"Catholic-Orthodox talks on papacy" document from catholic culture; its implications?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Future_Prodigy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Future_Prodigy

Guest
document in question: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7732

After reading this, I started to become troubled with certain questions. If the Church is willing to allow the Orthodox to accept a papal position reflective of first millennium Christianity… it seems this would cause other theological ripples. As an Anglican discerning conversion to Rome for the last couple years the papacy has been the major hurdle for me to get over. If Rome is now saying that it might allow such a theological stance to be taken, I can’t help but think that my church along with Lutheranism and other denominations would never have come in to existence. Obviously there was other underlying causes but the papacy was a major instigating issue. Allowing a first century interpretation affirms a lot of what classical protestantism has been saying for centuries!?

I don’t understand this move, and it has further complicated my thinking - as I have been doing extensive reading on first millennium Christianity hoping to solve some of my issues (essentially seeing from these sources, that the Pope did in deed have such a position and was not a later development). Is the church now invalidating numerous apologetics which have sought to maintain a modern understanding of the pope in the first millennium!?

Please someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic than I, speak up. How do I make sense of this “ecumenical” move? It seems like complete undermining.
 
While I don’t think this would change the facts of the protestant reformation, I do tend to agree that by giving this statement it is a tacit agreement that the second millenium view of the papacy is either wrong, or at the least, questionable.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
document in question: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7732

After reading this, I started to become troubled with certain questions. If the Church is willing to allow the Orthodox to accept a papal position reflective of first millennium Christianity… it seems this would cause other theological ripples. As an Anglican discerning conversion to Rome for the last couple years the papacy has been the major hurdle for me to get over. If Rome is now saying that it might allow such a theological stance to be taken, I can’t help but think that my church along with Lutheranism and other denominations would never have come in to existence. Obviously there was other underlying causes but the papacy was a major instigating issue. Allowing a first century interpretation affirms a lot of what classical protestantism has been saying for centuries!?

I don’t understand this move, and it has further complicated my thinking - as I have been doing extensive reading on first millennium Christianity hoping to solve some of my issues (essentially seeing from these sources, that the Pope did in deed have such a position and was not a later development). Is the church now invalidating numerous apologetics which have sought to maintain a modern understanding of the pope in the first millennium!?

Please someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic than I, speak up. How do I make sense of this “ecumenical” move? It seems like complete undermining.
Click to expand...
Remember that this is just a discussion of what the Pope is in relation to the Eastern Churches. This will not change what the Pope is today for Western Christianity. So any Roman Catholic will not feel or see any change from their perspective, if there is one.
 
Nine_Two said:
While I don’t think this would change the facts of the protestant reformation, I do tend to agree that by giving this statement it is a tacit agreement that the second millenium view of the papacy is either wrong, or at the least, questionable.
Click to expand...
Or they can just say that the role of the Papacy as is today has been all along intended exclusively for the Western Church and that the schism made it complicated somewhat, which I believe it did. For a few centuries the Pope who’s also Patriarch of the West, only headed the Latin Church. Even the Maronites, who never formally broke communion, were out of communication for a while. They can simply say that the role of the Pope that evolved is meant only for the West and should have not been applied to the Eastern Churches.
 
Nine_Two said:
While I don’t think this would change the facts of the protestant reformation, I do tend to agree that by giving this statement it is a tacit agreement that the second millenium view of the papacy is either wrong, or at the least, questionable.
Click to expand...
Which to me has far reaching implications, does it not?
ConstantineTG said:
Or they can just say that the role of the Papacy as is today has been all along intended exclusively for the Western Church… Maronites…simply say that the role of the Pope that evolved is meant only for the West.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m being too sentimental but it seems that this flies in the face of what has been said historically for centuries now. It seems to at the bare minimum ignore the issue at hand. Simply side sweeping the notion as being relevant only for western Christians is troublesome. Where did this line of reasoning come from? I have only ever read and heard arguments made for the *universal *jurisdiction, never solely western Christendom.
 
It seems silly to believe that the pope had some special power in the western church but not in the eastern church. Logically, he either has a place of universal authority or none (and as a result the current view is a development if this is the case). Why would the bishop of Rome have precedence over other bishops in the west at the exclusion of eastern bishops? This seems problematic and not the argument made in history or by current apologetics.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
document in question: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7732

After reading this, I started to become troubled with certain questions. If the Church is willing to allow the Orthodox to accept a papal position reflective of first millennium Christianity… it seems this would cause other theological ripples. As an Anglican discerning conversion to Rome for the last couple years the papacy has been the major hurdle for me to get over. If Rome is now saying that it might allow such a theological stance to be taken, I can’t help but think that my church along with Lutheranism and other denominations would never have come in to existence. Obviously there was other underlying causes but the papacy was a major instigating issue. Allowing a first century interpretation affirms a lot of what classical protestantism has been saying for centuries!?

I don’t understand this move, and it has further complicated my thinking - as I have been doing extensive reading on first millennium Christianity hoping to solve some of my issues (essentially seeing from these sources, that the Pope did in deed have such a position and was not a later development). Is the church now invalidating numerous apologetics which have sought to maintain a modern understanding of the pope in the first millennium!?

Please someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic than I, speak up. How do I make sense of this “ecumenical” move? It seems like complete undermining.
Click to expand...
I am not understanding your pov. What exactly do you interpret as “undermining” Catholic principles from that link? Can you please spell it out concisely? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I would submit that we are still in the speculative stage as to how things might work in an reunified Church.

As this article correctly states, the history of the papacy and the model of unity in the first millenium has been revisited with a fair degree of agreement.

What has yet to be discussed and determined is how things may work in the third millenium …
 
Future_Prodigy said:
Which to me has far reaching implications, does it not?

Maybe I’m being too sentimental but it seems that this flies in the face of what has been said historically for centuries now. It seems to at the bare minimum ignore the issue at hand. Simply side sweeping the notion as being relevant only for western Christians is troublesome. Where did this line of reasoning come from? I have only ever read and heard arguments made for the *universal *jurisdiction, never solely western Christendom.
Click to expand...
Just a thought. But after the Great Schism, the Pope doesn’t have any other Church except the Latin Church, no other Patriarch to tell him otherwise. All the other Churches are in schism from him and the Maronites were cut-off. I think the position I proposed is reasonable in a way that Rome doesn’t have to completely recant from its current position and at the same time give what the Eastern Churches have been asking for. Most people think its an either/or proposition, that the Pope claim universal jurisdiction or he doesn’t. I’m just inserting a third position which is a combination of the two thrown in there that Rome, perhaps to save face, say that how the Pope is viewed as been always from the Western perspective and that the absence of the Eastern Churches for centuries has skewed the view that “universal” during that time actually just means “Western” since there are no Eastern Churches for a while.
Future_Prodigy said:
It seems silly to believe that the pope had some special power in the western church but not in the eastern church. Logically, he either has a place of universal authority or none (and as a result the current view is a development if this is the case). Why would the bishop of Rome have precedence over other bishops in the west at the exclusion of eastern bishops? This seems problematic and not the argument made in history or by current apologetics.
Click to expand...
Why is it silly? He is Patriarch of the Latin Church, he does have “special power” in the Latin Church that he doesn’t have in the East.
 
Do the Orthodox believe/think that the Pope wants to ‘rule’ them?

therfore they dont want to be subject to him,or like his subjects?

Surely the Pope is fair and charitable and not a ruling cruel dictactor no?

or do the Orthodox not want to give jurisdictional control of their churches to the Pope of Rome?

Is that what would happen (surrender control/power of their churches to the Pope) ? or would the Pope not take control of their churches?
 
Paul_theApostle said:
Do the Orthodox believe/think that the Pope wants to ‘rule’ them?

therfore they dont want to be subject to him,or like his subjects?

Surely the Pope is fair and charitable and not a ruling cruel dictactor no?

or do the Orthodox not want to give jurisdictional control of their churches to the Pope of Rome?

Is that what would happen (surrender control/power of their churches to the Pope) ? or would the Pope not take control of their churches?
Click to expand...
Both things have happened in the past. The recent trend is toward autonomy, but things can and have changed before.
 
Nine_Two said:
Both things have happened in the past. The recent trend is toward autonomy, but things can and have changed before.
Click to expand...
Do you mean with the Eastern Catholics or the Orthodox?

Has the Pope ruled over (had control) over the Orthodox at some time?
 
Nine_Two said:
Eastern Catholics. The Pope has never ruled over Orthodox.
Click to expand...
So you believe he wants to ‘rule’ your church ,or be like a ruler/dictator?

rather than be a loving/generous/charitable overseer of the whole church…?
 
Paul_theApostle said:
So you believe he wants to ‘rule’ your church ,or be like a ruler/dictator?

rather than be a loving/generous/charitable overseer of the whole church…?
Click to expand...
The problem how the perception of papal rule is being portrayed by the laity. Its common to hear the accusations of, “the Pope can suppress the Divine Liturgy if he wants to,” or “replace your patriarch if he wants to.” Hearing things like that, I’m not surprised the Orthodox are afraid of such a scenario.

I agree that the Pope is not a dictator. But why are some trying to paint him as such?

Also the other issue is does the Pope have as much authority? I think the Orthodox will accept some authority, but to what extent is what is being discussed.

One question I put out in the NCF, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction, why didn’t he depose the bishops of the Eastern Churches when they went into schism? The Pope could have held on the the Eastern Churches back then. I believe if the Patriarch of Constantinople was replaced at some point, it could have prevented the Great Schism. That is IF the Pope did have that much authority back then. But since it never happened, I’m compelled to believe he didn’t.
 
Paul_theApostle said:
So you believe he wants to ‘rule’ your church ,or be like a ruler/dictator?

rather than be a loving/generous/charitable overseer of the whole church…?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI wants to rule over our Church. I simply look back on his predecessors and don’t trust his successors to think likewise.

Also under the first millennium view, he would not be an overseer of the whole Church.
 
ConstantineTG said:
One question I put out in the NCF, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction, why didn’t he depose the bishops of the Eastern Churches when they went into schism? The Pope could have held on the the Eastern Churches back then. I believe if the Patriarch of Constantinople was replaced at some point, it could have prevented the Great Schism. That is IF the Pope did have that much authority back then. But since it never happened, I’m compelled to believe he didn’t.
Click to expand...
He didnt even do that with the English church which were of the same ‘western Patriarchate’
or did he? …im sure the archbishop of Canterbury is still anglican??

so i think its unrealistic to think he will replace eastern bishops/churches

The fact that he didnt i think is a positve sign for the Papacy …perhaps if he did or wanted to then that kind of jurisdictional primacy is exactly the sort of primacy that it seems the Orthodox are against or dont want…

So hes not trying to overstep his mark by doing such a thing to replace the whole eastern church
 
future prodigy said:
it seems silly to believe that the pope had some special power in the western church but not in the eastern church. Logically, he either has a place of universal authority or none (and as a result the current view is a development if this is the case). …
Click to expand...
bingo
 
Paul_theApostle said:
Do the Orthodox believe/think that the Pope wants to ‘rule’ them?
Click to expand...
This is what the Roman Catholic church says of itself:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Since this is not is not apostolic and not historical, the Orthodox consider it a heresy to teach as a dogma. It is not a divine ordinance, it is historical revisionism that the Orthodox reject.

But it is a fundamental element of the Roman Catholic church ecclesiology. It is a claim that the Papacy has an intrinsic authority which should extend over the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic churches which was never true.

It is well known that these notions of Papal universal jurisdiction are a development, not present and not functioning in the early church and it is also well known that some of the early support for Papal authority was forged (these forgeries did influence others who had no idea of it). Part of the reason for these things was an attempt by western clergy to counter-balance the negative influence of western monarchs and nobility on the governing of church affairs.
Paul_theApostle said:
therfore they dont want to be subject to him,or like his subjects?
Click to expand...
It is not apostolic, it was not that way from the beginning, so no. If someone was to claim that all churches should be under the patriarch of Jerusalem (for example) it would be just as unsupportable and wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top