Papal universal jurisdiction

[Expatreprocedit]

In a recent, now closed thread, this statement by an RC theologian was quoted with approval:

Had Hilarion read the book, he could have saved himself the embarrassment of uttering such howlers in New York as this:
… we are dealing with two very different models of church administration: one centralized and based on the perception of papal universal jurisdiction; the other decentralized and based on the notion of the communion of autocephalous local Churches.

But Vatican I’s dogmatic constitution on the church states the following:
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, **the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God **was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

Isn’t this the exact principle that was characterized as being a “howler”?

 

[glendab]

Testing one, two three. Sorry just testing. I’ve got an email problem.

Glenda

 

[Randy_Carson]

I suspect that thread was closed for a reason.

However, for the benefit of those who may participate in this thread before it is closed, the full context of the quote is:

Christian Unity Cannot Be Built on Lies
The Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev not only misrepresents Catholic practice and history,
he also misrepresents Orthodox practice and history
November 17, 2014
By Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille
catholicworldreport.com/I…t_on_lies.aspx

Had Hilarion read the book, he could have saved himself the embarrassment of uttering such howlers in New York as this:

… we are dealing with two very different models of church administration: one centralized and based on the perception of papal universal jurisdiction; the other decentralized and based on the notion of the communion of autocephalous local Churches.

This is the old mythology, never accurate in the first place, that sees the West as all papal and monarchical, and the East as all patriarchal and synodical. Like all stereotypes, it distorts. For the plain facts are that there is a long history of robust synodality in the Church of Rome going back to the earliest centuries of her history, and there is a long history of Eastern Churches attempting to be heavily centralized and run not in a synodal manner but in a manner that some Orthodox themselves have confessed to be “quasi-papal.” The clearest recent example of a super-centralized Orthodox church run on quasi-papal lines is Alfeyev’s own Russian Church, whose 1945 statutes gave the patriarch of Moscow (for political reasons insisted upon by Stalin) powers that popes of Rome could only dream about. I document all this in great detail in my book. For Alfeyev not to acknowledge any of this makes it clear that his treatment of primacy is grossly tendentious and thus must be dismissed as inaccurate and unreliable.​

 

[Peter_J]

In a recent, now closed thread, this statement by an RC theologian was quoted with approval:

Had Hilarion read the book, he could have saved himself the embarrassment of uttering such howlers in New York as this:

etc.

Hi Expatreprocedit. Let me start by saying that I agree with your calling him a theologian. (I think that people-lumping-together-theologians-bloggers-etc has become a pet peeve of mine. ) But having said that, it should be understood that even among theologians there’s a fair amount of diversity – in particular, some are more Orthodox-friendly and some are more polemical.

Likewise, are there not some Orthodox theologians who are more polemical and anti-Catholic than others? :ehh: