The Chieti document, discerning Orthodoxy, some questions

[DustinQuick]

Dear Catholic and Orthodox friends, I would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

If the Chieti Document is signed by Rome, it becomes the Catholic Church’s position on interpreting the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, which the Orthodox representatives have agreed to. This is so refreshing because I’ve always felt that apologists and polemicists on either side have the tendency to present a one-sided, neat and tidy version of history.

In the section on Universal Primacy, there is a single very noteworthy statement: while appeals were made to Rome by the East, Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches.

Now, if the holy see ratifies this document, does the acceptance of that above statement compromise - or even contradict - the infallible declaration of 1870, wherein it is stated that the church of Rome has, from the beginning, had universal (this would include west and east) and immediate jurisdiction over the Church?

On its face, putting that side by side with “Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches,” seems at best problematic, and at worst, contradictory.

I’m not looking for debate, polemic, strawmen, or ideology, I just would really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

ecupatria.org/synodality-and-primacy-during-the-first-millennium-towards-a-common-understanding-in-service-to-the-unity-of-the-church/

*Here’s a good article/interview providing background and insight:

aleteia.org/2016/10/03/catholic-and-orthodox-find-common-ground-in-early-church-understanding/?utm_campaign=english_page&utm_medium=aleteia_en&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1475468917

Now, I would like to foward some questions. If I do end up becoming Orthodox:

1. Can i pray the rosary as a private devotion? Its such a huge part of my life (once to twice daily), I don’t want to give it up.
2. Can i hold the immaculate conception as a theological opinion? Some Russian Orthodox have and do, i believe.
3. Can i hold that the bishop of rome was given the unique role by christ - not mere historical accident - of pastoring the universal church, but maintaining that second millennium development has gone too far in its exercise?

Thank you so much and God bless you all.

Please pray for me.

Dustin

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t see how you can have both: “Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches,” and Rome always had universal jurisdiction.

 

[DustinQuick]

I don’t see how you can have both: “Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches,” and Rome always had universal jurisdiction.

And thats the crux of it for me, bro. If the cheti document is ratified, then it seems both things stand side by side.

 

[carefullytread]

And thats the crux of it for me, bro. If the cheti document is ratified, then it seems both things stand side by side.

That’s the beauty of it though! When reading Church documents, it’s useful to remember the dictum I’ve heard from Bishop Barron a few times (I think he said he took if from Origen, but not sure) that you must read the whole Bible from the perspective of the last book, i.e. Revelations.

When you read the Old Testament, if you don’t read it in the context of the New Testament, you would get a very different view of God. But knowing what you know about God from the New Testament, you have different tools for understanding the context and meaning of the Old Testament.

Even within the New Testament, if you read the Gospels without also reading the Epistles, you won’t understand Jesus.

And so with the Church documents. If you read Unam Sanctum without reading Vatican II, you walk away with the wrong lessons. These documents are hard, there is layer upon layer of teachings, and the later documents help you to understand what was the message inside the earlier documents.

If Chieti becomes Church teaching, then you have to understand Vatican I in the context of the clarified teachings. What can seem like contradictions can become beautiful nuance when viewed from the right perspective.

 

[DustinQuick]

That’s the beauty of it though! When reading Church documents, it’s useful to remember the dictum I’ve heard from Bishop Barron a few times (I think he said he took if from Origen, but not sure) that you must read the whole Bible from the perspective of the last book, i.e. Revelations.

When you read the Old Testament, if you don’t read it in the context of the New Testament, you would get a very different view of God. But knowing what you know about God from the New Testament, you have different tools for understanding the context and meaning of the Old Testament.

Even within the New Testament, if you read the Gospels without also reading the Epistles, you won’t understand Jesus.

And so with the Church documents. If you read Unam Sanctum without reading Vatican II, you walk away with the wrong lessons. These documents are hard, there is layer upon layer of teachings, and the later documents help you to understand what was the message inside the earlier documents.

If Chieti becomes Church teaching, then you have to understand Vatican I in the context of the clarified teachings. What can seem like contradictions can become beautiful nuance when viewed from the right perspective.

I definitely agree with you.

 

[Eric_Prine]

1. Can i pray the rosary as a private devotion? Its such a huge part of my life (once to twice daily), I don’t want to give it up.
2. Can i hold the immaculate conception as a theological opinion? Some Russian Orthodox have and do, i believe.
3. Can i hold that the bishop of rome was given the unique role by christ - not mere historical accident - of pastoring the universal church, but maintaining that second millennium development has gone too far in its exercise?

Hi Dustin,
First off, please consider joining the Facebook Group: Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church. It’s comprised of both Catholics and Orthodox who are fairly friendly with each other. Often when a question or topic is posed that misinterprets either Catholic or Orthodox theology, someone will pipe up and set things straight. And regardless of which way you go, speaking personally as a Catholic, I believe Catholic and Orthodox relations are very important, as St Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical Orientale Lumen.
As far as your 3 questions:

1. I do know Orthodox who pray the rosary. One Orthodox woman who is married to an Eastern Catholic and many Western Rite Orthodox. St Seraphim of Sarov also prayed the rosary
2. If I’m not mistaken, I believe many Orthodox saints personally believed in the Immaculate Conception, long before John Dun Scotus wrote the philosophical reasoning to support the idea- which were primarily used by Pope Pius XII to declare it dogmatic. It isn’t so much the idea of the Immaculate Conception that the Orthodox Church had a problem with, but the fact that it was declared a dogmatic teaching.
3. I’ve heard Constantinople believes the role of the See of Peter has theological unique role, even if they believe the pope overstepped that role. The Russian Church, though it is in communion with Constantinople, believes the See of Peter was only given this unique role canonically, not theologically.

Anyway, good luck and I hope you consider checking out the Facebook group!

 

[DustinQuick]

Hi Dustin,
First off, please consider joining the Facebook Group: Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church. It’s comprised of both Catholics and Orthodox who are fairly friendly with each other. Often when a question or topic is posed that misinterprets either Catholic or Orthodox theology, someone will pipe up and set things straight. And regardless of which way you go, speaking personally as a Catholic, I believe Catholic and Orthodox relations are very important, as St Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical Orientale Lumen.
As far as your 3 questions:

1. I do know Orthodox who pray the rosary. One Orthodox woman who is married to an Eastern Catholic and many Western Rite Orthodox. St Seraphim of Sarov also prayed the rosary
2. If I’m not mistaken, I believe many Orthodox saints personally believed in the Immaculate Conception, long before John Dun Scotus wrote the philosophical reasoning to support the idea- which were primarily used by Pope Pius XII to declare it dogmatic. It isn’t so much the idea of the Immaculate Conception that the Orthodox Church had a problem with, but the fact that it was declared a dogmatic teaching.
3. I’ve heard Constantinople believes the role of the See of Peter has theological unique role, even if they believe the pope overstepped that role. The Russian Church, though it is in communion with Constantinople, believes the See of Peter was only given this unique role canonically, not theologically.

Anyway, good luck and I hope you consider checking out the Facebook group!

Thank you my friend!

 

[ProdigiousN00b]

I too am very interested in this document. As an Anglican convert this troubles me. If Rome concedes these points my conversion was in vain on some fronts (I was high church Anglican, and the Eucharist and pope were two drawing factors).

 

[twf]

My Orthodox cousin has no issue with the Immaculate Conception - when properly understood. I think we need to remember, in discussions with our Eastern brethren, that the terminology of “stain” is often a stumbling block. Original sin is, first and foremost, the **deprivation ** of original holiness and justice. When we Latin Catholics say we are conceived with original sin, we primarily mean that we are conceived out of communion with the Blessed Trinity. In baptism this is rectified - we “put on Christ” and are infused with the divine life of the Trinity (sanctifying grace). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, first and foremost, teaches that Our Lady was in full communion with the Trinity, that she was “full of grace”, from the first moment of her conception. Many Orthodox can agree with this formulation. There are Eastern theologians who speak of Her “pre-sanctification”. We can find common ground here.

Regarding the primacy of Rome, Pope Francis has spoken of the need of greater synodality in the Catholic Church. Pope St. John Paul spoke of the need to reaffirm the unique role of the Eastern Patriarchs. Pope Emeritus Benedict, as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, spoke of the possibility of decentralizing the massive Latin Church from an administrative / canonical perspective. I think it is fine to believe that the way in which papal primacy is currently exercised should be changed. For example, the practice of the Pope appointing the vast majority of Catholic bishops around the world is a recent novelty (within the last one or two centuries). The exercise of papal primacy has developed gradually and has varied from century to century.

Personally, I think it is possible that the Pope had intrinsic *spiritual * primacy over the entire universal Church, but not canonical authority in the sense we understand it today. While he held primacy by divine mandate, and always had the right to settle those cases appealed to him, he did not exercise any sort of administrative authority over the Eastern Churches. I am not a theologian, I am not a clergyman…but I personally do not think this contradicts our Catholic faith.

 

[Tomdstone]

My Orthodox cousin has no issue with the Immaculate Conception - when properly understood. I think we need to remember, in discussions with our Eastern brethren, that the terminology of “stain” is often a stumbling block. Original sin is, first and foremost, the **deprivation ** of original holiness and justice. When we Latin Catholics say we are conceived with original sin, we primarily mean that we are conceived out of communion with the Blessed Trinity. In baptism this is rectified - we “put on Christ” and are infused with the divine life of the Trinity (sanctifying grace). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, first and foremost, teaches that Our Lady was in full communion with the Trinity, that she was “full of grace”, from the first moment of her conception. Many Orthodox can agree with this formulation. There are Eastern theologians who speak of Her “pre-sanctification”. We can find common ground here.

Regarding the primacy of Rome, Pope Francis has spoken of the need of greater synodality in the Catholic Church. Pope St. John Paul spoke of the need to reaffirm the unique role of the Eastern Patriarchs. Pope Emeritus Benedict, as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, spoke of the possibility of decentralizing the massive Latin Church from an administrative / canonical perspective. I think it is fine to believe that the way in which papal primacy is currently exercised should be changed. For example, the practice of the Pope appointing the vast majority of Catholic bishops around the world is a recent novelty (within the last one or two centuries). The exercise of papal primacy has developed gradually and has varied from century to century.

Personally, I think it is possible that the Pope had intrinsic *spiritual * primacy over the entire universal Church, but not canonical authority in the sense we understand it today. While he held primacy by divine mandate, and always had the right to settle those cases appealed to him, he did not exercise any sort of administrative authority over the Eastern Churches. I am not a theologian, I am not a clergyman…but I personally do not think this contradicts our Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility.

 

[Wandile]

And thats the crux of it for me, bro. If the cheti document is ratified, then it seems both things stand side by side.

To sign off on this document would be tantamount to heresy hey because Vatican I clearly defined (with anathemas attatched to it) the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop, his divine primacy and his Pontifical infallibility.

It will just be another ecumenical document that’s food for thought but doesn’t have the backing of Rome.

 

[Tomdstone]

To sign off on this document would be tantamount to heresy hey because Vatican I clearly defined (with anathemas attatched to it) the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop, his divine primacy and his Pontifical infallibility.

It will just be another ecumenical document that’s food for thought but doesn’t have the backing of Rome.

Some of the teachings of the Council of Florence are not believed literally today.

 

[MichaelP3]

Dear Catholic and Orthodox friends, I would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

If the Chieti Document is signed by Rome, it becomes the Catholic Church’s position on interpreting the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, which the Orthodox representatives have agreed to. This is so refreshing because I’ve always felt that apologists and polemicists on either side have the tendency to present a one-sided, neat and tidy version of history.

In the section on Universal Primacy, there is a single very noteworthy statement: while appeals were made to Rome by the East, Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches.

Now, if the holy see ratifies this document, does the acceptance of that above statement compromise - or even contradict - the infallible declaration of 1870, wherein it is stated that the church of Rome has, from the beginning, had universal (this would include west and east) and immediate jurisdiction over the Church?

On its face, putting that side by side with “Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches,” seems at best problematic, and at worst, contradictory.

I’m not looking for debate, polemic, strawmen, or ideology, I just would really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

ecupatria.org/synodality-and-primacy-during-the-first-millennium-towards-a-common-understanding-in-service-to-the-unity-of-the-church/

*Here’s a good article/interview providing background and insight:

aleteia.org/2016/10/03/catholic-and-orthodox-find-common-ground-in-early-church-understanding/?utm_campaign=english_page&utm_medium=aleteia_en&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1475468917

Now, I would like to foward some questions. If I do end up becoming Orthodox:

1. Can i pray the rosary as a private devotion? Its such a huge part of my life (once to twice daily), I don’t want to give it up.
2. Can i hold the immaculate conception as a theological opinion? Some Russian Orthodox have and do, i believe.
3. Can i hold that the bishop of rome was given the unique role by christ - not mere historical accident - of pastoring the universal church, but maintaining that second millennium development has gone too far in its exercise?

Thank you so much and God bless you all.

Please pray for me.

Dustin

I read the documents but I don’t understand? What is the current status of these? Is Rome actually considering agreeing with them? Or is that just opinions?

 

[ProdigiousN00b]

I read the documents but I don’t understand? What is the current status of these? Is Rome actually considering agreeing with them? Or is that just opinions?

That’s precisely my issue as a convert. It greatly bothers me.

 

[Rohzek]

Dear Catholic and Orthodox friends, I would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

If the Chieti Document is signed by Rome, it becomes the Catholic Church’s position on interpreting the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, which the Orthodox representatives have agreed to. This is so refreshing because I’ve always felt that apologists and polemicists on either side have the tendency to present a one-sided, neat and tidy version of history.

In the section on Universal Primacy, there is a single very noteworthy statement: while appeals were made to Rome by the East, Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches.

Now, if the holy see ratifies this document, does the acceptance of that above statement compromise - or even contradict - the infallible declaration of 1870, wherein it is stated that the church of Rome has, from the beginning, had universal (this would include west and east) and immediate jurisdiction over the Church?

On its face, putting that side by side with “Rome did not have cannonical authority over eastern churches,” seems at best problematic, and at worst, contradictory.

I’m not looking for debate, polemic, strawmen, or ideology, I just would really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

ecupatria.org/synodality-and-primacy-during-the-first-millennium-towards-a-common-understanding-in-service-to-the-unity-of-the-church/

*Here’s a good article/interview providing background and insight:

aleteia.org/2016/10/03/catholic-and-orthodox-find-common-ground-in-early-church-understanding/?utm_campaign=english_page&utm_medium=aleteia_en&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1475468917

Now, I would like to foward some questions. If I do end up becoming Orthodox:

1. Can i pray the rosary as a private devotion? Its such a huge part of my life (once to twice daily), I don’t want to give it up.
2. Can i hold the immaculate conception as a theological opinion? Some Russian Orthodox have and do, i believe.
3. Can i hold that the bishop of rome was given the unique role by christ - not mere historical accident - of pastoring the universal church, but maintaining that second millennium development has gone too far in its exercise?

Thank you so much and God bless you all.

Please pray for me.

Dustin

Yes to the first two. As for the third question, well that’s some matter of debate. There are some in the Orthodox Church who do hold that position, going off of the theology of the Orthodox theologians John Zizioulas and Elpidophoros Lambriniadis (moreso with the latter). I personally think that their theology is sorta whacky, but that’s just me. Their basic position boils down to a theological necessity for a primate over all the church, but that this does not entail infallibility. That’s one option that seems popular among the theologians coming out of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As for myself, I think the Patriarchate of Moscow and the others are right about the subject on primacy (ie, it was a historical accident).

Some of the teachings of the Council of Florence are not believed literally today.

The Latin of the First Vatican Council as well as the Latin of the Second Vatican Council pretty much preclude any non-literal interpretation. This isn’t really my problem however. The document clearly favors my side of the debate. I’m surprised how much the Catholic side caved. It’s very delightful for me.

 

[Rohzek]

Some of the teachings of the Council of Florence are not believed literally today.

The Latin of the First Vatican Council as well as the Latin of the Second Vatican Council pretty much preclude any non-literal interpretation.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Latin of the First Vatican Council as well as the Latin of the Second Vatican Council pretty much preclude any non-literal interpretation.

It seemed so for the Council of Florence.

 

[ProdigiousN00b]

For those wanting to read the document in question it’s called. Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Now, I would like to foward some questions. If I do end up becoming Orthodox:

1. Can i pray the rosary as a private devotion? Its such a huge part of my life (once to twice daily), I don’t want to give it up.
2. Can i hold the immaculate conception as a theological opinion? Some Russian Orthodox have and do, i believe.
3. Can i hold that the bishop of rome was given the unique role by christ - not mere historical accident - of pastoring the universal church, but maintaining that second millennium development has gone too far in its exercise?

Thank you so much and God bless you all.

Please pray for me.

Dustin

Hi Dustin,

1. The only problem with the Rosary that I can see is that it presents meditations on the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, rather than as a theological opinion. But maybe that isn’t a great problem.
2. The big problem with the IC that I have is that it seems to conflict with St Irenaeus’ and St. Athanasius’ foundational teaching that whatever was not assumed by Christ was not healed. So if Christ did not assume our sinful nature, it would follow that we are not saved. But, as others have pointed out, many Orthodox do accept the IC, so maybe I am missing something.
3. I think the big issue is supreme, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church, as defined by VI. That makes the Pope a “bishop of bishops”, or, really, it makes him in effect the ONLY bishop, and that is a huge problem. As long as “pastor of the universal Church” does not mean that, I am ok with it.

 

[Rohzek]

It seemed so for the Council of Florence.

Whatever one thinks of Florence and its true meaning or rather reinterpretation, multiply the difficulty of doing such with the last two Catholic ecumenical councils by 1000.