Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[jam070406]

Not to me. They’re the same to me. Rome is in error in having strayed from the apostolic faith which it upheld during its previous orthodox period.

So you’ve said. And you have zero authority to judge Rome as “in error”.

 

[dzheremi]

Again, “authority” is not the issue here. I’m not the one claiming for myself authority that I don’t have. I think you have me confused with your Pope.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Not to me. They’re the same to me. Rome is in error in having strayed from the apostolic faith which it upheld during its previous orthodox period.

How does one stray from the Apostolic faith, when the other making the accusation refuses “communion” to the Pope. This is not straying from anything. This is the accuser removing oneself out of communion with the Apostolic successors, not just the Popes, but with your own brethren. This speaks volumes of who left who?

By the Popes defending the Apostolic teachings in every age against Her secular enemies while his Eastern bishops sat idle, does not equate leaving the apostolic faith, Only reveals the Popes evangelizing, baptising peoples in new worlds, teaching the gospels to different tongues and nations with new words describing the unchanged apostolic faith to new languages and peoples as well as man made doctrines (sola’s, relativism, communism, evolution etc…) which attacked the apostolic faith.

For this, your accusing the Holy Father for straying away from the apostolic faith? Because he refused to allow secular powers and world influence to rule over his apostolic faith, something the Eastern Church should learn from? It is one thing to point the finger from a far away, and another thing to live and defend the apostolic faith against all enemies from hell (even at the cost of martyrdom), which history proves never prevailed.

Jesus told the angels not to remove the weeds less they damage the heavenly crop, let them grow together until the harvest comes. This the Popes have been doing and continues to do faithfully as Jesus instructed Peter to do “Follow me” not men.

 

[Hesychios]

Where did the Papacy admit defeat? Defeat of what?? Divine institution?

The Papacy reversed itself and accepted the order of precedence longstanding in the east, which was held despite Rome’s objections.

It was unable to change this because it never had the authority to change it.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

The (name removed by moderator)ut of the laity in my experience is ever increasing. I suggest you spend some time at a Byzantine, Melkite, Chaldean, Roman Church of your choosing on a regular basis. Mass is not get there on the hour and leave on the hour. Arrival is usually early and that is when you get to catch up with your fellow parishioners. Leaving is usually also convening and discussing with them as well. Many of the Churches have some sort of social gathering after Mass. Define “character” for me as you understand it. The Body of Christ, The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is Human and Divine. The humanity is weak and ever in need of the grace of God. The humanity is subject to sin even the clergy. Abuse by the clergy is ever seen in any area where there is and can be abuse. You will see it in Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Muslim and any other organization you choose. Check this web site for Protestant clergy abuse.

reformation.com/

It is a shame that the clergy lead their flock into sin. It is my opinion that Luther, Knox, Zwingli were no better. They led their flocks into sin.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I agree with the Pope, if Orthodoxy can return to the true Orthodoxy which is always united to the head which is Peter. It was secular powers in the Early Catholic Church which viewed Peter and his apostolic successors as having Primacy over the Church. It was Jesus and the apostles originally who placed Peter as having “Supremacy” over the flock of Jesus Christ on earth, to tend, feed and teach, united with his brethren.

Show me a verse from Scripture where Jesus grants St. Peter supremacy, and an early Church father that teaches your interpretation.

The Pope is speaking of such unity which began in the early Church when all apostolic successors were united to Peter and his apostolic successors in the Popes.

The pope clearly states that the Orthodox express the primacy of the early Church. Read the OP again.

What changed this apostolic “supremacy” of authority in the Popes, came when the secular “Caesars” came to power and began appointing bishops and patriarchs in the East which complicated the unity of all East and West Apostolic successors united to the Popes.

Actually, it had more to do with emperors appointing popes and western bishops. Are you familiar with the “Holy” “Roman” Empire’s control of the papacy?

What complicates this “unity” today even further when you have the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomew) stating this; “Orthodox Church has never confined theological dialogue and ecumenical relations to academic discussions by experts in the history of religious thought. This would reduce the concept of reconciliation to an intellectualistic enterprise. Alongside the theological dialogue of truth, there is the essential communication and communion through prayer”…(Encountering the Mystery pg.71 par.2)

How can unity be addressed when Orthodoxy refuses Prayer “Holy Communion” with its head in the Popes united with all apostolic successors. An act unheard of from True historical Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church.

See below

If Orthodoxy can return to the Orthodoxy united to Peter since apostolic times before secular powers introduced and granted powers to the patriarchs over other sees creating a competition and conflict with the already existing “Supremacy” authority of the Popes united with all his brethren. This I believe Pope Benedict is addressing in Orthodoxy in the purest and Truest form of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

If communion with the Roman See is so vital to being Orthodox, then give me evidence that the fathers of the Church believed this. Communion with Rome didn’t seem to both St. John Chrysostom (seeing as he spent nearly two decades out of it) nor did it bother St. Maximus the Confessor (who was willing to break communion with Rome if they fell to heresy), not did it bother St. Athanasius (who was willing to stand against the entire world if he was the last Orthodox bishop).

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

You perspective is skewed towards the sin of some. Your perspective of living next to your brother or sister in the Lord is Protestant in nature. I live next door to many brothers and sisters. You may want to read the letter to the Romans again and note that one of the themes is the impartiality of God. These brothers and sisters may not believe or think as I do however I still act “as if” they do. The same is true for all that do not see what I see, think as I do, believe as I do however that does not mean that we all just throw up our hands and say whoopee one big happy Christian family. My neighbors are Lutheran, Cradle Catholic and who knows what else. We dialogue about lots and as far as those of my Church they are on my facebook, email, phone etc.

I am not shocked about fallen priests like Luther, Zwingli, Knox or any Protestant Pastor that abuses children. We are human. It is sad. I would like to see you change your focus away from judging the sins of others. This is very Protestant of you.

 

[KathleenGee]

Exactly…I was just thinking those remarks this pm…like their sins, ---- the Catholic priests, bishops and popes— sinned so much that Christ never forgave them, but Christ can forgive the rest of mankind.

In my diocese, there are some who only want ph.d.'s to speak with the Jews in dialogue as there is so much hurt on the Jewish side…and keep dialogue out and beyond the reach of every day Jews and Catholics.

I think that we are only at the beginning to dialogue with the Orthodox.

I want to study Orthodox saints and go to Mass…if I am not welcomed there, we have a Ukrainian Catholic Church in this diocese I can go to atleast to get some experience. Just as we Roman Catholics need to build bridges with Eastern Christianity, they should attempt the same with us and with the same openness and care. Re-united East and West will only bring tremendous grace and fruit to the universal, apostolic faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=KathleenGee;8186364]Exactly…I was just thinking those remarks this pm…like their sins, ---- the Catholic priests, bishops and popes— sinned so much that Christ never forgave them, but Christ can forgive the rest of mankind.

This is somewhat presumptive to suggest that you know who Christ forgave. Would you not agree?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.”

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.

The Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century…St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.

The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted. However, it should be noted that, because of the controversy of this claim, the Pope did not personally attend this ecumencial council that was held in the capital of the eastern empire, rather than at Rome. It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exert “the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter”.

It was at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was “speaking with the voice of Peter”.

At this same Council, an attempt at “compromise” was made when the bishop of Constantinople was given a primacy of honour only second to that of the Bishop of Rome, because “Constantinople is the New Rome.” Ironically, Roman papal authorities rejected this language since it did not clearly recognize Rome’s claim to juridical authority over the other churches.

The Catholic Church doctrine of the “sedes apostolica” (apostolic see) of Leo I which states that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position. This power, then, is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. According to Leo, the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

Second Council of Lyons

On 29 June (Feast of Peter & Paul patronal feast of Popes), Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John’s Church, where both sides took part. The council declared that the Roman church possessed “the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.” {Wikipedia}

Where isn’t the Church of Rome considered "the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.”?

St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

Romes Role as Arbiter

This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

 

[GaryTaylor]

This title “Pope” was first assumed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, long before it was assumed by the Bishops of Rome. Nevertheless Rome, Antioch and Alexandria all considered Rome the Primacy which is clearly stated.

Peace

 

[byeveryword]

You perspective is skewed towards the sin of some. Your perspective of living next to your brother or sister in the Lord is Protestant in nature. I live next door to many brothers and sisters. You may want to read the letter to the Romans again and note that one of the themes is the impartiality of God. These brothers and sisters may not believe or think as I do however I still act “as if” they do. The same is true for all that do not see what I see, think as I do, believe as I do however that does not mean that we all just throw up our hands and say whoopee one big happy Christian family. My neighbors are Lutheran, Cradle Catholic and who knows what else. We dialogue about lots and as far as those of my Church they are on my facebook, email, phone etc.

I am not shocked about fallen priests like Luther, Zwingli, Knox or any Protestant Pastor that abuses children. We are human. It is sad. I would like to see you change your focus away from judging the sins of others. This is very Protestant of you.

By (name removed by moderator)ut, I was actually speaking of the authority to choose the candidates for deacon, priest, and bishop by the local laity as the aforementioned early church fathers and their citations indicated. Once chosen, the candidates were then ordained by at least two or three regional bishops in a public ceremony among the laity so that said the candidate(s) could be publicly challenged as to their qualifications or lack of qualifications as to their character and holiness of life. I do not know if any denomination carries out this early apostolic tradition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a link on Canon 28 which thanks to you guys is now stuck in my mind.

catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/07/quick-links-to-canon-28-of-chalcedon.html

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on the
Church, “Lumen Gentium,” Benedict XVI:

“Within the Church particularChurches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions,without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which
presides over the whole assembly of charity and protects legitimate
differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not
hinder unity but rather contribute toward it.”

Peace

 

[jam070406]

Again, “authority” is not the issue here.

Authority comes from God.

I’m not the one claiming for myself authority that I don’t have.

You’re passing judgement on the Holy See and stating that her official teachings on Faith and Morals are “in error”

I think you have me confused with your Pope.

If I recall, weren’t you baptized Catholic? Then he is also your Pope.

 

[jam070406]

The Papacy reversed itself and accepted the order of precedence longstanding in the east, which was held despite Rome’s objections.

It was unable to change this because it never had the authority to change it.

Constantinople as being the the See that resides in love, the See that every other Church must be in agreement with, etc. is the the longstanding precedence?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, I was baptized Catholic. That was my error. The Roman Pope is not “my” Pope by virtue of my Catholic baptism any more so than I am still Presbyterian by virtue of having been previously baptized in that church (as a child). The baptisms of non-Orthodox churches are generally not acceptable to the Orthodox church for various reasons. As my own Catholic baptism was through pouring, not triple immersion, it can be rightly argued to be not normative, in an Orthodox context. On a personal level, I should like to be formally baptized (in the proper fashion) into the Orthodox faith, but of course leave that up to the presiding priest, acting according to the understanding of the Synod (last I heard, they still required Catholics and Protestants to be baptized).

Anyway, this is all beside the point. Nobody argues that authority is not given by God, but for non-Catholics it is not entirely clear that Rome is willing to limit itself to only that authority that it was granted. Modern Roman prerogatives, it can be argued, reach quite a bit farther than that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

If i may ask, how was it known the primacy of Rome to be in the first millenium? is it not the same as today?
I did not read anything here that says otherwise. I think that the pope knows that if they can discovery how was in the first millenium, they might discovery that is the same as today. No?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century…St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.

The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted. However, it should be noted that, because of the controversy of this claim, the Pope did not personally attend this ecumencial council that was held in the capital of the eastern empire, rather than at Rome. It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exert “the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter”.

It was at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was “speaking with the voice of Peter”.

At this same Council, an attempt at “compromise” was made when the bishop of Constantinople was given a primacy of honour only second to that of the Bishop of Rome, because “Constantinople is the New Rome.” Ironically, Roman papal authorities rejected this language since it did not clearly recognize Rome’s claim to juridical authority over the other churches.

The Catholic Church doctrine of the “sedes apostolica” (apostolic see) of Leo I which states that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position. This power, then, is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. According to Leo, the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

Second Council of Lyons

On 29 June (Feast of Peter & Paul patronal feast of Popes), Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John’s Church, where both sides took part. The council declared that the Roman church possessed “the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.” {Wikipedia}

Where isn’t the Church of Rome considered "the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.”?

St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

Romes Role as Arbiter

This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

I think it is very important to assert who were those who were causing trouble at the time. who challenged the primacy of Rome and so forth. were they heretics, were they just a mob trying to turn people against the Church? all these questions should be answered. we need to know who were the troublemakers against the pope.

 

[CopticChristian]

By (name removed by moderator)ut, I was actually speaking of the authority to choose the candidates for deacon, priest, and bishop by the local laity as the aforementioned early church fathers and their citations indicated. Once chosen, the candidates were then ordained by at least two or three regional bishops in a public ceremony among the laity so that said the candidate(s) could be publicly challenged as to their qualifications or lack of qualifications as to their character and holiness of life. I do not know if any denomination carries out this early apostolic tradition.

I honor your acknowledgement of early apostolic tradition. I suppose we could look at many organizations in time and want to go back to the good old days. Things change and in a good way. I suggest you look at this:

Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html

found at the above website. There is more. The Church, the Body of Christ was an infant that grew. Lerins makes the point that growth is maturity and while things may have been performed differently in Apostolic times, the essence has not changed only the manner. It does not take away from what it is.

Thank you for your clarification.