Papal Primacy

[Vince1022]

Vince please. You are starting petty arguments that add no value to the thread whatsoever. It’s not as simple as you think. If you read the next couple of replies you would realize people are also wondering the same thing.

dcointin got to where I was leading.

I did not intend to start any arguments, petty or not.

I don’t see how your post answered my question. Thanks anyway.

 

[Vince1022]

I believe that rben20 was distinguishing between two types of Eastern Catholics based on how they describe themselves. The first is Catholics that celebrate an eastern rite but draw their theology and devotions from Latin Christianity. The second is Catholics that view themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, and draw their theology and devotions from Eastern Christianity. Both are equally Catholic, but their emphasis is different. As Catholics, both accept the dogmas of the Catholic Church, but may interpret them somewhat differently. This is particularly evident in areas of disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, such as the understanding of papal primacy. There appears to be several interpretations of this, which is what I asked for explanation about. In general, from my observations it seems that the “Orthodox In Communion With Rome” Catholics have a more minimalist view of papal primacy, though they still accept that he is the head of the Church and successor of St. Peter. They seem to question some of the authority which the Pope has assumed, particularly since the great schism, and argue the need for a more balanced and conciliar ecclesiology. The “Eastern Rite Catholics”, on the other hand, seem more comfortable with the traditional Latin view of papal primacy which is more maximalist. This is all generalizations of course, and I’m sure there are exceptions on both sides.

I don’t know if your description of “two types of Eastern Catholics” is accurate or not.

Regardless, Catholics share the same essential faith regarding the Pope, papal primacy, etc. That’s all.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know if your description of “two types of Eastern Catholics” is accurate or not.

Regardless, Catholics share the same essential faith regarding the Pope, papal primacy, etc. That’s all.

Maybe not two types but two extremes and all the gradients in between. From those who believe in absolute Papal Primacy the same way Latin Catholics would, to those who see the Pope as merely a symbolic head or a first among equals between the Patriarchs.

 

[Vince1022]

Maybe not two types but two extremes and all the gradients in between. From those who believe in absolute Papal Primacy the same way Latin Catholics would, to those who see the Pope as merely a symbolic head or a first among equals between the Patriarchs.

Yes, individuals can have different understandings, I am simply referring to what the Catholic Church teaches via Vatican II, the Catechism, etc. All Catholics share the same essential understanding of the papacy…otherwise we would not be all Catholic.

 

[brackobama]

i just need to know what it is haha. and if you know the doctrines server implications…?
leanspa

 

[Aramis]

Yes, individuals can have different understandings, I am simply referring to what the Catholic Church teaches via Vatican II, the Catechism, etc. All Catholics share the same essential understanding of the papacy…otherwise we would not be all Catholic.

Hardly.

The church teachings on the Pope are far from definitive on many issues. And the interpretations of them vary widely.

There is little way to even be certain whether or not a particular papal statement bears the charism of infallibility.

 

[mardukm]

It seems that the Orthodox position would be considered “Low Petrine”. Would you agree?

I’ve met three EO in this forum who subscribe to the Low Petrine view, where every bishop is equal, and head bishops (Patriarchs and Metropolitans) are only administrative/ honorary positions.

I’ve met two EO in this forum who subscribe to the High Petrine view, where head bishops have more than administrative functions, but have a true, spiritual (as well as administrative) authority over their brother bishops.

Which position do you hold?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vince1022]

Hardly.

The church teachings on the Pope are far from definitive on many issues. And the interpretations of them vary widely.

There is little way to even be certain whether or not a particular papal statement bears the charism of infallibility.

I disagree.

The authoritative church teachings on the Pope are definite in the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism, for instance.

Yes, many understandings of such teachings are not defined by those (and other Magisterial) sources, but it’s not like Catholics are totally confused or divergent about the papacy.

The point is, as I said, the essentials of Catholic faith…in this case, regarding the Papacy…are clearly taught by the Magisterium (Vatican II, Catechism, et. al.).

The obvious different interpretations etc. do not deny this fact.

Actually, it’s very clear what Papal statements are taught infallibly. See Canon Law 749.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM