Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Hesychios]

…do the Orthodox work for unity???

Of course they do.

Do you think the Roman Catholic representatives in dialog are meeting with themselves alone? When they travel to those cities whom do you suppose they go to see?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course they do.

Do you think the Roman Catholic representatives in dialog are meeting with themselves alone? When they travel to those cities whom do you suppose they go to see?

I thought those were just annual filioque debates.

 

[Hesychios]

I thought those were just annual filioque debates.

Like Spelling Bees!

 

[KathleenGee]

BlueGoat,

I would refrain from referring to my posts as mumbo jumbo…

Most of what I share here is what I have learned from professional sources within my church.

I value the celibate charism of my church, its universal perspective, its foundation to the human wealth of Western Civilization, and its own gifts of structure, education, ongoing learning, and openness to the world. The celibate clergy give their total self for the Church, and seeing the work that is done in the name of Christ and providing us all the means for salvation and ongoing learning of our faith is unmatched.

I do not see any other religious leader having the effect on the world as the papacy. And none of the other churches can claim any superiority or sinlessness either over the Catholic Church.

I am deciding not to enter into any more Orthodox topics on this forum. I had a congenial relationship with a Serb immigrant who worked at the same place as I. It was during the presidential campaign. She told me she was Orthodox. She grew up with the Catholics and Muslims. During communism in Yugoslavia, the Serbs and Muslims did not practice their religions going to their churches and mosques. Only the Catholics did. But then she started renouncing my faith, being very critical of it, saying we change…issues about the Filoque, etc…and from then on she was not friendly with me anymore.

I am coming on here speaking from my own experiences…growing up hearing that we recognize their sacraments and hearing they only do not accept the pope…this from Catholic nuns. I came on to CAF with very positive impressions of Orthodoxy and the liturgy, and it is only in these past years am I beginning to see the negativity towards Roman Catholics. And I grew up praying for the Christians in the Eastern block countries during communism…

You don’t accept the male priesthood. The Anglican Church was the one that brought contraception into its church. Non-Catholics do not accept the Latin celibate priesthood. Non-Catholics do not have the scope of Mary as we do. I can see how much more celibacy can give to the Church and to us.

The more I come to learn about other faiths here on CAF, the more it only affirms I am blessed with faith as a papal, universal Christian.

 

[Bluegoat]

Kathleen, mumbo-jumbo refers to things like saying the papacy comes out of a celibate priesthood, which makes no sense historically.

If you are surprised that non-Catholics are hostile to you, perhaps you should consider that they are responding to the things you say to them about their religious affiliations.

 

[byeveryword]

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

From St.Clement, Bishop of Rome in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians., chap.44
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

From St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in several of his epistles, most notably #67, chapters 4&5.
newadvent.org/fathers/050667.htm

From The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Sec. 2, paragraphs 4 & 5.
sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/007/0070467.htm

Blessings to you.

 

[byeveryword]

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

usccb.org/comm/bishopsfinal.pdf

You are correct the Pope does not ordain bishops. The Pope has the final say as to who is selected. There is a process that begins at the Diocesan level upward, but it is not an open process involving the laity as my previous citations mention.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

Actually, you are sinning against historicity . . .

The Pope was recognized by the East as the first bishop/patriarch and the final court of appeal prior to the schism between East and West (in which both were at fault) that solidified in the 13th century (and not in 1054 as is often fondly affirmed).

The term “Ecumenical Patriarch” simply meant that the patriarch of Constantinople, the new Rome, had authority over the entire East. The argument over that was based on a misunderstanding and the first to use that title was the saintly and very charitable EP St John IV.

St Photios of Constantinople was not “Anti-Roman” (he could have been, but that was nothing new among the Greeks).

Without going into the notorious issue of the Filioque, the fact remains that St Photios died in union with Rome as Fr. Francis Dvornik has famously and studiously demonstrated.

The churches then were governed by their respective patriarchs and only appealed to Rome in a case where they could not reach agreement amongst themselves or if a theologian appealed to Rome (such as St John Chrysostom).

The East did need Rome in a way that the rest of the West did not - the Eastern patriarchs needed Rome to be the arbiter in their constant struggles with the imperial Byzantine Court. The minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council shows the lengths to which the East went to praise the papacy.

But the papacy certainly did not rule the East as it ruled its own patriarchal Western territories.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

Is there a sense in which we could say that Rome “chose” to be separated from her Eastern Brothers and Bishops?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

Well, if New Advent says so, what further need do we have for discussion?

Novo Advento locuto, causa finita!

(You really are going to have to forgive me . . .)

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

Is it possible to see historical popes as being filled with pride as well? (I’m asking, not telling).

By the way, could you explain what celibacy has to do with the Immaculate Conception?

The Orthodox believe that Mary NEVER had any sin on her soul, from her Conception. She was graced to the nth degree (and the East always celebrated her Holy Conception as a liturgical feastday, meaning that she was already a saint at her Conception).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

usccb.org/comm/bishopsfinal.pdf

You are correct the Pope does not ordain bishops. The Pope has the final say as to who is selected. There is a process that begins at the Diocesan level upward, but it is not an open process involving the laity as my previous citations mention.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, our synods choose and consecrate our bishops nowadays and then they inform Rome about it (it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission!).

This is the EC version of “Fiddling while Rome burns . . .”

Alex

 

[Contarini]

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.

I think it’s a pretty common view among Catholic scholars and theologians. Whether Pope Benedict would hold to precisely this view today is something about which many people speculate. He probably feels obligated to act with great caution now that he occupies the See of St. Peter. But his actions toward the Orthodox seem to me to be basically consistent with this view.

I suspect that there may remain some differences as to just what “presides in charity” means. Ratzinger/Benedict may read more into this than the Orthodox would be inclined to grant. But essentially I think this is the view that is driving much recent papal action with regard to the East.

The big problem I have is that Ratzinger/Benedict seems to believe that Western Christians must accept Vatican I without any ifs, ands, or buts–that we are subject to the Papacy in a manner radically different from the East. At least, that’s how the “two lungs” business seems to work out in practice. There’s little recognition given to the fact that many Western dissenters (including Anglicans historically and many modern liberal Roman Catholics) have held to essentially the same view of the papacy. It doesn’t make sense to say that we are rebellious heretics for seeing the papacy a certain way, while Eastern Christians may hold the same view legitimately.

Edwin

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

Well, I certainly have always applauded Pope Benedict for his statement in this respect.

I think history will show that it was a prophetic utterance on his part which might just form the basis for a future reunion of East and West.

The experience of the first millennium with respect to the papacy is something both East and West hold in common. It was rooted in the conciliar process, unified the Church and was administratively a “stop-gap” measure whereby theologians and entire Churches could appeal directly to Rome when they needed to. Only when and if a commonly held canon governing the faith or church administration was broken, would Rome legitimately intervene in the internal life of a Particular Church.

All else that was developed after the schism between East and West (where there fault on BOTH sides) would be seen by the East as the particular patrimony of the Latin Catholic Church.

So everyone would be happy.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought those were just annual filioque debates.

Like Spelling Bees!

Not really, sometimes they discuss Purgatory and Original Sin too

 

[Hesychios]

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.

The canons are pretty clear on this, bishops were to be elected and installed by the local synods.

“It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.”

It is conceivable laypersons were involved originally to some extent in some locales, but later they were generally excluded from the process. Public acclamation is not specifically ruled out, but other bishops (who already hold the charism) have a responsibility to make sure the candidate is worthy and knowledgable before investing him.

Saint Augustine and Saint Irenaeus of Lyon are two examples of famous early western bishops who were elected and installed locally by the local synods.

 

[Bluegoat]

The canons are pretty clear on this, bishops were to be elected and installed by the local synods.

“It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.”

It is conceivable laypersons were involved originally to some extent in some locales, but later they were generally excluded from the process. Public acclamation is not specifically ruled out, but other bishops (who already hold the charism) have a responsibility to make sure the candidate is worthy and knowledgable before investing him.

Saint Augustine and Saint Irenaeus of Lyon are two examples of famous early western bishops who were elected and installed locally by the local synods.

I believe St Ambrose as well, and he wasn’t even a priest.

 

[KathleenGee]

And in the USA, we have had the recent popes chose priests to become bishops; there was a true need to do so.

Many laity felt there was too much drifting away from the Holy Father. I was in a diocese where we did not see the Holy Father, John Paul II, that much or learn of his teachings and recommendations. There was alot of dissension and confusion. I personally knew one priest who became our bishop, and another one who was brought to us from John Paul, and we greatly loved him. John Paul’s appointments brought in much peace and reunion, plus the need to revamp catechesis, and bring in solid ecclesiology.

Local jurisdictions should recommend their own to the episcopate, but as a Roman Catholic, I want the bishop to be universal for all people irregardless of race or culture or national origin. If that is beginning to appear to be comprised, then it is the duty of the Pope to appoint bishops.

Been there, saw it in two dioceses as a matter of fact, but for different reasons.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

Exactly! If it is an innovation,then where are the rebukes from the ECF’s? But you still have not answered the question at hand:

How many ECF’s discuss infallibility when Peter wrote his two epistles?

 

[byeveryword]

And in the USA, we have had the recent popes chose priests to become bishops; there was a true need to do so.

Many laity felt there was too much drifting away from the Holy Father. I was in a diocese where we did not see the Holy Father, John Paul II, that much or learn of his teachings and recommendations. There was alot of dissension and confusion. I personally knew one priest who became our bishop, and another one who was brought to us from John Paul, and we greatly loved him. John Paul’s appointments brought in much peace and reunion, plus the need to revamp catechesis, and bring in solid ecclesiology.

Local jurisdictions should recommend their own to the episcopate, but as a Roman Catholic, I want the bishop to be universal for all people irregardless of race or culture or national origin. If that is beginning to appear to be comprised, then it is the duty of the Pope to appoint bishops.

Been there, saw it in two dioceses as a matter of fact, but for different reasons.