Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

What is your own take? What is your belief on it?

 

[Dollinger]

It is false.

 

[Wisely]

It is not what ir should be.

 

[TheDoors]

Well, there are currently two offices of “The Pope”, though only one is filled (correct me if I’m wrong on that).

I believe that the Pope of Rome is the first among equals. All bodies require a head, a spokesman, and that has traditionally been held at the seat of Peter and Paul.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

What do I believe about it now, or what the office traditionally was?

My answers will be pretty stock Orthodox answers I think.

One thing worth noting is that in the East there were multiple patriarchs and one emperor, while in the West there was one patriarch and various monarchs pledging loyalty. I think that might have had something to do with the differences in perception regarding authority and conciliarity.

 

[sasg]

It is not what ir should be.

I think a lot of Eastern-aware Catholics, including possibly even our current Pope, agree with you.

See we can reach agreement on the See of Peter

 

[Trebor135]

I think a lot of Eastern-aware Catholics, including possibly even our current Pope, agree with you.

See we can reach agreement on the See of Peter

If papal infallibility has to be maintained, probably not… and the Latin Church does have to keep the teaching, so as to avoid the loss of credibility for reversing a dogma.

Pastor Aeternus has to be the worst document to be promulgated in the last two centuries, for its unintended consequence of reducing potentially to zero the real chances of reunion between the apostolic Churches.

 

[sasg]

If papal infallibility has to be maintained, probably not… and the Latin Church does have to keep the teaching, so as to avoid the loss of credibility for reversing a dogma.

Pastor Aeternus has to be the worst document to be promulgated in the last two centuries, for its unintended consequence of reducing potentially to zero the real chances of reunion between the apostolic Churches.

I agree that Pastor Aeternus is a major obstacle to reunion, perhaps the only remaining obstacle that is seemingly insurmountable. It is odd that it took 800 years to formally promulgate the doctrine, and only 100 years to basically come full circle and reach out to our Eastern brothers in an unprecedented way. I would posit that if the union of Florence had held out, the doctrine would never have been defined in this way.

The only possible way of reconciling Vatican I to the Easterners that I can imagine is by formally limiting, at a council, the exercise of papal authority (but not the scope of that authority itself). It would have to be something along the lines of the “Ratzinger Proposal”, and it would have to be formally defined. The other option perhaps is an “Eastern” solution to the schism–i.e., the Latins renouncing the current authority of the Pope (in favor of a more limited Primacy-type understanding) and declaring all the councils and dogmas defined since 1054 as non-dogmatic. Can anyone, including the Orthodox, imagine such a solution to the schism?

I pray that one day a truly ecumenical council will be called, consisting of all the Latin, Eastern, and Oriental bishops and will finally resolve the issue for good.

 

[TrueLight]

Is this question addressed to Orthodox, Eastern Catholics or both?

I noticed a lot of the responses are either from Orthodox or those on their way to Orthodoxy.

I don’t think it’s any surprise what Orthodox think about it.

 

[Trebor135]

I agree that Pastor Aeternus is a major obstacle to reunion, perhaps the only remaining obstacle that is seemingly insurmountable.

Well, some Eastern Orthodox still have serious problems with the filioque. The dogmatizing of that doctrine was just as tragically unnecessary as was the defining of papal supremacy and infallibility.

It is odd that it took 800 years to formally promulgate the doctrine, and only 100 years to basically come full circle and reach out to our Eastern brothers in an unprecedented way.

No kidding.

I would posit that if the union of Florence had held out, the doctrine would never have been defined in this way.

If the Latins at Florence hadn’t insisted on their understanding of the filioque being accepted by the Greeks, St. Mark of Ephesus wouldn’t have stormed out in protest and the reunion between East and West could actually have taken firm root. (Which, in turn, could have allowed all of Christendom to form a united front, so that the Muslim conquest and destruction of the Byzantine Empire, and the subsequent five hundred years of rule by the Ottoman Empire over most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeastern Europe, could have been averted.)

The only possible way of reconciling Vatican I to the Easterners that I can imagine is by formally limiting, at a council, the exercise of papal authority (but not the scope of that authority itself). It would have to be something along the lines of the “Ratzinger Proposal”, and it would have to be formally defined.

That seems like a good idea in theory, but it unfortunately wouldn’t work in practice. The East would have to accept doctrines of the West as orthodox that the two sides had been ferociously bickering about for a thousand years.

The other option perhaps is an “Eastern” solution to the schism–i.e., the Latins renouncing the current authority of the Pope (in favor of a more limited Primacy-type understanding) and declaring all the councils and dogmas defined since 1054 as non-dogmatic.

That appears to be the only realistic way of ending the Great Schism. I wonder, though, how many Catholics would be so shocked by this turn of events as to lose faith entirely in the Church they had so greatly trusted?

Can anyone, including the Orthodox, imagine such a solution to the schism?

Someone of the moral calibre of Pope Benedict XVI could, in my estimation, find the courage to announce the redefining of certain dogmas as theologoumena for the sake of West-East reunion. I’m not going to hold my breath, though. The Latin Church might split over such a momentous decision being made by its visible head. Traditionalists would demand that the doctrine of papal infallibility be retained, while revolutionaries would rally for the teachings against abortion and in vitro fertilization to be discarded (on that point, God forbid and Lord have mercy!).

I pray that one day a truly ecumenical council will be called, consisting of all the Latin, Eastern, and Oriental bishops and will finally resolve the issue for good.

I will continue to pray for such a miracle. With secularism and Islam on the march around the world (not to mention all the folks looking into the history of Christianity these days and struggling mightily to decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy), all of us need the reunion of East and West more than ever.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this question addressed to Orthodox, Eastern Catholics or both?

I noticed a lot of the responses are either from Orthodox or those on their way to Orthodoxy.

I don’t think it’s any surprise what Orthodox think about it.

Well, an Orthodox priest told me that they do believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but as it is defined in the First Millennium. And that is pretty much what some Eastern Catholics are trying to echo. Its not like the Orthodox think the Pope is just another Bishop, but definitely they do not see him as a supreme ruler.

 

[Hesychios]

Is this question addressed to Orthodox, Eastern Catholics or both?

I noticed a lot of the responses are either from Orthodox or those on their way to Orthodoxy.

I don’t think it’s any surprise what Orthodox think about it.

I was thinking the same thing.

I was hoping Eastern Catholics would pitch in rather strongly here with their thoughts. I am not looking for confirmation of what I might suppose they think, the Eastern Catholics should make themselves heard no matter what and let us know what they are thinking.

I think a poll that is not anonymous would be good, but the narrow selection of options would probably steer the conversation.

 

[TrueLight]

Well, an Orthodox priest told me that they do believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but as it is defined in the First Millennium. And that is pretty much what some Eastern Catholics are trying to echo. Its not like the Orthodox think the Pope is just another Bishop, but definitely they do not see him as a supreme ruler.

Well, I would think that is the standard belief.

The question gets interesting when Eastern Catholics (who are not on their way to Orthodoxy - at least not that they know), explain what they believe. Then we compare how that compares to what Latin Rite Catholics believe.

I was thinking the same thing.

I was hoping Eastern Catholics would pitch in rather strongly here with their thoughts. I am not looking for confirmation of what I might suppose they think, the Eastern Catholics should make themselves heard no matter what and let us know what they are thinking.

Yep.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was thinking the same thing.

I was hoping Eastern Catholics would pitch in rather strongly here with their thoughts. I am not looking for confirmation of what I might suppose they think, the Eastern Catholics should make themselves heard no matter what and let us know what they are thinking.

I think a poll that is not anonymous would be good, but the narrow selection of options would probably steer the conversation.

Well, that is it, I want to know what people think. We have to be honest about our belief, right? Otherwise we live in a communion built upon lies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, I would think that is the standard belief.

The question gets interesting when Eastern Catholics (who are not on their way to Orthodoxy - at least not that they know), explain what they believe. Then we compare how that compares to what Latin Rite Catholics believe.

But aren’t Eastern Catholics, by definition, should be on their way to Orthodoxy?

 

[Trebor135]

But aren’t Eastern Catholics, by definition, should be on their way to Orthodoxy?

If they believe in the papacy and filioque, why “should [they] be on their way to Orthodoxy”?

 

[ConstantineTG]

If they believe in the papacy and filioque, why “should [they] be on their way to Orthodoxy”?

Well, from a Catholic standpoint, the idea is for Eastern Catholics to return to their mother Orthodox Churches at the event of a reunion.

Although I know the context you are speaking with.

 

[TrueLight]

But aren’t Eastern Catholics, by definition, should be on their way to Orthodoxy?

Well, that’s interesting.

So are you saying Eastern Catholism is a train stop on the way to Orthodoxy? You get off, but when you’re ready to go to the last stop, you get back on?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But [shouldn’t] Eastern Catholics, by definition, should be on their way to Orthodoxy?

That has been said, by some likely wiser than any of us, but one must consider that ECs for a long time have been considered neither fully Catholic nor fully Orthodox. I posit this must first be addressed, and in so doing, the willingness of Rome to embrace and support a real semblance of a true Communion of Churches will be most clearly proven.

I personally believe there is merit in both positions, Catholic and Orthodox, regarding the Papacy and ecclesiology more generally, yet dwelling on specifics of the history of separation will not bring us any closer to unity. A consensus on commonality of principle with a view to a model of unity of the future, featuring the strengths of both the current Catholic and Orthodox Communions would serve us well.

The most challenging obstacles seemed to have clearly come from the relatively recent post-separation assertions on Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, and thus should be addressed as such with reference to first millenial precedent. The running formal Catholic-Orthodox dialogue appears to be at this stage.

The current Pontiff and his predecessor have been most ameniable to the Eastern Churches in general, and also seemed genuinely inclined to consider a revised role of the Papacy. It is unclear if this view might be shared more broadly in the Curia, by the College of Cardinals or the Magesterium in general, and thus whether or not a likely immediate successor to Pope Benedict XVI would share this vision and viewpoint is equally unclear.

The nature of the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches in modern times, in fairness, also gives rise to occasional concern of Eastern Catholics and Orthodox alike.

Aside from all of that, and on a more personal level, my fathers before me believed that we were indeed Catholic, yet bound to preserve and embrace Orthodox praxis and theology, with that right granted by Rome as condition precedent to our own reunion. I am thus inclined to take this point of view, despite the challenging history. That being said, I feel we as Eastern Catholics should always strive to reflect the best of both sides, yet know this is not yet fully possible for many reasons.

I still think the best hope for unity, agreeing in principle that Eastern Catholics are indeed called to a special, intimate reunion with our Orthodox counterparts, will come only from living that reality first within the Catholic Communion as proof of the possible. Eastern Catholics thus are called, within the bounds of faithful obedience, to be insistent witnesses of the Orthodox faith within the Catholic Communion. The Catholic Church is further obligated to truly stand behind that which it teaches - that we Eastern Catholics are obliged to be faithful to our Orthodox roots and traditions, and that we are truly self-governing - without pause, exception or contradiction.

Until then, the debates (and skepticism) will continue …

 

[Peter_J]

Constantine, do you have a citation or link for the idea of Eastern Catholics being on their way to Orthodoxy?

I’m just asking out of interest. I realize nothing you’ve said necessarily implies that there’s such a citation; but if there is, then I think it would be very helpful to read to precise wording.