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

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Well, yes. I’m just pointing out that there is already much in the CCEO which leaves the specifics to each sui juris, instead of having a blanket law for all Eastern Churches.

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.

Yes, but I doubt they’ll accept a new way of calculating Easter just because the Church says so. What? The Church telling the State to change a holiday? You can already see how that will go down.

Besides, the Protestants who observe Good Friday won’t follow, which means they will also have a say even if the State consults the religions about the calculation of Easter.

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.

Yeah, I agree. But I think if they will “submit” to someone, then they should have some sort of say in it. I would think, being bishop of Rome, the Pope is still selected by Cardinals of the Roman Church, but the Patriarchs would need to confirm him, ie. they would have veto power should they feel a selected Pope will be bad for the entire Church.

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!

I agree, but as with my earlier suggestion, they should have some sort of veto power but also only as a synod of Patriarchs.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

I just thought it would be worth pointing out that a majority of Orthodox bishops would probably not accept any of those propositions except for maybe 3.b., and even then, only insofar as that power is defined in the canon from Sardica which states:

If any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere [this meaning papal legates], let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

Which in other words would mean that he wouldn’t serve as a final court of appeal, but an arbiter who demands retrial.

It is interesting to note, that after hearing that the Ravenna talks resulted in agreements of there being a ‘universal primacy’, the synod of the Church of Greece (and perhaps some other synods) expressed serious concerns and expressed the opinion that these dialogues were not the official position of the Orthodox Church, and that the idea of a universal jurisdictional primacy is not a teaching within Orthodoxy.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, yes. I’m just pointing out that there is already much in the CCEO which leaves the specifics to each sui juris, instead of having a blanket law for all Eastern Churches.

True enough. My main point is that the CCEO as it stands isn’t really ideal, and definitely wouldn’t be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Yes, but I doubt they’ll accept a new way of calculating Easter just because the Church says so. What? The Church telling the State to change a holiday? You can already see how that will go down.

The Church already tells the state when the Holiday of Easter will be, so I don’t see how this would be any different. Regardless, this is a Church matter; the state can do without the Holiday of Easter if it wants.

Besides, the Protestants who observe Good Friday won’t follow, which means they will also have a say even if the State consults the religions about the calculation of Easter.

I think you’d be surprised how many Protestant groups would go along with the change. Even if they didn’t it wouldn’t matter as they’re not a factor in the Apostolic reunion, which is what I’m talking about.

The underlying point is that two different dates for Eastern simply won’t fly in a unified Church. Which side has less baggage and attachment to the date of Easter?

Yeah, I agree. But I think if they will “submit” to someone, then they should have some sort of say in it. I would think, being bishop of Rome, the Pope is still selected by Cardinals of the Roman Church, but the Patriarchs would need to confirm him, ie. they would have veto power should they feel a selected Pope will be bad for the entire Church.

Patriarchs definitely shouldn’t have veto power over who gets to be Pope, unless you want the Pope to have veto power over who gets to be Patriarch. If we don’t want Rome micromanaging our Churches, we shouldn’t expect to do so with Rome. There is simply no precedent for other Patriarchs choosing or vetoing the Pope, and it shouldn’t start, IMO, because it adds a degree of interecclesial messiness that isn’t needed; we’re trying to get away from that kind of meddling, not encourage more of it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

Well, yes. I’m just pointing out that there is already much in the CCEO which leaves the specifics to each sui juris, instead of having a blanket law for all Eastern Churches.

That’s somewhat irrelevant, however, since Orthodox have little interest in becoming Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris, in much the same way that Catholics have little interest in becoming WRO.

Yeah, I agree. But I think if they will “submit” to someone, then they should have some sort of say in it.

That makes sense. After all, the teaching on Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction is irreformable, according to Catholics; so it makes sense to shall-we-say “do the best we can within existing constraints”.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

bingo

Is it problematic to think that the Pope has a Patriarchal role (among other roles he plays)?

 

[Peter_J]

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…?

I don’t think it’s really a question of whether the Pope is of a loving disposition or a dictatorial disposition. Rather, it’s a question of how things should be in principle.

Put it this way: the Orthodox presumably like the EP, Patriarch Bartholomew I, better than Pope Benedict XVI, but they wouldn’t even want him to be a supreme pontiff – he doesn’t even want that.

 

[osenorman]

Just a sliver of my Father
Just a vapor in the sky
Byt the time you’ve counted
Midnights
I will have to say goodbye
As long as I have hope
I am ageless and divine
Walking within my destiny
Filfilling my earthly time
As He created me
I am as old as the beginning
When in His mind
I was conceived
Before the conception
Of the people

---

seo companies

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is it problematic to think that the Pope has a Patriarchal role (among other roles he plays)?

But wasn’t that the case in the early church? They leaders of each of the major churches (including Rome) was a Patriarch.

Until recently the Pope also used the title Patriarch of the West. The sudden discontinuance of the usage of this title caused great surprise and disbelief in the Orthodox world.

 

[Peter_J]

Is it problematic to think that the Pope has a Patriarchal role (among other roles he plays)?

^^ This was meant to be a rhetorical question.

 

[mardukm]

I wasn’t apart of the thread(s) you are referring to, but I believe it is the firm position of Pope Benedict XVI that there is no contradiction between VI and VII.

Yes, HH is a great exemplar of the High Petrine model of the Church.

Mightn’t one go further and say that Orthodox need to *accept *V1 in order to come into communion with their Catholic brethren?

Well, of course. But Catholics as a whole must also accept that the Absolutist Petrine misinterpretation of Vatican 1 is not what the V1 Fathers intended. IMO, acceptance of V1-V2 by our Orthodox brethren depends on a more dogmatic clarification and assertion of the High Petrine intentions of the V1 Fathers regarding the papacy at another Ecumenical Council with our Orthodox brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Futuer 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?

You have not responded to any of my posts. I pray you try to express what it is you feel is “reminiscent of Anglicanism” in the High Petrine position. I have been careful to distinguish between the High Petrine view and the Low Petrine view, which is probably what you feel Anglicanism holds. Try to do a search again on “Low High Petrine” with author name “Mardukm” in CAF (set time to “Any Date”). You will see that there are several poignant differences which should assuage your fears.

Btw, V1 explicitly repudiated the neo-ultramontanist view when it added the historic Proem to Pastor Aeternus. It was literally added at the 11th hour to meet the demands of the Minority Party and the more moderate members of the Majority Party. The action managed to turn many of the non placet and placet juxta modum votes at V1 to placet (many members of the Minority Party had already left before the final voting - who knows how many more names would be added to the list of placet votes if that was not so). Several neo-ultraontanists left the Council before the final voting because of the addition of the historic Proem, complaining that the V1 decrees were nothing more than an attenuated form of Gallicanism. One popular story told by detractors of Vatican 1 is the story of Bishop Lecourtier, who reportedly threw his copy of the proposed V1 decrees into the river. Dectractors of V1 pretend that he was a member of the Minority Party, but he actually the opposite extreme - NEO-ultramontanist camp.

You struggle with the High Petrine view, perhaps because you do not know what it really is. But it is the understanding proposed by the V1 Fathers. The question is, will you submit to it? I hope you take the time to do the CAF search I suggested above and read the results.

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

The problem with the Absolutist Petrine view is that it is only practically realistic in a world where pink elephants exist. It depends on a theory and unfounded concern that there will come a time that the ONLY bishop left on earth who is orthodox is the Pope. But, my brother in Christ, do you believe in the following Catholic doctrines:
(1) the office of bishop is of divine institution.
(2) orthodox bishops share in the infallible Magisterium of the Church.
(3) the Pope is always a member of the College of bishops as its head.

If so, how can you believe that it is “all up to the Pope,” which is what the Absolutist Petrine view boils down to.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Future Prodigy and Mardukm, can either of you provide a citation (preferably something available on the internet) for the classifications “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine”?

It isn’t that Google doesn’t turn up a lot of results when I search for those phrases – there’s a couple thousand of them in fact. The problem is that I don’t know how to do the search in such a way as to get a document or article, rather that a link to a thread on, say, this forum, or OCnet, ByzCath, etc.

 

[mardukm]

I just thought it would be worth pointing out that a majority of Orthodox bishops would probably not accept any of those propositions except for maybe 3.b., and even then, only insofar as that power is defined in the canon from Sardica which states:

On what grounds? Those are all roles that the bishop of Rome had in the united Church of the first millenium. So are you saying that Tradition does not matter to a majority of bishops in the Orthodox Churches?

Which in other words would mean that he wouldn’t serve as a final court of appeal, but an arbiter who demands retrial.

What does the word “JUDGE” mean to you?

It is interesting to note, that after hearing that the Ravenna talks resulted in agreements of there being a ‘universal primacy’, the synod of the Church of Greece (and perhaps some other synods) expressed serious concerns and expressed the opinion that these dialogues were not the official position of the Orthodox Church, and that the idea of a universal jurisdictional primacy is not a teaching within Orthodoxy.

How does Orthodoxy respond to the following:
(1) The Fathers teach that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles as their mouthpiece and confirmer in the Faith.
(2) The Fathers through the Ecumenical Councils (which have universal teaching authority) teach that St. Peter was present to them in the person of the bishop of Rome.
(3) All that the Apostles had for the edification of the Church was passed down in the Apostolic Succession (except for inspiration, which is partly a function of their personal witness of Christ).

QUESTION 1: Where did the headship of St. Peter for the College of Apostles go?
QUESTION 2: Why do we need Patriarchs or Metropolitans if the local bishop is self-sufficient?
QUESTION 3: Why can we not have a universal head bishop if there are head bishops of progressively larger segments of the Church? Is not Christ the head at every level?
QUESTION 4: If Christ is the head at every level, why do we admit that Metropolitans and Patriarchs are head bishops, but cannot admit a head bishop at the universal level?

These are questions I could not answer consistently. My conscience would not allow me to hold a hypocritical position (and you know what Christ says about hypocrisy, an exhortation that strikes awe in my heart and mind) — part of the reason I joined the Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Scanning some of the results on Google, I saw some reference to an “Oriental understanding of Ecclesiology”.

Is this why “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are unfamiliar to us in the west?

 

[mardukm]

P.S. Scanning some of the results on Google, I saw some reference to an “Oriental understanding of Ecclesiology”.

Is this why “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are unfamiliar to us in the west?

No. Read this short thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=637653

And this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8398679&postcount=57

It will explain it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

P.S. Scanning some of the results on Google, I saw some reference to an “Oriental understanding of Ecclesiology”.

Is this why “High Petrine”, “Low Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” are unfamiliar to us in the west?

I don’t think these terms are unheard of in the West. I’m sure our Holy Father understands them perfectly. Yet they are not often widely discussed in the West, as the position of the Pontiff and the teachings regarding such are accepted.

 

[Peter_J]

What does the word “JUDGE” mean to you?

I don’t know about Cavaradossi, but Merriam-Webster has this:

transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises

2: to sit in judgment on : try

3: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation

4: govern, rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader

5: to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn’t judge him because of his accent>

6: to hold as an opinion : guess, think

intransitive verb
1: to form an opinion

2: to decide as a judge

and

noun
: one who judges: as

a : a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court

b often capitalized : a tribal hero exercising leadership among the Hebrews after the death of Joshua

c : one appointed to decide in a contest or competition : umpire

d : one who gives an authoritative opinion

e : critic

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think these terms are unheard of in the West. I’m sure our Holy Father understands them perfectly.

Sadly, my resources are a little more limited than the Holy Father’s. That’s partly why I’m hoping for some document or other that’s available on the internet.

 

[mardukm]

Cavaradossi:

On what grounds? Those are all roles that the bishop of Rome had in the united Church of the first millenium. So are you saying that Tradition does not matter to a majority of bishops in the Orthodox Churches?

What does the word “JUDGE” mean to you?

You have to understand that the context of Sardica was not merely disciplinary, but theological. Sardica affirmed that the bishop of Rome AS A GENERAL RULE possessed the orthodoxy (for whatever reason) to be the court of final appeal, a fact re-affirmed by the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils in their acceptance of the Sardican canons. Note that the Canon you quote leaves the FINAL decision to a court in which the Pope is HIMSELF present through representatives as a judge. Did you miss that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter!

Future Prodigy;8935508:

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)…

bingo

Is it problematic to think that the Pope has a Patriarchal role (among other roles he plays)?

I can see that I might have misinterpreted the above comment, but from where I stand the bishop of Rome has no ‘special power’ anywhere.

He is a patriarch in the traditional sense, with the same powers recognized at Nicea and the Apostolic canons all Metropolitans would possess. So no, I don’t have a problem with the notion of the bishop of Rome as a patriarch, I agree with it. However he is not a universal patriarch for the whole church (although some apologists will make it seem so in their discussions with Protestant inquirers). Papal universal jurisdiction makes a strong and persuasive argument to those unfamiliar with the early ecclesiology of the church and reacting to problems in modern Protestantism, but it is in my opinion wrong.

Thus the confusion some new converts might have. As we can see they can become distressed to find that the arguments which ultimately convinced them to become Roman Catholics are sometimes actually contested vehemently by Eastern Christians, some of these Eastern Christians actually in communion with the Pope and calling themselves Eastern Catholic or even Orthodox (in communion with Rome).