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

[mardukm]

Where in official church teaching does it say we are allowed to interpret these texts in such a way? I highly doubt it was meant to be so ambiguous as to leave it open for future debate.

It is not ambiguous. The Fathers of the Vatican Council left us an explanation of what the Decrees meant in the Official Relatio of Vatican 1. The Relatio was the explanation of the Decrees of Vatican 1 given by Bishop Gasser of Brixen,. He was the offical spokesman for the Committee De Fide, the Committee at Vatican 1 charged by the Council to formulate its Decrees. This Relatio expressed a High Petrine understanding of the papacy, even appealing to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 as the proper way to understand “papal infallibility.” Do a search in CAF with the key word “Relatio” and author "Mardukm.’ You will find the truth of the matter very revealing.

I am still greatly bothered by the proposition that since the 1500s the pope has been said to have certain jurisdictional powers over all of christendom

Can you please enumerate these and/or a document that contains them?

and now we are editing history to allow a more “modern” understanding of the office.

The High Petrine view was the reality of the First Millenium. How can appeal to Sacred Tradition be a modernization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Future Prodigy,

For example, here is CAFs tracts on the pope: catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

There is really nothing here that can automatically be interpreted in an Absolutist Petrine sense. The links are only references, for the most part, to quotes from the Fathers.

and the catholic encyclopedia: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope

The old Catholic Encyclopedia article is actually rather fair, except for one thing - its claim that bishops are the Pope’s lieutenants. In opposition to this idea, Pope Leo XIII (a Pope dear to my heart as a Coptic Catholic) wrote in Satis Cognitum:

But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

the view you are saying doesn’t seem to resound with the view I see on here and believed from the pulpit down. Its only the minority ECs that seem to hold to such a belief

Ironically, despite the collegial intentions of V2, there was a resurgence of the neo-ultramontanist (i.e., Absolutist Petrine) mentality that was repudiated by V1 because of what was perceived to be liturgical chaos in the Latin Church. Many Latins thought the only way to fix it was to reassert the absolute authority of the Pope over bishops. If you have heard Absolutist Petrine meanderings all your life from Latin quarters, it might be expected, but it is a viewpoint that is not the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh I have some definite ideas, my brother, but it will have to wait for several days because I must go.

In Catholic and Orthodox dialogue regarding the papacy, the focus seems to be on whether or not the Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction and supremacy by divine right, and if he exercised these when the churches were in communion with one another. I would like to lay these questions aside for a moment, and discuss the issue from a practical standpoint. I would ask instead, “How would we have to compromise to achieve a reunited Church?” I believe that this would have to include the following:

Orthodox Compromise:

1. Accept the Bishop of Rome as the head Church, i.e. that he has primacy among the bishops
2. Recognize that headship is not purely honorary but implies jurisdictional authority
3. This jurisdictional authority would include:
   a. Calling, presiding at, and confirming the decisions of ecumenical councils
   b. Serving as a final court of appeals
   c. Acting as spokesman on moral and social issues

I would personally be willing to accept the above as conditions for reunion. I would like to ask now what Catholics would be willing to compromise for this goal. Again I would like to emphasize that I’m not talking about issues of dogma, but of practical governance.

 

[dcointin]

Oh I have some definite ideas, my brother, but it will have to wait for several days because I must go.

Please do respond when you’re able, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

Ghosty, you too! /looks around for Ghosty

 

[Peter_J]

It is probable that the analysis and proposals are too frighteningly rational for some (who likely prefer the status quo) to acknowledge …

I think you may be right about that.

I just read the National Catholic Reporter’s article “Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine” by Fr. Thomas Ryan (Jan. 18, 2011), which is essentially a commentary on the document “Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future.” Although I can’t think of anything incorrect that he said about that document, he doesn’t really give a very complete picture of it, because he steers clear of anything that might be troubling to Catholics.

(As it happens, he quotes the sentence right before the one we’ve been talking about, "The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.” but doesn’t continue the quote to “In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion.”)

In short, it seems to me that he presents an overly optimistic (from the Catholic point of view) picture of the document.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Interestingly enough, shortly after I submitted the post about that National Catholic Reporter article, I came across a blog article responding to it, titled “Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine (Not)”, which begins

From what Fr. Z so aptly refers to as the “National Catholic Fishwrap”…

I don’t want to get roped into a fight, so I’ll just say, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Peter_J]

The old Catholic Encyclopedia article is actually rather fair, except for one thing - its claim that bishops are the Pope’s lieutenants. In opposition to this idea, Pope Leo XIII (a Pope dear to my heart as a Coptic Catholic) wrote in Satis Cognitum:

But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

Ironically, despite the collegial intentions of V2, there was a resurgence of the neo-ultramontanist (i.e., Absolutist Petrine) mentality that was repudiated by V1 because of what was perceived to be liturgical chaos in the Latin Church. Many Latins thought the only way to fix it was to reassert the absolute authority of the Pope over bishops. If you have heard Absolutist Petrine meanderings all your life from Latin quarters, it might be expected, but it is a viewpoint that is not the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

There’s no doubt in my mind that ultramontanist (or neo-ultramontanist) has been alive and well in the post-VCII Catholic Church. As Peter W. Miller put it in A Brief Defense of Traditionalism

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

“CONSERVATIVE”: One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. ** A “conservative” extends the definitions of “infallibility” and “Magisterium” to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A “conservative’s” opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father.**

(emphasis added)

 

[Peter_J]

For example, here is CAFs tracts on the pope: catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

and the catholic encyclopedia: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope

the view you are saying doesn’t seem to resound with the view I see on here and believed from the pulpit down. Its only the minority ECs that seem to hold to such a belief

The “Steps Towards A Reunited Church” document isn’t an authoritative Catholic declaration, but neither is the Catholic Encyclopedia or the tracts produced the organization Catholic Answers, however popular they may be.

So while it may be surprising that they don’t say the same things, it isn’t necessarily a problem for Catholics.

 

[Mickey]

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.
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.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

The “Steps Towards A Reunited Church” document isn’t an authoritative Catholic declaration, but neither is the Catholic Encyclopedia or the tracts produced the organization Catholic Answers, however popular they may be.

So while it may be surprising that they don’t say the same things, it isn’t necessarily a problem for Catholics.

that’s the issue though isn’t it… what is problematic for Catholicism then!? It seems every thing under the sun has been proposed for understanding the pope and his role, yet no unified explanation has been given. As a potential convert I find this troublesome and causing serious hurdles.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

As an anglican who has became highly disillusioned with the ecclesiastical set up of the CoE, I am finding problems with the church hierarchy proposed in this thread and others I have searched. It seems highly reminiscent of Anglicanism. If the Pope is to leave each bishop to oversee his own diocese without any sort of allowed intervention (please correct me if I am misreading the threads) would spell disastrous for the catholic church. You’d get pro women’s ordination and homosexuality in North America, pro polygamy in Africa, etc. The set up of the CoE and where power/authority lies has been its downfall in meeting modern secular culture… i feel that this proposal is a veneer of that same underlying beliefs?

I firmly believe the absolute petrine view, as it is called here, is the only force able to meet modern day secular culture and be a force to counter it… this is what lead me to my journey to find out whether the papacy is a development or reality in the first place. Now the waters seem so muddled that one can not distil what is the “real” church teaching on the matter

 

[Ghosty]

Please do respond when you’re able, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

Ghosty, you too! /looks around for Ghosty

Wow, good timing as I just read this thread today.

Off the top of my head here are a few changes I think the Catholic Church should make, and would have to in order to realize unity with the Orthodox Churches:

1. The Pope has no say in the ordination and enthroning of Bishops in the non-Latin Churches, except in cases of dispute where Rome is appealed to.

2 There should be a general, universal Canon Law that deals with matters that pertain to the Communion as a whole, but each particular Church should have its own Code of Canon Law that is not directed by Rome. All matters that apply only to the way in which a particular Church operates should be legislated “in house”, and though the Pope would still be a court of final appeal in disputes, due consideration should be given to the norms of the Particular Churches when adjudicating these disputes.

1. For the sake of expediency and good will, all Catholic Churches should adopt the Orthodox dating of Easter. I don’t believe either side is “right” on this matter, but I think it would be much less tumultuous for Catholics to adopt the Orthodox dating than the other way around.
2. Make it abundantly clear that the Pope can’t simply “write up” new Dogmas, but rather has the power of “confirming the bretheren” in the Faith. Popular theological opinions and major theological debates can be definitively settled by the Pope, but only acting collegially. This doesn’t require an Ecumenical Council per se, and it doesn’t mean that the Pope can be “out voted” (the Pope’s job is to be the final safeguard of the Faith, after all), but it must reflect a meeting of the minds among the Bishops, and a preservation of the Faith handed down. If an Ecumenical Council isn’t warranted, the Pope must consult with the Bishops regarding the proposed Dogma (re: Immaculate Conception), or the doctrine must be so widely and deeply held that it is already essentially an accepted part of the deposit of Faith (re: Assumption of Mary). The Pope should also make clear precisely why the Dogma is being asserted, and what purpose it is meant to serve in the Faith; it’s not enough to simply present it as a fact, it should have a teaching quality to it that preserves a central Truth about God or our relationship with Him.
3. Make it very clear that the Bishops, but most especially the Patriarchs, stand with the Pope rather than below him. Whenever possible the Patriarchs and Pope should be presented as a united face of the Communion, rather than the Pope being the “big cheese”. The Pope is definitely the “elder brother”, and has certain responsibilities that go beyond those of his brother Bishops, but he shouldn’t be held out as a tier apart from the Patriarchs at the very least.

Some of these things are already present in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but they could be brought out more clearly and fully, and should be regardless of reunion with the Orthodox Churches, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The “Steps Towards A Reunited Church” document isn’t an authoritative Catholic declaration …

… nor is it an authoritative Orthodox declaration. I threw this into the discussion thread initially, and I am fairly certain I clearly characterized this as a work produced by a specific, independent group (namely, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation).

It is not the work of the more formally organized Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which was originally established by Rome and the hierarchs of 14 major Orthodox Patriarchiates. The statements of this body are generally held to represent the stated positions of all participating Churches.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Some of these things are already present in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but they could be brought out more clearly and fully, and should be regardless of reunion with the Orthodox Churches, IMO.

Ghosty - very thoughtful post as always! As a fellow EC in particular, I agree with much of what you said. I also think your final point is important to note, as it is also somewhat difficult for even some ECs to concede, but Rome’s teaching and conciliatory behavior is sincere, consistent and readily apparent these days. Given the current Pontiff’s demeanor and his candid statements both before and during his papacy, it’s hard to doubt the sincerity of his desire to work toward a restored communion. I also agree that all of this will have to result in a formalized, sustainable and permanent agreement of all the Apostolic Churches, as you well noted in your closing remark.

Peace be with you!

 

[Peter_J]

… nor is it an authoritative Orthodox declaration.

Good point. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

 

[Peter_J]

that’s the issue though isn’t it… what is problematic for Catholicism then!? It seems every thing under the sun has been proposed for understanding the pope and his role, yet no unified explanation has been given. As a potential convert I find this troublesome and causing serious hurdles.

I think I know what you mean. Catholicism seems to be in an “interpretive limbo” on this issue. I hope it will be clarified.

As an anglican who has became highly disillusioned with the ecclesiastical set up of the CoE, I am finding problems with the church hierarchy proposed in this thread and others I have searched. It seems highly reminiscent of Anglicanism. If the Pope is to leave each bishop to oversee his own diocese without any sort of allowed intervention (please correct me if I am misreading the threads) would spell disastrous for the catholic church.

That’s a possible interpretation, but personally I’m not much inclined to that interpretation.

Another possible interpretation, on the other extreme, is that it’s no more than “lip service” to collegiality/synodality.

 

[ConstantineTG]

2 There should be a general, universal Canon Law that deals with matters that pertain to the Communion as a whole, but each particular Church should have its own Code of Canon Law that is not directed by Rome. All matters that apply only to the way in which a particular Church operates should be legislated “in house”, and though the Pope would still be a court of final appeal in disputes, due consideration should be given to the norms of the Particular Churches when adjudicating these disputes.

The CCEO does this already. There are a lot of provisions that says its up to the norms and rules of the particular Church. So each sui juris has a supplement to the CCEO to specify what their own rules are and this can differ from sui juris to sui juris.

1. For the sake of expediency and good will, all Catholic Churches should adopt the Orthodox dating of Easter. I don’t believe either side is “right” on this matter, but I think it would be much less tumultuous for Catholics to adopt the Orthodox dating than the other way around.

This is complicated in the Western World. Many countries have secularized and thus will not accept changing the current dating of Easter because they keep the religious holiday only because it has been “grandfathered”. Its the case here in Canada. Its more advantageous for the faithful in such nations that they get the Good Friday day-off where they can spend the day in church activities. If its a normal school and work day, its empty parishes all around.

1. Make it very clear that the Bishops, but most especially the Patriarchs, stand with the Pope rather than below him. Whenever possible the Patriarchs and Pope should be presented as a united face of the Communion, rather than the Pope being the “big cheese”. The Pope is definitely the “elder brother”, and has certain responsibilities that go beyond those of his brother Bishops, but he shouldn’t be held out as a tier apart from the Patriarchs at the very least.

Should the Patriarchs have a say on who gets to be Pope as well?

 

[TrueLight]

These type of threads pain me. Seriously.

And leave me feeling quite disillusioned.

 

[Ghosty]

The CCEO does this already. There are a lot of provisions that says its up to the norms and rules of the particular Church. So each sui juris has a supplement to the CCEO to specify what their own rules are and this can differ from sui juris to sui juris.

The CCEO actually goes beyond what I’m talking about, as it legislates how things will be run within the various Eastern Churches. For example, it says how Bishops and Patriarchs will be selected. It was also composed by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, which is a Roman curia, and it draws significantly from the Latin Code of Canon Law. All in all the CCEO is definitely sub-optimal, and is a poor model moving forward towards reunion with the Orthodox Churches.

This is complicated in the Western World. Many countries have secularized and thus will not accept changing the current dating of Easter because they keep the religious holiday only because it has been “grandfathered”. Its the case here in Canada. Its more advantageous for the faithful in such nations that they get the Good Friday day-off where they can spend the day in church activities. If its a normal school and work day, its empty parishes all around.

The date of Easter changes every year already; it’s not like you can point to a fixed day on the calendar in the Western world when Easter is always celebrated. All this would do is change the formula for setting the date, something that most people are utterly unaware of anyway. As it stands now people simply go with the date their given each year, and it would be the same after such a change.

Should the Patriarchs have a say on who gets to be Pope as well?

Perhaps, but I don’t see that as being necessary. They didn’t have a place in selecting the Pope before the split, so it’s not necessary now. If that’s something that was in popular demand, however, I wouldn’t be bothered by it.

All in all, though, I think it’s best that the Pope doesn’t select the Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs don’t select the Pope. Having the Patriarchs play a role in the selection of the Pope would seem to legitimate the notion that the Pope is “over” them, and that they are glorified Cardinals. Best to let the distinct Churches manage their own affairs, with the Pope as the axis of unity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

These type of threads pain me. Seriously.

And leave me feeling quite disillusioned.

Any particular reason?