Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[ivebeenshown]

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

Yeah… and the succession of the episcopate is what has largely caused division and disunity between us and Protestants.

But just because something is controversial doesn’t make it wrong… Christ is controversial. I look at it this way – if you accept episcopal succession, basically accepting that the Church is an organized institution, then how does it make sense not to have a ‘leader’ of sorts?

Say half of the bishop disagree with the other half and they are going to anathematize each other – how will the less-learned laypeople know who to follow? Having a bishop with a certain designated primacy is an obvious sign to follow. That in itself is not what makes it correct, but it is an obvious effect.

In Matt 16:18-19, Jesus promised infallibility ex cathedra.
In Matt 18:18-19, Jesus promised Magisterial infallibility.

So even if the communion of bishops is starkly divided, the pope has ex cathedra to have the last work.

Again, if 1/4 of bishops speak one way, and 3/4 the other, how do we know who to follow? Or if four patriarchs teach one thing, and another is by his lonesome, how do we know who is right? Should we use human logic and reasoning to determine for ourselves, or follow some ‘impulse of the Spirit’ akin to the Mormon ‘burning in the bosom’, or could it be that the chair of the Blessed Apostle Peter is a divine sign of unity in the Church?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MarkofEphesus,

A hearty and warm welcome to CAF!!!

There are two basic positions in the Catholic Church - the Absolutist Petrine view, and the High Petrine view. Cardinal Ratzinger expressed a High Petrine understanding of the papal dogmas. This viewpoint was also expressed prevalently by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. Despite the exaggerations of polemicists, the papal dogmas of V1 should, can, and must be understood in light of Sacred Tradition.

I personally believe that the Absolutist Petrine understanding is unpatristic, and is not faithful to the true teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of the papacy.

The problem is that many EO think that the only way for reunion to occur is for Catholics to repudiate the papal dogmas. This is, unfortunately, based on the erroneous premise that the Absolutist Petrine position is the ONLY way to understand the papal dogmas. Most of us here in CAF (particularly Eastern and Oriental Catholics, and a very great many Latin Catholics, as well) do not agree with the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of certain segments of the Latin Catholic Church. You can ask a question on this issue in the Eastern Catholicism Forum, which would be the most appropriate place to ask, IMO.

There are not a few threads that have heated debates between Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine view, and Catholics who adhere to the Absolutist Petrine view. There are a few in the Apologetics Forum, but most of them are in the Eastern Catholicism Forum. Members who are interested in this issue (High Petrine vs. Absolutist Petrine) can more often be found to congregate in those forums instead of this one.

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[manualman]

Even in this thread, there appears to be confusion about just what catholicism claims the papacy to be!

Nobody (except maybe Jack Chick, tongue-in-cheek) claims that the pope is impeccable, nor that every thing he says is true, every opinion he writes infallible. B16 is a theologian. What they DO is put ideas in writing, then refine them. This quote is not taken from a council document, nor an encyclical, even. It is private opinion.

What catholic theologians have been looking to do is examine our use of language for ways in which the true meaning of catholic teaching on the papacy can be communicated in a manner that does NOT generate false alarms and bad assumptions on the part of other christians. There’s nothing about such an approach that suggests lack of conviction in dogma. On the contrary, the insecure are usually the ones that make the most belligerent defense of their ideas.

I find it refreshing and confidence inspiring that Benedict is willing to look at other ways of expressing the truth of the mission of the papacy to reduce, to the extent possible, the stumbling block that it has been to many earnest christians in the world.

Others often note how the papacy today functions differently than it seems to have pre-1000 schism. I don’t believe that is quite accurate. I’d suggest that it is more like me when I purchase a new cell phone. From the very first day, that phone has all the capabilities in it that it ever will. But it generally takes me about 1,600 years to learn about them and to learn to use them. Well, it seems that long anyways… (What, it takes PICUTURES? Nifty! But in hindsight, the lens was there for me to see all along)

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathleenGee
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.

According to whose claims? Second,at what point time in history are we mentioning here? Prior to the great divorce or after?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Yeah… and the succession of the episcopate is what has largely caused division and disunity between us and Protestants.

But just because something is controversial doesn’t make it wrong… Christ is controversial.

I agree. I was merely remarking upon the irony of bringing up the papacy’s role in unity.

I look at it this way – if you accept episcopal succession, basically accepting that the Church is an organized institution, then how does it make sense not to have a ‘leader’ of sorts?

Once again, I agree: Eph. 4:15-16

Say half of the bishop disagree with the other half and they are going to anathematize each other – how will the less-learned laypeople know who to follow? Having a bishop with a certain designated primacy is an obvious sign to follow. That in itself is not what makes it correct, but it is an obvious effect.

Christ protects the Church from error, but not through the teachings of one man or office. When heresy arose in the early Church, councils were called to examine and discuss the situation. Innovative beliefs were condemned and the Faith prevailed. There were typically of a local nature, but when erroneous teachings were widespread, the holy and God-fearing emperor would convene an Ecumenical Council. Counciliar discussion has always been the means through which the Church operated.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, why have councils at all? Would it not be more feasible to have the pope pronounce (ex cathedra) the truth and refute heresy?

In Matt 16:18-19, Jesus promised infallibility ex cathedra

I have no problem accepting these interpretations of scripture, assuming the fathers of the Church supported such a view. Do you know of any patristic writings to suggest this verse referred to papal infallibility?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivebeenshown
In Matt 16:18-19, Jesus promised infallibility ex cathedra

I have no problem accepting these interpretations of scripture, assuming the fathers of the Church supported such a view. Do you know of any patristic writings to suggest this verse referred to papal infallibility?

Well isn’t it obvious to who Jesus was speaking to at that very moment? Why would the ECF’s have to explicitly spell out Peter and make reference to papal infallibility? How many ECF’s discuss infallibility when Peter wrote his two epistles?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Dear brother MarkofEphesus,

A hearty and warm welcome to CAF!!!

There are two basic positions in the Catholic Church - the Absolutist Petrine view, and the High Petrine view. Cardinal Ratzinger expressed a High Petrine understanding of the papal dogmas. This viewpoint was also expressed prevalently by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. Despite the exaggerations of polemicists, the papal dogmas of V1 should, can, and must be understood in light of Sacred Tradition.

I personally believe that the Absolutist Petrine understanding is unpatristic, and is not faithful to the true teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of the papacy.

The problem is that many EO think that the only way for reunion to occur is for Catholics to repudiate the papal dogmas. This is, unfortunately, based on the erroneous premise that the Absolutist Petrine position is the ONLY way to understand the papal dogmas. Most of us here in CAF (particularly Eastern and Oriental Catholics, and a very great many Latin Catholics, as well) do not agree with the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of certain segments of the Latin Catholic Church. You can ask a question on this issue in the Eastern Catholicism Forum, which would be the most appropriate place to ask, IMO.

There are not a few threads that have heated debates between Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine view, and Catholics who adhere to the Absolutist Petrine view. There are a few in the Apologetics Forum, but most of them are in the Eastern Catholicism Forum. Members who are interested in this issue (High Petrine vs. Absolutist Petrine) can more often be found to congregate in those forums instead of this one.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you Marduk. I have seen Pope Benedict’s view advocated mainly by Eastern Catholics (especially Melkites), but not Latins. Many times, I have seen Eastern Catholics condemned by their Western brethren for holding such views. Do you know of any other Western theologians who would agree with the “High Petrine” view?

 

[byeveryword]

Even in this thread, there appears to be confusion about just what catholicism claims the papacy to be!

Nobody (except maybe Jack Chick, tongue-in-cheek) claims that the pope is impeccable, nor that every thing he says is true, every opinion he writes infallible. B16 is a theologian. What they DO is put ideas in writing, then refine them. This quote is not taken from a council document, nor an encyclical, even. It is private opinion.

What catholic theologians have been looking to do is examine our use of language for ways in which the true meaning of catholic teaching on the papacy can be communicated in a manner that does NOT generate false alarms and bad assumptions on the part of other christians. There’s nothing about such an approach that suggests lack of conviction in dogma. On the contrary, the insecure are usually the ones that make the most belligerent defense of their ideas.

I find it refreshing and confidence inspiring that Benedict is willing to look at other ways of expressing the truth of the mission of the papacy to reduce, to the extent possible, the stumbling block that it has been to many earnest christians in the world.

Others often note how the papacy today functions differently than it seems to have pre-1000 schism. I don’t believe that is quite accurate. I’d suggest that it is more like me when I purchase a new cell phone. From the very first day, that phone has all the capabilities in it that it ever will. But it generally takes me about 1,600 years to learn about them and to learn to use them. Well, it seems that long anyways… (What, it takes PICUTURES? Nifty! But in hindsight, the lens was there for me to see all along)

Following the death of the bishops who had been chosen by the apostles, early church tradition indicates that bishops were then chosen by the laity of a local congregation, or district and ordained by at least two or three bishops of that district, not by the bishop of Rome.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Even in this thread, there appears to be confusion about just what catholicism claims the papacy to be!

Nobody (except maybe Jack Chick, tongue-in-cheek) claims that the pope is impeccable, nor that every thing he says is true, every opinion he writes infallible. B16 is a theologian. What they DO is put ideas in writing, then refine them. This quote is not taken from a council document, nor an encyclical, even. It is private opinion.

Definitely, though I do not believe anyone is arguing that Pope Benedict is speaking infallibly. What I find curious, however, is that it contradicts the view most commonly argued by Catholic apologists and theologians.

I find it refreshing and confidence inspiring that Benedict is willing to look at other ways of expressing the truth of the mission of the papacy to reduce, to the extent possible, the stumbling block that it has been to many earnest christians in the world.

But why reduce it for the sake of unity? If the Catholic view is truly accurate, why modify teaching for easier acceptance by non-Catholics?

Others often note how the papacy today functions differently than it seems to have pre-1000 schism. I don’t believe that is quite accurate. I’d suggest that it is more like me when I purchase a new cell phone. From the very first day, that phone has all the capabilities in it that it ever will. But it generally takes me about 1,600 years to learn about them and to learn to use them. Well, it seems that long anyways… (What, it takes PICUTURES? Nifty! But in hindsight, the lens was there for me to see all along)

What you are describing is doctrinal development, not the doctrinal refinement understood by the early Church. St. Vincent of Lerins states :

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge,* never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous**, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,–if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,–this, and nothing else,–she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."*

What leads you to believe modern papal powers were always present but unused (especially if no one knew about there powers)?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Well isn’t it obvious to who Jesus was speaking to at that very moment? Why would the ECF’s have to explicitly spell out Peter and make reference to papal infallibility? How many ECF’s discuss infallibility when Peter wrote his two epistles?

Because the early Church fathers are one of the best standards for determining truth and rooting out innovation. If this passage refers to what ivebeenshown claims, then this view surly would have been the predominant one amongst the teachings of the fathers.

 

[Bluegoat]

What leads you to believe modern papal powers were always present but unused (especially if no one knew about there powers)?

I am especially interested in this question as the Roman model of governance seems to have led both to the great schism and the Protestant Reformation. That doesn’t seem good circumstantial evidence that it was a good idea.

 

[mardukm]

Following the death of the bishops who had been chosen by the apostles, early church tradition indicates that bishops were then chosen by the laity of a local congregation, or district and ordained by at least two or three bishops of that district, not by the bishop of Rome.

Where are you getting your info from? Certainly not Catholic sources. The Pope does not ordain the bishops of other Churches in the Catholic communion. He is only involved in the collegial selection process.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mark of Ephesus

Thank you Marduk. I have seen Pope Benedict’s view advocated mainly by Eastern Catholics (especially Melkites), but not Latins. Many times, I have seen Eastern Catholics condemned by their Western brethren for holding such views. Do you know of any other Western theologians who would agree with the “High Petrine” view?

It depends. Do you want the info for the sake of knowing IF there are any, or do you want the info to take a look at their works. I could accomodate you on the first (from the records of Vatican 1), not the second, because I’m not well-read on Latin Catholic theological works from non-Magisterial sources.

Off hand, I know Bl. John Henry Newman held to a High Petrine position, and many of his works reflect that. I would suggest you contact one of the following Latin Catholic members here in CAF who adhere to the High Petrine view. They would be better informed than myself on Latin Catholic works on the matter:

Ron Conte, Fone Bone 2001, AmbroseSJ, twf, tdgesq, Patrick457.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Btw, do you mind if I call you “brother?” I had one EO member who sent me a PM saying it was not proper for me to call him my “brother,” so I stopped doing so. So I just want your opinion on that.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I am curious about your sources.

Im not being pushy or expect u to believe anything ,was just asking about him and being interested in catholicism i read this.If its all rubbish then id like to know a different perspective…

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

it says -

Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815

also-

But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope’s primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which Cærularius belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly considered the author of the schism which still lasts.

And his excommunication-

In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia’s in November, 879. This is the “Psuedosynodus Photiana” which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius’s party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I’s death in 886.

Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his own relations on the throne—an accusation which probably meant that the emperor wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo’s younger brother, was made patriarch (886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted a place for his brother. Stephen’s intrusion was as glaring an offence against canon law as had been that of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod was held which restored reunion for a century and a half, till the time of Michael Cærularius (1043-58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope’s primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which Cærularius belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly considered the author of the schism which still lasts. After this second deposition Photius suddenly disappears from history. It is not even known in what monastery he spent his last years. Among his many letters there is none that can be dated certainly as belonging to this second exile. The date of his death, not quite certain, is generally given as 6 February, 897.

 

[KathleenGee]

The manner of governing was divided among Jews and Gentiles…the latter, an episcopacy, the latter a council. The Jewish form of having a bishop ended up being the preferred choice.

Times, events, peoples, rulers, evolving and disevolving countries…errors, heresies, the expansion of Christianity…all these affected the the dimensions and parameters of the papacy.

The papacy is derived of the celibate priesthood, and may be that is why we can understand the spirituality of the Immaculate Conception. Yet I see Orthodox view of Mary very dignified and holy. The Orthodox have married clergy, the Latin tie never will.

I just see alot of pride when people oppose the seat of Peter…it was intended to exist along side the rest of the successors to the Apostles. Obviously, we are not the same as a church or people 2,000 years later.

We need both Peter and the Apostles as founder. And the rock of Peter serves unity…the more complex the issues the Church, the more we need this role as well.

 

[Hesychios]

Im not being pushy or expect u to believe anything ,was just asking about him and being interested in catholicism i read this.If its all rubbish then id like to know a different perspective…
.

It sort of thought so.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is notorious for anti-eastern Christian polemic. It is a relic of the ‘cold war’ era of relations between east and west, and is almost equally unflattering to Eastern Catholics as it is to Orthodox. The publication (in the public domain, copyright long run out) has no credibility but it continues to poison the minds of new Christians, because it is cheap and available to anyone willing to transcribe it.

Backbiting is a sin, and Father Adrian Fortescue should have known that.

Historically, the schism started in the 11th century, not in Saint Photios lifetime. It should be noted that Saint Photios and the Pope died in communion with one another, so he was as Catholic as Kathleen is.

He launched and financed the missions of Ss Cyril and Methodios, whose work resulted in the conversion of half of Europe. He hand-picked the brothers and directed their preparations (and their names grace Catholic and Orthodox parishes alike, even recently named co-patrons of Europe by a recent Pope).

He was a brilliant scholar, and the emperor entrusted the education of his children to him.

To blame this man for the great schism is calumny, there was over one hundred years and many generations between them. But it helps obscure the facts of the schism itself like a red herring, since it was two Roman Cardinals acting without authority (they had no boss, the Pope was dead) who actually started the great schism.

The following is a link to an Orthodox article on the man.

orthodoxwiki.org/Photius_the_Great

 

[Hesychios]

Im not being pushy or expect u to believe anything ,was just asking about him and being interested in catholicism i read this.If its all rubbish then id like to know a different perspective…
.

It sort of thought so.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is notorious for anti-eastern Christian polemic. It is a relic of the ‘cold war’ era of relations between east and west, and is almost equally unflattering to Eastern Catholics as it is to Orthodox. The publication (in the public domain, copyright long run out) has no credibility but it continues to poison the minds of new Christians, because it is cheap and available to anyone willing to transcribe it.

Backbiting is a sin, and Father Adrian Fortescue should have known that.

Historically, the schism started in the 11th century, not in Saint Photios lifetime. It should be noted that Saint Photios and the Pope died in communion with one another, so he was as Catholic as Kathleen is.

He launched and financed the missions of Ss Cyril and Methodios, whose work resulted in the conversion of half of Europe. He hand-picked the brothers and directed their preparations (and their names grace Catholic and Orthodox parishes alike, even recently named co-patrons of Europe by a recent Pope).

He was a brilliant scholar, and the emperor Basil entrusted the education of his children to him. It is important to remember that there were several emperors in the east during this period, Saint Photios outlived several of them and he found himself attacked more than once for political reasons.

To blame this man for the great schism is calumny, there was over one hundred years and many generations between them. But it helps obscure the facts of the schism itself like a red herring, since it was two Roman Cardinals acting without authority (they had no boss, the Pope was dead) who actually started the great schism.

The following is a link to an Orthodox article on the man.

orthodoxwiki.org/Photius_the_Great

 

[Rawb]

I am especially interested in this question as the Roman model of governance seems to have led both to the great schism and the Protestant Reformation. That doesn’t seem good circumstantial evidence that it was a good idea.

You know what they say; “No figure in Christian History has been the source of as much disunity as the Pope of Rome.”

Of course the RC’s wouldn’t see it quite that way.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would look beyond the papacy, and look at the conditions…very difficult.

Well, God bless Pope Benedict for trying…do the Orthodox work for unity???

I am just seeing people stuck on the past…reform comes with all hearts…not just the Catholics.

 

[Bluegoat]

The manner of governing was divided among Jews and Gentiles…the latter, an episcopacy, the latter a council. The Jewish form of having a bishop ended up being the preferred choice.

Times, events, peoples, rulers, evolving and disevolving countries…errors, heresies, the expansion of Christianity…all these affected the the dimensions and parameters of the papacy.

The papacy is derived of the celibate priesthood, and may be that is why we can understand the spirituality of the Immaculate Conception. Yet I see Orthodox view of Mary very dignified and holy. The Orthodox have married clergy, the Latin tie never will.

I just see alot of pride when people oppose the seat of Peter…it was intended to exist along side the rest of the successors to the Apostles. Obviously, we are not the same as a church or people 2,000 years later.

We need both Peter and the Apostles as founder. And the rock of Peter serves unity…the more complex the issues the Church, the more we need this role as well.

There seems to be a lot of mumbo-jumbo here.

Has it occurred to you that while you think others are being prideful in rejecting the papacy, others see in the papacy a huge symbol of hubris? Not a source of unity, but a kind of thing that wants to swallow everything else up. It is pretty clear how the papacy has affected Christian unity - and it isn’t all that positive.