Papal Primacy

[rben20]

Hello Eastern Catholics,

In light of the See of Peter thread I wanted to ask Eastern Catholics exactly why you accept the Primacy of Peter and if that means the same as what Roman Catholics believe. What exactly distinguishes your thinking from our Orthodox brethren besides the need to be in communion as there was at one time one Church?

Thanks

 

[Aramis]

Hello Eastern Catholics,

In light of the See of Peter thread I wanted to ask Eastern Catholics exactly why you accept the Primacy of Peter and if that means the same as what Roman Catholics believe. What exactly distinguishes your thinking from our Orthodox brethren besides the need to be in communion as there was at one time one Church?

Thanks

What most Roman Catholics believe? No. But most believe something more than what the dogma requires, and many of those think it requires what they believe.

What the dogma requires? I think so.

Why? Because the trifold charge of Peter in Jn 21 looks to me to be very much Peter being given an additional duty by Christ, one not shown to be placed upon the others, as shepherd.

I see the papal role as one of Archpatriarch in all but name. As was stated by an Assyrian bishop, the Pope is to patriarchs as a patriarch is to bishops.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think this is a much more difficult thing to learn for Roman Catholics like myself becaue the Pope functions both as head of the Universal Church and head of the Roman Church at the same time. And often we don’t even see the distinction when he is doing something for the entire Church, and when is he doing something specifically for Roman Catholics.

 

[dcointin]

I’ve heard people on this forum mention several different views of Papal primacy, which they described as low, high, and absolute (or ultramontine). Could anyone describe these views in detail, what they mean, what their acceptance is, etc.? Thanks!

 

[5Loaves]

Hello Eastern Catholics,

In light of the See of Peter thread I wanted to ask Eastern Catholics exactly why you accept the Primacy of Peter and if that means the same as what Roman Catholics believe. What exactly distinguishes your thinking from our Orthodox brethren besides the need to be in communion as there was at one time one Church?

Thanks

You might also look at the recent thread Primacy as well as Infallibility - revisited.

 

[Aramis]

I’ve heard people on this forum mention several different views of Papal primacy, which they described as low, high, and absolute (or ultramontine). Could anyone describe these views in detail, what they mean, what their acceptance is, etc.? Thanks!

In a nutshell:

Absolute: Pope is only real bishop; all others are vicars for him, as he is for Christ. He can order all other bishops by his own whims alone.
High: Pope is head of the visible church, with authority over others, including patriarchs, but that authority is limited by the need to not render the other bishops ministry meaningless.
Low: Pope is speaker for the assembled (partiarchs/bishops*), has little to no authority outside the Roman Church at all, and limited outside the province of Rome.

• Some views of Low Petrine say still place patriarchs and the Pope above other bishops; others reduce them to just bishops with administrative duties and honorary titles.

 

[dcointin]

In a nutshell:

Absolute: Pope is only real bishop; all others are vicars for him, as he is for Christ. He can order all other bishops by his own whims alone.
High: Pope is head of the visible church, with authority over others, including patriarchs, but that authority is limited by the need to not render the other bishops ministry meaningless.
Low: Pope is speaker for the assembled (partiarchs/bishops*), has little to no authority outside the Roman Church at all, and limited outside the province of Rome.

• Some views of Low Petrine say still place patriarchs and the Pope above other bishops; others reduce them to just bishops with administrative duties and honorary titles.

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

 

[5Loaves]

Here’s [an answer Fr. Archimandrite Taft gave](http://www.natcath.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/taft.htm) in the interview Andrew posted a link to.

Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’

 

[Aramis]

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

From Low with patriarchs and metropolitans having some authority over their synod through Very Low…

Very Low: A primate at any level (Metropolitan, Patriarch, Pope) has no authority save that of a bishop (and that only within his own see), and merely acts as the synod’s mouthpiece. All power is vested in the synod with bishops as vicars for the synod.

I’ve heard several Orthodox laymen ascribe to the very low view, but have only read a few claims from clergy in that light, and none from current bishops.

On the other hand, Moscow and Antioch both seem to feel they hold the high-petrine authority, “since Rome is heterodox.”

 

[Vince1022]

In a nutshell:

Absolute: Pope is only real bishop; all others are vicars for him, as he is for Christ. He can order all other bishops by his own whims alone.
High: Pope is head of the visible church, with authority over others, including patriarchs, but that authority is limited by the need to not render the other bishops ministry meaningless.
Low: Pope is speaker for the assembled (partiarchs/bishops*), has little to no authority outside the Roman Church at all, and limited outside the province of Rome.

• Some views of Low Petrine say still place patriarchs and the Pope above other bishops; others reduce them to just bishops with administrative duties and honorary titles.

Given those choices, the closest to Catholic teaching seems #2.

As Pope John Paul II noted in his magnificent teaching Ut Unum Sint, this is an essential and vital important issue that should be developed to further ecumenism.

 

[rben20]

I thought I’d ask since we have the Orthodox in communion with Rome crowd and then the actual Eastern Catholic. I’ve been noticing some differences and wondered if this would be the same situation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought I’d ask since we have the Orthodox in communion with Rome crowd and then the actual Eastern Catholic. I’ve been noticing some differences and wondered if this would be the same situation.

You mean to say that those who think of themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome would be more of the Low type while Eastern Catholics would be somewhere between Absolute and High?

My understanding that being Orthodox in Communion with Rome is more about preserving traditions rather than the Papal view. Then again, maybe some do use that term to convey a view of Papal Primacy.

 

[rben20]

You mean to say that those who think of themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome would be more of the Low type while Eastern Catholics would be somewhere between Absolute and High?

My understanding that being Orthodox in Communion with Rome is more about preserving traditions rather than the Papal view. Then again, maybe some do use that term to convey a view of Papal Primacy.

Yes that is what I am thinking. If you were to ask if they would accept the doctrines developed after the schism it would be hazy whereas those who consider themselves Eastern Catholic are Catholic first, tradition and customs second. Then it becomes…well which view is the authentic way? I would say the latter don’t you think?

 

[Vince1022]

I thought I’d ask since we have the Orthodox in communion with Rome crowd and then the actual Eastern Catholic. I’ve been noticing some differences and wondered if this would be the same situation.

Orthodox Christians are not in communion with Rome.

Eastern Catholics are, of course, in communion with Rom (hence “Catholic”).

The distinction between Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians is very clear.

 

[rben20]

Orthodox Christians are not in communion with Rome.

Eastern Catholics are, of course, in communion with Rom (hence “Catholic”).

The distinction between Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians is very clear.

I guess you haven’t been posting on the eastern catholic forum long enough to see what I am talking about. Don’t worry about it though.

 

[Vince1022]

I guess you haven’t been posting on the eastern catholic forum long enough to see what I am talking about. Don’t worry about it though.

I am not worried, apart from what you posted on this thread. The terms you use don’t seem coherent with Catholic and Orthodox understanding.

 

[rben20]

I am not worried, apart from what you posted on this thread. The terms you use don’t seem coherent with Catholic and Orthodox understanding.

Then tell that to the people who put that as their religious views not me

 

[Vince1022]

Then tell that to the people who put that as their religious views not me

You started this thread, not “people who put that as their religious views.”

You asked why Eastern Catholics accept papal primacy, when as the Catholic Church teaches all Catholics accept papal primacy. Right?

 

[rben20]

You started this thread, not “people who put that as their religious views.”

You asked why Eastern Catholics accept papal primacy, when as the Catholic Church teaches all Catholics accept papal primacy. Right?

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’ve heard people on this forum mention several different views of Papal primacy, which they described as low, high, and absolute (or ultramontine). Could anyone describe these views in detail, what they mean, what their acceptance is, etc.? Thanks!

 

[dcointin]

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 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.