' but treats the subjetct more fully. 'Lumen Gentium' interprets 'Pastor Aeternus' and it is this interpretation that Catholics are bound to accept.

Does this mean, for instance, that the Papacy no longer claims universal jurdistiction? Well the answer is self-explanatory, not to claim univeral jurdisction would be contradictory and cause the magisterium to crumble against its own premises. However, what the Catholic Church means by 'universal jurdistiction' can only be understood from reading Lumen Gentium [vatican.va] and the post-conciliar magisterial documents on the subject. The jurisdiction implied by the completed Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium [vatican.va] is far more in line with the tradition of the Fathers as taught in the 2nd century by St Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses Book III chapter 3 [newadvent.org] and Canon v of the Council of Sardica in the 4th century [fordham.edu] .

The Pope is not an uberBishop. All Bishops enjoy the fullness of episcopal orders so much so that the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say:

But however by virtue of his unique apostolic succession the Pope does have certain prerogatives. This is because as the Catechism tells us: Sincerely
Myles

Dear Myles,

Yes, indeed.

Our brother, Photius, is, I'm afraid, looking at the Catholic development of doctrine from an Orthodox point of view!

And that point of view is, if I can make a simplistic comparison, one that sees doctrine as being defined and "added on" to what was previously defined.

The idea of doctrines previously proclaimed being mitigated in future by other popes and councils is something that is not on the Orthodox radar screen.

And I'm not the best person to describe the Development of Doctrine.

But that is why Photius and our other Orthodox friends say what they say about Eastern Catholics.

Alex

Hi,

Yes, Vatican II developed the dogma proclaimed in Vatican I. However, that development applies to the whole Catholic Church.

Therefore, the way Latin Catholics believe about the Pope because of Vatican I, Vatican II and other related magisterial documents, must be the same way Byzantine Catholics believe about the Pope.

In other words, the dogmatic doctrine about the Pope needs to be common to all Catholics, regardless of liturgical tradition.

If Vatican II developed Vatican I, that's fine, but since both councils are general councils of the Catholic Church, then they define and/or develop doctrine equally for all Churches Sui Iuris.

Of course, the relationship of a Latin Catholic with the Pope is different than that of a Byzantine Catholic, because although for both the Pope is Supreme Pastor of the Church, for the Latin Catholic the Pope is also the canonical head of the Church Sui Iuris he belongs to, but the same is not true for the Byzantine Catholic.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

For the EC Churches, the administrative/jurisdictional aspect of the Papacy is the most important one that there is.

The EC Primates/Patriarchs share in the government of their respective Churches with the Pope.

Respect for their patrimony and style of governance is also to be respected.

I've yet to see where the Catholic Church has ever defined that the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (whatever the formal title is, I really don't care to know!) is to have a role at all in governing the EC Church.

Or that Papal Nuncios are to get involved in nominating bishops - something that led to an unfortunate tug of war at our new eparch's consecration.

We are very loyal to the Pope of Rome and need no one at all to tell us about what we believe about his role - our martyrs speak louder than words in this respect.

We just want the Roman bureaucracy to "butt out" of our affairs and leave us to be who we are.

Alex

Alex,

You're preaching to the bishop, here

The only reason to have Sui Iuris Churches is to have Sui Iuris Churches, that is, Churches that can rule themselves in every aspect of their life and operation.

Of course, we believe there should be a supreme authority to determine whether that life and operation is within the context of the Catholic Church.

But the original question was, I understand, "What do ECs believe about the Papacy?" And my answer is that ECs should believe about the Papacy the same things RCs should belive about the Papacy. No more, no less, no different.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

O.K., but even then you have to qualify things, Big Guy!

As the ultimate arbiter on matters of faith and morals, the discipline of the Church in accordance with the Canons etc. yes, the Pope is "it."

What do you think of my new avatar that depicts the original Icon of Our Lady of Mt Carmel?

Alex

Like it!

Shalom,
Memo