Orthodox-Vatican agree on primacy of Pope

[bobzills]

A joint commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has agreed the Pope has primacy over all bishops but disagrees over just what that authority permits him to do.
See:
canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2ZqiTV4s4gZzk49_TW4C9IrrgA
The theological commission said it agreed in Ravenna that Rome occupied the “first place” in canonical order of the ancient seats of bishops - including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The commission said it agreed “that the bishop of Rome was therefore the ‘protos’ (first in ancient Greek) among the patriarchs.”

“They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as 'protos,”’ the commission’s document said.

“While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations,” the document continued.

 

[Milliardo]

Hhmm…not much progress yet, in short. The Orthodox Church agrees that the Pope holds a primacy of honour, but it doesn’t agree that the Pope holds a universal jurisdiction, which is the whole point of this issue.

 

[wynd]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=198741

 

[Mannyfit75]

Take a look at this statement. It’s the last paragraph

[1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

zenit.org/article-21012?l=english

 

[bobzills]

Take a look at this statement. It’s the last paragraph

[1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

zenit.org/article-21012?l=english

Until the union is finalised, each Church will look upon itself as the true Church. If a union were to be brought about, my guess is that there will be one Church, but the one Church will consist of several Churches, much like it was before 1054.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Until the union is finalised, each Church will look upon itself as the true Church. If a union were to be brought about, my guess is that there will be one Church, but the one Church will consist of several Churches, much like it was before 1054.

If this going go anywhere, the dogmatic definition of the Pope’s fullness of jurisdiction over each & every Church & Catholic is going to have to be abolished/unsaid/ got around/explained away.​

Not in my lifetime, or that of anyone else here - that would upset the Traditionalists even more. And it would require exceptional intellectual agility to maintain that the CC was still infallible.

Why not just bin the dogmatic principle as a bad idea that has caused endless trouble & needs to be left behind ? No DP = no fuss and palaver over who teaches which dogmas most truly = nothing to have a schism over. I’m not aware of any requirement that any Church has to be dogma-minded.

 

[Deconi]

If this going go anywhere, the dogmatic definition of the Pope’s fullness of jurisdiction over each & every Church & Catholic is going to have to be abolished/unsaid/ got around/explained away.​

Not in my lifetime, or that of anyone else here - that would upset the Traditionalists even more. And it would require exceptional intellectual agility to maintain that the CC was still infallible.

Why not just bin the dogmatic principle as a bad idea that has caused endless trouble & needs to be left behind ? No DP = no fuss and palaver over who teaches which dogmas most truly = nothing to have a schism over. I’m not aware of any requirement that any Church has to be dogma-minded.

Traditionalists, fundamentalists, liberalists alike will abandon all for Truth. But as long as either side of the schism hold that they hold That Truth in FULLNESS, the dance will continue.

Like Protestantism, to unite, is to empty one’s self of all they have come to understand. The evidence always speaks of ONE Truth, but unfortunately, that same evidence can be interpreted to mean several truths!

 

[rien]

Until the union is finalised, each Church will look upon itself as the true Church. If a union were to be brought about, my guess is that there will be one Church, but the one Church will consist of several Churches, much like it was before 1054.

Exactly! Rome has to give on this or there will never be any reunion IMO. Its about returning to the historic church - not the Roman model we have today which is not historic. Read about the early church!

 

[rien]

If this going go anywhere, the dogmatic definition of the Pope’s fullness of jurisdiction over each & every Church & Catholic is going to have to be abolished/unsaid/ got around/explained away.​

Not in my lifetime, or that of anyone else here - that would upset the Traditionalists even more. And it would require exceptional intellectual agility to maintain that the CC was still infallible.

Why not just bin the dogmatic principle as a bad idea that has caused endless trouble & needs to be left behind ? No DP = no fuss and palaver over who teaches which dogmas most truly = nothing to have a schism over. I’m not aware of any requirement that any Church has to be dogma-minded.

IMO the declaration of the Pope’s infallibilty was false and not enforcing on Christians. Why, because the Eastern Bishops did not affirm this. Or the Assumpotion of Mary. I think these are disciplines not dogmas. They carry no weight historically without the consent of the Eastern bishops. IMO.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Until the union is finalised, each Church will look upon itself as the true Church. If a union were to be brought about, my guess is that there will be one Church, but the one Church will consist of several Churches, much like it was before 1054.

It will be. I can just feel it… more dialogue