Orthodox Church and the Catholic claim to bind and loose

[bobzills]

Oftentimes we hear our Catholic leaders saying that they desire reunion and the restoration of full communion with the Orthodox Churches. We see the meetings and read about the latest plans for collaboration. But is it realistic to expect the Orthodox Church to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church as long as the RCC insists on the power of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church?
We have seen in the past few years, that even groups claiming to be Catholic have reservations on the scope of the power to bind and loose. For example, the SSPX people did not accept the authority of the Pope to throw out the Old Mass and put in the new. They insisted on the Old Mass, and eventually, their wish was granted, but with difficulty. Now if I were a member of the Orthodox Church, would I not be wary of any reunion since if the Pope has the power to bind and loose over the whole Church, then if a reuinion were to take place, would it not be possible for him to throw out the Liturgy of St. Basil and impose the New Mass on the whole Eastern Church? And take a look at some of the New Masses which we have seen in the USA?!?!
So the question is, does the Roman Catholic Church have to reevaluate its stand on the power of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church in order to achieve reunion with the Orthodox Churches?

 

[dzheremi]

I think you’re on the right track here, Bob. The Catholic Church would/does absolutely need to reconsider its stance on this issue if we are to seriously attempt to reunite with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[livi]

But how could the Church just rethink that? How could the Church rethink the Pope’s authority?

 

[dzheremi]

That’s precisely the predicament we find ourselves in, Livi. This is one of the central issues that divide the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, and one on which neither side seems willing to compromise. Hence, no reunion.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Catholic Church will never reinvent the Papacy, just as it will never get rid of the Holy Eucharist. The truth is the truth, and people must change for it, not the truth change for them.

 

[Hesychios]

But how could the Church just rethink that? How could the Church rethink the Pope’s authority?

It has been doing so for centuries now.

What’s wrong with continuing that practice and making a few needed corrections?

 

[SSTeacher]

So the question is, does the Roman Catholic Church have to reevaluate its stand on the power of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church in order to achieve reunion with the Orthodox Churches?

Yes, indeed. And the way a result might be achieved is if an incumbent pope were to promulgate his progression from supremacy to primacy by way of an ex cathedra infallible statement.

However, perhaps the first step toward unity between East and West would be for the Orthodox Church to put its disheveled house in order? Click here in order to read some considered thoughts (together with some inflammatory comments) on the subject.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Volodymyr]

The Catholic Church will never reinvent the Papacy…

But it invented the modern Papacy. Papalism developed over time - Bishop of rome before 1871, before 1054 has nothing to do with current Bishop of Rome. Such a view that one bishop must control everything in church (what you call universal jurdicalism), must appoint all bishops is beyond expectation of success. Only to see how has led to such sexual scandals in various places by appointing men believed to be good men in Vatikan, but in fact secretly lustful men. This would be hard fact to keep from Metropolit who might help to choose them to be bishop in Orthodox system - but not hard apparently to hide from Vatikan so many thousand miles away.

No Papalism is a development. It can and maybe reversed. Papalism seems from outside not to be working too well

 

[Hesychios]

…perhaps the first step toward unity between East and West would be for the Orthodox Church to put its disheveled house in order? Click here in order to read some considered thoughts (together with some inflammatory comments) on the subject.

Ecumenically,
Mick

I agree that the Orthodox need to clean up. The principle of local synods is doing no good when European synods are maintaining branches in the “diaspora”. It is time for them to let go and allow the local churches to merge in north America.

It would be good for the Eastern Catholics too, they are similarly hooked to overseas jurisdictions. A single north American jurisdiction for Eastern Catholics would set a good example. They could have a Patriarch or Major-Metropolitan of their own in the new world.

Michael

 

[Mickey]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Mickey!

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]**

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

No wonder Patriarch Bartholomew likes him!

 

[peary2]

Oftentimes we hear our Catholic leaders saying that they desire reunion and the restoration of full communion with the Orthodox Churches. We see the meetings and read about the latest plans for collaboration. But is it realistic to expect the Orthodox Church to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church as long as the RCC insists on the power of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church?
We have seen in the past few years, that even groups claiming to be Catholic have reservations on the scope of the power to bind and loose. For example, the SSPX people did not accept the authority of the Pope to throw out the Old Mass and put in the new. They insisted on the Old Mass, and eventually, their wish was granted, but with difficulty. Now if I were a member of the Orthodox Church, would I not be wary of any reunion since if the Pope has the power to bind and loose over the whole Church, then if a reuinion were to take place, would it not be possible for him to throw out the Liturgy of St. Basil and impose the New Mass on the whole Eastern Church? And take a look at some of the New Masses which we have seen in the USA?!?!
So the question is, does the Roman Catholic Church have to reevaluate its stand on the power of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church in order to achieve reunion with the Orthodox Churches?

**The power to “bind and loose” isn’t restricted to the pope. In fact, all - ALL - priests have this divine gift. They exercise it in Reconciliation and in the other sacraments. Binding and loosing is a charism of the pope upon the whole Church only when he speaks on matters of Faith or morals in union with the bishops. It is what we call “infallibility” which, actually, is what binding and loosing is understood to mean in the Church.

The SSPX aren’t in schism in the usual sense, since they are valid but illicit. They broke with the Church over rubrics, not the Faith. This is a unique event that the Pope is attempting to reconcile.

In the Catholic Church, in the east, the liturgy used is the same as the Greek Orthodox liturgy, for the most part. That it Vatican II did not “throw out” the Divine Liturgy shows that
it seriously respected the rite. The ‘updating’ was in the Roman liturgy.

I think your question should read: should the Orthodox churches re-evaluate their stand on the Office of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church in order to achieve reunion with the Catholic Church?**

 

[bobzills]

**The power to “bind and loose” isn’t restricted to the pope. In fact, all - ALL - priests have this divine gift. They exercise it in Reconciliation and in the other sacraments. Binding and loosing is a charism of the pope upon the whole Church only when he speaks on matters of Faith or morals in union with the bishops. It is what we call “infallibility” which, actually, is what binding and loosing is understood to mean in the Church.

The SSPX aren’t in schism in the usual sense, since they are valid but illicit. They broke with the Church over rubrics, not the Faith. This is a unique event that the Pope is attempting to reconcile.

In the Catholic Church, in the east, the liturgy used is the same as the Greek Orthodox liturgy, for the most part. That it Vatican II did not “throw out” the Divine Liturgy shows that
it seriously respected the rite. The ‘updating’ was in the Roman liturgy.

I think your question should read: should the Orthodox churches re-evaluate their stand on the Office of the Pope to bind and loose over the whole Church in order to achieve reunion with the Catholic Church?**

Here’s the question:
Does the papal power of binding and loosing give the Vatican disciplinary control over the Eastern Churches in matters such as liturgy and celibacy? It seems like the present interpretation is yes, since the Vatican turned down a request from the Eastern Catholic Churches to have optional celibacy for their priests.

 

[bobzills]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.]

He says so, but it looks to me like the Vatican does not agree with him. Here’s why:
the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States.
Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 1891/92, p.390
This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939.
So the Vatican has been applying their binding and loosing powers in the disciplinary practices of the Eastern Churches and what guarantee would ther be that they would not continue to attempt to do so in the unlikely event that a reunion was declared between East and West?
Celibacy is not required in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and yet the Vatican has forced the Eastern Catholic Churches to observe it in the past. So the Vatican has been requiring more from the East that had been formulated and lived in the first millenium, contrary to what anyone has said.

 

[Mickey]

Celibacy is not required in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and yet the Vatican has forced the Eastern Catholic Churches to observe it in the past. So the Vatican has been requiring more from the East that had been formulated and lived in the first millenium, contrary to what anyone has said.

This is true. It seems that the Ruthenians have been more “Latinized” than other “rites”. I know that the Melkites have married clergy. The Ruthenians have a few. But when I was part of the Ruthenian “rite”, I had a (Ruthenian Catholic) friend who was very interested in the Diaconate with a strong motivation to enter the priesthood. He was married. When he discussed this with the Metropolitan, he was told that he can enter the Deacon formation program, but because of his marital status, he can forget about the priesthood.

My friend returned to the Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Here’s the question:
Does the papal power of binding and loosing give the Vatican disciplinary control over the Eastern Churches in matters such as liturgy and celibacy? It seems like the present interpretation is yes, since the Vatican turned down a request from the Eastern Catholic Churches to have optional celibacy for their priests.

Yes, the Vatican has often intervened in the internal affairs of Eastern Catholic churches. Pope Benedict XIV in 1755 issued Allatae Sunt which recounts many such incidents, some quite arbitrary.

Factions in the church with more influence in the Vatican can sometimes dominate a situation. This has worked to the detriment of the Eastern Catholics on a number of occasions. Most notably in North America where the Latin Bishops complained about the Byzantine rite Catholics and their married priests. The Latin church ran riot over the Easterns with the complicity of the Pope and it resulted in a major schism.

This is all well known to the Orthodox, and the prospect of such things happening again is disturbing enough to hurt prospects of reconciliation.

 

[bobzills]

This is all well known to the Orthodox, and the prospect of such things happening again is disturbing enough to hurt prospects of reconciliation.

As far as the Orthodos conception of what constitutes the authority of the Pope goes, where would the line be drawn in the event of a reconciliation?

 

[Hesychios]

As far as the Orthodos conception of what constitutes the authority of the Pope goes, where would the line be drawn in the event of a reconciliation?

I can only share my own guess as an opinion, I will confine my comments to the question of administrative authority (not the Infallibility issue)…

The scope of authority held in an office of the church is really a matter of discipline. The church Fathers decide what limits to place, and can shift responsibility from one to another. It is clear from the early church that the organization of the church was a work in process, there was a lot of tweeking as circumstances changed.

For instance, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Caesarea became the Metropolitan See for Palestine. Later the diocese of Jerusalem was restored and it was supervised by the Metropolitan of Caesarea. Yet at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD the diocese of Jerusalem became a Patriarchate recognized by Council. The Metropolitan See of Caesarea became subject to the patriarch at Jerusalem…the church adjusted as required.

The church was developing, and some Metropolitan Sees were becoming subject to others as the church reorganized. Very early on the Patriarchate of Antioch claimed Cyprus in it’s Metropolitan territory. But not everyone was willing to agree to that, and it could have been a divisive issue. The council of Ephesus in 431AD decided to make the church of Cyprus autocephalic. It is still self-governing to this very day. That means no other church has the right to control it, not Antioch nor Alexandria nor Rome.

Within a synod or patriarchate the local autocephalic church has a lot of latitude as to how it should organize itself internally, although generally they will stick with tradition and makes changes very reluctantly over time. Each synod makes it’s own rules on how to select bishops, what to do with diocesan boundaries, what saints are on the calendar, who gets to be a patriarch (and what duties he will observe), etc.

So it is literally possible to delegate all manner of responsibilities to a patriarch like the bishop of Rome, and that appears to be what happened over time in the western church.

It’s no surprise really, Rome happens to be the only Apostolic See in the west (and so far east itself it practically sits on the edge of western Christendom astride trade and pilgrimage routes). It is also a highly dignified city with a magnificent early history and relics of the two most popular Apostles. It is a great pilgrimage center, and noteworthy for being a fount of orthodoxy in the earliest centuries. Being an autocephalic church itself it seems to have come to dominate all the other Metropolitan Sees in the west, eventually even naming and assigning their bishops.

If the western church has wanted to delegate all of this responsibility and power to the bishop of Rome *within that patriarchal church *it has that right. Within the context of the western or Latin church all power can be concentrated in one office as a matter of discipline.

The western church must recognize that it is only one of several autocephalic churches. (The number of autocephalic Orthodox churches is fifteen, so the Latin Church is one of sixteen.) It can potentially share communion with these churches, but must respect them all as equals (the church of Cyprus, for example… no one can grab it, the Council in 431AD gave them complete independence).

Unfortunately, in 1870 the western church made universal jurisdiction of the Pope a dogma. It is a matter of theology now, no longer merely a matter of church discipline for the RC church. The Papacy cannot actually recognize the other autocephalic churches as independent equals (any longer) without seeming to sin against it’s own doctrine. I don’t see any way around this.

 

[bobzills]

Unfortunately, in 1870 the western church made universal jurisdiction of the Pope a dogma. It is a matter of theology now, no longer merely a matter of church discipline for the RC church. The Papacy cannot actually recognize the other autocephalic churches as independent equals (any longer) without seeming to sin against it’s own doctrine. I don’t see any way around this.

I could make a guess that the Catholic teaching on development of doctrine, could be invoked to take into account the new situation which would arise in the case of a reunion. If you look at what ws taught at the Council of Florence concerning the salvation of Jews and what is taught now, then it is clear that the teaching has been reworked and adapted to modern times.

 

[Mickey]

I could make a guess that the Catholic teaching on development of doctrine, could be invoked to take into account the new situation which would arise in the case of a reunion. If you look at what ws taught at the Council of Florence concerning the salvation of Jews and what is taught now, then it is clear that the teaching has been reworked and adapted to modern times.

Yes. But the Orthodox would have to be convinced that there would not be future “development” that would reverse the situation.