"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.
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
When has a pope wielded his universal authority unilaterally, without impetus and/or guidance from some need in the Church, and gotten away with it?
Click to expand...
Gotten away with it. That’s the catch isn’t it?

My comment was that I don’t know how to interprete what has been writen otherwise, not that he didn’t face extremely strong opposition when he tried to back up those words with actions.

Throughout the Middle Ages the Papacy was under the thumb of either France, or the Holy Roman Emperor. Rare attempts at independence never ended well.
 
Peter_J said:
Another consideration is:

That’s from a 1997 letter, signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (along with Card. Silvestrini, Card. Cassidy) in response to the Melkite Iniative.

Around the same time, the Antiochian Orthodox Church issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

byzcath.org/faith/documents/melkite_initiative_2.htm

Clearly, both sides believe that unity of faith needs to be achieved first.
Click to expand...
As you point out, the key is between the

Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox. The Synod of thirty-four bishops and four general superiors under the presidency of Patriarch Maximos V (Hakim) deliberated extensively on the topic of church unity particularly within the Antiochian Patriarchate which has been divided since 1724, and …[snip]

As you also pointed out, from then Joseph Ratzinger, the CC recognizes some development in the papacy over time. But by the same token, the Orthodox need to recognize the Patriarchal system and “1st among equals” attributed to the papacy, created by them, was a development within Orthodoxy.

For example: From then Card Ratzinger

*3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. *

4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206),* in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity*…[snip]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

It appears, looking back at J. Ratzinger’s earlier statements that you refer to, particularly Re: the Orthodox only need to accept the papacy as it was in the 1st millenium, the reality seems, they can’t accept that either, because the truth is, the papacy had primacy from the beginning, and “1st among equals” and other notions such as this, were later developments by the Orthodox in order to take primacy away from the papacy.

Bottomline, it’s always beefs over authority.
 
Hesychios said:
That basically means that the person you go to first with run of the mill concerns is the Diocesan bishop. Then when you don’t like the response you go to his partner the Pope. 😃
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of recent cases lately where laypeople and others have been making use of, for lack of better terminology that I know, the Catholic Church’s court system in order to redress grievances they have with their proper local ecclesiastical authorities. But even in these cases, in which Rome does step in and make the call, the decision is not based on the arbitrary and unilateral will of the Roman pontiff, but rather on both the decision of his lieutenants in the Curia and the canonical limits that the Church’s organization gives to them in such cases.
Hesychios said:
I do not think this word refers to divine establishment. I believe it means ‘without’ mediation ~ un-mediated. In other words the bishop of Rome’s power is not filtered or transmitted through any other person (like the ‘local’ ordinary) but can be applied directly as needed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my definition was sloppy. I believe that you are correct that “immediate” means “unmediated”: *not *unmediated between the pope and local particular churches (dioceses/eparchies) but rather unmediated from Almighty God to the pope. The word’s inherent claim is that universal papal jurisdiction and papal supremacy are not merely practical aspects of the pope’s office, of historical origin, but are a direct - “unmediated” - part of the very divine constitution of the papacy.
Hesychios said:
I don’t see how having a boss detracts from one’s authority. If the man hires him, and can fire him and can give him a mandatory retirement date or accept a resignation he’s the boss.

If he can transfer him, promote him or demote him he’s the boss.

If he makes all the rules or codifies them he’s the boss.

If he has to approve all committee decisions before they are valid or can become effective he’s the boss.
Click to expand...
I don’t dispute any of the denotations of what you’ve said; the connotations of the word “boss,” however, to me indicate a linear power structure. My boss gives me my job. A deputy is the sheriff’s representative. But the other eleven Apostles were not Saint Peter’s deputies or lieutenants. He was their supreme head, given a special commission by our Lord to confirm and strengthen his brethren by his leadership. The pope is to the world’s bishops what Saint Peter was to the other Apostles. The pope is to the world’s Catholic bishops what a first millennium metropolitan was to the bishops of his synod. I stand by what I said in the other thread about Apostolic Canon 34, Hesychios: the papacy is this same principle extended to the universal level.

I know you disagree that that was how it worked in the first millennium. But right now we’re talking about the teaching, the claim of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. And that is the teaching.
 
Hesychios said:
It is predictable that Roman Catholic apologists do not quote Saint Ireneaus in full.

In book 3 chapter II he does say this …

[in referring to heretics he lists, mostly gnostics] we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches

Churches, not church.
Click to expand...
Irenaeus specifies which Church “every Church should agree with on account of its pre-eminent authority” So there is no confusion,
  • He names the bishops of this Church he’s speaking of in their succession
  • The blessed apostles, (Peter and Paul) then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.
  • To him succeeded Anacletus
  • after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
Clement as you know, settled sedition among the bishops of Corinth at Corinth’s request newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

all the Church in all the locations must agree with this Church.
H:
Then in chapter three he says this …

… if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest [a gnostic claim], they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves …
Click to expand...
Irenaeus makes a specific point.

"we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Translated (as if it needed one ;))

Apostolic (T)radition teaches that Peter and Paul want every Church to agree with the Church of Rome. Those who do “everywhere” are faithful men to the Tradition of the apostles. Those who don’t hold to this Tradition are unfaithful men who are either driven by evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion.
H:
And then

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches …
He could have recounted the succession of many churches, perhaps dozens in his day, if he had the means, the time, or if it was practical. But he didn’t, he had to cut back.
Click to expand...
Irenaeus cut to the chase. The one with pre-eminent authority over all of them, is Rome
H:
Then he goes on to describe two churches! Rome and the church of Asia.

But Roman Catholic apologists only report what he said about Rome, just like you did.
Click to expand...
Quote the passage from Irenaeus that says ANY other Church has pre-eminent authority besides Rome
H:
Orthodox are in full agreement with what the church of Rome believed in 180AD because it was what all Orthodox Christians believed and that was as correct then as it is now.
Click to expand...
Did his comment here have an expiration date to it?
H:
Sadly, Rome no longer shares this faith, Rome is no longer Orthodox.
Click to expand...
WHEN was the first notation in history where we see the name “Orthodox Church” ?
H:
Bishop Irenaeus was a saint, but he was no prophet and he was not infallible. He was writing against the heresies of his day to the people of his day, and in his day Rome believed what Orthodox teach. He could not have known that the church at Rome would have changed it’s own teachings over the next 18 centuries.
Click to expand...
These ECF’s are Catholic

Irenaeus newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]). newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Polycarp

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm*
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
He was their supreme head, given a special commission by our Lord to confirm and strengthen his brethren by his leadership. The pope is to the world’s bishops what Saint Peter was to the other Apostles. The pope is to the world’s Catholic bishops what a first millennium metropolitan was to the bishops of his synod. I stand by what I said in the other thread about Apostolic Canon 34, Hesychios: the papacy is this same principle extended to the universal level.

I know you disagree that that was how it worked in the first millennium. But right now we’re talking about the teaching, the claim of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. And that is the teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the thing is, some Catholics try to re-interpret “supreme head” in such a way that it doesn’t mean “supreme head”.

On the other hand, I think this
steve_b said:
Apostolic (T)radition teaches that Peter and Paul want every Church to agree with the Church of Rome. Those who do “everywhere” are faithful men to the Tradition of the apostles. Those who don’t hold to this Tradition are unfaithful men who are either driven by evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion.
Click to expand...
could lend itself to exaggeration of the traditional Catholic position. In particular, it should be mentioned that Catholics traditionally admit the theoretical possibility of a Pope falling into error.

So in that sense I agree with those who say that there’s both a possibility of understating Catholic teaching, and a possibility of overstating it.
 
Peter_J said:
On the other hand, I think this could lend itself to exaggeration of the traditional Catholic position.
Click to expand...
It was a quote
P:
In particular, it should be mentioned that Catholics traditionally admit the theoretical possibility of a Pope falling into error. So in that sense I agree with those who say that there’s both a possibility of understating Catholic teaching, and a possibility of overstating it.
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t about a pope falling into error. He won’t teach error.

Here’s the definition.


  1. *
    • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
      1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
      2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
      3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
      4. he possesses,
      5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
      6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
      papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

      No pope has violated this.
 
steve_b said:
The issue isn’t about a pope falling into error. He won’t teach error.
Click to expand...
I admit that’s an important distinction, but the possibility of a pope falling into heresy is an issue as well. I assume most of us on this thread are familiar with the view of St. Bellarmine and others, the long-and-short of which is that if a Pope should fall into heresy he would automatically cease to be Pope.
 
Peter_J said:
I admit that’s an important distinction, but the possibility of a pope falling into heresy is an issue as well. *I assume most of us on this thread are familiar with the view of St. Bellarmine and others, the long-and-short of which is that if *a Pope should fall into heresy he would automatically cease to be Pope.
Click to expand...
In this case, I prefer not to speculate on If’s.
 
Hesychios said:
If the bishop of Rome wants to learn how to do the job of Primus inter pares in a reconciled communion, he would do well to study how the Ecumenical Patriarch has been doing it.
Click to expand...
:coffeeread:

Re: First among equals
  1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
  2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
Re: learning from the EP about “reconciled communion”
  • zenit.org/article-3885?l=english Then in 2002, Cardinal Kasper, in ecumenical dialogue, unless things have changed with the Russians who vastly outnumber all the other EO Churches, said “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist," he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that**Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
Just thinking outloud about your comment. Do you think, just maybe, the EP who looks over a tiny flock in Istanbul, could learn from Pope Benedict XVI, who is the supreme pontiff over 1.3B Catholics?
 
If I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox would think it a very bad idea for the EP to learn from Pope Benedict XVI…
the Orthodox Church has no Pope or Papacy, a system which was born out of a mindset foreign to the Church. The Head of the Orthodox Church is Christ and Christ alone. True, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has a historic, administrative role or ‘primacy of honour’ which is recognised by all the local Orthodox Churches. This is a primacy inherited by Constantinople after the defection of the Roman Patriarchate from the Orthodox Church nearly one thousand years ago. Unfortunately, the word ‘primacy’, used to describe that role, is clearly misunderstood in Rome. Primacy in the Orthodox sense does not mean ‘supremacy’.
Click to expand...
 
Peter_J said:
If I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox would think it a very bad idea for the EP to learn from Pope Benedict XVI…
Click to expand...
Peter

One can write volumes answering that link you provided. But most of all, getting back to Hesychios post, which I responded to

Originally Posted by Hesychios forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If the bishop of Rome wants to learn how to do the job of Primus inter pares in a reconciled communion, he would do well to study how the Ecumenical Patriarch has been doing it.

what then is the Pope supposed to learn from the EP then, given the Orthodox response you post, given the EP has no authority to speak for anyone other than himself, given no pope ever accepted the idea of 1st among equals, given no pope ever accepted the equilization of the papacy with all the “pentarchy” which was a development in the East.
 
It’s a fact of history that the east and west developed different ideas of primacy and authority. Responding to one side’s arguments with a restatement of the other’s is never going to answer the question of how we can live together in a reunited Church. The question I would ask is what can we both accept in the way of compromise on this issue? Clearly compromising dogma is not a solution, but what can we accept in the realm of practical application?
 
dcointin said:
It’s a fact of history that the east and west developed different ideas of primacy and authority. Responding to one side’s arguments with a restatement of the other’s is never going to answer the question of how we can live together in a reunited Church. The question I would ask is what can we both accept in the way of compromise on this issue? Clearly compromising dogma is not a solution, but what can we accept in the realm of practical application?
Click to expand...
BINGO! 👍👍👍
 
dcointin said:
It’s a fact of history that the east and west developed different ideas of primacy and authority.
Click to expand...
Thanks for acknowledging as an Orthodox, development happened on your side also regarding ideas of primacy and authority. As you know, there are others on this forum, that maintain the Orthodox never developed .
d:
Responding to one side’s arguments with a restatement of the other’s is never going to answer the question of how we can live together in a reunited Church.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However I’d like to make a distinction between sources that were presented. My response had the following links
I gave authors clearly stated, that had footnotes properly noted that support a position…

The post I was responding to had in that link, no author mentioned and no footnotes to support anything said in that “Orthodox response”. That response alone, could be the topic of a thread
d:
The question I would ask is what can we both accept in the way of compromise on this issue? Clearly compromising dogma is not a solution, but what can we accept in the realm of practical application?
Click to expand...
As one poster wrote, this discussion according to some Orthodox prelates is still in the “primitive” stage. I’m thinking, Really? After 1000 years of discussion? Only primitive results so far? :doh2:

Truth is, the papacy has been here for 2000 yrs, and will be here till the end of time. That’s a promise from Jesus.

Paul said something interesting to the Church of Rome.

“the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” [Rom 16:20]

The question I would ask

It’s already been 2000 years since Paul said that. I sure wish I knew what Paul meant by “soon”? 😉
 
steve_b said:
Thanks for acknowledging as an Orthodox, development happened on your side also regarding ideas of primacy and authority. As you know, there are others on this forum, that maintain the Orthodox never developed .

Agreed. However I’d like to make a distinction between sources that were presented. My response had the following links
I gave authors clearly stated, that had footnotes properly noted that support a position…

The post I was responding to had in that link, no author mentioned and no footnotes to support anything said in that “Orthodox response”.

As one poster wrote, this discussion according to some Orthodox prelates is still in the “primitive” stage. I’m thinking, Really? After 1000 years of discussion? Only primitive results so far? :doh2:
Truth is, the papacy has been here for 2000 yrs, and will be here till the end of time. That’s a promise from Jesus.

Paul said something interesting to the Church of Rome.

“the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” [Rom 16:20]

The question I would ask

It’s already been 2000 years since Paul said that. I sure wish I knew what Paul meant by “soon”? 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, these talks have started fairly recently in terms of Church History.
I don’t know for all long it has been since we have started these talks, I heard it was sometime in late part of the 20th century.
 
Art321 said:
Actually, these talks have started fairly recently in terms of Church History.
I don’t know for all long it has been since we have started these talks, I heard it was sometime in late part of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Catholic-Orthodox relations have had their ups and downs during the last 1000 years, but the current ecumenical effort didn’t start till after Vatican II.
 
Art321 said:
Actually, these talks have started fairly recently in terms of Church History.
I don’t know for all long it has been since we have started these talks, I heard it was sometime in late part of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
early attempts were made at Lyons 1274, and Florence 1439. There were always attempts by popes, just not necessarily council related.

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed. Catholic-Orthodox relations have had their ups and downs during the last 1000 years, but the current ecumenical effort didn’t start till after Vatican II.
Click to expand...
In the wake of Vatican II, on December 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople simultaneously proclaimed the lifting of the mutual excommunications of 1054, proclaiming them “erased from the memory”. This paved the way for more significant dialogue.

Later, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was established by the Holy See and 14 autocephalous Orthodox churches, as announced by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople in 1979.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
In the wake of Vatican II, on December 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople simultaneously proclaimed the lifting of the mutual excommunications of 1054, proclaiming them “erased from the memory”. This paved the way for more significant dialogue.

Later, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was established by the Holy See and 14 autocephalous Orthodox churches, as announced by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople in 1979.
Click to expand...
Here’s the results of these discussions over the years, by dates
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top