>>>I cannot get by the fact that Christ's promise and keys were given to one man, not several. Even though the office may have been
corrupted, does that nullify the office? Furthermore, since the forms on earth are patterns of the true in Heaven, according to Hebrews 9,
there can only be one head on earth as there is one glorious and eternal Head in Heaven.<<<

Of course, there are several ways of interpreting what the giving of the promise (remember, it was a promise) of the keys to Peter meant. The Fathers of the Church weren't so sure. The consensus, East and West, seems to be that it was given to Peter on behalf of ALL the Apostles, so that all share equally in the Apostolic charism, just as all of the successors of the Apostles share in the single Episcopal charism. From this general consensus, the West, not the East, seems to have gradually moved to a different understanding. For the West, Peter is the head of the Apostolic college, who is assisted by the other Apostles. For the East, Peter is first among the Apostles, who TOGETHER work towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, and who TOGETHER have authority and responsibility for the Church.

It is significant that throughout the Byzantine era, right down to the fall of the City, the Eastern Churches never--repeat, NEVER--denied the primacy of the Church of Rome. On the other hand, they objected to the way in which Rome had taken, unilaterally, to interpreting and exercising that primacy. The real turning point seems to have come with the transalpine reform of the papacy that brought a series of German monastics to the head of the Church of Rome. These monks, determined to stamp out abuses in the Western Church and to restore the dignity of the papacy, had very constrained horizons and little or no understanding of the relationship between the Papacy and the other Patriarchical Churches. Having devised a monarchical form of government to reform the Latin Church, they naturally tried to extend that model to the universal Church--and ran up against a millenium of the Apostolic Tradition. Intent on extending their "plena potestas" over the Eastern Churches, they also in their ignorance viewed authentic Eastern expression of theology and spirituality, as well as liturgical practices, as being evidence of heresy. Suspicious of diversity in any form (Gregory VII insisted that diversity was the mother of heresy), they insisted that Latin expressions and Latin practices were normative for all Christians, and tried to impose their views on the other Churches.

Now, in the third millennium, the Latin Church has recognized the various errors committed in its name over the last 1000 years with regard to the Eastern Churches. The Latin Church seeks a new definition of primacy, and new modalities of its exercise. One entirely positive development has been a recognition on the part of the Latin Church that the relationship between it and the Eastern Churches as it existed in the first millennium, before the separation, represents the normative manner in exercising the primacy.

Now, there are still some differences regarding exactly HOW the primacy was exercised in the first millennium. Settling that matter is the mission for objective, ecumenical scholarship, not for polemicists on either side. A great deal can already be acknowledged, including the fact that the Christian East knew nothing of the doctrine of infallibility (for that matter, neither did the West until the 13th century), and even moreso the East never recognized the concept of the pope's universal ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches.

The present pope seems to realize that primacy cannot be exercised in a juridical manner, but rather is a mystical ministry of service. Unfortunately, there seem to be many vested interests in the Latin Church, particularly in the curia, that are resistant to any devolution of power or reform based upon truly concilliar models (which is why the most important ecclesial reforms of Vatican II have never been implemented).

The cause of unity would be greatly helped if the Orthodox Church would take Pope John Paul II at his word, and participate in the dialogue to redefine the exercise of the primacy. To date, the Orthodox Church has been most forceful in stating what is unacceptable in the exercise of primacy; it has been less forthcoming in identifying what it will accept. A variety of Orthodox scholars, including Afanasiev, Meyendorff, Schmemmann, Erickson, Zizoulas, and d'Huillier have all noted this fact, and most attribute it to the fact that the Orthodox Church never actually got around to developing a coherent doctrine of primacy. That should be a fundamental task for Orthodox scholars and theologians, using the understandings of the first millennium as a model.

Byzantine Catholics have an interesting role to fill in this dialogue. Called as we are to be Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, we must live as if that ideal were a reality. This means that each of our particular Churches must act as a particular Church, not as an extension of the Roman Church. All attempts by the Latin Curia to impose Latin norms in liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline and doctrine must be opposed. All attempts to interfere in the internal life of our Churches should be resisted--to the point of schism, if needs be. Thus, e.g., in the matter of "special norms" governing the ordination of married men to the presbyterate in North America, each of our particular Churches should announce that they do not consider themselves bound by such laws that do not grant "equality of dignity" to the Byzantine rite as specified in the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches. Neither should we consider ourselves bound by Latin doctrines regarding marriage and divorce, where these conflict with the Byzantine Tradition. Patriarchical Churches should insist on the right to elect bishops in the "diaspora" just as they do in the historical territory of the Patriarchates. In short, the Byzantine Catholic Churches must act as though they really are Churches, and not mere rites of the Roman Church.

The Roman Church issues many promising ecumenical statements to the Orthodox, insisting on how communion with Rome in no way implies assimilation, on how Rome will not interfere with the inner life of the Eastern Churches. The Orthodox, of course, merely look at the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and shake their heads. They are left with the alternatives of thinking that Rome is either disingenuous or downright hypocritical. They see how we live, and they say, quite rightly, "If this is the meaning of communion with Rome, we can do without, thanks".

However, if we can reassert our independence, and live in accordance with the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition; if we can show that communion need not mean submission and assimilation, then the promises made by Rome will have more credibility, and the ideal of true unity of the Churches as a communion in the Holy Spirit will move closer to reality.

>>>It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The holy father is inviting dialogue on the form of the primacy intrinsic to the ministry of
the Bishop of Rome, not on the role of the papacy, as already defined by Vatican I.<<<

Keep telling yourself that if it gives you any comfort. The fact remains that the First Vatican Council is not truly an ecumenical council, but merely a general council of the Church of the West. Moreover, it was a deeply flawed council, and the constitution Pastor Aeternus represented a major departure from, or distortion of, the Apostolic Tradition, as was recognized by a very substantial majority of the bishops there present (who either made themselves absent on the day of the vote, or who refused to sign the required profession of faith); it was especially recognized by the Melkite Patriarch Gregory IV Yousef, who especially objected to the manner in which Pastor Aeternus overturned and nullified the dignity and authority of the Patriarchical office, reducing the Eastern Churches to mere administrative divisions within the Roman Church. He at first refused to sign the document, and finally did sign, but with the caveat "Except insofar as it conflicts with the traditional rights of the patriarchate"--which is to say, he accepted nothing at all.

The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution, went far towards overturning Pastor Aeternus, while simultaneously affirming it--the kind of cognitive dissonance (or sleight of hand) for which the Catholic Church is justly famous.

The process set in motion by the Second Vatican Council, particularly in its Decree on Ecumenism, and reiterated by Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, is a rollback of papal perogatives to those which were recognized by the universal Church in the first millennium. And it must be recognized that the imperial papacy defined by Pastor Aeternus was unknown in the first millennium, and would be unrecognizable even to such first millenium popes as SS Leo the Great and Gregory the Great (though I suspect that Gregory VII (who is just over the line) would have said Pastor Aeternus did not go far enough.

Dear Brother Stuart

Thank you for an enlightening post. I have often wondered if it is not indeed an unforgiving spirit which has fostered the continuing reticence for reunion between the Orthodox and Rome. Your post confirms my suspicions.

As I have continued my walk away from the Protestant Rebellion and towards the historic Catholic faith, I have found all the rhetoric over which is the true Church and who has valid orders to be most confusing and frustrating. Add to that my internal hesitancy towards any union with Rome, coming from 25 years of virulent anti-Catholic bigotry (don't smirk Orthodox, I called one of your priests an idol worshipper and had to later find him and repent of it) and the task of finding the Church has been an enormous hurdle for me, made much harder by the schism.

When my Protestant friends start to clobber the Church and defend their separation, I remind them that schism is not God's methodology for dealing with errors within the ecclesiology of His people. Although it has taken 1000 years, your statement on John Paul II shows that the wheels of God's justice do grind slowly, but they do get the job done. Now it seems that it is up to the Orthodox to extend the Olive Branch and get busy reuniting the Body. The abuses are past. Shall we let the past be the past, or is it a convenient club with which to beat others in to submission to our views? That is how Protestants work, rather than dealing with exegesis and hermeneutics.

Thank you for that post. Think I will print it out and save it for further reference and study.

Defensor Fides

Stuart,

Thank you for your posts. Aside from its sheer length, I will spend a great deal of time processing its content as well!

The truth be told, I find the definition of Vatican I quite UNcomfortable and inconvenient. My natural inclination is closer to the Orthodox position. Were it not for my faithful praying wife and an unwielding conscience, I could have become another Robert, with the chrism still drying from this past weekend. The fact is that I could not, in the face of the evidence, bring myself to deny the definition of Vatican I, for all of its limitations. But, such definitions are not intended, as I said in an earlier post, to capture the full mystery of the apostolic authority of the Church.

Additionally, I would also say whatever power of universal jurisdiction that Vatican I defined, it does not in any way shape or form replace the authority of the patriarch or local bishop. (Further clarifications were offered to that effect especially in response to the German government's reaction against the definition.) Vatican II changed nothing, and it is not an example of cognitive dissonance. It was, however, a needed conciliar correction in both popular perception and papal practice. It situated the Vatican I definition in the context of the very valid conciliar tradition of the Church - a balanced perspective which was not presented by Vatican I due (for the most part) to invading armies and the subsequent cessation of the council!

One additional point: Just because one has the RIGHT to act doesn't mean that one should act. Rights and pastoral sense can at times be in conflict. (Obligation is another thing altogether!) This is a principle which I believe is well demonstrated by the current Bishop of Rome.

I agree with many of your assessments of the abuse of papal perrogatives, though, especially with re: to the East. I pray that they are corrected someday soon.

Peace,

Gordo, sfo


[This message has been edited by Dozier (edited 04-24-2000).]

Dear Br. Ed,
I recommend reading the book of essays,"The Primacy of Peter," edited by Fr. John Meyendorff which can be purchased from St. Vladimer's Seminary Press. Another excellent book,"The Church of the Ancient Councils," by Archbishop Peter L'Huillier. This is probably enough for now. Happy reading.

Your brother in Christ,
Robert Sweiss

I am seriously considering either the
Byzantine Catholic Church or Russian
Orthodoxy, me being Roman Catholic myself.
I have several questions:
1. Is the Byzantine Catholic theological
and spiritual perspective identical with
that of the Orthodox?
2. I was wondering how could a Roman Catholic
hold onto a Byzantine or Orthodox perspective
without especially in areas that are disputed with Orthodox without being heretical
to his own beliefs?
3. or can these distinctively Roman Catholic beliefs be somehow reconciled with the
Byzantine/Orthodox viewpoint:
1. Papal Infallibility/Supremacy.
2. Purgatory/Indulgences.
3. Original Sin/Immaculate Conception.
4. Marian Assumption or Dormition.
5. Abortion/Contraceptives(exceptions
in rare cases rather than the Roman Catholic absolute stand on this).
6. Divorce(up to 3 times for Orthodox).
7. filioque.
8. Authority of ecumenical councils
(First seven for Orthodox rather
than the Roman-rite 21 councils).

Christos Voskres,
Jeff C.