Chieti Document in light of Catholic history

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Hello everyone. I have recently read Chieti Document again after some time, and I happened to notice some historical inconsistencies or things that do contradict Latin understanding of Papal Primacy over the history. I am mostly posting this to Traditional Catholicism because I mean to view document in light of history and tradition of Latin Church, as to me it seems very inconsistent with it. I understand document is not infallible and hence can be wrong, I just want to know whether or not I am making wrong assumption that it has some inconsistencies or they can be cleared up. I will not present some quotes along with what I perceive is problematic about them:

“The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.”
There were numerous instances where not only did Eastern Christians defend primacy of Rome because it came from Peter (St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom…) and numerous Eastern Christians who interpreted Rome as inerrant (George the Hagiorite, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite…).

“Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.”
“Church as a whole” is very ambiguous term, which is very confusing and basically contradicts itself because those who do not accept council as ecumenical are out of the Church and those who do are inside- hence if I make a council in my living room and declare heresy, and my mom and brother accept it, our father is outside the Church because he did not accept it, everyone is outside the Church because they did not accept it, but me, brother and mom are inside the Church and accepted council- hence whole council is actually ecumenical. How was this accepted historically anyway? Pope St. Gregory the Great clearly states he can render Eastern Councils null and void, historically only Councils adopted by Papacy became Ecumenical even for the East (exception being 8th one) and many Councils were simply not accepted by some other Patriarchs and yet became ecumanical.

“Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
Pope Clement had clear authority over Corinthians in his letter. Pope Victor received no appeals when he wanted to excommunicate Eastern Bishops either. Pope St. Gregory the Great said he can render Eastern synods null and void- not based on appeal I suppose.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“In matters related to their respective metropolitanates or patriarchates, however, they had to act in accord with their fellow bishops.”
This one does not concern Papal Primacy, but I’ve read on this forum that historically, Patriarchs had very clear power over their Bishops outside the synods, same way with Metropolitans etc. I am unable to support my statement, but would like to know whether or not it is true that current Orthodox model does not clearly reflect Early Church ecclesiology.

“Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition.”
This one in particular does seem to suggest Orthodox position that Pope never held primacy of jurisdiction over Eastern Church, which is a bit against Latin doctrine. Other than including Constantinople as 2nd according to canonical tradition (one endorsed by emperor and opposed by patriarchates but gradually accepted by Church because of emperor’s influence, not based on any apostolic claims at all), which can be somehow justified, it is not clear on what “primacy of honor” means, though.

 

[Vico]

…

Item 18 of Chieti Document states that reception is based upon agreement by those currently in communion:

For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement ( symphonia ) of the heads of the churches, the cooperation ( synergeia ) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs ( symphronountes ).

A historical example is the un-ecumenical (local eastern) council of Constantinople held in 381 A.D., that modified the Creed of 325 A.D. which was not received by Rome until the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. This Creed was in Greek. Note that the filioque (Latin) was dogmatically approved by Pope St. Leo I, in 447 A.D. following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition. (See Catechism 247)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What about Council of Chalcedon in itself then? Patriarch of Alexandria rejected the council and yet it is Ecumenical. They were in communion prior to council. Council of Nicea was rejected by Arians who were not out of Church until they rejected it. Most councils were opposed by one or more Patriarchs anyway. Councils we regard as Ecumenical were all approved by Rome, though.

 

[Vico]

What about Council of Chalcedon in itself then? Patriarch of Alexandria rejected the council and yet it is Ecumenical. They were in communion prior to council. Council of Nicaea was rejected by Arians who were not out of Church until they rejected it. Most councils were opposed by one or more Patriarchs anyway. Councils we regard as Ecumenical were all approved by Rome, though.

The three main divisions are:

• Accepting through Constantinople I 381. A.D.: Assyrian Church of the East
• Accepting through Ephesus 431 A.D.: Oriental Orthodox
• Accepting through Nicaea II 787 A.D.: Eastern Orthodox and Catholic

The criteria may have been different before the Seventh Ecumenical Council 787 A.D. when the criteria were expressed.

 

[Genesis315]

The Chieti document is basically one of those “good effort” ecumenical dialogue documents that compromises too much and doesn’t really saitsfy either side.

As Pope Benedict explained:

The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede.html

The Church has not given the doctrine in the Chieti document such a judgment.

You addressed the problems with reception–it doesn’t hold up historically (the fact that the non-Chalcedonians didn’t receive the Tome of Leo and canons of Chalcedon didn’t not hinder those decisions from having authority).

As for “canonical” authority, that would be a matter of positive law, whereas the Pope’s jurisdiction is part of the constituent nature of the Church. The Pope (except in extraordinary circumstances) as a matter of custom and based on the laws promulgated at Nicea (which Rome approved) did not take an active role in the East (the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch bore most of the burden) unless his intervention was necessary to serve unity.

There has been some confusion in Catholic circles based on the word “ordinary” when referring to the Pope’s jurisdiction at the First Vatican Council. This term is used in a precise way to mean “not delegated” (ie the Pope does not receive his authority as a delegation from other bishops). It does not mean “usual” or “common” or “routine.” In general, each bishop should govern his own church and bishops should coordinate their efforts as necessary. The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. The jurisdiction of the Pope is therefore traditionally used as an extraordinary means to serve unity. Unfortunately, events in the West gradually necessitated a more active role for the Pope. But this is not a necessity of the papacy. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic treatment is in the abstract–the “can” rather than the “should”–since what would be appropriate to serve unit in every situation cannot be foreseen.