I don't know if this has been considered here or not, but this is most interesting.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html


The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction
General Audience — February 24, 1993
In an earlier catechesis we spoke of the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of Peter. This succession has fundamental importance for fulfilling the mission that Jesus Christ handed on to the apostles and the Church.

The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church (cf. LG 22). This power, as well as that of all bishops, has a ministerial character (ministerium means service), as the Fathers of the Church had already observed.

The conciliar definitions on the Bishop of Rome's mission must be understood and explained in the light of this Christian tradition. It should be kept in mind that the traditional language used by the councils, especially the First Vatican Council, in regard to the powers of both the Pope and the bishops, uses terms proper to the world of civil law, which in this case must be given their correct ecclesial meaning.

Inasmuch as the Church is a group of human beings called to carry out in history God's plan for the salvation of the world, power in her appears as an indispensable requirement of mission. Nevertheless, the analogical value of the language used allows power to be conceived in the sense provided by Jesus' maxim on "power in order to serve" and by the Gospel idea of the pastoral leader. The power required by the mission of Peter and his successors is identified with this authoritative leadership guaranteed of divine assistance, which Jesus himself called the ministry (service) of a shepherd.

Having said that, we can reread the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: "We define that the Holy Apostolic See--and the Roman Pontiff--has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons" (DS 1307).

We know that historically the problem of the primacy was posed by the Eastern Church separated from Rome. The Council of Florence, trying to foster reunion, expressed the precise meaning of the primacy. It is a mission of service to the universal Church, which necessarily entails a corresponding authority precisely because of this service: the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs, according to the order of their dignity (cf. DS 1308).

For its part, Vatican I (1870) cited the Council of Florence's definition (cf. DS 3060) and, after mentioning the Gospel texts (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:16f.; Jn 21:15f.), expresses the meaning of this power in further detail. The Roman Pontiff "does not only have the office of inspection and direction," but enjoys "full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world" (DS 3064).

Attempts were made to reduce the Roman Pontiff's power to an "office of inspection and direction." Some proposed that the Pope be simply an arbiter of conflicts between local churches or that he merely give a general direction to the autonomous activities of the churches and of Christians with his counsel and exhortation. This limitation, however, did not conform to the mission Christ conferred on Peter. Therefore, Vatican I emphasized the fullness of papal power and defined that it is not enough to recognize that the Roman Pontiff "has the principal role." One must admit instead that he "has all the fullness of this supreme power" (DS 3064).

In this regard it would be well to clarify immediately that this "fullness" of power attributed to the Pope in no way detracts from the "fullness" also belonging to the body of bishops. On the contrary, one must assert that both the Pope and the episcopal body have "all the fullness" of power. The Pope possesses this fullness personally, while the body of bishops, united under the Pope's authority, possesses it collegially. The Pope's power does not result from simply adding numbers, but is the episcopal body's principle of unity and wholeness.

For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope's power "is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful" (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops' permission or mediation.

Vatican I's definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: "This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors..." (DS 3061).

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: "The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them." The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them "episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction"; that the Pope "is taking for himself the place of every bishop"; and that the bishops are merely "instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own" (DS 3115).

Now let us listen to the full, balanced and serene teaching of Vatican II, which states that "Jesus Christ, the eternal shepherd...willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in his Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, he placed blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion" (LG 18).

In this sense Vatican II speaks of the Bishop of Rome as "pastor of the entire Church," having "full, supreme and universal power" (LG 22). That power is "primacy over all, both pastors and faithful" (LG 22). "The individual bishops, insofar as their own discharge of their duty permits, are obliged to enter into a community of work among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, upon whom was imposed in a special way the great duty of spreading the Christian name" (LG 23).

According to the same council, the Church is also catholic in the sense that all Christ's followers must work together in the overall mission of salvation, each in his own apostolate. The pastoral work of all, however, and especially that collegial activity of the whole episcopate, attains unity through the Bishop of Rome's ministerium Petrinum. The Council again says: "The bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful" (LG 22). We should also add from the Council that, if the collegial power over the whole Church attains its particular expression in an ecumenical council, it is "the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them" (LG 22). Everything, then, depends on the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of unity and communion.

At this point we should again note that, if Vatican II adopted the tradition of the ecclesiastical Magisterium on the topic of the Bishop of Rome's ministerium Petrinum previously expressed at the Council of Florence (1439) and at Vatican I (1870), to its credit, when it repeated this teaching, it brought out the correlation between the primacy and the collegiality of the episcopate in the Church. Because of this new clarification the erroneous interpretations often made of Vatican I's definition are rejected and the full significance of the Petrine ministry is shown in its harmony with the doctrine of episcopal collegiality. Also confirmed was the Roman Pontiff's right "within the exercise of his own office to communicate freely with the pastors and flock of the entire Church," and this in regard to all rites (cf. DS 3060, 3062).

This does not mean claiming for the Successor of Peter powers like those of the earthly "rulers" of whom Jesus spoke (cf. Mt 20:25-28), but being faithful to the will of the Church's Founder, who established this type of society and this form of governance to serve the communion in faith and love.

To fulfill Christ's will, the Successor of Peter must assume and exercise the authority he has received in a spirit of humble service and with the aim of ensuring unity. Even in the various historical ways of exercising that authority, he must imitate Christ in serving and bringing into unity those called to be part of the one fold. He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims. He can never forget that the universal pastoral mission must entail a very profound participation in the Redeemer's sacrifice, in the mystery of the cross.

Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him" [1] .

[1] � Epist. ad Eulogium Alexandrinum, PL 77, 993

Wow - that is a great summary of the Catholic position. Thanks for posting it.

I especially liked:

"It is a mission of service to the universal Church, which necessarily entails a corresponding authority precisely because of this service: the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs, according to the order of their dignity."

God bless,

Gordo

This is an excellent summary of the Catholic position. It should also be clear now why the Orthodox Church will never accept this position. If Catholic theological representatives are bound by this position, then I don't see how we can progress any further in ecumenical talks. It is here I believe that we reach a stalemate since the Orthodox Church will never accept this position articulated by Pope John Paul II.

Joe

Agreed.

I do not believe it is as grim as our Orthodox interpolators would seem to indicate. There are some (Clement, Ware among others) on the Orthodox side of the aisle that believe that ecumenical dialogue can still be fruitful, and have even taken up John Paul�s request in Ut Unum Sint to offer an alternative view of the how the primacy could work in a unified Church. Further, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in a speech delivered at Graz in 1976, which he reiterated in his 1985 book "Principals of Catholic Theology" said that with regard to the primacy of the Pope, the Catholic Church can demand no more of the Orthodox than that which was believed and lived by the Church in the first millennium.

Bob

Amen, Bob.

Here are two of Cardinal Ratzinger's quotes:

"Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse."

"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."

So if Cardinal Ratzinger is correct, then the dogmas proclaimed by Vatican I and II are historically relative and open to revision?

In Orthodoxy we certainly recognize the role of a Petrine primacy in the bishop of Rome. We hold that the Pope is the first among equals and has a primacy of honor. We also hold that this was the teaching and practice of the ancient Church. So all the vatican has to do is revise its doctrine of primacy to match the ancient teaching, that the Pope plays an important role in the life of the Church, but that the Pope does not have full jurisdictional power over all Churches. Rather the Pope has something like an "office of inspection" and has a particular moral authority (when preaching the truth) to encourage and exhort his brethren in the Churches. This is an authority that is not unconditional and it is an authority that is always subject to the ecumenical councils so that it is indeed possible, and in fact at times necessary, to appeal from a pope's decision to an ecumenical council when the pope teaches falsely.

If Catholic theologians can accept this, then I think we are on the road to unity.

Joe

Although it is not officially adopted by either side, I think the "Ravenna Document" issued by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at its 10th Plenary Session in October 2007 comes closest to an agreed understanding of the Bishop of Rome's primacy as the "protos" of all bishops on the universal level.

The Orthodox delegations (13 Autocephalous Churches; Bulgaria's delegates were absent) voted unanimously in favor of this concept! (The Russian delegation walked out prior to the issuance of the document and the ROC-MP subsequently issued a statement "repudiating" it.)

Hopefully, the next session of the International Commission (probably next year) will tackle the "prerogatives" of the Bishop of Rome as the agreed universal "protos."

Amado

Joe,

It is important to note two points:

1) Cardinal Ratzinger's full quote on the subject includes more than what was quoted earlier (see here for a more in-depth quoting of the matter, and see the book for the full context). Specifically, part of the passage includes the following:



Obviously, this part of the proposal would meet some resistance in the East.

2) It is not agreed by all how exactly primacy was "formulated and lived in the first millennium." Neither the developments of Vatican I nor common modern Eastern conception of primacy encompasses the totality of this practice as it existed in the first millennium. In fact, it is impossible to even specifically define the practice of primacy over such a large amount of time. Are we talking about how primacy was practiced in the 1st century, the 2nd century, the 9th century? Obviously the concept of primacy evolved in both East and West during this time, so even Ratzinger's proposal, which I think is one of the most open proposals of any Western figure, is fraught with many stipulations and problems.

Exactly!

The only issue that seems obvious to me, is that there was never a papal jurisdictional "supremacy" in the early Church. And of course, infallibility was not a papal charism.

Francis,

Very good points. The more complete text of Cd. Ratzinger gives us much food for thought.

Joe

I think that this is essentially right, that the Pope can serve as universal "protos" among the bishops with a great deal of moral authority and perhaps even some jurisdictional authority to hear appeals, to call a Council, etc. But these two ideas:

1) the immediate, universal, and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church 2) the charism of infallibility

would have to be jettisoned.

Joe

Joe,

Would you think the charism of infallibility (in regard to Bishops in Council and the Pope) would have to be jettisoned if it were more clearly explained as an extension of the same infallibility given to the Church?

Is it a bit premature to discuss what would have to be jettisoned? It maybe helpful to think of it in terms of what needs to be discussed, and worked out, perhaps by an ecumenical council. Do the Orthodox have any "official teaching," in regard to the Primacy and Papal purgatives?

Certain points made by JPII should be considered in the discussion which has ensued:

1.

2.

It seems to me that any understanding of "supreme jurisdiction" must take into account the "analogical value of the language" and "power as indispensable requirement of mission--power to serve."


Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) has enlightened the Church with respect to the primacy of the Pope and his teaching authority. He stated:



See http://www.cin.org/avatar/ratzcons.html

And Orthodoxy needs to look at just what was the understanding of this primacy too!
Stephanos I

The question of the "Ratzinger solution" and what precisely he intended was clarified some 11 years later with the publication of Church, Ecumenism and Politics. I quote from the Crossroad 1988 edition, pp. 81-82.



I believe that the "Ratzinger solution", which can be and has been easily misunderstood by many (including yours truly), must be seen in light of this further clarification. He never intended to say that the Councils held for the most part by the Church in the West in the second millennium should not be regarded as ecumenical or authoritative.

In ICXC,

Gordo

So it is clear then that Rome regards papal infallibility and papal supremacy (universal, immediate jurisdiction) as something already implicit in the faith in the ancient Church; hence, non-negotiable. So we are back where we started. There cannot be reunion because we cannot accept these doctrines into Orthodoxy.

I realize that Roman Catholic authorities talk about a reform of the way that the primacy is exercised without touching the essence of the papal dogmas, but this is unacceptable to the Orthodox Church. It is the papal dogmas themselves that we regard as being wrong. It is not just a question of how the authority is exercised but a question of what authority Rome actually has. If the doctrine of the papal primacy must be held in its developed form in its entirety, as the CDF reminded the Melkites, then talk about union is over. At best, we can only have mutual respect, charity, and a willingness to cooperate with one another on social issues.

Joe

Yes. And that is why I believe that the ongoing Orthodox/Catholic theological dialogue is a waste of time. The Orthodox Church is not going to compromise on these issues and the Catholic Church is not going to rescind their dogmas. It is fruitless.

Sorry to sound like the pessimist.

Joe,

This really has never been in doubt. Pope John Paul II made this clear when, in his request for closer dialogue on this issue, he distinguished between the received dogmas and doctrines and the manner of the exercise of the Papacy, which has certainly not always been praiseworthy, although it was not all bad either.

As to whether these doctrines could ever be received by the Orthodox churches, one never knows. But the Catholic Church cannot be asked to be less than what it is and what has been defined as constitutive to its nature. I for one believe as an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome that it is possible to be reconciled, hence my theological and ecclesial position vis-a-vis the Apostolic Church of Rome. Were I to believe otherwise, I can assure you that I would not - could not - remain.

God bless,

Gordo

I am sorry for your pessimism as well. I think that there is great reason for optimism on a number of levels, not the least of which is the growing charity between our Churches and the enriching dialogue. The dialogues and growing collaboration are hardly fruitless.

But if you had a hope that the Catholic Church would publicly renounce her dogmas (as opposed to properly clarifying and balancing them out), I'm afraid your hope was based on an unfortunately false premise.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo, I respect your point of view. It seems to me that at bottom, the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is really about each side trying to convince the other that they are right. The Catholic party strives to convince the Orthodox party that Rome's teachings are correct and the Orthodox party attempts to convince the Catholic party that Rome's teachings are not correct. I think that this is fine as long as it is intellectually honest.

Joe

I don't think that the dialogue is fruitless as long as we are realistic and intellectually honest. I don't think union can be achieved, but certainly mutual understanding, charity, and cooperation where possible is something that can be achieved. I personally do not believe that we will ever see reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But I do think that we can overcome some of the historical squabbles between the Churches and move toward greater mutual recognition and respect. Indeed, this has already happened thanks to the dialogue.

Joe

Joe,

Agreed, with the exception of the hoped for reunion. Hope is not a certain knowledge, but a supernatural virtue. I continue to hope, out of love for my Orthodox brothers and sisters and for the good of the Catholic Church, that the Holy Spirit can achieve such a reunion.

God bless, my brother.

Gordo

The "Ravenna Document" was the main topic of discussion by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation at their 74th meeting last week (hosted this time around by the Orthodox) at Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, from June 2 to 4.

http://usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-084.shtml

If our respective hierarchs and theologians continue to talk like this with honesty, there is always hope for mutual understanding or compromise.

These dialogues (on the international and regional levels) by respected Church theologians carry some weight, don't you think?

Amado

Amado,

What kind of compromise do think can be reached specifically regarding the role and nature of the papacy?

Joe

At the very least - talkin's better than fightin'!

As to Petrine primacy/supremacy - the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox seem to lean toward a Latin-like practice, while still holding a sort of Byzantine-like Conciliarity. The Syriac Orthodox quote the same Scriptural verses as Latins in regard to the Apostle Peter to show the importance and primacy of the Antiochian See.

Here is a question primarily for my Orthodox brethren, "How much can we Orthodox compromise in order to achieve union?" Perhaps, there is another way of construing papal primacy that would be acceptable both to us and to the Catholic party?

Joe

Brother Joe, in Christ,

I sincerely think that the Holy Orthodox Church cannot do any compromise, for she has fullness of faith and truth. The truth cannot be negotiated.

I have this faith: Sts. Paul and Peter went to Rome, the Resurrection of Christ was known, the Christian Church thrived, despite savage and hard oppressions. God's will. If God wants reunion, then He will enlighten the two Churches in His own time.

m+

Joe,

Honestly, I don't know what the "compromise" will be!

But judging from the breakthrough "Ravenna Document," the initial "compromise" would be what the Orthodox have already accepted about the Papacy, plus the Pope being the "protos" of the universal (i.e., a reunited) Church. This has to be officially adopted and recognized by both sides. The only hurdle is the ROC-MP.

Supremacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility will take a longer and deeper discussion by the International Commission. But, the Pope now being accepted and recognized as "protos" of the universal Church, these two attributes tacked by the Catholic Church to the "Petrine ministry" should become logical ultimately if only to give meat to the authority of the universal "protos."

Amado

I would also add that a benefit of the refining nature of dialog is a further clarification of what precisely is essential and what is only transitory in terms of definitions around the papal ministry. So many historical additions to the role of the Pope, such as the naming of bishops for other Churches, are clearly not constitutive of this ministry.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Remember that such documents, in themselves, do not (and cannot) commit either the Catholics or the Orthodox. These are documents for the Synods, episcopal conferences, and Local Churches to respond to and comment upon.

Fr. Serge

I think two things need to happen:

Resolving the issue of Constantinople IV and accepting that use of the Filioque is an acceptable local practice. I could compromise on that.

We need to return to the pre schism situation. In other words all councils held without participation of Orthodoxy could not be viewed as anything but local councils which would have no binding status on a reconciled church.

Beyond that I think we need to not think about a grand re-union, but a reconciliation that involves the two sides existing basically as they are with mutual recognition and the ability to pastorally care for members of the other church in a uniform way.

Not one jot, jittle or iota. We believe that we have preserved the Faith in it's entirety. To compromise the Faith for some "feel good" sense of reunion is to fall squarely under the definition of the heresy of ecumenism. When our Lord met the woman at the well. "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews," he said. "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." (Jn 4:22,23)

For Our Lord Jesus, Truth was not relative. Worship and doctrine were not matters of personal opinion. He was, in fact, that Truth. There was one faith revealed to the world and one Messiah who had come to save it�the Jews first, but then ultimately Samaritans and Gentiles, disciples being made of all nations.

For the Orthodox Christian there can be no deviation from the fact that Orthodox is that very faith of the apostles which has established the Universe. For long before there were papacies and protestants, the Orthodox faithful have proclaimed what the apostles taught, what the councils have decreed. This we believe; this we confess in word and in deed and which we depict in the Holy Icons.

Truth has been revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ, not a partial truth, not a theory about truth, but truth indeed, God in the flesh reconciling the world unto himself. The repository of that truth is first and foremost the Church, the Body of Christ, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells. That Church, founded on the day of Pentecost, and forever withstanding all the assaults of hell, is the Orthodox Church. Neither denomination nor sect, neither religion nor philosophical system, she invites the entire universe to enter into to communion with her Head, even Jesus Christ. She is the Church Catholic because her teaching is full; she is Orthodox because her worship is right.
An essential question must be answered. Are we, or are we not, the Church of Christ? That is, is Orthodoxy true? The response of the ecumenical movement is that it is not.

If the Orthodox Church, through a desire to work ecumenically with the separated bodies of Christendom ceases to proclaim that this is the True Faith, that this is the Church, then we are being lied to, as well as lying to ourselves. The adult convert has had to declare in public at his conversion: "I believe and confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation, which was in the Ark of Noah at the flood." Yet such a belief is incumbent upon each Orthodox, whether adult convert or Orthodox from the age of forty days. It ultimately decides whether or not he believes this to be true. How each Orthodox Christian lives, the moral values he seeks to inculcate in his children. the vision of the future, of America, of the world, that is, of the oikoumene, that God has revealed himself unto us, that we have found the true faith, will determine how he has answered this question.

Alexandr

This is true.

Has there been any example of these documents influencing any official teaching?

God bless,

Gordo

Joe,

I would like to ask a clarifying question here. Compromise regarding what? If the fullness of magisterial and dogmatic teaching authority which is binding on all Orthodox Christians resides solely with an Ecumenical Council, precisely which dogma defined by which Ecumenical Council would need to be compromised?

God bless,

Gordo

A compromise would probably need to be agreed upon regarding the Filioque as I stated above. (although I'm not Joe)