The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

[JohnVIII]

The same primacy the Patriarch of Constantinople has. Nothing more and nothing less. Is that a total let down?

Personally I would prefer the version of primacy that Moscow has rather than Constantinople’s version.

…There’s no theological reason, should Rome become Orthodox again that it MUST assume it’s previous place of honor. After 1000 of schism and heresy…

Yes there is. It would be the Keys given to Peter then passed down to Clement and the bishops of Rome. Also, there was a brake in inter-communion, not a schism. Insignificant variations in teaching, but no mortal heresy.

I already switched sides a short time ago. So I have already voted ‘Yes’ to the ‘Ratzinger Proposal’.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, wait a minute. I agree that there is no theological reason for Roman primacy (the “on this rock I will build my church” argument was not the original basis for primacy), but I believe that a Council or two established Roman primacy. Is that not so? You can’t go back on a Council decision, can you?

Ecclesiastical primacies are a matter of discipline, not dogma. They can, and have been changed numerous times in Church history.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Dempsey1919]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.

The doctrine of primacy has never changed. The Catholic Church does not teach anything that was not believed in the first millennium. However, the language used to express these doctrines has evolved over time. The Latin West uses a different theological language than the East. I think Ratzinger was merely saying that the East should not be expected to accept the theological language of the west; they should be permitted to express the doctrine of primacy in their own way. For an example of this, one should look at the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. In the Roman rite, we celebrate the Assumption but the Eastern Christians refer to this event as the Dormition; both believe in the same doctrine, but express it differently.

In my opinion, Ratzinger was saying that the East should not be required to accept the strict western theological definitions. There is only one faith, but the East and West have different theological understandings and expressions.

 

[Izdaari]

I am not Orthodox, but as a non-Catholic Christian I find the Ratzinger Proposal a hopeful sign. If the Catholic Church were to reverse itself on its 2nd millennium claims to power, I would find it a much more attractive option. But for reasons others have already given, that’s not likely to happen.

 

[Hesychios]

The doctrine of primacy has never changed. The Catholic Church does not teach anything that was not believed in the first millennium.

Which is not to say that these were all universally believed from early times.

It would be hard to argue that anything was not believed by at least *somebody *somewhere at one time or another as an opinion or speculation. They are mostly local/regional theologeumena that later were enshrined into de fide pronouncements and imposed upon everyone else, but do not satisfy the Vincentian canon.

The notion of primacy really is not a doctrine, it is a discipline, and in the east it is operative at all levels throughout the church.

 

[Hesychios]

I am not Orthodox, but as a non-Catholic Christian I find the Ratzinger Proposal a hopeful sign. If the Catholic Church were to reverse itself on the developments of 1870, I would find it a much more attractive option. But for reasons others have already given, that’s not going to happen.

Actually, the developments of 1870AD are only part of the problem. They are not what caused the original schism but aggravate the situation considerably.

 

[Izdaari]

Actually, the developments of 1870AD are only part of the problem. They are not what caused the original schism but aggravate the situation considerably.

I understand. They aren’t the cause of the schism with Orthodoxy, which happened long before that, but they’re a large part of my objection to Catholicism.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

First off, when East and West reunite, Rome will hold its primacy. This has already been basically agreed to by all Patriarchs.

My view: Rome has always had spiritual authority. It was always known that Rome was free of heresy. It was part of the promise of Christ. The Bishop of Rome also had jurisdictional authority in certain matters of other Bishops, especially disputes. Over the past 1000 years, there has been a more focused centrality of government of the Catholic Church. Was this the original idea of the Church? Probably not. But in today’s day and age, I think it very appropriate to have such a clear point of view as “Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.” Without this, there could easily be heresy running rampant in each diocese. Each diocese having it’s own doctrine on things that were not stated before. However, I believe that in the first 500 yrs, if the Bishop of Rome stated something in regards to the faith, it was held to be true by all. Also, from my reading of the Councils, (the first 7), if the Bishop of Rome vetoed a Canon, including the disciplinary Canons, that was the end of it.

Basically:
The Bishop of Rome has:
Spiritual authority - always
Jurisdictional authority - sometimes, such as Councils, and when others give it to him.

Pray for unity!

 

[Nicea325]

It would be wonderful if the Catholic Church returned to the understanding of primacy held during the first millennium. Of course we never left the understanding of the first millennium so we have nowhere to return to.

In Christ
Joe

Yep! First the Orthoodx need to set aside their pride and a total denial of the FACTS of the first millennium, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. Funny how Orthodoxs can never give a logical explanation when I present them of numerous cases where eastern bishops clearly wanted the Bishop of Rome to settle the issue…hhmmmm?

If the Bishop of Rome only had a title of honor and no primacy over any other bishops in far-distant lands,then why bother letting the Bishop of Rome settle the issue at all? Why not settle it in-house?

 

[Hesychios]

Yep! First the Orthoodx need to set aside their pride …

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

Funny how Orthodoxs can never give a logical explanation when I present them of numerous cases where eastern bishops clearly wanted the Bishop of Rome to settle the issue…hhmmmm?

It was routine for churches to ask others to mediate disputes. Local synods control their own affairs, and two local synods could ask a third neutral synod to mediate, that is still a practice in Orthodoxy today.

Naturally, the church at the city of Rome held a lot of respect in the ancient church for as number of good reasons. One important one was that the western church was not very innovative in the early centuries, which helps a lot when the question is one of legitimacy in theology. The church in the city of Rome was (in those days) conservative by nature, if not by design.

Another sometimes useful reason to ask Rome to mediate was that it was on the margins of the empire (and sometimes outside of the borders), and this made it difficult to for the imperial authority to mess with it for much of the time. In fact, it was politically advantageous to the empire to cultivate the relationship with the Roman church, insofar as they empire often had designs on expanding into the west once again and reasserting it’s ancient prerogatives. So if the imperial court was backing one faction in a dispute, it was extremely helpful to the other party to get the church in Rome to back them, as it acted as a counterbalance.

Last but not least, the church in the city of Rome was a pilgrimage center, and boasted the ‘superior origins’ of Saints peter and Paul. It was always hoped that this had left a positive influence on the community, and for the most part it did, for several hundred years at least.

… why bother letting the Bishop of Rome settle the issue at all? Why not settle it in-house?

Every local synod is it’s own house. Issues within the synod are handled within the synod unless there is an impasse, then a third party can be invited or petitioned to help settle the matter.

When Rome was Orthodox it participated in this process. Now it is not Orthodox, and is not asked.

When Rome had the most prestige and respect in the communion it was asked more often, now it does not have that same respect and is not asked for anything.

If you notice, none of the examples you may find of the early Roman involvement in Orthodoxy include administrative functions. Rome did not govern churches outside of it’s own synod. This contrasts with the current claims of the papacy, which asserts that it has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction throughout all of Christendom.

Today, the position the bishop of Rome held in the communion, and the responsibility which goes with that role, is capably held by the Ecumenical Patriarch. If anyone is interested in how the Pope functioned in the first millenium church they need only examine the EP.

IF, and it is a big if, the Papacy was readmitted into the Orthodox communion, the Pope’s responsibilities could be essentially the same as the EP’s responsibilities today.

However, there are no guarantees even of that. Rome might have to go through aprobationary period, and it might not ever regain it’s former postion. This is a discipline of the church, after all, and disciplines may change as the needs of the church change.

 

[scottm]

Ecclesiastical primacies are a matter of discipline, not dogma. They can, and have been changed numerous times in Church history.

But isn’t it true that (a) the primacy of Rome was established by one or more Ecumenical Councils, and (b) only a subsequent Ecumenical Council can change a Council decision, and (c) there has been no such Council after the split of 1054?

You can call it “discipline” rather than “dogma” all day long, but that’s not the point of my question. The point is that, to the best of my knowledge, all of (a) and (b) and (c) above are true. With that being so, one second after reconciliation Rome would have primacy over Constantinople – but it would be primacy as understood back in the days when those same Council decisions were set down.

And then maybe we’d see an actual Ecumenical Council, and the ranks of the several Sees would change.

 

[scottm]

Yep! First the Orthoodx need to set aside their pride and a total denial of the FACTS of the first millennium, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. Funny how Orthodoxs can never give a logical explanation when I present them of numerous cases where eastern bishops clearly wanted the Bishop of Rome to settle the issue…hhmmmm?

If the Bishop of Rome only had a title of honor and no primacy over any other bishops in far-distant lands,then why bother letting the Bishop of Rome settle the issue at all? Why not settle it in-house?

But dude, nothing you say here speaks against the definition of “primacy” used by the Eastern Orthodox themselves both in the first 1000 years and in the second 1000 years. You’re raising a “strawman” argument. If you want to beat the Orthodox, you have to use their own definition of primacy. Not your definition. Their definition. Understand?

 

[JonNC]

But isn’t it true that (a) the primacy of Rome was established by one or more Ecumenical Councils, and (b) only a subsequent Ecumenical Council can change a Council decision, and (c) there has been no such Council after the split of 1054?

Scott,
Which ecumenical councils established the primacy of Rome? My understanding is the first Council at Nice designated the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as that of the West (suburban).
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

Scott,
Which ecumenical councils established the primacy of Rome? My understanding is the first Council at Nice designated the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as that of the West (suburban).
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Jon

Thanks Jon, for pointing this out. This clause pretty well describes Orthodox ‘synodal’ ecclesiology.

There is also the case of a Council (Ephesus) declaring the church of Cyprus to be autocephalic, since it was being targeted by another Metropolitan and the church leaders of Cyprus protested to the church council, it having already been traditionally self governing. The fathers of the council agreed with Cyprus and the Metropolitan of Antioch had to back off.

I too would like to see specifically what scottm was referring to.

 

[Volodymyr]

\http://forums.catholic-questions.org/image.php?u=104232&type=sigpic&dateline=1281088673

Where does this idea originate?? Russian Orthodox church wants to cooperate with Catolic church -but not to be swallowed alive by Roman church. I know Hesychios has for many years tried here to show Catolics that Orthodox have different understanding of unity of Christ’s Holy Churches than do Catolics. Catolics gleefully see centralization, obedience and uniformity as great gifts tfrom having papacy.

Read Peter Skarga (16th century Jesuit who wrote extensively for Unia of Brest) in his book - On Unity. He considers the Army a good analogy for God’s Holy Church. Army and also church must be controlled by only one king. Skarga believed if Orthodox of Ukraina/Belarus did not get re-united (or absorbed) that they should convert to Latinism to save their souls. No orthodox person would ever think an ARMY was a good analogue for the Holy Church. There is a great difference in understanding of what is church!

Peter Skarga and Catolics view union with Orthodox not as coming together in communion of two equal churches (as case of Moskow Church and Church Outside Russia) but rather as incorporation of Orthodoxy into Catolic church. They feel that Orthodox church should be replaced by some kind of secretariat in the Vatican.

No - unity does not happen in such a way. When we see that Ipatij Potij - bishop who went to Rome in 1595 to reunite Ukrainian/Belarusian church with Rome (so-called) - his first act was to kiss the shoe of the Pontifex Maximus.

Not union of churches - this is nothing like what happens with Russian Church Abroad and patriarchal churches of all Rus. Both churches continue to exist - treat each other with respect. Yes, my friend. Use this as a model for unity!!

 

[dcointin]

The problem is that Catholics usually argue that the Church’s understanding of the papacy is founded in Holy Scripture, and has always been understood in the same way, the only difference being in how explicitly certain aspects of that office were defined. As such, the suggestion that there was a first millennium understanding of the papacy that is different than a second millennium understanding is impossible.

For example, the First Vatican Council states regarding the Pope:

“We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord…

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction…

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, let him be anathema.” [bold mine]

By elevating the this understanding of the Papacy to dogma, I just don’t see how the Catholic Church could ever return to a different understanding. To do so would admit to a change in dogma, which is impossible in Catholic theology. The only possibility is to attempt to reinterpret this understanding in a way that is more acceptable to Orthodox churches, which would on the face of it be disingenuous.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks Jon, for pointing this out. This clause pretty well describes Orthodox ‘synodal’ ecclesiology.

There is also the case of a Council (Ephesus) declaring the church of Cyprus to be autocephalic, since it was being targeted by another Metropolitan and the church leaders of Cyprus protested to the church council, it having already been traditionally self governing. The fathers of the council agreed with Cyprus and the Metropolitan of Antioch had to back off.

I too would like to see specifically what scottm was referring to.

The only reference I can think of is the 28th canon of Chalcedon. It does mention “privileges” of Old Rome that had been granted by “the fathers.” Of course it doesn’t go on to elucidate those privileges.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Gregory_I]

About the council of Nicea:

"One thing is certain: the early Latin version of the canons,
called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the Greek wording and made
the Canon read thus: “It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city
of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so that he should
govern with care the suburban places, AND ALL HIS OWN
PROVINCE.”(1) Another interesting reading is that found in several
MSS. which begins, “The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy
(primatum),” and as a matter of fact the early date of this addition is
evinced by the fact that the canon was actually quoted in this shape by
Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon.

Also, how about the Arabic Canon 39 of Nicea?

CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

IS this not an indication of The mentality of the church of the first millenium?

 

[Nine_Two]

Yep! First the Orthoodx need to set aside their pride and a total denial of the FACTS of the first millennium, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. Funny how Orthodoxs can never give a logical explanation when I present them of numerous cases where eastern bishops clearly wanted the Bishop of Rome to settle the issue…hhmmmm?

If the Bishop of Rome only had a title of honor and no primacy over any other bishops in far-distant lands,then why bother letting the Bishop of Rome settle the issue at all? Why not settle it in-house?

As I’ve already said, it is much more prideful to reject equality when it is offered, as the Orthodox have offered Rome, then it is to reject submission, as Rome has offered the Orthodox.

Take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on the splinter in ours.

 

[scottm]

Scott,
Which ecumenical councils established the primacy of Rome?

Council #2, in the year 381, set Constinople in second place after Rome. I think the first Council (year 325) had already set Rome in first place.

These Council decisions about the rankings of the patriarchs were political and practical, not theological. The archbishop of Los Angeles or London or Moscow today would have higher status than the archbishop of rural Tennessee. Same thing as what happened in the 300’s.