Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not sure the point of this thread. Mark, we get it, you reject the Papacy. Your view differs and you are not open to differing viewpoints. What is your goal here? Have you read the forum rule on proselytizing?

I’m actually impressed with how long this thread has dragged on. Maybe it’s about time for a moderator to come by and lock it. It seems to have exceeded its usefulness and degraded into a game of patristic he-said she-said (or is that he-said, he-said, since the Fathers are mostly male?). That being said, there was some interesting discussion, but I think we aren’t even sure what we’re debating over by this point.

 

[dzheremi]

I find Hesychios’ point about the selection process to be very interesting indeed. I remember that upon the recent selection of Maronite Patriarch Bechara Raei, much was made of the fact that he came from a monastery. As I recall, this was said to have been the first time in many years that a person of monastic background was elected (I can’t remember exactly how many; I think it was well over a hundred).

 

[rinnie]

Yes, he was not speaking to a bishop of Rome.
No Pope, ever, not even in the early centuries.

We are the church of the Apostles.

Orthodox have continuity with Saint Peter for all time in the faith and with our Lord Jesus Christ beyond time in the sacred liturgies.

As Cardinal Ratzinger did once say:
" …in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity."

How do you separate Peter from being the Bishop of Rome?

 

[rinnie]

Strange, what I witness is typically the opposite of what you describe. The Roman Catholic apologists are the ones who love to take quotations from the Church Fathers out of the context of their lives. There is a reason why Orthodox Christians who are looking to study the Church Fathers in depth are encouraged first to read about their lives, then their works. Actions speak louder than words.

Could you still answer his question though of did Christ build the Church on Peter the rock or Peters faith. What exactly does your Church teach? I am also curious is all.

 

[Wesley7]

I don’t have any objections to Catholic doctrines. To me, the Pope has authority to write a Dogmatic Constitution for all believers.

 

[Hesychios]

How do you separate Peter from being the Bishop of Rome?

If he is a real bishop and has Peter’s faith, he is Peter as well.

 

[Hesychios]

Could you still answer his question though of did Christ build the Church on Peter the rock or Peters faith. What exactly does your Church teach? I am also curious is all.

It can be both.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It can be both.

I fail to see how through scripture or patristic’s or history. And I’ll explain.

When all Bishops are “one” with Peter then they indeed have “equal authority” Biblically.

Here’s “patristic’s”

“They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. There [in John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. The Church, which is one and Catholic is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another.” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 66(67):8, [254 A.D.])

Is this how the East/West exist? Apparently not. Both are not right simply because there is NO COMMUNION.

There is no error in understanding the very reality of the Apostles, which ordained the Bishops and have a very real authority given by Christ. Its Biblical its Patristic and a fact in History. Not exactly the point.

However the one specific Biblical point thats re-enforced through Christ…

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but ‘My Father’ who is in Heaven.

And I say to ‘thee’: That thou art ‘Peter’; and upon this rock[Peter] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

The personal revelation given to Peter is not the same as through all Bishops.

Twelve Apostles were specifically chosen as were the 12-tribes of Israel, as are the Twelve Stars in Revelation etc. Therefore it is correct that when in unison with St Peter they have the Authority to Bind and Loose and share in the Keys to the Kingdom.

However when Christ stated specifically “Blessed Art Thou Simon of John” which is revealed specifically to Christ, from God the Father, to Peter which is Divine Providence and cannot be patristically, biblically nor historically corrected by any other Bible verse. Thus Christ pronounced a specific and particular Blessing to St Peter which authority to do so is from God. That authority existed from that day that Christ stated it foward, and will continue till Gods will is done.

Those who are One and in Unison with Peter are the Church where Jesus Christ resides. To be able to roll out a scroll which supports continuity is another issue. Continuity does not superceed Divine Providence. That was given to St Peter alone. Are you suggesting Christ and God are mistaken here? Or they mean’t to say something other than what Christ stated which would also mean He was wrong or un-clear?

Now, the fact the church’s are not in communion, then this must also invalidate the authority of the Bishops not in communion with the Church established by God through St Peter which is in Rome with Apostolic Succession and continuity which can be proven as fact.

Did Christ and God build a Democracy? I don’t think so. The Church given Divine Providence from God to Peter is where the authority resides.

There is only One Church not Two or Three or however many mankind choose’s to declare valid. Nor is this a “democracy”, that is a falacy. That alone ought to tell you where the church exists. Neither are we doing likes or dislikes, or what one assumes to be correct or thinks might seem to be correct. I could grip all day about what I could, would, and should do. My “responsibility” is to remain in “communion” with Christ, God and His Word and Church established and still existing today in ROME, and who happens to have Pope Benedict XVI sitting in “Peters Chair”.

To state one is right the other wrong is incorrect also. The point is “the Division” and the simple fact Rome has existed since Christ stated to Peter I will build my church upon “peter” of course with God being the foundation. Of course thats “if” we can agree Christ “is” God.

The point about Bishops, Priests etc, being in error or whatever is also not uncommon. The war of good and evil is very real. The weaker and more divided the church becomes the more evil will gain strength. The easier it becomes for evil to infiltrate the Church because the choosen who exist within the Church become less of a selection. To think “No Evil” exists in either church is FICTION. Its does not equate to reality. The Supernatural is real and as St Paul states “Pick up your shield of Faith”. Thus if you side with God you automatically are targeted are at odds with evil. Simple fact of Faith. Unfortunate we even have those in “both” churchs who do not even believe this.

The church will “prevail” no-one stated it will not be tested severely. Pick-Up your Cross and Follow me ought to be the first clue “just” how difficult this would be.

I also “get” how everyone “feels” including Traditional V-I Catholics. Its doesn’t escape me, I grew up in it, while I feel for them I cannot reach. Should I be another Martin Luther?

Everyone knows the “correct” path to change. And it will not roll in on the wheels of inevitability but through hard work and effort.

You know who suffers in all this? All the “quiet Saints” the ones no-one ever hears about who pick up their Cross daily. Like all the Sisters no-one see’s anymore from V-I.

Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

If the Pope had not intervened, with testimonies of about 70 local priests, the archdiocese of Seattle would not have Peter, and we would have the American Church, a broken communion. The crowd surrounding the archbishop was bringing the him many regrets…

It was getting out…‘You follow the bishop, and not the Pope, you can have a parish. If you follow the pope, you won’t be a pastor’. This was the crowd who were continuing to demand women priesthood, re-define sin, and block out the teachings of John Paul II…

Through the permission of the archbishop, a priest came to help us begin a new institute. He thought people were over-reacting. When he saw the local Catholic newspaper, he came out of the rectory telling me he thought the tirades in there, ‘terrible’.

The archbishop regretted an ordination, he tried to get those to be in communion in Rome, but they did not listen. It caused such disheaval…

But if one said, ‘I am with the Pope and Blessed Mother Mary’, there was an immediate bond. People there spent much time praying for the bishop and new vocations…afterwards, 33 young men came from that diocese to study for the priesthood, a number of them now pastors.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I’m not sure the point of this thread. Mark, we get it, you reject the Papacy. Your view differs and you are not open to differing viewpoints. What is your goal here? Have you read the forum rule on proselytizing?

To present Pope Benedict’s views on the early Church papacy. It has nothing to do with “proselytizing”. I posted the pope’s own words and consequently defended his position (which is also the Orthodox position) from Roman Catholic critics.

 

[jam070406]

To present Pope Benedict’s views on the early Church papacy. It has nothing to do with “proselytizing”. I posted the pope’s own words and consequently defended his position (which is also the Orthodox position) from Roman Catholic critics.

I haven’t seen where the Pope Benedict defined what the role of the Pope in the first millennium was. What makes you say it is in line with modern Orthodoxy’s understanding?

 

[mardukm]

This is a good point, brother Michael. This highlights one of the complaints non-Latin Catholics often have with the Vatican machinery - the Curia. The Curia is basically a distinct authority from the Pope. The Curia makes bad choices, then the Pope must put his foot down to clean up after their mistakes. All fine as far as the Latin Catholic Church is concerned, but when such a system interferes with the good of Eastern or Oriental Churches, then there’s going to be problems. Fortunately, many of our modern Popes have been favorable to the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

I recall bishop Hunthausen of Seattle in the USA removed as well.

Now the argument can be made that these people are incompetent, or too liberal or whatever. That brings into question the entire selection process, which is also unnaturally flawed by this centralization. The system is ‘worked’ by candidates who are able to make friends in the Vatican, usually through getting a chance to study there.

So a young man who can wrangle a chance to study in Rome has a good shot at becoming a Monsignor at a fairly young age (and a head start in moving up), one who studies locally has a good shot at becoming a pastor in a backwater little parish in about ten years and not much better in a lifetime.

This is not a system that has a habit of routinely pulling ordinary monks out of a monastery (where they should expect to spend the rest of their lives) because of their reputation for holiness. This is a system that advances scholars and administrators who develop political savvy and network their way into higher appointments. The focus is entirely different. Centralization kills the character of the local church and it loses the ability to take care of itself.

 

[mardukm]

Cases of bishops being deposed - from New Advent :

Bishop Gebhard had been deposed by the papal authority of Pope Lucius II :

**The Metropolitans of York and Mainz are deposed by Pope Eugene III **

Pope Clement VI deposed Henry of Virneburg, Archbishop of Mainz

Shall I go on?

I’m afraid you must, because none of these examples proves your point. The fact is:
(1) The Pope has always worked collegially or through synod in the deposition of bishops.
(2) During the Middle Ages, local secular rulers were often preventing their bishops from participating in synods that the Pope would call.
(3) When Catholic sources state that “the Pope did this” or “the Pope did that,” most don’t realize that this merely means that the Pope either confirmed a prior decision of other authorities, initiated an action in synod, or initiated an action where collegial action was taken.
(4) During the Middle Ages, for about 400 years, the Pope could do nothing without the Colllege of bishops (during this time, the College that elected him required the Pope to sign a sort of pre-nup before taking office, to prevent unilateral abuses of power). The College of bishops officially replaced the Synod during this time because the secular powers, as mentioned, very often restricted their bishops from attending synods that the Pope would call. The Synod was officially re-established at V2.

Given the necessary context provided above, none of your examples - to repeat - “prove” your claim that the Dictatus papae had any influence on the machinery of the Latin Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

A few cases of popes deposing emperors :

saints.sqpn.com/ncd02654.htm

What relevance does this have? Popes always deposed emperors in Synod. To repeat, you should be more aware of the language of Catholic sources - When Catholic sources state that “the Pope did this” or “the Pope did that,” please realize that this merely means that the Pope either confirmed a prior decision of other authorities, initiated an action in synod, or initiated an action where collegial action was taken.

No straw man here. I am not contesting the grounds of deposition. Both bishops I have listed were certainly worthy candidates for removal, but deposition through papal means is an abuse. A synod of bishops should have been convened to deal with the situation.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. But it’s obvious you misunderstand the Vatican machinery. Depositions are carried out only after an appeal has been made by OTHER AUTHORITIES and extensive investigation by authorities OTHER THAN THE POPE. The Pope makes his decisions based on the (name removed by moderator)ut of those OTHER AUTHORITIES. The deposition is a truly collegial action. That it does not happen in a formal synod is a poor criticism.

Again, the guilt of the bishops does not justify papal action. Show me a canon from the early church that authorizes the pope to remove bishops at will. Regardless of the amount of time passed and the number of options tried, the ability of the pope to remove bishops without approval from others is an instance of him acting “at will”.

None of your examples demonstrates that the Pope removes bishops “at will.” Neither does he initiate a process of deposition, nor does he base a decision to depose on his unilateral will alone without the (name removed by moderator)ut of OTHER AUTHORITIES. Your whole position is a straw man, I’m afraid.

I fail to see what number 2 has to do with the conversation entirely.

You have only cited instances of the Pope deposing Latin bishops. This is only as “bad” as the actions of the Patriarch of Antioch, or the actions of the Synod of Jerusalem stripping their former Patriarch of the episcopal diginity. They are local actions relevant for a local Church. So you have no rational basis for fearmongering. The examples you gave, even if they prove your claim (and they do not), has no relevance for the relationship between the Western Church and the Eastern or Oriental Churches, for they are all merely examples of INTERNAL LATIN Church governance.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

A patriarch does not possess the ability to depose a bishop within his church (he must act through a synod).

Neither does the Pope have the authority to depose by his mere will.

No, you have misunderstood my words. I have no problems with either deposition or transfer. What I take issue with, is the notion that the pope should be granted such powers. There is no patristic authority to support such a thing.

Agreed. But you have not shown that the Pope has been granted such powers (you certainly have not quoted Vatican 1, Vatican 2 or our canons), nor that the Pope has ever acted in such a unilateral, “at will” fashion in the deposition and/or transfer of bishops.

No, these are two completely different situations. The abuses of +PHILIP are not normative in the sense that they have no precedent in tradition or the canons. The abuses of the pope, however, are accepted as a normative power (even if rarely invoked).

You have given no authoritative magisterial source that this is a “normative” power of the Pope, much less that such a “power” has actually been used in the history of the Latin Catholic Church.

And the Church encountered all of these in the early centuries of the Church, yet the bishops never felt the need to grant such powers to one particular bishop.

You may want to read up on the fact that it was the Easterns who tried to give the title “universal bishop” to the bishop of Rome TWICE, and the Popes refused. Here you are begging the question, because you have not even proven that the Pope was ever given these “powers,” ever actually possessed these “powers,” nor actually ever exercised these “powers.”

No, the MP does not “control” ROCOR. Unlike the Latin church, the Moscow Patriarch does not possess the ability to depose ROCOR bishops, nor does the Patriarch of Antioch possess the ability to despose Philip, etc.

Same with the bishop of Rome. I think you were just unaware of the historical context of the “examples” that you gave.

Blessings

 

[KathleenGee]

The Lord Jesus Christ is calling us to communion in the only one Church He established with Peter as His head, the Apostles, and their successors with the faithful.

We are all ‘alter Christus’ in one sense through baptism…and we are all called to be humble servants to each other.

There is a true communion and this is fulfilled at Mass…with the Holy Father, the bishops, and all faithful…as perfect as we can on this earth…I pray for the Orthodox to return and share all the good they have.

 

[Hesychios]

…I pray for the Orthodox to return and share all the good they have.

Likewise, I pray that the Roman Catholics return and share all the goodness they have to offer.

 

[copperblade]

If neither the East or West can claim the total cultural patrimony of the understanding of the Gospel, doesn’t that mean both sides will be required to compromise? Aren’t there just too many non-negotiable areas for this to happen?

 

[Nicea325]

Likewise, I pray that the Roman Catholics return and share all the goodness they have to offer.

I pray that we both RCC/EO all comeback. I’ve grown tired of the pointing fingers as to who is right and wrong and so on. That is why I prefer not to engage for long in these dialogues, it gets old. I’ll pray for the HS to take care of it.

God Bless

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

… This highlights one of the complaints non-Latin Catholics often have with the Vatican machinery - the Curia. The Curia is basically a distinct authority from the Pope…

I respect your point of view but in this case I don’t see how you can say that.

The Curia the extension of the Papacy. It is the power of the Pope, it is the way the Pope has to work because no one man can actually do what is claimed for the Pope, so he delegates his own authority to his staff.

THE ROMAN CURIA

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.

Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.
Code of Canon Law of the Latin church

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46 - §1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
§2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
Code of Canons for the Oriental churches

It is not a distinct authority, the Curia is the Papacy in action. For Roman Catholics the Curia is Peter.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I haven’t seen where the Pope Benedict defined what the role of the Pope in the first millennium was. What makes you say it is in line with modern Orthodoxy’s understanding?

Pope Benedict :

“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.”