Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[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.

If the laity are living in tune with scripture and patristic tradition, then their participation in the process should not be a detriment in the choosing of a deacon, priest, or bishop. The basic reason given for the participation of the laity in the choosing of such men (in these aforesaid citations), was to weed out the good from the bad. How many of the local laity personally know anything about their local priest, or bishop as to the way they lived their lives within the church community, or diocese from which they were appointed?

 

[manualman]

1. 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?
2. 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***, …

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

1. I didn’t say to formally reduce it and I don’t think that is what B16 proposed. I think he is saying that unity may require the papacy to CHOOSE not to wield authority over certain Eastern Catholic groups to remove a stumbling block to unity that is less onerous than the schism that we have right now. I think y’all might call that oikonomia (pardon my atrocious spelling)
2. No it’s not. My cell phone hasn’t changed or developed when I learn how to use the photo feature the first time 800 years after I buy it. It’s just the first time I used it. Same goes for the office of the papacy.
3. Scripture and Tradition. For one example, I don’t see in Acts where St. Peter called the rest of the 12 together to ponder and discuss what his vision meant, come to consensus that it meant that christians could now eat pork, shellfish, etc and THEN make a figurehead speech outlining the consensus of the college of apostles… God gave him the inspiration and the authority to make this sudden, abrupt change in binding discipline on ALL God’s chosen people. Where in Scripture and Tradition do YOU find that this level of authority was stripped away from the Petrine office? This is partly due to differences in Eastern and Western mindset. The western mind sees events like this in S&T and concludes that the Petrine office has a general authority to make universal decisions such as shown in Acts. The eastern mind seems (to my limited exposure) to be unwilling to draw larger principled conclusions from S&T and to rather limit the applicability of S&T to those things explicitly discussed. To nobody’s surprise, I think the latter approach is rather neglectful of the fullness of the content of S&T.

I’m no longer deluded enough to think that a short forum discussion will change anybody’s mind. But I do appreciate hearing the EO perspective as it helps me to avoid over-simplifying your position in my mind. Hopefully catholics here can do the same for you.

 

[JohnVIII]

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.

This “common belief” you speak of that was in history is not only not held today by the Orthodox, but it is also not held by many of the Roman Church today either. An absolutest view was actually first proposed by Eastern bishops in the 5th Century but rejected by Rome. This common belief of the last millennium was that Rome held the first place in the Universal Church, but NOT absolute. The common belief of the last millennium was a High Petrine view, not Absolute Petrine as some RC say, nor Low Petrine as some Orthodox say.

Nevertheless, having said this, just because something is “historic” doesn’t mean it is the best. Since RC talk all the time about “doctrinal development” why not consider developing into a Low Petrine View as the Orthodox have? All 3 ways have been tried in the past and I think the one that works the best is the Low Petrine. Who cares if it’s not historic? Better to follow what works rather than what doesn’t!

Just a thought - nothing more

 

[Nicea325]

This “common belief” you speak of that was in history is not only not held today by the Orthodox, but it is also not held by many of the Roman Church today either. An absolutest view was actually first proposed by Eastern bishops in the 5th Century but rejected by Rome. This common belief of the last millennium was that Rome held the first place in the Universal Church, but NOT absolute. The common belief of the last millennium was a High Petrine view, not Absolute Petrine as some RC say, nor Low Petrine as some Orthodox say.

Nevertheless, having said this, just because something is “historic” doesn’t mean it is the best. Since RC talk all the time about “doctrinal development” why not consider developing into a Low Petrine View as the Orthodox have? All 3 ways have been tried in the past and I think the one that works the best is the Low Petrine. Who cares if it’s not historic? Better to follow what works rather than what doesn’t!

Just a thought - nothing more

I understand your position and it is noted and respected. However, my point is that many Orthodoxs I encounter believe as though the East never accepted or acknowledge the primacy of Rome;hence history does not ‘exclusively’ support such a view. As I said, plenty of words from Eastern bishops expressing something totally different from the “common” belief of today. Not here to start a war,but anyone is capable of looking it up.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi manualman,

… I think he is saying that unity may require the papacy to CHOOSE not to wield authority over certain Eastern Catholic groups to remove a stumbling block to unity.

I think that is probably what he means.

Which is why the idea will go no where.

The Pope has to admit that he does not have and never did have the right to wield that authority unilaterally, which is an entirely different thing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword, the Catholic Church is a public institution.

Have you ever attended Mass or gotten to know any active Catholics, and learned of their experiences???

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Nicea325,

… my point is that many Orthodoxs I encounter believe as though the East never accepted or acknowledge the primacy of Rome.

I think Orthodox and Roman Catholics have different definitions or understandings of primacy. Bear in mind that primacy works all through the Orthodox churches, at every level, so they do have an understanding of the working concept.

 

[byeveryword]

Byeveryword, the Catholic Church is a public institution.

Have you ever attended Mass or gotten to know any active Catholics, and learned of their experiences???

I suppose this is why the (name removed by moderator)ut of the laity is not reasonable in an age when most people live in metropolitan cities and regions. We really do not know the lifestyle of our brothers and sisters. Attending Mass or a church service does not reveal the character of a person.
If it did, we would not have as much abuse by the clergy.

 

[KathleenGee]

The history book my pastor gave me is the one recommended by our diocese, and it does exonerate Photos. I asked him to provide me a most factual and balanced book. I don’t think any Catholic pastor wants to hand out books about the Catholic Church that are dishonest, that make it out to be perfect.

When it comes to ecumenical matters, the Roman Catholic clergy are most up front and honest about the times prior to the Reformation and Schism.

The text also stated the jurisdiction of the various regions and their local churches, representing many languages and cultures, and that these jurisdictions pretty much ran on their own. There was always this unity with Rome. The Church of Rome was rich, and supported the emerging churches providing them with funds and other means of support. If there were any long standing disputes that could not be resolved within their own jurisdictions, which did not happen much, the final authority was Rome.

And then prior to Emperor Constantine — who did not become a Christian until days within his death – made Christianity legal, after it endured its worse persecution. The last Roman emperors were the most brutal and destroyed so many churches, and killed many bishops. Christianity was almost wiped out. Constantine rose, and defeated many enemies.

Constantine built many churches, and gave prominence to the bishops. He made the altars higher and distinguished to give greater emphasis to the proclamation of the Gospel. For once, a secular emperor built back up what all Roman emperors of past destroyed. But he was not a Christian until the very end. He did not establish the Catholic Church which is a spin that goes around every so often.

After that, when the churches were beginning to flourish, came the barbarian invasions, and then the invasion of Islam over the Holy Land, and later Constantinople…of which I grieve…my doctor’s office has St. Sophia’s on the wall with the 4 pillars staked around it…now that America’s history has changed, it pains me to see it displayed like that…political. May be because of the neighborhood.

 

[manualman]

Hi manualman, I think that is probably what he means.

Which is why the idea will go no where.

The Pope has to admit that he does not have and never did have the right to wield that authority unilaterally, which is an entirely different thing.

So you’d have still refused to eat non-kosher foods if you were there when Peter anounced his vision to the other apostles? I’m not trying to be a jerk, just trying to figure out how you resolve that logical conundrum. If I hear you right, all the other apostles would have had to agree with him first before it would be a reliable judgement.

If that’s NOT what you are saying, why could Peter do that and when did that authority end?

In response to another poster, doctrinal development is not doctrinal change. Doctrinal development is like looking through a blurry camera lens and gradually improving the level of focus. Things get more detailed with improved understanding, but don’t reverse themselves.

I tend to share Michael’s pessimistic view on a human level. IMO, only a profound persecution plus a big infusion of Grace will heal this rift. Humans are weird that way - suffering seems to bring out the best in us.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I think Orthodox and Roman Catholics have different definitions or understandings of primacy.

Yes, I agree. But it would be a mistake to think that ALL Orthodox disagree with the Catholic definition of primacy. The High Petrine view of primacy is shared by many Orthodox along with their Catholic brethren. The issue between High Petrine advocates in Orthodoxy and High Petrine advocates in Catholicism is our disagreement on the orthodoxy of the bishop of Rome, not the ecclesiological principles involved.

Bear in mind that primacy works all through the Orthodox churches, at every level, so they do have an understanding of the working concept.

Not on the universal level. I suppose that you can claim that the EP has the “primacy” in EO’xy, but a primacy that can’t do anything about the uncanonical demotion of a former head bishop in the Apostolic See of Jerusalem, a primacy that can’t do anything about the diminution of the authority of local bishops to mere auxiliary bishops of the Metropolitan in the Apostolic See of Antioch, is no primacy at all, at least not according to the standard of the early Church. In the early Church, the See of Constantinople held a true primacy, and had the appellate authority to settle things among the Eastern Churches. The unpatristic Low Petrine position holds too much sway in EO’xy currently, where head bishops have no true authority, but are mere administrators.

We Catholics of the High Petrine position should work to correct the errors of the Absolutist Petrine advocates in our Church. Orthodox of the High Petrine position should likewise work to correct the errors of Low Petrine advocates in their own Church (the Ravenna colloquy was a step in that direction). We all need to come together on the patristic, High Petrine standard of the early Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword…

I don’t know what you mean then.

Have you ever experienced being in a Catholic church, and knowing our daily life as Catholics with our priests… or what?

You can talk outside of Mass with the priest, you can go to seminars, luncheons, whatever…oh, raffles, barbeques…and the priest is not sitting there as a non human being.

Of course we know our clergy.

 

[KathleenGee]

One thing I have found is that the daily communicants have instant understanding of one another, no matter where in any place in the world. We know one another in Christ, through the Word, the Eucharist, our prayers at the Faithful, and if done in a parish, our sharings after the homily. We visit after Mass more after weekday Mass…Sunday Mass…it depends…I tend to like driving home in silence reflecting on the Word and Eucharist rather than go for coffee and donuts…I get to know people better being active in church or serving in ministry with fellow members.

Plus we have various associations and institutes we can also join and participate in and meet people from other parishes.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,



The issue here is the DIVINE constitution of the Church. Our Lord established a High Petrine reality, as reflected by Apostolic Canon 34. The relationship and existence of a head bishop with actual authority among the bishops is of divine establishment and not merely ecclesiastical, and thus not subject to change.

Catholics are not alone in this understanding. Speak to members of any of the non-Catholic Churches of the Syriac Tradition (Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, ACOE), and you will see that the idea that head bishops with actual authority is a DOCTRINAL matter, not merely ecclesiastical, is a teaching that is not limited to the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

This “common belief” you speak of that was in history is not only not held today by the Orthodox, but it is also not held by many of the Roman Church today either. An absolutest view was actually first proposed by Eastern bishops in the 5th Century but rejected by Rome. This common belief of the last millennium was that Rome held the first place in the Universal Church, but NOT absolute. The common belief of the last millennium was a High Petrine view, not Absolute Petrine as some RC say, nor Low Petrine as some Orthodox say.

Nevertheless, having said this, just because something is “historic” doesn’t mean it is the best. Since RC talk all the time about “doctrinal development” why not consider developing into a Low Petrine View as the Orthodox have? All 3 ways have been tried in the past and I think the one that works the best is the Low Petrine. Who cares if it’s not historic? Better to follow what works rather than what doesn’t!

Just a thought - nothing more

 

[KathleenGee]

The other point is that the Gentile Church had a more conciliar model of governing, but it was the Jewish model of the bishop with presbyters that proved to be the most effective and practical in organizing the Church.

But people always have to remember that the Church is constantly being transformed along with the world it lives in.

The Catholic Church is condemned by people today because it punished Galileo and Copernicus, and finally forgave them. They overstepped their jurisdiction of science, and delved further into theology. Yet, the rest of the world thought the earth flat or the sun revolve around the earth as well.

The human side of the Church is many times no different than the dealings of the world it accompanies, because we all are human and live on the same planet.

 

[byeveryword]

Byeveryword…

I don’t know what you mean then.

Have you ever experienced being in a Catholic church, and knowing our daily life as Catholics with our priests… or what?

You can talk outside of Mass with the priest, you can go to seminars, luncheons, whatever…oh, raffles, barbeques…and the priest is not sitting there as a non human being.

Of course we know our clergy.

If you lived next door to your brother or sister in the Lord, and visited them daily, or frequently you would probably get to know them, much as did people who once lived in agrarian societies. I do think there are people who are living secret, desparate, lives. Otherwise, how is it people are shocked when they hear about their fallen priest or pastor, or a broken marriage of a ‘perfect’ couple, or the incest that took place within the family?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea325,

I think Orthodox and Roman Catholics have different definitions or understandings of primacy. Bear in mind that primacy works all through the Orthodox churches, at every level, so they do have an understanding of the working concept.

Hello brother in Christ. Indeed, I think that is part of the issue at hand;but I am confident, it can be resolved and a mutual understanding can be achieved. I’ll be honest with you, it is not about who is right or wrong,but more important, how to work on unification and respect each others positions and take them all into consideration.

 

[Bluegoat]

So you’d have still refused to eat non-kosher foods if you were there when Peter anounced his vision to the other apostles? I’m not trying to be a jerk, just trying to figure out how you resolve that logical conundrum. If I hear you right, all the other apostles would have had to agree with him first before it would be a reliable judgement.

If that’s NOT what you are saying, why could Peter do that and when did that authority end?

In response to another poster, doctrinal development is not doctrinal change. Doctrinal development is like looking through a blurry camera lens and gradually improving the level of focus. Things get more detailed with improved understanding, but don’t reverse themselves.

I tend to share Michael’s pessimistic view on a human level. IMO, only a profound persecution plus a big infusion of Grace will heal this rift. Humans are weird that way - suffering seems to bring out the best in us.

I don’t think the idea is that there has to be a council about everything. If an individual bishop makes a decision locally and everyone is ok with it, why is there a need for a council? Even if it spreads to the whole Church? We know that at the beginning infant baptism may not have been common everywhere, but it became the norm with no controversy. It isn’t, I think, really true to say that the Church is meant to be governed by counsil - rather, that is the normative method for dealing with disagreements or problems. But theoretically it could be done by, say, teleconferencing, or drawing lots I suppose, if all were willing to accept the results of that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you’d have still refused to eat non-kosher foods if you were there when Peter anounced his vision to the other apostles? I’m not trying to be a jerk, just trying to figure out how you resolve that logical conundrum. If I hear you right, all the other apostles would have had to agree with him first before it would be a reliable judgement.

If that’s NOT what you are saying, why could Peter do that and when did that authority end?

In response to another poster, doctrinal development is not doctrinal change. Doctrinal development is like looking through a blurry camera lens and gradually improving the level of focus. Things get more detailed with improved understanding, but don’t reverse themselves.

I tend to share Michael’s pessimistic view on a human level. IMO, only a profound persecution plus a big infusion of Grace will heal this rift. Humans are weird that way - suffering seems to bring out the best in us.

Peter’s vision lent strong support to the decision of the council, but it was James, not Peter who proclaimed the final judgment.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Dear brother Mark of Ephesus

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.

Interesting, thank you for that Marduk. I am actually just curious (knowing for the sake of knowing).

I am not one who would normally bring attention to such a thing, but calling me “brother” is not the most appropriate course of action. Whilst I get the feeling that I have more in common with you (theologically) than the majority of Latins, there are still a great many issues that divide us (thus our lack of communion). If such a thing were to change within our lifetime, I would have no problem with it (and I would likewise return the greeting).