Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) presents an interesting viewpoint from the position of a Catholic theologian :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

During my time in a Catholic seminary, I neither heard this position taught nor did I read anything about it. I understood the concept of doctrinal development, but my Church history professor was quite clear in stating the Orthodox had abandoned the historic view of the Roman primacy. My question is this : how prevalent is this position amongst Catholics (be they scholars, clergy, or even members of the forum)? I only know of one other (a Jesuit historian) who espouses this viewpoint.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Ive been reading that throughout the time of union between the Churches that Constantinople did recognise that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over their church or all churches…

But the East sought to raise the dignity of the Constantinople See and then Calling it the Ecumenical Patriarch which St Gregory the Great was against,and then Photios getting all Anti Roman and therfore the East growing away from humble submission to the Popes and being subject to him ,and if the Popes really do have the right to supremacy then anything from lack of submission or rivalry could be along the lines of rebellion perhaps…

Lord have mercy i am a sinner

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Ive been reading that throughout the time of union between the Churches that Constantinople did recognise that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over their church or all churches…

But the East sought to raise the dignity of the Constantinople See and then Calling it the Ecumenical Patriarch which St Gregory the Great was against,and then Photios getting all Anti Roman and therfore the East growing away from humble submission to the Popes and being subject to him ,and if the Popes really do have the right to supremacy then anything from lack of submission or rivalry could be along the lines of rebellion perhaps…

Lord have mercy i am a sinner

What I find peculiar, however, is that the pope would suggest the contrary (what you stated is definitely the more traditional Roman Catholic view). Do you know of any other Catholics who agree with the sentiment shared by Pope Benedict?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Any kind of future union with Orthodoxy (if it’s even possible, and I’m skeptical), I’m sure the Pope recognize he would have to reduce some of his jurisdictional power.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

ok, i didnt get it when i read it first…

I am also surprised Benedict would say that…

perhaps reading more around that passage may give better understanding of things,(whole article etc)

maybe their wires are crossed?

Patriarch means one thing ,Pope thinks another

Pope doesnt know what Patriachs idea of Primacy of Charity is?

but Pope says ok ,Primacy of Charity, but even in the first millenium Rome was able to exercise power of jurisdiction over other churches being succesor of Peter,

who knows

 

[Cavaradossi]

Patriarch means one thing ,Pope thinks another

You do realize that the first bishop to bear the title “pope” was the Patriarch of Alexandria, right?

Pope doesnt know what Patriachs idea of Primacy of Charity is?

but Pope says ok ,Primacy of Charity, but even in the first millenium Rome was able to exercise power of jurisdiction over other churches being succesor of Peter,

who knows

No, the Pope was never invested with universal jurisdiction during the first millennium. Were that the case, there would have been no Meletian schism or controversy over Photios’ appointment as Patriarch of Constantinople; rather, the pope would have simply had his way and Meletius and Photios would never have been considered legitimate Patriarchs. History has shown otherwise.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Isnt Photius considered by Rome to be the Author of the Great schism?

Wasnt he exccommunicted by the Popes?

Dont you believe Rome had a strong say and influence in their brother Bishops churches in the East?

If you choose to remain seperated from your Elder Roman Brothers and Bishops then i wish you well on your journey.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Isnt Photius considered by Rome to be the Author of the Great schism?

Wasnt he exccommunicted by the Popes?

Dont you believe Rome had a strong say and influence in their brother Bishops churches in the East?

If you choose to remain seperated from your Elder Roman Brothers and Bishops then i wish you well on your journey.

No, Photios was not excommunicated. He was illegitimately deposed by a council called by the pope (which he had no right to call) and reinstated by a synod of over 300 bishops in the East after the death of Patriarch Ignatios.

Rome’s influence in the East was typically quite limited. Certainly, the Pope never had the powers which he now claims today (such as the sole power to assent to the ordination of new bishops).

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I can see one of two things going on here:

1. Benedict thinks that what was affirmed in the first millennium is a lot more than any non-Catholic does. This seems to me to be unlikely, at least to any large degree - there is no call to say he has no grasp of history.
2. He believes it but there is no practical way for the Romans to go forward from such a statement, given the intervening history and development in the West.

It’s interesting - a fellow I know on another forum was telling me that in Benedict’s understanding of apostolic succession and orders, validity has to be ties to correct teaching - much like the Eastern view. But how to work with that when it seems to contradict they way they have treated orders and validity in the past? It seems to be a similar problem.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, I can see one of two things going on here:

1. Benedict thinks that what was affirmed in the first millennium is a lot more than any non-Catholic does. This seems to me to be unlikely, at least to any large degree - there is no call to say he has no grasp of history.
2. He believes it but there is no practical way for the Romans to go forward from such a statement, given the intervening history and development in the West.

It’s interesting - a fellow I know on another forum was telling me that in Benedict’s understanding of apostolic succession and orders, validity has to be ties to correct teaching - much like the Eastern view. But how to work with that when it seems to contradict they way they have treated orders and validity in the past? It seems to be a similar problem.

I think that the biggest impediment, in the end, to ecumenism is that somebody is going to have to be “wrong”. If the Roman Catholics are going to believe option number 2, it would involve throwing out around the past 500 years of history, which saw the development of the modern papacy after the sound defeat of conciliarism in the 16th century. There is no way that such an admission would ever be made, I think.

 

[byeveryword]

I think that the biggest impediment, in the end, to ecumenism is that somebody is going to have to be “wrong”. If the Roman Catholics are going to believe option number 2, it would involve throwing out around the past 500 years of history, which saw the development of the modern papacy after the sound defeat of conciliarism in the 16th century. There is no way that such an admission would ever be made, I think.

I do not think so either, but one can always hope for miracles, and have faith in the prayer of unity that Jesus Christ prayed before his betrayal.

 

[dzheremi]

That passage has been quoted to me by Orthodox many times. It does seem rather damning to the Roman Catholic position, especially coming from such a source.

Anyway, it is also a view that I held as an RC, and continue to hold now, though I don’t know if it is even meant to apply to the communion I’m looking into (non-Chalcedonian). I suppose it’s one of those things that looks good and encouraging on paper, but in reality means nothing since it clearly has not established the working relationship between the parties it supposedly applies to. Most of the ecumenical movement is like this. It gives Catholics the idea that they have ammunition and hope that they don’t actually have, and Orthodox tend to want to see the proof before they’ll believe it, so I don’t know exactly who it’s helping. It’s something nice to look at, until proven otherwise.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

if Catholics lightly and rightly believe in what they teach,just because others say or believe its heresy why should the Catholics denounce their beliefs if they dont think here is anything wrong to it…its what they honestly believe

if the Catholic church is right then the gates of hell will not overcome the Church…

 

[Bluegoat]

if Catholics lightly and rightly believe in what they teach,just because others say or believe its heresy why should the Catholics denounce their beliefs if they dont think here is anything wrong to it…its what they honestly believe

if the Catholic church is right then the gates of hell will not overcome the Church…

So are they right to believe what Benedict says in the OP quote?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

i would like to read before or after that passage in his book or maybe read elsewhere what else he believes or has said about primacy

or maybe Romes hand in the Eastern affairs of the East, is Charity also to Benedict.

Unless your Orthodox and you dont want the Pope to feed his lambs,or to feed his sheep or to tend his sheep…

 

[Nicea325]

So are they right to believe what Benedict says in the OP quote?

Yes. The problem I encounter with many Orthodoxs is that they tend to fall on a more modern belief about the papacy.If one thinks the Orthodoxs of the past always had the sentiments as today is not true at all. All one has to do is study history before 1054 and many Eastern bishops share the common belief about the papacy.

 

[dzheremi]

Two things: 1) No they don’t, and, 2) the plural of “Orthodox” is Orthodox. It’s the “Christian” part in “Orthodox Christian” that takes the plural.

 

[Hesychios]

Isnt Photius considered by Rome to be the Author of the Great schism?

Wasnt he exccommunicted by the Popes?
.

I am curious about your sources.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am praying and reflecting…and to me, the issues theological with the Orthodox don’t mean much to me…it can be one’s choice of interpretation…

I don’t see the Eastern cultures changing that much…they have been overseeing their own jurisdictions, and yes, they have had most of the apostles as founders.

But I am seeing more and more the primacy of the Papacy…and his work to ensure untiy – and charity. If there is anything I would wish to see among the Orthodox is the universal vision that Christ came for all, and that Christ is at the door of every person’s heart. and to let our unity in Christ be our emphasis, not our national origin.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

But I am seeing more and more primacy of the Papacy…and his work to ensure untiy

That is interesting because the Latin concept of the papacy has single-handedly caused more division and disunity than any other issue.

If there is anything I would wish to see among the Orthodox is the universal vision that Christ came for all, and that Christ is at the door of every person’s heart. and to let our unity in Christ be our emphasis, not our national origin.

What about the Orthodox Church in America? The Western Rite? The regrowth of Orthodox monasticism in Britain? The Orthodox mission efforts in sub-Saharan Africa? The ever growing Japanese Orthodox Church?

It seems you possess a good many preconceived (and incorrect) notions as to the nature of Orthodoxy. I would recommend reading about these things instead of relying on inaccurate stereotypes.