Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[jam070406]

Dear EO brethren: Could you accept “universal jurisdiction” if it actually meant simply “universal solicitude or care” instead of “universal control?”

Dear Catholic brethren: Can you accept the same thing? I know that I presonally have had debates with Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates on this very point. Our own Popes have expressed the Petrine ministry as a form of service and love for the Church (indeed, as St. Ignatius of Antioch has put it - a “presidency of love”). But Absolutist Petrine advocates view the Petrine ministry as the Pope having absolute power (in those exact words). Can my Catholic brethren see how off-putting that can be, even to Eastern and Oriental Catholics?

Blessings,
Marduk

I see it as you describe.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t find his take on Matthew a issue at all. Should we go through it “once again”.

The real issue is you confuse “communion” with rolling out the red-carpet for you. Sorry to be so blatant but the EO is in schism not Rome. But of course the “real” insults come the reverse way.

The same can be said right back at you. Calling the other side schismatics is not going to help heal the schism, quite frankly.

 

[jam070406]

The ecclesiology of the Church in the first millennium would support the idea. When sees would have conflicts, they would enter into schism until the conflicts were resolved, and Rome didn’t really seem to be viewed as the font of unity for all of Christendom. As an example, take the schism in Antioch with Meletius (since we were mentioning him earlier in relation to St. John Chrysostom). Paulinus, backed by Rome and Alexandria, claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius died, leaving Flavian as his successor. Paulinus died leaving Evagrius as his successor. Flavian, with help from St. John Chrysostom prevented the election of another successor to Evagrius, after Evagrius’ death. The schism was then healed.

Who was right? It’s really hard to say. Who entered into disunity? It is again hard to say, especially since Antioch was not in communion with Alexandria and Rome, but it was in communion with Constantinople, which did remain communion with Alexandria and Rome. The structure of the early Church, even Post-Nicaea, was far from recognizing Rome as being the source of all unity within the Church.

That is why there is the See of Peter, Rome, to strengthen and affirm it’s fellow brother Bishops in the Truth.

 

[jam070406]

Nor did he break communion with Constantinople, Alexandria or Antioch.

Nor did he deny Rome was the See of Peter and denounce it for exerting power it didn’t have or tried to claim on false pretence.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

I think on non-dogmatic matters, I can agree with you. Otherwise, no. Even assuming that Antioch was theoretically separated ecclesiastically from Rome because of the Paulinist party, the Antiochenes nevertheless submitted a dogmatic issue on the Holy Spirit to Pope St. Damasus for settlement (or maybe Antioch was not separated from Rome itself at all? ).

The ecclesiology of the Church in the first millennium would support the idea. When sees would have conflicts, they would enter into schism until the conflicts were resolved, and Rome didn’t really seem to be viewed as the font of unity for all of Christendom. As an example, take the schism in Antioch with Meletius (since we were mentioning him earlier in relation to St. John Chrysostom). Paulinus, backed by Rome and Alexandria, claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius died, leaving Flavian as his successor. Paulinus died leaving Evagrius as his successor. Flavian, with help from St. John Chrysostom prevented the election of another successor to Evagrius, after Evagrius’ death. The schism was then healed.

Who was right? It’s really hard to say. Who entered into disunity? It is again hard to say, especially since Antioch was not in communion with Alexandria and Rome, but it was in communion with Constantinople, which did remain communion with Alexandria and Rome. The structure of the early Church, even Post-Nicaea, was far from recognizing Rome as being the source of all unity within the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In a heartbeat mardukm. My original post of today wasn’t meant to insult and if thats how it was taken I am truly sorry. It was to view how similar the teachings are when we claim them so different.

However as I stated these differences we argue about when really observed come down to the Primacy amd Russia. St Mary and the Creed are not issues at least not from what I see. Russia may well be “the” major issue. I think Russia is capible of being the Christian country it once was. How is it even a reality Islam is totally acceptable and the CC is basically banned.

Personally I think it would do the CC a world of good to be in constant dialogue with the East.

Reverting to early church fathers I find to be a two way street. The Councils could be somewhat subjective, yet history shows a clear picture of what in truth happened.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

I think on non-dogmatic matters, I can agree with you. Otherwise, no. Even assuming that Antioch was theoretically separated ecclesiastically from Rome because of the Paulinist party, the Antiochenes nevertheless submitted a dogmatic issue on the Holy Spirit to Pope St. Damasus for settlement (or maybe Antioch was not separated from Rome itself at all? ).

Is schism a dogmatic matter?

That being said, I obviously have some reading to do over the whole issue with St. Meletius, if indeed his supposed schism with Rome is purely a myth (one that is strangely spread by both the Orthodox and the Catholics—you’re only supposed to spread rumors that are advantageous to your position! Though I can certainly see how the myth might be advantageous to both). Certainly from modern eyes, the situation looks pretty scandalous, but then again, I doubt that scandal was something that the Roman citizens weren’t already used to back then.

 

[dzheremi]

I see this thread is still insane. “No, you’re in schism!” “No, YOU’RE in schism!”

Um…you’re BOTH in schism from one another. Remember, the whole “mutual excommunications” thing? 1965, meeting in Jerusalem, etc.? And if I remember my church history, it was the Papal legates who placed the excommunication on the East first (wasn’t it mid-liturgy in the Hagia Sophia or something crazy like that?), and then the East responded in kind. Get over yourselves. Geez.

And the whole Augustine/Patristic quote war is hilarious, in a tragic way (one is reminded of Mel Brooks’ famous quip: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger; Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die”). The fact of the matter is as Cavaradossi describes it: The Fathers did not entirely agree on the interpretation of the “Rock” of the book of Matthew. As far as I can tell from my own Patristic study, the view that the rock is the person of Peter is a minority view, but I agree that this does not seem to be a point of contention among the Fathers. They seem to be much more comfortable with disagreement than we are. We could stand to learn to be more like them in this (and of course many other regards).

Though I can see from the Catholic side why it makes sense to embrace a particular view with such unflappable conviction. It seems that there’s an awful lot riding on a particular interpretation of this passage for Catholics, while the Orthodox (like the Fathers) see it as a minor matter.

 

[KathleenGee]

I find the Eastern Orthodox so inclined to be insulted when none is intended.

Looking at the comments here and the disputes…all the more we need papal jurisdiction over the entire church…Latin and Eastern…and as stated…and repeating John Paul II…the pope being the Servant of God, his work primarily that of unity and love, and that the bishops likewise, share the same title, Servant of God.

The bickering of the apostolic church of who is first makes me think of several apostles with Christ arguing who will get the higher seat.

The parameters of the papacy have grown and been refined since the beginnings of the early church. I see alot of antipathy towards the papacy on models that no longer serve the Church and thus are not in use.

The papacy should be seen as Servant, as working for unity and love as it is so much needed. I would love to see more of the liturgical practices come into the Western churches to restore and renew the sense of the sacred and God among us.

I would love to attend Mass at a Latin church with Eastern rites but with no ethnicity attached…but a universal church identifying with all people. Both churches can really help each other become better and more effective if we unite. Doing so, having both Latin and Eastern Churches united would then better serve the world and draw the world to God, the unity a sign that God is with us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I see this thread is still insane. “No, you’re in schism!” “No, YOU’RE in schism!”

Um…you’re BOTH in schism from one another. Remember, the whole “mutual excommunications” thing? 1965, meeting in Jerusalem, etc.? And if I remember my church history, it was the Papal legates who placed the excommunication on the East first (wasn’t it mid-liturgy in the Hagia Sophia or something crazy like that?), and then the East responded in kind. Get over yourselves. Geez.

And the whole Augustine/Patristic quote war is hilarious, in a tragic way (one is reminded of Mel Brooks’ famous quip: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger; Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die”). The fact of the matter is as Cavaradossi describes it: The Fathers did not entirely agree on the interpretation of the “Rock” of the book of Matthew. As far as I can tell from my own Patristic study, the view that the rock is the person of Peter is a minority view, but I agree that this does not seem to be a point of contention among the Fathers. They seem to be much more comfortable with disagreement than we are. We could stand to learn to be more like them in this (and of course many other regards).

Though I can see from the Catholic side why it makes sense to embrace a particular view with such unflappable conviction. It seems that there’s an awful lot riding on a particular interpretation of this passage for Catholics, while the Orthodox (like the Fathers) see it as a minor matter.

You’re proposing that we remain sane? What are you, insane?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

As far as I can tell from my own Patristic study, the view that the rock is the person of Peter is a minority view, but I agree that this does not seem to be a point of contention among the Fathers.

Perhaps there was really no disagreement because they understood it the whole matter in the Sacramental sense.

When Catholics say that the Rock is the “person of Peter,” we don’t mean that the Rock is the person of Simon. And I think that is where the misunderstanding lies. The “person of Peter” is a distinct reality from the person who is Simon, a reality that is intimately attached to the Rock Who is Christ. That’s the whole purpose of the name change, of why Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter. Hence, when we say that the “Pope is infallible,” we do not mean that the man named Ratzinger is infallible. Rather we are referring to Pope Benedict who is by virtue of his office the “person of Peter.”

Catholics never ever (or at least should never, ever) separate “Peter” from “Peter’s Faith,” and much less from Jesus Who is the Rock. I imagine that is the very reason that though the Fathers could interpret “Rock” in those different senses/according to those different terminologies, they never saw those different senses/terminologies as mutually exclusive or incompatible or incongruous in any way.

I can understand when Protestants make the argument, but I have always found it rather ironic, even hypocritical, for apostolic Christians (who adhere to a Sacramental/Incarnational theological system) to argue as if Peter, Peter’s Faith, and Jesus Himself can be separated from each other. Even when I was not yet Catholic, I was always very uncomfortable with the “Peter is the Rock…NO, Jesus is the Rock…NO, Peter’s Faith is the Rock” argument that Orthodox apologists were proposing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Perhaps there was really no disagreement because they understood it the whole matter in the Sacramental sense.

When Catholics say that the Rock is the “person of Peter,” we don’t mean that the Rock is the person of Simon. And I think that is where the misunderstanding lies. The “person of Peter” is a distinct reality from the person who is Simon, a reality that is intimately attached to the Rock Who is Christ. That’s the whole purpose of the name change, of why Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter. Hence, when we say that the “Pope is infallible,” we do not mean that the man named Ratzinger is infallible. Rather we are referring to Pope Benedict who is by virtue of his office the “person of Peter.”

Catholics never ever (or at least should never, ever) separate “Peter” from “Peter’s Faith,” and much less from Jesus Who is the Rock. I imagine that is the very reason that though the Fathers could interpret “Rock” in those different senses/according to those different terminologies, they never saw those different senses/terminologies as mutually exclusive or incompatible or incongruous in any way.

I can understand when Protestants make the argument, but I have always found it rather ironic, even hypocritical, for apostolic Christians (who adhere to a Sacramental/Incarnational theological system) to argue as if Peter, Peter’s Faith, and Jesus Himself can be separated from each other. Even when I was not yet Catholic, I was always very uncomfortable with the “Peter is the Rock…NO, Jesus is the Rock…NO, Peter’s Faith is the Rock” argument that Orthodox apologists were proposing.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very well put. I was gonna say that Catholics don’t view it as either/or. But, you put much better. As you always do.

 

[byeveryword]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Perhaps there was really no disagreement because they understood it the whole matter in the Sacramental sense.

When Catholics say that the Rock is the “person of Peter,” we don’t mean that the Rock is the person of Simon. And I think that is where the misunderstanding lies. The “person of Peter” is a distinct reality from the person who is Simon, a reality that is intimately attached to the Rock Who is Christ. That’s the whole purpose of the name change, of why Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter. Hence, when we say that the “Pope is infallible,” we do not mean that the man named Ratzinger is infallible. Rather we are referring to Pope Benedict who is by virtue of his office the “person of Peter.”

Catholics never ever (or at least should never, ever) separate “Peter” from “Peter’s Faith,” and much less from Jesus Who is the Rock. I imagine that is the very reason that though the Fathers could interpret “Rock” in those different senses/according to those different terminologies, they never saw those different senses/terminologies as mutually exclusive or incompatible or incongruous in any way.

I can understand when Protestants make the argument, but I have always found it rather ironic, even hypocritical, for apostolic Christians (who adhere to a Sacramental/Incarnational theological system) to argue as if Peter, Peter’s Faith, and Jesus Himself can be separated from each other. Even when I was not yet Catholic, I was always very uncomfortable with the “Peter is the Rock…NO, Jesus is the Rock…NO, Peter’s Faith is the Rock” argument that Orthodox apologists were proposing.

Blessings,
Marduk

One of the very earliest liturgies states that the Rock is the faith in Jesus Christ that he is the Son of the living God. So, it does not really matter if it is the faith of Peter, or of the church. Nevertheless, Peter is the first apostle to be revealed this doctrine of faith.

 

[Seamus_L]

Catholic-Orthodox reunion tends to be an ongoing fantasy pretty much limited to cyberspace. In reality we’re just not on the same page, and the people in the pews (and that includes the Orthodox) have a far better grasp of that then the ones behind the keyboards.

 

[jam070406]

One of the very earliest liturgies states that the Rock is the faith in Jesus Christ that he is the Son of the living God. So, it does not really matter if it is the faith of Peter, or of the church. Nevertheless, Peter is the first apostle to be revealed this doctrine of faith.

Except that Jesus changes Simon’s name and refers to him as Peter from there on.
Yeah, I’d say that matters.

 

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword,

You are taking a pronounced and particular event of Jesus Christ and His relationship with Peter and invalidating His appointment of Peter as the visible head representing Christ.

God works through human clay. He is not physically visible in the Church, but His presence and action is known.

The papacy has evolved and changed, because the very church has changed and grown. We are a living, breathing Church.

Just witnessing the disputes here shows the need for arbitration and that was Rome’s work from earliest times. It was the rise of division and forthcoming dismantling of Christian that caused the papacy to redefine itself, in affirming that Christ did indeed establish one church, and disunity would impact not only the Church but the world.

The marks of the Church are one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and oneness the primary mark.

 

[Harpazo]

I see this thread is still insane. “No, you’re in schism!” “No, YOU’RE in schism!”

Um…you’re BOTH in schism from one another. Remember, the whole “mutual excommunications” thing? 1965, meeting in Jerusalem, etc.? And if I remember my church history, it was the Papal legates who placed the excommunication on the East first (wasn’t it mid-liturgy in the Hagia Sophia or something crazy like that?), and then the East responded in kind. Get over yourselves. Geez.

And the whole Augustine/Patristic quote war is hilarious, in a tragic way (one is reminded of Mel Brooks’ famous quip: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger; Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die”). The fact of the matter is as Cavaradossi describes it: The Fathers did not entirely agree on the interpretation of the “Rock” of the book of Matthew. As far as I can tell from my own Patristic study, the view that the rock is the person of Peter is a minority view, but I agree that this does not seem to be a point of contention among the Fathers. They seem to be much more comfortable with disagreement than we are. We could stand to learn to be more like them in this (and of course many other regards).

Though I can see from the Catholic side why it makes sense to embrace a particular view with such unflappable conviction. It seems that there’s an awful lot riding on a particular interpretation of this passage for Catholics, while the Orthodox (like the Fathers) see it as a minor matter.

You sound surprised. My former Maronite priest told me that proof-texting does not work with the Protestants. By extension, I don’t think it works amongst RCs and Orthodox, unless they are unread and/or ignorant. I’d be willing to bet those on both sides slinging “proofs” haven’t read any substantial amount of what a particular father said. I choose not to participate in these discussions because I’m not getting into a quote war over Fathers that neither I nor my interlocutor have read in context. It’s foolish and spiritually damaging.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[byeveryword]

Except that Jesus changes Simon’s name and refers to him as Peter from there on.
Yeah, I’d say that matters.

I am in agreement with St.Augustine in his explanation that Jesus Christ is the rock(petra) and that Jesus Christ is the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness as the apostle Paul says in his second letter to the church in Corinth.

Simon’s name was changed to Petrus, or Petras because of his revelation of faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God. The church can not stand on the faith of one man, St. Peter. The church will only stand in it’s united faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God.

 

[jam070406]

I am in agreement with St.Augustine in his explanation that Jesus Christ is the rock(petra) and that Jesus Christ is the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness as the apostle Paul says in his second letter to the church in Corinth.

Simon’s name was changed to Petrus, or Petras because of his revelation of faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God. The church can not stand on the faith of one man, St. Peter. The church will only stand in it’s united faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God.

Who said anything different? It’s as if you just ignored the previous posts, like Mardukm’s.

 

[jam070406]

I am in agreement with St.Augustine in his explanation that Jesus Christ is the rock(petra) and that Jesus Christ is the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness as the apostle Paul says in his second letter to the church in Corinth.

Simon’s name was changed to Petrus, or Petras because of his revelation of faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God. The church can not stand on the faith of one man, St. Peter. The church will only stand in it’s united faith that Jesus Christ is the Rock, the Son of the Living God.

Jesus also calls Peter the rock, which He will build His Church on.