Should the pope be always the bishop of Rome?

[Vico]

…

Yes that certainly seems to be the controversy, that east and west say they have different models and are not able to agree on one model. More was said about it most recently in the

Vatican, Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church (Chieti, 21 September 2016)http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

USCCB Ecumenism:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...al/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…

Yes that certainly seems to be the controversy, that east and west say they have different models and are not able to agree on one model. More was said about it most recently in the

Vatican, Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church (Chieti, 21 September 2016)http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

Yes that is designed as a

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

for explaining

SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

That said,

There was further unity/re-unity, among the East and Rome, at the council of Florence. Bottom line Eastern Catholic rites of the Catholic Church are in full union with the pope.

The E Orthodox unfortunately remain separate.

Vico:

USCCB Ecumenism:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...al/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm

Vico,

Back in 2002,
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, wrote

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
From

Has that statement changed … today?

 

[Vico]

Orthodox Church does not really exist

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO TURKEY
(NOVEMBER 28 - DECEMBER 1, 2006)
COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW I

It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This Commission brought our Churches together with the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

… This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. …

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries have had a negative effect on relations between our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...en-xvi_spe_20061130_dichiarazione-comune.html

Previously, in 2004, St. Pope John Paul II joined with The Ecumenical Patriarch Batrholomew I in using this phrase:

“7. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches, created with so much hope, has marked our progress in recent years.”
…
“11. Let us pray to the Lord to give peace to the Church and to the world, and to imbue our journey towards full communion with the wisdom of his Spirit, “ut unum in Christo simus” [so that we may be one in Christ].”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...f_jp-ii_spe_20040701_jp-ii-bartholomew-i.html

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Orthodox Church does not really exist

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO TURKEY
(NOVEMBER 28 - DECEMBER 1, 2006)
COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW I

It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This Commission brought our Churches together with the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

… This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. …

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries have had a negative effect on relations between our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

Apostolic Journey to Turkey: Common Declaration by His Holiness Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I (November 30, 2006) | BENEDICT XVI

What I posted was an article from 2002. My question was, has anything changed.
Your article is from 2006

Again, here we are in 2018, what has actually changed?

 

[Genesis315]

When speaking with theological precision, we can only really speak of the EO particular Churches as Churches, since there can only be one catholic Church (which is, of course, the Catholic Church). Common courtesy can make using their preferred nomenclature acceptable (like saying “Anglican Church” when they can only really be called an ecclesial community).

That being said, the relationship with EO Churches has not always been clear cut. The Fourth Lateran Council speaks of wanting to remove the scandal of schism “from God’s church” as does the Council of Florence, which speaks “of the most disastrous schism, which had endured in God’s church for almost five hundred years.”

 

[Vico]

…
Again, here we are in 2018, what has actually changed?

That is a broad question and I am not going to answer it here. Note that the Popes use the term Orthodox Church even if such exists not, as Cardinal Walter Kasper said. What remains the same is what was stated in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio:

Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…
Again, here we are in 2018, what has actually changed?

That is a broad question and I am not going to answer it here. Note that the Popes use the term Orthodox Church even if such exists not, as Cardinal Walter Kasper said. What remains the same is what was stated in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio:

Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.

Ecumenical speak included,

What’s changed in the last 1000 years?

The Orthodox are still in schism. As in, they deny Peter’s primacy ergo the Pope’s primacy as well, ergo they deny what Jesus established in Peter…

 

[Vico]

Vico:

steve-b:

…
Again, here we are in 2018, what has actually changed?

That is a broad question and I am not going to answer it here. Note that the Popes use the term Orthodox Church even if such exists not, as Cardinal Walter Kasper said. What remains the same is what was stated in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio:

Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.

Ecumenical speak included,

What’s changed in the last 1000 years?

The Orthodox are still in schism. As in, they deny Peter’s primacy ergo the Pope’s primacy as well, ergo they deny what Jesus established in Peter…

Really the east and west were fractured at least soon after The Seventh Ecumenical Council which took place in Nicea in 787 AD, so it is more like 1200 years. It was the last common council, however there were problems with the Creed which was changed without Rome at the un-ecumenical council of 381 AD. As stated in the Catholic Catechism, Rome learned of the change to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Chalcedon 451 A.D. From the time of the Photian Schism the two could not have a common council in agreement.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vico:

steve-b:

…
Again, here we are in 2018, what has actually changed?

That is a broad question and I am not going to answer it here. Note that the Popes use the term Orthodox Church even if such exists not, as Cardinal Walter Kasper said. What remains the same is what was stated in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio:

Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.

Ecumenical speak included,

What’s changed in the last 1000 years?

The Orthodox are still in schism. As in, they deny Peter’s primacy ergo the Pope’s primacy as well, ergo they deny what Jesus established in Peter…

Really the east and west were fractured at least soon after The Seventh Ecumenical Council which took place in Nicea in 787 AD, so it is more like 1200 years. It was the last common council, however there were problems with the Creed which was changed without Rome at the un-ecumenical council of 381 AD. As stated in the Catholic Catechism, Rome learned of the change to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Chalcedon 451 A.D. From the time of the Photian Schism the two could not have a common council in agreement.

The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t.

Dual procession ≠ dual source
Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heresy
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds

As such the filioque is a “tempest in a teapot” as it was described.

The other issue is,

Any agreement with EO has to be with one church at a time, each church agreeing on their own, because EO is not one church but many independent churches, and no one church among them nor any one bishop of whaterver stripe among them, speaks for the whole.

 

[Genesis315]

The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t.

Dual procession ≠ dual source
Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heresy
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds

As such the filioque is a “tempest in a teapot” as it was described.

The problem is the EO dogma has basically become Rome is wrong no matter what.

Giorgios Scholarios, an EO Patriarch who was more open than most to Western thought, said the following about our explanations:

for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are.

It also doesn’t help that many of them just plainly reject many of the Latin Fathers who enunciated this doctrine. For example, their saint, Mark of Ephesus, said “The words of the western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize.”

Sadly, there’s no reasoning with that kind of attitude.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t.

Dual procession ≠ dual source
Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heresy
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds

As such the filioque is a “tempest in a teapot” as it was described.

The problem is the EO dogma has basically become Rome is wrong no matter what.

Giorgios Scholarios, an EO Patriarch who was more open than most to Western thought, said the following about our explanations:

for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are.

It also doesn’t help that many of them just plainly reject many of the Latin Fathers who enunciated this doctrine. For example, their saint, Mark of Ephesus, said “The words of the western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize.”

Sadly, there’s no reasoning with that kind of attitude.

As just one of many examples

I would like an EO to explain this quote in light of what we’re talking about

 

[Vico]

…
The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t…

The other issue is, Any agreement with EO has to be with one church at a time, …

It is the relations of opposition that are a source of problems for the filioque. The east did not embrace the same metaphysics as the west. Rather:

• the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten
• the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father
• the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father

Ousia and hypostasis were developed. Catechism shows the different approaches:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). … provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Yes, one at a time and portions of each of those have reunited with Rome, but not all members. However there are alliances.

 

[dochawk]

The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t.

This is only true for a latin speaker; not a greek speaker.

Yes, it was linguistics and talking past one another, but the normative version of the creed is greek, not latin, with a verb that does explicitly indicate origin.

The problem is the EO dogma has basically become Rome is wrong no matter what.

That is both uncharitable and incorrect. It could almost be attributed to the Russian Orthodox (but that’s really, “Those who don’t think Moscow should be first are wrong”, and could in fact be attributed to many of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, but I am aware of no other EO group to which it is even vaguely accurate.

It also doesn’t help that many of them just plainly reject many of the Latin Fathers who enunciated this doctrine. For example, their saint, Mark of Ephesus, said “The words of the western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize.”

They’re not rejecting the Latin Fathers in general, but their putting forward of that particular “error”.

You could substitute statements in this very thread on the EO rejecting immediate jurisdiction as part of the primacy that they in fact acknowledge, infallibility, and so forth.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t.

This is only true for a latin speaker; not a greek speaker.

Yes, it was linguistics and talking past one another, but the normative version of the creed is greek, not latin, with a verb that does explicitly indicate origin.

If non Greek speakers are expected to understand Greek terms, then for balance, Greek speakers are expected to understand Latin terms as well… especially since Greek speakers have been MORE than sufficiently instructed on “proceed” and what it means and what it doesn’t mean. in Latin

For them To keep fighting over what it doesn’t mean in Latin, as if that is what it does means to THEM in Greek, is nuts…imo

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…
The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t…

The other issue is, Any agreement with EO has to be with one church at a time, …

It is the relations of opposition that are a source of problems for the filioque. The east did not embrace the same metaphysics as the west. Rather:

• the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten
• the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father
• the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father

Ousia and hypostasis were developed. Catechism shows the different approaches:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). … provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Yes, one at a time and portions of each of those have reunited with Rome, but not all members. However there are alliances.

“Those” In their resistance to accept the explanation of the filioque, as I asked before, what do they say about this? Jesus & the HS

 

[dochawk]

If non Greek speakers are expected to understand Greek terms, then for balance, Greek speakers are expected to understand Latin terms as well… especially since Greek speakers have been MORE than sufficiently instructed on “proceed” and what it means and what it doesn’t mean. in Latin

Except that the greek is normative, and the church language, and the language of the document.

For them To keep fighting over what it doesn’t mean in Latin, as if that is what it does means to THEM in Greek, is nuts…imo

So what term do you have for westerns that keep insisting that the greeks don’t understand?

ONE MORE TIME, the EO do NOT dispute that the Spirit proceeds temporally from the Son. They don’t. Fake News

The objection is about altering a council’s decree unilaterally.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If non Greek speakers are expected to understand Greek terms, then for balance, Greek speakers are expected to understand Latin terms as well… especially since Greek speakers have been MORE than sufficiently instructed on “proceed” and what it means and what it doesn’t mean. in Latin

Except that the greek is normative, and the church language, and the language of the document.

For them To keep fighting over what it doesn’t mean in Latin, as if that is what it does means to THEM in Greek, is nuts…imo

So what term do you have for westerns that keep insisting that the greeks don’t understand?

ONE MORE TIME, the EO do NOT dispute that the Spirit proceeds temporally from the Son. They don’t. Fake News

The objection is about altering a council’s decree unilaterally.

hawk

Here’s the E Orthodox position. Their analogy to changing the national anthem isn’t a good one.

 

[dochawk]

Here’s the E Orthodox position. Their analogy to changing the national anthem isn’t a good one.

But on theology, it’s surprisingly representative of most mainstream EO (you never really can have “the” EO position on most things . . .)

It gives too much credence to “everyone” in the west agreeing with Augustine, though, and doesn’t really dress the temporal processtion to which most EO do not object.

hawk

 

[sko]

And if it is not, here is an English translation of his Syllabus Errorum, where it is under point 35.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

steve-b:

…
The filioque was blown way out of proportion. The problem was really over translation misunderstanding of proceed. The East thought it meant origin / source. It doesn’t…

The other issue is, Any agreement with EO has to be with one church at a time, …

It is the relations of opposition that are a source of problems for the filioque. The east did not embrace the same metaphysics as the west. Rather:

• the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten
• the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father
• the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father

Ousia and hypostasis were developed. Catechism shows the different approaches:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). … provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Yes, one at a time and portions of each of those have reunited with Rome, but not all members. However there are alliances.

“Those” In their resistance to accept the explanation of the filioque, as I asked before, what do they say about this? Jesus & the HS

That scripture refers to procession in time (mission) not ontological. There is no scripture referring to ontological procession. That the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial was declared at the Council of Nicea 325.