www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox and Catholic Theologians Discuss Papal Ministry

Orthodox and Catholic Theologians Discuss Papal Ministry
Symposium Organized by the Council for Christian Unity

Code: ZE03052707
Date: 2003-05-27

VATICAN CITY, MAY 27, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Catholic and Orthodox theologians met to identify key points on the question of the papal ministry, during a symposium convoked by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

With this initiative, the council's president, Cardinal Walter Kasper, wished to respond to John Paul II's petition in his encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" to "find a way to exercise the primacy that, without renouncing in any way that which is essential to its mission, will open to a new situation."

Papal authority is a fundamental issue that has separated Orthodox and Catholics since the schism of 1054.

Professors of the Teaching Academies of the Orthodox Churches participated in the academic meeting last week.

Representatives were sent by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople -- among others, the president of the Athens Academy -- as well as representatives of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchates, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

The Russian Orthodox Patriarchate was also invited, but the appointed representatives were unable to travel to Rome.

Topics discussed included the biblical foundation of the primacy; the primacy in the Church Fathers; the role of the pope in ecumenical councils; and recent debates on primacy in relation to the First Vatican Council and among Orthodox theologians.

Monsignor Eleuterio Fortino, undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told Vatican Radio that the atmosphere of the meeting was "fraternal" and "transparent and warm."

"Without the need to come to conclusions, the symposium was quite free, which facilitated discussion on the problems just as they are posed both in the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church," he said.

According to Monsignor Fortino, the principal contribution of the meeting was "to define and specify the problems."

The topic of the pope's ministry is also marked by a history "of controversies, misunderstandings, exaggerations," the monsignor added.

"I think that the real contribution has been the identification of the real problems, both on the evangelical foundation of the Petrine ministry, as well as on the evolution, growth and realization of this ministry in the Church," he said.

Special attention was given to the way the Fathers of the Church address the question, and the definitions and action of the ecumenical councils. Time was also allocated to clarifying and studying what Vatican I had to say.

This was the first symposium of this type held in the Vatican. "The study is open and must continue not only with the Orthodox Churches, but also with the ancient Churches of the East, which pose the same problem, and I think especially with the Churches stemming from the Reformation," Monsignor Fortino affirmed.

"The issue is much more difficult with them, as the topic in question is much greater; for example, a fundamental topic is apostolic succession and episcopal collegiality," he said.

The monsignor explained that in the last session of the meeting "there was also discussion on the possibility of preparing a joint publication to promote further reflection and wider dissemination of the issues."

Dear Administrator,

My own view here is that it is important for the Roman Church to clear up any confusion in its own mind and that of others with respect to the role the Pope plays over the Latin Particular Church, on the one hand, and other Churches, on the other.

Ultimately, Rome need not be involved in trying to pare down its authority over the Latin Church - that's an internal thing that has no real concern to other Churches.

The path to agreement here seems simpler if Rome would only agree to see its role with respect to other Particular Churches in the same way as it existed in the first Christian Millennium - period.

If Rome is hoping, and I hope not , to try and convince the Orthodox to accept a watered-down papal jurisdiction OVER them - then the rest of the Orthodox theologians in Rome might as well join the Russians who stayed at home.

Alex

The level of Papal authority will always be a major concern to the Orthodox.

I think it is key to understand the unity of the Church prior to 1054 and what were the causes of the schism. As I recall, in the waning days of Byzantium, the emperors made trips to the west to gain support against the Turks. In some cases bringing the Patriarch with him. Attempts at unity were always rejected back in the Orthodox areas, with papal authority one of the biggest issues.

As an Orthodox, I have no issues with the Pope's authority over the Latin Church, or the position of His Holiness being "First Among Equals." I do have problems with him exerting any authority over the Orthodox Churches.

I read this and was immediately jealous that I was not invited since this is in the area of my doctoral research!

So I tried to e-mail the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to get copies of the proceedings, but do they have addresses? I scoured the Vatican website for "Contact us" type links, and there were none. Has anyone ever e-mailed them before? Where is the list of addresses for the dicasteries, etc?

Adam

Hopefully, one day, Catholics and Orthodox can be in the same communion. I do not see it going any further than that. The Orthodox will never accept the Pope as anything but the head of the western church.

The real danger in all of this the fact that the Orthodox Churches are independent of each other. If the Greeks are in communion and the Russians are not, then how do we relate to each other. As much as communion would be a good thing, it is much more important that we maintain Orthodox unity. We can't afford to be "picked off one by one" and hopefully the Catholics won't follow that course.

No, no, Monsignor! Those would be "ecclesiastical communites", not churches, and especially not Churches.

Yes, I know: I'm a troublemaker!

Justinian,

"..any authority"? What about the way the early Church operated - - - obviously the Pope did have some type of authority over the Church.

Logos Teen

No, no, Monsignor! Those would be "ecclesiastical communites", not churches, and especially not Churches.

Yes, I know: I'm a troublemaker!

Justinian,

"..any authority"? What about the way the early Church operated - - - obviously the Pope did have some type of authority over the Church.

Logos Teen [/QB][/QUOTE]

The Pope had authority in the West, but not in the Byzantine Empire (unless, of cource you include the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204.) The Patriarchs in the East had authorities in their respective areas set by the Ecumenical Councils. From what I understand of the early church, major theological issues were decided in the Ecumenical Councils, not decided by one sole person in Rome or elsewhere.

I think there is value in looking at the church prior to 1054 and how it was structured.

jpo: I like this idea, as I see issues of faith far closer to solution than issues of administrative structure.

Justinian: What theological questions are now decided by one person in Rome?
As for jurisdiction, would you find it acceptable for the Pope, as first among equals an the undivided church, to exercise authority limited only be the precedents established by the EP during the last millenium, during which he was first among equals in the Orthodox church?

Justinian: What theological questions are now decided by one person in Rome?
As for jurisdiction, would you find it acceptable for the Pope, as first among equals an the undivided church, to exercise authority limited only be the precedents established by the EP during the last millenium, during which he was first among equals in the Orthodox church? [/QB][/QUOTE]

As far as the theologiocal questions go, I do not want to get into a debate.

You pose a good question on the EP, I am not an expert on the precedents of the EP in the last millenium. I do not follow his activities too closely, since he is not the Patriarch of my church. I think the EP prior to the Turkish takeover of Constantinople may be a better example to follow.

My feelings are to look at the church prior to 1054, understand how the unified church functioned the reasons why the spilt occurred.

Dear Friends,

Certainly, the Pope of Rome had no jurisdictional authority "over" the Eastern Churches in the first millennium.

The rule with respect to immediate jurisdictional involvement by the Bishop of Rome was the SAME as that involving the Emperor of Rome - anyone had the right to appeal to Rome in a situation that could not be resolved locally, either by the local (Church) authorities or to an individual's satisfaction.

This only occurred once or twice in the first millennium, as Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote.

However, Rome played a far greater role on the theological plane in those years, especially with respect to defending Orthodox doctrine against Arianism and also against iconoclasm (e.g. papal letters to the iconoclast Byzantine emperors, chiding them etc.).

In addition, we should not overlook the fact that it was the internal politics of the Byzantine Empire at Constantinople that truly established the grounds for a strong, jurisdictional papacy in the West.

This is discussed in Dvornik's work on the Photian schism.

The East needed a strong Western "referee" in Rome as a way to balance out the power struggles it was constantly experiencing.

It is no wonder that Rome quickly became such on the ecclesial level as well.

The praises of the Pope of Rome sung by the Eastern Churches at the Ecumenical Councils far outstrip anything said about the papacy in the later RC medieval times.

Alex

While some in the East might accept the Roman Pope's universal jurisdiction throughout the Latin Rite, others would point out that it fails to pass the test of "conciliarity."

If all of the other issues separating East and West were settled, this would still be a critical one. Would the West accept that every Patriarch (East & West) is ultimately fallible and removable by his peers in his respective synod/council?

In Christ,
Andrew

During St. Peter's (Cephas') life did any of the apostles and bishops ever oppose his authority as leader of the Church? (Other than when Paul corrected Peter for not eating with Gentiles in Galatians Chp. 2.)

BradM

BradM,

In which case Peter's papal authority was never questioned anyway.

Logos Teen

Dear Adam,

I just noticed your request for an e-mail address for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is: office1@chrstuni.va

I found this in the 2003 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican`s yearbook.

I hope that this helps.

Charles

If Peter's papal authority was never questioned by the catholic Church during the years he was alive, why should the non-western churches in the catholic Church question and oppose the juridical authority the successor to St. Peter has who holds the office and position that Christ established and gave the "keys to the kingdom" (cf. Isa. 22:15-25; Jn 1:42; Mat 16:15-19; Jn 21:15-19)?

Should we not look at the man that holds this office and position the same as St. Peter himself? Why does it matter if the primary See is in Rome? By stating "you are Latins" and "I am Greek" and "he is Maronite" and "he is Chaldean" and "he is Russian" and "he is Ukrainian", etc. do we not now bring the "kingdom that is not of this world" down to the petty polictics of this world?

Sincerely,

BradM