Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time

[SedesDomi]

I will therefore proceed to list what I believe must happen if the Orthodox churches would consider recognizing the bishop of Rome as their world leader who exercises presidency among all the churches of Christ.

   First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop          of Rome hold         the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true         Christian doctrine. This means that the pope would have to do several         specific things, chief among which, I would think, are the following:

   He would have to confirm the original text of the         Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the         churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some         churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in         their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly         teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation          to         God's saving dispensation in the world....

   The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son          and the Holy         Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply         "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified          with the         divine nature....

He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogmas on these two articles of faith…

The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins…

The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely…

In a word, the Orthodox would have to sacrifice everything, excepting only the faith itself, for the sake of building a common future together with Christians who are willing and able to do so with them…

   With God all things are possible. It is with this conviction          that we can dare to imagine a global unity of Christians under the leadership          of the bishop whose church of Rome was originally the first to "preside          in love" [among all of Christ's churches on earth](http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2005-09-25-romanpresidency.php).

 

[mardukm]

He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith

Already done, and this has ALWAYS been the case.

and defend its use in all the churches

This has always been the case with regards to the Eastern Churches, though not always with the Oriental Churches.

beginning with his own

The Latins should be free to profess the orthodox Creed of their Tradition.

At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed)

This was the case in the undivided Church of the first millenium, and should be the case today.

he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world…

The Holy Spirit cannot be divided in time or Being. It cannot be the case that ONLY the energetic manifestation of the Spirit proceeds through the Son while his Essence does not. Why the Pope should admit to an idea that is contained NOwhere among the Fathers would not bring true unity, but a false one.

The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply “subsistent relations” within the one God who is identified with the divine nature…

This has ALWAYS been the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Latins have used the term “subsistent relations” as mere explanation, and have never denied the reality of the three distinctive persons or hypostases.

He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents … are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogma…

I, as an Oriental, personally accept the Immaculate Conception, with a proper understanding of the limitations of the Latin expressions used in the dogma. I know of many EO who are willing to admit that it is a theologoumenon. The best course of action in this regard is for the Easterns to simply admit that the teaching is not condemnable (as in fact it is not).

He would also officially say that … Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogma…

The Orthodox Churches do not deny the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Why the Pope must deny something that the Orthodox Churches accept is disingenuous.

The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins…

I would agree that a dogmatic definition on the point would help the Church. There must also be concurrent admission by the EO that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is an interpretation prevalent only among the Protestants.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

SedesDomi:
Hi SedesDomi,

Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time is a very interesting article, and has generated a lot of discussion between Catholics and Orthodox. I myself started a thread related to it – although that was about one specific part of the article (to wit, Fr. Hopko’s very interesting proposal regarding the filioque) so it’s nice to also have a thread about the article overall.