www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Deacon John Petrus Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 01:44 AM
A couple of weeks back, Moderator Fr. Dcn. John Montalvo closed the thread on "Peter is the Rock." He suggested that a new one be started on Petrine Primacy, so here it is.

There are three things that have intrigued me on this subject and have nothing to do with the famous Peter's confession.

The first of these was described by Ray Brown. He discusses the ascendency of prominence of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles. That is, as Acts unfolds, Peter takes on a more authoritative role.

Secondly, it is only when Paul disagrees with the need for circumcision and the following of the dietary laws that he seeks out the apostles, and especially Peter. To me, he would only do this if Peter held a great level of authority, even greater than Paul's (which is why Paul had to set the record straight).

Finally, the Petrine See is also the Pauline See. The Authority of the Bishop of Rome derives from both.

John, Deacon
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 02:31 AM
You list the subject title 'Petrine PRIMACY'. The Orthodox Catholic Church has never had a problem with 'Petrine Primacy'. It does however, have a problem with 'Petrine Supremacy'.

The problems arose when the Pope wasn't satisfied with a 'primacy of honor' but opted for a 'supremacy over all'. The problem was further enhanced when the Pope wasn't satisfied with being the 'successor of St Peter' but opted to be the successor of Christ himself by making himself the 'Vicar of Christ on earth'!

So a better subject for discussion would be 'Petrine Supremacy'.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 02:59 AM
Bob,

Could you at least make an attempt to actually discuss the issue from an Orthodox viewpoint rather than set up straw men? The issue is a complex one and there are numerous Orthodox theologians you can turn to for an accurate presentation of the Orthodox perspective. To try to reduce it to a pope being hungry for power is just silly and polemical. You do a disservice to Orthodoxy when you set up straw men rather than put forth a well reasoned Orthodox viewpoint.

Regarding the �Vicar of Christ� comment we have discussed this many times. The reason we kiss the hand of a bishop or priest is because he stands in the place of Christ. He is the visible presence of Christ before us. The title is not one belonging to Orthodoxy but the theology behind it is not un-Orthodox.

Admin
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 03:54 AM
[Could you at least make an attempt to actually discuss the issue from an Orthodox viewpoint rather than set up straw men? The issue is a complex one and there are numerous Orthodox theologians you can turn to for an accurate presentation of the Orthodox perspective.]

Administrator: Who's setting up a straw man? The issue regarding the Pope is not one of just 'primacy' alone. Its the type of 'primacy' which is the issue. And you know it as well as I. Only I choose to call it what it really is rather than sugar coat it with a lot of RC mumble jumble.

Added to the self proclaimed titles of the Pope such as 'Universal Bishop' & 'SUPREME Pontiff'..... 'Vicar of Christ' has a very different meaning to those within the Roman Catholic Church and its sui juris appendages than it does to an Orthodox Catholic.

And, I have addressed to issue by quoting Orthodox replies on the subject matter. Do a search on some of my replies from the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue going on regarding the issue being discussed.

My point being lets call it what it really is - Papal Supremacy since we Orthodox Catholics don't have a problem with 'Papal Primacy' within the context that it was for most of the first millenium.

Orthodoc
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 01:52 PM
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
The problems arose when the Pope wasn't satisfied with a 'primacy of honor' but opted for a 'supremacy over all'. The problem was further enhanced when the Pope wasn't satisfied with being the 'successor of St Peter' but opted to be the successor of Christ himself by making himself the 'Vicar of Christ on earth'!
Bob,

You have attempted to render the whole issue to merely one of a power-hungry pope. Further, you have not responded to any of the three issues that Father Deacon John has put forth for discussion. Your post is nothing more than an attempt to set up a straw man (which you do quite regularly). Your effort just won�t work because the issue is more complex. What East and West differ on is the nature of the primacy of Rome. Name calling (i.e., sui juris appendages) may make you feel better but it really only succeeds in showing you as a person who does not have any respect for other Christians. Why cannot you participate by imitating the style of the late Fathers Alexander Schmemann or John Meyendorff (Memory Eternal!)? Both managed in their writings to powerfully present the Orthodox position on papal primacy without resorting to either name-calling or quote wars.

If you honestly believe that Rome is capable of speaking nothing but �RC mumble jumble� I suggest that your argument is really with the representatives of your own Church, who participate in the official Catholic/Orthodox dialogue. Perhaps you need to work at convincing them how horribly evil Rome is in your eyes and ask them to cut off all dialogue with the Catholic Church.

Admin
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 02:15 PM
Dear Orthoman,

Perhaps it is your tenor of speech that might be the problem? smile

Ultimately, though, I see what you wrote as being "spot on."

The Roman papacy filled a vacuum with the absence of a strong secular authority in the person of a Roman emperor.

This development is now critiqued even by RC scholars who see in it something that not only had nothing to do with the Church and the Gospel, but as something that led even to the tensions in the West that resulted in the Reformation.

Perhaps you could tell us more about how a reformed Papacy that might be acceptable to Orthodoxy should function?

God bless,

Alex
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 02:24 PM
Quote
Alex wrote:
Ultimately, though, I see what you wrote as being "spot on."
I disagree. Bob�s argument is nothing but straw because of his lack of charity. Those who wish to understand the Orthodox position on this issue should turn to the writings of Orthodox theologians. Bob�s posts only detract from this understanding.

Quote
Alex wrote:
The Roman papacy filled a vacuum with the absence of a strong secular authority in the person of a Roman emperor. This development is now critiqued even by RC scholars who see in it something that not only had nothing to do with the Church and the Gospel, but as something that led even to the tensions in the West that resulted in the Reformation.
While there is certainly a historical development of the petrine primacy I know of no legitimate RC scholar who believes that petrine primacy is based on fiction. Alex, can you please provide an example (with references) of the argument of one of these scholars?
Posted By: Unity In Christ Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 02:29 PM
I have a book called "Jesus, Peter, and The Keys" which I have read "bits, pieces, and sections" of since I got it about 6 years ago.

Now I am reading it from front to back, and marking up the margins with penciled notes. I wonder if some of you might find it interesting as well.

The book looks at the Papacy from several viewpoints....Scripture, Tradition, and modern scholars. It makes use of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant resources.

I'm guessing the book is still available.

The full title is: Jesus, Peter, and the Keys
A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

Authors: Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgreen, and David Hess
Posted By: Father Deacon Ed Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 03:58 PM
From a purely historical standpoint the primacy of Peter is not debated by Catholic or Orthodox as far as I can tell. The role of the pope in the universal Church (a sneeky way of avoiding the word "catholic" -- even if lower case) is something that requires careful study and examination.

While Alex correctly points out that the lack of imperial leadership in Rome led to the pope taking over both the spiritual and political leadership of Rome, this development is, IMNSHO, an accident of history. However, because of the problems faced by Rome the development of theology in the West was stagnated and, consequently, they did not have to deal with the early heresies that plagued the East. This accidental purity of theology led the East to ask the West to intervene in several debates.

Finally, the fact that the Latin Church grew to be so large that the Patriarch of the West had authority over some 80% of Christianity directly has to be considered in this equation.

These three items seem to be the springboard for the modern papacy and its "supremacy." That the role of the pope today is not what the Early Church envisioned is pretty much acknolwedged by all. The Holy Father himself has called for dialog on what the role of the papacy might be.

If we set aside the issue of the Orthodox Church in this problem, there is still an issue for Eastern Catholics, especially those in Patriarchal Churches. If the rights and prerogatives of these Churches are to be honored, the pope really has to keep a "hands off" relationship with them. On the other hand, Scripture records that Peter's charge is to "build up the brethren" which suggests an "elder brother" sort of approach in which he may gently, fraternally, correct. I'm certain that all will agree that such correction, when it has been given, has been neither gentle nor fraternal. Yet, the writings of the popes has, for the most part, reflected a sensitivity that has not always been present on the part of the hierarchy that has dealt with the East.

Where, then, do we go with this? I submit that the model of the Early Church is incomplete as it reflected an organism that was still growing -- much as the model of Acts does not reflect the model of the pentarchy (the five Patriarchal Churches). Yet, in the Early Church we must find the roots for what is to be used.

The reason I don't see the Patriarchal model working today is something that is near and dear to the heart of our Administrator -- the fact that we no longer honor the "one city, one bishop" rule.

What has happened is simple: the Patriarch of the West has subjects all over the world so he is, in effect, the Patriarch of the World since all Latin Catholics belong to him. This condition does not apply to Orthodoxy since they mostly retained, until the Americas, the principle of one bishop, one city. Yet, even there we find difficulty as there are Greek Orthodox in Russian territories and Russian Orthodox in Greek territories. This dilution of clear boundaries is something that must be addressed.

However, I do believe that we can derive a model from the Pentarchy that is workable. Each Patriarch would have the ultimate voice in "his" Church. All would meet as brothers with the pope having a "primacy of honor" (primus inter pares -- first among equals) coupled with the function of fraternal correction. This correction is to be applied not in disiplinary matters, but only in matters of theology -- and even then only in matters where a schism would result should the issue not be resolved.

All juridic authority of the pope over those Churches in communion with him must be surrendered. I can see no solution that would be possible without this.

Edward, deacon and sinner
Posted By: paromer Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 07:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FrDeaconEd:


All juridic authority of the pope over those Churches in communion with him must be surrendered. I can see no solution that would be possible without this.

FrDeaconEd,

Yes, I think what you are suggesting is occurring since V-II. It is a work in process.

I might add that modern popes have been the greatest cheerleaders, if I may use that term, on behalf of the Eastern Churches.

As succesor of St. Peter, the Holy Father is the "Big Gun" who can come in handy to help restore and maintain the patrimony of the Christian Churches of the East.

2-cents.

Regards,

Paul
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 07:52 PM
Well yes perhaps "juridic authority" has to and can be surrended. But there will always be times when it is necessary for the Pope of Rome, as the appeal of the last court, to be juridically involved in another Patriarchate, as was the case in the first millenium. As first among equals the repsonsibiity for maintaining unity still fall upon him as head of the Episcopal College.

Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 08:32 PM
Dear Administrator,

First of all, I apologise for my attempt at trying to be conciliatory. It was none of my business and I shouldn't have stuck my nose in.

Secondly, I referred to the historical development of the papacy as a monarchical institution, not to the petrine primacy itself.

There are RC discussions on this development galore and I recently purchased a book with a number of such discussions that is currently on loan from my private home library.

When I get it back, I will be happy to share the particular details of it. Although I suspect that when someone asks for particular details about sources, as you have, it is simply an expression of dismay, anger. disappointment or disgust - or all of the preceding.

And it's not like you're hearing about this issue from the RC standpoint for the first time.

Again, I'm sorry to have butted in when my comments were not asked for.

Alex
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 08:49 PM
Alex,

Thank you for your post. It puts what you stated earlier in a better context. I agree that there are some good RC studies that separate the development of petrine primacy from that of the petrine civil-monarchy (for a lack of a better term). Your original post seemed to be stating that the RC scholars believed that the development of petrine primacy was merely secular and not rooted in the Gospel

I do admit to a certain level of dismay, anger, disappointment and disgust! When someone mentions something very interesting I find it extremely annoying when they do not provide a reference so that I can investigate further. Please do post the references when you have the opportunity.

Admin
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 08:56 PM
Dear Administrator,

Well, I have noticed that the scholarly level of this forum has risen considerably over the past several months!

I have always enjoyed reading on these topics and usually have a good memory for what is written.

But a very bad one for authors, book titles, publishing houses, dates of issue and Library of Congress numbers.

Perhaps I'll take one of those memory courses - after I'm settled into a new line of work.

Alex
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 09:09 PM
Quote
Father Deacon Ed wrote:
The reason I don't see the Patriarchal model working today is something that is near and dear to the heart of our Administrator -- the fact that we no longer honor the "one city, one bishop" rule.
Let me throw this out as something to consider. While I certainly do believe that we need to return to the �one city, one bishop� rule I also believe in economy. I can envision, by way of economy, that, in a reunited Church, the Roman Catholics in Russia could continue in separate jurisdictions yet still be subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow. Such dioceses could co-exist (at least for several generations) and the bishops of those dioceses would be members of the Patriarchal Synod. Similar arrangements could be made in other countries. In Italy, for example, the Russian Orthodox would become subject to the Patriarch of Rome (the pope). In Ukraine, the Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox would become subject to the Patriarch of Kiev. This method would allow a return to the �once city, one bishop� rule at least at the patriarchal level. I invite a critique of this idea.

-

Father Deacon John Petrus, can you please elaborate on the three points you made?

In the Acts of the Apostles Peter�s role does ascend. At the Council of Jerusalem Peter�s words were given the greatest weight and really solved the issue.

Paul logically seeks out the other apostles to help him convince Peter of his position because he knows that Peter has the final say.

The Petrine See is also the Pauline See. Is it reasonable to claim petrine authority on this basis? I�m not clear about this third point and welcome further development of this point.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 10:01 PM
Dear Administrator,

And Paul makes it a point to call Peter "Cephas" or "Rock" as if to underline Peter's status.

The fact that Paul also makes it a point to say that he disagreed with Peter is significant.

Why would he not mention others who doubtless would have shared Peter's views in that matter?

Also, Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote that it is only in connection with Peter did Christ use the term "We."

Alex
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/03/03 11:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FrDeaconEd:


That the role of the pope today is not what the Early Church envisioned is pretty much acknolwedged by all.
Not by me.

With all reverence, Fr. Deacon Ed, would St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians make any sense if the Petrine office were "equal" to every other bishop in the so-called "Early Church"?

It doesn't make sense to say that the juridical primacy of the Pope is a mere accident of history that can be done away with just like that. The Pope's juridical primacy, from the first century to today, has always been seen by Catholics as an integral part of the Petrine ministry. St. Augustine was part of the "Early Church," and even earlier was St. Irenaeus, yet they both had some pretty strong words to say about the Universal Primacy of the Pope.

Did the exercize of Papal authority develop over time? Assuredly. Particularly in the temporal sphere. It was there that the Papacy filled the vacuum left behind by the fall of the western empire. Yet, in the ecclesiastical sphere, I believe that the universal jurisdictional/magisterial primacy was always there. IMHO the "primacy of honor alone" position is actually an innovation that resulted from the political ascendancy of Constantinople. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

LatinTrad
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 02:37 PM
Dear LT,

There should be no question that the Bishop of Rome's authority derived from the Apostles - but the notion of jurisdiction nad nothing to do with it.

Jurisdiction was a much later development that first came into being at Alexandria where the term "Pope" was first used (the early Bishops of Rome NEVER used that title).

And the Pope of Alexandria had what can be called immediate and direct jurisdiction not only over every region of his African patriarchate - but over every priest as well.

The Bishop of Rome was first referred to as "His Beatitude" and he originally did not have direct jurisdiction over all of Italy.

In fact, that wasn't necessary for him to exercise his petrine ministry over the entire Church.

The jurisdictional aspect related to his status as patriarch of the West - not his role as Supreme Pastor.

St Clement was a direct student of Peter and Paul, worked closely with them, and when he spoke, he spoke with their authority to defend the teachings that he knew the Chief Apostles would have defended themselves.

St Clement, by the way, was adopted by St Volodymyr as the patron Saint of his Kyivan Rus Empire and he dedicated his royal chapel to St Clement - while St Yaroslav the Wise ensured an icon of him was in his Cathedral of St Sophia.

And Kazachya Bay on the Black Sea has been renamed "St Clement's Bay" in honour of the 950th anniversary of his martyrdom.

Alex
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 04:31 PM
SOrry I don't have time to post a real reply right now.


Alex, what you are saying does not jibe with my reading of even the earliest Fathers.

LatinTrad
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 04:35 PM
Dear LT,

Reading them is one thing.

Interpreting them is quite another!

Alex
Posted By: C4C Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 05:57 PM
One must remember how the Idea of Supremacy came about. In 451 Pope Leo turned Attila the Hun around at the river Po. The Popes prestige grew enormously. At the Council of Chalcedon the Fathers exclaimed "Peter has spoken through Leo. Let him be anathema who believes otherwise".So the popular belief that power granted to Peter had been passed on to his successors took root in the west, latter becoming doctrine.

In 554 on Aug 15 a special edict called the Pragmatic Sanctions was issued by Emperor Justinian gave the Pope cival authority over Rome.Then came the anointing of the Western kings with Apostolic authority for the protection of Rome because Constantinople had to face other invaders from the East and couldnt provide an Army or the such.
Then in 753 Pope Stephen 2nd fled Rome because it was taken by the Lombards.So he anointed Pepin a second time as king and asked Pepin to come to his aid. Pepin invaded and handed over the territories to the See of Peter. Thus originated the Papal claim to absolute power over territories that belonged legally to the Empire.These would become the "States of the Church".
And to add to Supremacy at the accession to the See of Peter, Pope Leo 3rd sent the proclamation documents to King Charlemagne instead of the Emperor of Byzantium. He also sent the keys of the "Confessio Sancti Petri" and the standard of the city.

This is when the seperation really took place between East and West. On Dec 25 800ad pope Leo crowned Charlemagne Emporor of Rome. This broke the single headedness of the empire.In the new west spiritual power had been linked to power of the state and were seen as absolute and this will pit Kings against Popes for centuries and stayed that way untill the great reformation of of continential Europe and the schism of Henery 8th in England.

Now I think that the Papacy has taken on the role that Gregory the 3rd had invisioned "he was Antiochian",he tried to keep Rome above politics and interdependant from cival authority.But the air of Supremacy still lingers in the East and this is what truly needs to be addressed.

My strawman sources include I Legge, JM Hussey,Nicolas zernov,Krauss,Diehl,Joseph Raya

Poorsinner Chad
Posted By: ByzantineAscetic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 06:07 PM
This Topic again, even im getting tired of it.
Best thing to do is read the Primacy of Peter and the Book the TWO Paths: Papal Monary and Church collegial Tradion.

Daniel
Posted By: Father Deacon Ed Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 06:19 PM
LT,

If you want to see the truth of this, there are several books I can recommend. Try Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Fr. Bokenkotter is both a priest and a historian. There are numerous other sources, but this is an easy read.

Edward, deacon and sinner
Posted By: Anthony Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 06:57 PM
I haven't read the first book, but would definitely not recommend the second one. It is very poorly written and weak on the history and theology of the issues discussed.

In Christ,
Anthony

Quote
Originally posted by ByzantineAscetic:
This Topic again, even im getting tired of it.
Best thing to do is read the Primacy of Peter and the Book the TWO Paths: Papal Monary and Church collegial Tradion.

Daniel
Posted By: Deacon John Petrus Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 07:01 PM
Administrator asked:

Quote
The Petrine See is also the Pauline See. Is it reasonable to claim petrine authority on this basis? I�m not clear about this third point and welcome further development of this point.
A point that does not seem to be often mentioned regarding this whole "primacy" thing is Peter's martyrdom. The Petrine confession was sealed in his martyrdom, a martyrdom that was realized in Rome. However, this is also the same site and the same fate (and the same date?)met by Paul.

Earlier Popes received their pontificates in the Basilica of St. Peter and then moved on to the Basilica of St. Paul to complete their installations. Even now, the See celebrates its apostolicity on the feast of the two saints.

The See itself recognizes this duality of Authority. One way to envision this is that, from Peter, the See receives its juridical authority and from Paul it receives its moral authority. One without the other is "like the sound of one hand clapping" (Oh, wait, wasn't that from the Buddha?).

from "The World According to John and the Buddha"

John

Point for Reflection: Could it not be said that the rock on which Christ was to build his Church was on Peter's martyrdom, the ultimate demonstration of faith?

Now talk amongst yourselves.
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 07:20 PM
Yeah but St. Augustine makes clear that the primacy of the Roman see does NOT come from Paul at all, but from St. Peter, who bade his successor to sit on the same seat on which he had sat.

LT
Posted By: Father Deacon Ed Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 08:15 PM
LT,

As you know, the Latin Church's teaching holds that we do not look at a single Doctor of the Church or a single Church Father for authoritative teachings. The Church incorporates what is appropriate from the whole spectrum of those who have lived in Faith before us. Augustine brings a particularly Latin approach since he was more Latin than Eastern.

If one examines all the Church Fathers, then there is a certain primacy that belongs to Rome, but it is not juridic in nature. At the same time, this primacy is more than just one of honor (a point I did not make clear earlier).

Edward, deacon and sinner
Posted By: Administrator Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 08:31 PM
Quote
LT wrote:
Yeah but St. Augustine makes clear that the primacy of the Roman see does NOT come from Paul at all, but from St. Peter, who bade his successor to sit on the same seat on which he had sat.
LT,

Who is St. Augustine? Should we have heard of him? biggrin

Admin
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 08:41 PM
Dear Administrator,

Yes, I think he is the patron of Hippo's (?) wink

Alex
Posted By: Amadeus Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 08:42 PM
Dear Admin:

Touche!

(I did not know you had a healthy sense of humor!)

Does Bl. Augustine ring a bell? biggrin

AmdG
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 09:00 PM
Dear Amado,

Not every Orthodox tradition refers to "Blessed Augustine."

An Orthodox priest told me that the Greeks refer to him as "St Augustine the Great."

(And what did you think of my quip above? Don't you believe in giving people equal time?)

Alex
Posted By: Amadeus Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 09:12 PM
Dear Alex:

I know yours was the better repartee!

It just so happened that your rejoinder was posted a minute, or less, before mine registered.

Now, are you mollified, BIG GUY? wink

(The ambience of the Forum oozes with Santa's jollity when you and the good Admin are on a ping-pong friendly exchange! biggrin )

Oooops!

Amado
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/04/03 09:17 PM
Dear Amado,

When the Administrator calls me up on the carpet, I know I've deserved it.

Most times, that is . . .

Fad saol agat! (Gaelic for "many years!")

Magandang Gabi (Filipino for . . . well, you know!).

Alex
Posted By: Deacon John Petrus Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/05/03 02:06 AM
Fr. Deacon Ed's last post reminded me of another dimension that has caused me consternation.

When many Orthodox discuss the faulty union at the Council of Florence, they rightly bring out that the Council was not ratified by the faithful, that history did not bear it out as a truly ecumenical reunion. The argument, then, as I see it, is that, ultimately, reveals the true faith.

Well, if this is so, can the same not be said about the vaulted Pentarchy. The Sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople have not exactly kept pace with Rome. In fact, it can be (and has been) argued that other Sees have surpassed these in status and importance.

John

Not trying to be polemic, just a Byzantine Catholic trying to understand his place in the world.
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: Petrine Primacy - 12/08/03 05:18 PM
For a current debate between an Orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic regarding this very subject access -

http://www.geocities.com/joeswaydyn2000/orthodoxcatholicdebate.html

OrthoMan
Posted By: Linus Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/02/04 06:55 AM
This is a topic that greatly interests me. I must confess that I do not have all the answers. I continue to study and learn, prayerfully.

What concerns me is the idea of authority in the Church.

We Orthodox point to ecumenical councils as the supreme authority in the Church. We seem to be willing to accord the Pope of Rome no more than an honorific primacy, and some of us expend a lot of time and energy finding fault with popes past and present, even to the point of adopting some ridiculously Protestant arguments.

But what of councils?

Besides those recognized as ecumenical there have been many many other councils and synods, some outrageously heretical.

How does one discern the genuine ecumenical council from the false?

I've read that one can tell a true ecumenical council when it is "ratified" by the whole Church, clergy and laity.

But how does that occur?

Hold a council, wait a couple of hundred years, and see if everyone accepts it?

And what constitutes the "whole church?"

A significant portion of the baptized faithful rejected Ephesus 431 and followed the teachings of Nestorius.

An even larger portion held (and still hold) the Latrocinium (Ephesus 449) as ecumenical and rejected (and still reject) the Council of Chalcedon (451).

And what of the various synods called by the Arianizing emperors of the 4th century, synods that were endorsed by loads of supposedly Orthodox bishops? A couple of those synods condemned St. Athanasius and several other truly Orthodox Catholic saints.

It's all very confusing.

In 474 the usurper-Emperor Basiliscus pressured hundreds of bishops to sign his imperial letter, The Encyclion. Here is some of what it said:

"We decree that all the bishops of the world shall anathematize, and give to the flames, the Tome of Leo and all that was done at Chalcedon in the matter of faith . . .

For we are satisfied with the doctrine and faith of the apostles and of the holy fathers, the three hundred and eighteen bishops; to which also the illustrious Council of the one hundred and fifty in the Royal City, and the two other holy Synods at Ephesus adhered, and which they confirmed."


That monstrosity was signed by hundreds of otherwise Orthodox bishops and not just by Monophysites, yet it condemned an ecumenical council (Chalcedon), not to mention the famous Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great.

So how would the average believer alive at that time stop his head from spinning?

How did he choose whom to believe?

At Chalcedon the papal legate Lucentius said one of the problems of the Latrocinium (Ephesus 449) was the fact that it was held "without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place." The other legate, Paschasinus, referred to the Apostolic See (Rome) as "the head of all the churches."

None of the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon rose to contradict these statements. In fact, they all praised Pope St. Leo's Tome, saying, "Peter has spoken through Leo."

I have not reached any final conclusions and am mostly posing questions and musing out loud.

But the Petrine Primacy makes sense to me as the locus of Catholic unity. I know I will get jumped on for saying that, but it does make sense.

Otherwise how does one know whom to believe?

What is the process for ratification of a council?

How does one reconcile a ruling by one set of hundreds of bishops with an apparently contradictory ruling made by another set of hundreds of bishops?
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/02/04 05:27 PM
Gentlemen,
Maybe you now see the "need" for an authority in the Church. As you know we acknowledge as an Infallible Oecumenical Council, those received by the Pope of Rome. We really need to re evaluate his postion from a more diligent study of the Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
There is more there than most people realize.
I would say "Universal Jurisdiction" yes, but maybe we need to move beyond that and set a new parimeter as to how that is exercised in and with the entire Church.
Stephanos I
Posted By: Linus Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/05/04 02:37 AM
I am rather surprised that this topic has gone so quickly dormant.

Recommend some books on this, someone!

I have already read Michael Whelton's Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition (twice) and James Likoudis' The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church (a powerful book).

Got any more good ones to suggest?
Posted By: Elizabeth Maria Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/05/04 05:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Linus:
I am rather surprised that this topic has gone so quickly dormant.

Recommend some books on this, someone!

I have already read Michael Whelton's Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition (twice) and James Likoudis' The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church (a powerful book).

Got any more good ones to suggest?
This one is very historical, as it was published in the 19th century. It has been republished and is available through St. Nectarios in Seattle, a HOCNA church.

The Papacy, by Abb� Guett�e
Posted By: DTBrown Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/05/04 06:00 AM
A critique of Abbe Guettee's book:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: Pani Rose Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/05/04 03:44 PM
Here is a fairly good article
http://www.medugorje.com/catholic/infallibility.html


"A Light In The Darkness"
The primacy of Peter is a binding force in the Church. It is this force that keeps unity not only among the laity and priests, but also among the bishops. The office of Peter is to the Church as cement is to the bricks in building.
Posted By: Linus Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/06/04 02:10 AM
I read over that essay by the Abbe Guettee once before on the internet. It is pretty standard anti-papacy stuff. I think most of it was repeated in Whelton's book. I might give it another look when I get the chance, and I will definitely look at the critique of it.
Posted By: Linus Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/06/04 03:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DTBrown:
A critique of Abbe Guettee's book:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Good article, DT. There's some other good stuff at that site, as well.

Thanks.

Rose -

Thanks for your link, as well.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/08/04 03:21 PM
Dear Friends,

Yes, I remember that book . . .

If one were to offer a critique of papal critiques it might include the issue of the fantastical nature of some of the things raised by those with an axe to grind against Rome.

Everything from "Pope Joan to Constantine the Great" is thrown at the popes as if these things were proven historical facts.

And yet very little is done to show how at Ecumenical Councils the Eastern hierarchs's praise of the popes of the day knew no bounds.

In fact, if anything, there was a need for the role of a pope as referree in the ongoing struggle between the Byzantine Emperors and Patriarchs, as well as on the score of theological debates and heresies - as Meyendorff shows on more than on one occasion.

One may legitimately argue about the character of papal jurisdictional powers and how they developed over time.

That is not the same as dismissing the papacy completely.

That truly is throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Alex
Posted By: DTBrown Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/10/04 06:52 PM
Quote
Good article, DT. There's some other good stuff at that site, as well.
Thanks for the comments. BTW, the website is back up. The server was down for a few days for system upgrades.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/11/04 11:50 PM
Over the many months that I have visited this board there always seems to be perennial discussion of the Papacy - I was musing on that the other day, and the way we often discuss that there is no argument that the Papacy has some type of leadership role - but what that role is - seems to be the discussion.

Now I have to admit - I have not followed the current discussion - I have only peered here and there at postings - and this thread seems to be doing rather well� but let me come from �left field� as I often do and present something which crossed my mind�

The discussion usually centers around the - role - of the Papacy. As I said, no serious person with some education in the subject - doubts that the see of Peter was assigned a �primacy role� - but what IS that role?

May I present that this discussion is - as it were - straw.

Now how do I mean that?

In this way�

I may not be the only one who has, while thinking of these discussions - thought of them in ways that naturally assume that the Pope - is not acting in a universal way - right now. Assuming that he is prevented from doing that by the �split�. That is - as we shall see - a wrong assumption.

If I were assigned some special role (meaning a bit different from the other and not necessarily meaning a better role than the others)� then my fulfillment of that role given to me depends far less on what and how others may have opinion on how and what I should do to fulfill that role - far less - than what I in good conscience understand that role to be as assigned to me by the �boss�.

In real life - anyone appointed to some postion - may have written guidelines for how that position should work - but added to that and inseperable from it is the human factor of the interpretation of that position and its guidlenes - by the person doing the job. How the gidlines are applied is always a result of the person doing the jobs. The guidlines become secondary to the actions and descisions of the person doing the job. And that is why we loving when some people are in the position and hate it when others are. If you were to hire someone for a postion at work - if your critieria simple be "can this man follow the employee handbook to the letter?" than you shall be filling postions with people who are really icompetant to do the job needed. What we look for (in reality) is someone with the smarts to do the job effectivly. We hire people (persons) and not machines.


If I were made CEO of a company - it might be a good thing for me to ask others �what should my role as CEO be? How should I act? What should I do?� - but in the final - I would know that my place is not merely to be what and how others would do and say and decide if they were in my position - but rather - what I myself do and say and decide - in my role.

Also - If I were assigned to be CEO by the boos - and then the boss left for an extended time - and it came to a time when others in the company came to some type of majority decision on how I should act in my role of CEO - that might be beneficial for me to listen - but any listening I did would still be bottom lined by how I myself thought my actions and decisions should be made.

No matter if the whole company (every employee) came to some unanimous decision on how, what, why - I should be doing things and deciding things - - - - the responsibility (meaning that I myself have been assigned respond-ability - which the boss will have me myself answer for) - - - then I know that I myself must do and act according to my own concept of the decisions that I should make and how to make them.

If Jesus assigned a primacy role to Peter�s office (which history attests to) then no one on earth know better what that responsibility is - and what to do about it - than the Peters who have held that office. The individual Popes down through history.

I dare say that we can all imagine what it is like to be a medical doctor - a surgeon - and we can all speculate on the mindset of it and how it would be - but at the same moment there is no one who knows more of what it is like to be a medical surgeon - than a real surgeon. Know one who has not done surgery - can know full well what it is like. There is a metanoia involved�. Which we (short of being elected Pope of Rome) do not have.

Of all the discussions back and forth of what the role of the Pope is or should be (and these discussions are most times very well presented and very sincere) if we really want to define the role of the Papacy - then we should look to the Papacy. And we should look to it as it is now and as it can be known most clearly. What I mean by that is we can well know what recent Popes have done and the further back we go into past history - the less we really know and the more political opinions become. We can trust past records of history far less than recent records which can be verified.

My own memory only goes back to Pope Pius the 10th. And there has been much written on him in Catholic and secular history. His actions and decisions can be verified. And so to all other Popes since Pius the 10th.

If we say that there is really an East / West split (Orthodoxy/Catholicism) which by the way I deny there really is because you cannot split what cannot be split - but if we say for the moment that there is a split - than it is a ridiculous notions that at some point in history (coinciding with the split) that the Pope (Papal) - ceased being a Pope of the entire One church. It is not as if the split came and Jesus said to the Pope (�well - you are now freed from the position I appointed you to.�).

So the Pope - and any priest assigned to that office - has gone right on being Pope and doing the duties of that position. If any one listens and abides by what the Pope comes out with - that is their own choice - but the Pope - has no choice. He MUST act as universal shepherd and within his role of primacy - when Providence calls on him to do so. And we must assume that over the decades of the �split� that the Pope has been called on - on occasion - to act in his universal role.

This means that the role of the Papacy - is right there in front of us - and it is not hidden.

I am not aware of the Papacy of my memory - making demands on the Orthodox church - demands which come from his role as Primacy. In fact and reality - the Papacy of my memory - treats the Orthodox church very well. While it may be argued that he (as Primacy) has the right and ability to say - demand this or that of the Orthodox Church - I am not aware that this type of thing has been done. For example - no Pope in my memory has demanded that anything of Orthodox theology be changed. Nor has Peter replaces Metropolitans and Patriarchs� nor has Peter interfered nor passed judgments on Orthodox Synods and such.

While one might make arguments from a political stand point (social and cultural) no one can deny that the Papacy of my memory - lets the Orthodox Churches operate in an autonomous manner. In sum - the Papacy makes no demands on the Orthodox church in anyway coinciding with Peter�s right and �authority� of Primacy.

This brings to mind that the role of the Papacy - in regards to its own bishophoric and in regards to its universal duties and obligations to the church entire - have never ceased from the moment that primacy was assigned to the first Peter. And in that sense - our arguments and discussions of how Peter should act in his role - are empty.

If Peter was given a Primacy (and we all agree he was) - and that Primacy goes hand in hand and actually stems from being appointed (elected or whatever) to the See of Peter - than that election is the deciding factor (as regards the mind of the church expressed through election) for the role of Peter - and even that election is superceded by the personal mind and conscience of the Pope elected. And this - would be the way Jesus wanted it to be. It was not set up that Peter was appointed or elected by a universal election across all particular churches. It WAS set up that Peter (elected Bishop of Rome - elected by the electoral process particular to the Roman Catholic Church) - is further assigned a universal Papal authority and responsibility.

What is that authority? That responsibility?

Well - it is recorded in history. It is certainly argued about in history far past - but the realities of that history far past - are also clouded to us. And it may be clouded to us in so much as many of us will be divided as to what actually took place. But there is no arguments regarding recent Popes - that can not be verified.

So - while we do the mental exercise of �Well - what should the Pope Do? How should he act? What are his responsibilities? Etc�� �. the Pope who is Peter - just keeps right on doing - what they really are.

This makes the arguments that �we can not unite ourselves to a Pope unless that Pope acts in the way we expect him to� � also - straw. Why? Because that type of hypothetical �acting� remains hypothetical at all times and can never be reality. Why - because reality - already exists!! The hypothetical �The Pope�s Primacy should be in this way�� always remains a thing of imagination. Imagined. Why - because reality already - exists. One can not ignore reality - what does exist (the Pope�s current acting in the role of universal Pontiff) in favor of what does not exist. This may be too simple for some to understand. Let me put it another way�.

If you have a car and that car is running in such and such a manor - if you want the car to run in another way - you must modify and work from the baseline - of the reality of - how it is running right now. You must first know the reality of �how is it running right now� - in order to change the way it is running. If you want to have it run very smooth - you would have it run with 12 cylinders - but you must begin from the reality of �How many cylinders does it run with - now.� It does the repair man no good to rip of a 12 cylinders engine (if that is what it currently has) and install a 12 cylinders engine.

Any changing to an existing thing - must begin with knowing the full condition of the thing to be changed. There is not a repair man in existence who can repair some item of machinery - who can do that job without first knowing the operation and condition of the item to be repaired.

So - it is my opinion - that all discussion about what the Papacly should be and act like in operation - all these opinions which are not based in the full and realistic knowledge of exactly how the universal Primacy is currently (and of recent past) been operating as itself - all the opinions (mine included if I were to give one) are as useless and any plans of a repair man who gets a phone call �Hello - my car is not working properly - goodbye.� and the reapir man draws up his repair plans and instructs his men �Make this type of repair and replace this part etc..� even without going to test what the car is doing!

Imagine being invited over to dinner at someone else�s house - and without knowing what they are preparing for dinner - getting it into you mind to improve the Chicken by telling your servant to go over there and put this spice on the chicken! Imagine the quandary of your servant when he looks for the chicken and only finds it is a steak dinner!

These examples my not be so good� but they do go to the fact that - the See of Rome is now - and always has - acted in his full authority and responsibility of Universal Pontiff. And if WE do not recognize that fact - than it is we - who have the wrong idea of what that role and act - actually is.

Does anyone understand what I am talking about here? This discussion assummes that the Pope is not acting as Universal Pontif (by assuming that we can out line how he should act assummes that he would not be acting as universal Pontiff untill he acted as we agreed he should be acting) - and that assumption misses the fact that he is already - and has been - acting as universal Pontif already. And any discussion which does not take that into account - is a discussion of imagination.

Thanks for allow me to drop these thoughts into the discussion.

-ray
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/13/04 06:41 AM
St Epihanius Bsp of Cyprus 315-403 AD speaks of Peter as " who is now first and supreme among the Apostles".
What does he mean by that? Does this indicate more than a primacy of honor?
Stephanos I
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/16/04 02:39 AM
It is interesting to note the views of the Orthodox Theologian Alexander Schmemann.
He uses the Trinitarian Paradigm for unity within the Church.
As the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity do not divide the divine nature, each of them living and possessing it entirely, likewise the nature of the Mystical Body of Christ is not divided by the multiplicity of the churches. As there is a certain order among the Divine Persons, so there is a certain order (a hierarchy) among the churches. In this hierarchy there is a first Church (Rome) and a first Bishop (The Pope of Rome) Parenthesis is my commentary.

It is also intersesting to note that this view was posited early by the Eastern Saint Theodore the Studite, who usess the term that there is a "theia protarchia" of the See of Rome.

Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk & Arch sinner
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/16/04 02:02 PM
Dear Stephanos,

No one is arguing Rome's right to be "First."

What we are arguing against is Rome's nasty habit of trying to crawl up the ecclesial backside of Eastern Churches in jurisdictional terms.

Alex
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/16/04 05:20 PM
Alex
If I were at odds with everyone who rubbed me the wrong way, then I probably be speaking to no single individual on the face of this planet.
We need to get "over" it and to get "on" with it.
Stephanos I
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/17/04 04:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Stephanos,

What we are arguing against is Rome's nasty habit of trying to crawl up the ecclesial backside of Eastern Churches in jurisdictional terms.

Alex
Please explain. Can you give some real world example for me to look at?
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/17/04 04:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Stephanos I:
Alex
If I were at odds with everyone who rubbed me the wrong way, then I probably be speaking to no single individual on the face of this planet.
We need to get "over" it and to get "on" with it.
Stephanos I
Which reminds me - I enjoy your posts. I usually read them all.

-ray
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/17/04 05:28 PM
Ray,
Look at my post under East and West, Peter the Rock.
Stephanos I
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/19/04 07:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Stephanos I:
Ray,
Look at my post under East and West, Peter the Rock.
Stephanos I
Yes - I have read it now.

Your consistant patience is more than I can do.

smile

-ray
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 01/22/04 09:17 PM
Continuing the thread I would like to note some comments by Bishop Timothy Ware.
"Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostoclic See of Rome a primacy of honor, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom.
Could this not be the paradigm that is used when communion is restored?

What was the relatioship of the sister Churches of the East with the Protothronos of the See of Rome?

Does not the Blessed Eastern Saint Maximus the Confessor give us an answer?
"The Apostolic See from the Incarnate Word (Divine Authority) and from all the holy synods of all the Churches throughout the world in their sacred canons (Church Law) and definitions has received and possesses, in and for everything, dominion, authority, and power to bind and to loose. With it the Word (Christ), set at the head of heavenly powers, binds and looses in heaven."

Do these imply an understanding of something more than a "primacy of honor" ?

Stephanos I
Posted By: francis Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/21/04 10:55 PM
I hope no one minds me starting this thread back up. I've been following the forum for a while, and found this thread interesting (although I'm sure it's old news to many here). As means of introduction, I'm a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church (Latin rite).

Quote
Originally posted by FrDeaconEd:

However, I do believe that we can derive a model from the Pentarchy that is workable. Each Patriarch would have the ultimate voice in "his" Church. All would meet as brothers with the pope having a "primacy of honor" (primus inter pares -- first among equals) coupled with the function of fraternal correction. This correction is to be applied not in disiplinary matters, but only in matters of theology -- and even then only in matters where a schism would result should the issue not be resolved.

All juridic authority of the pope over those Churches in communion with him must be surrendered. I can see no solution that would be possible without this.
I really enjoyed Father Deacon's analysis. I also think that a true functioning Patriarchical system would be beneficial, and I think it would be ideal for the Bishop of Rome to allow the other Patriarchs to run "their" Churches without interference.

However, here is my problem - Vatican I. If we go with Fr. Deacon's suggestions, I don't see how we can claim Vatican I was a true ecumencial council - it explicitly rejects the idea of just "primacy of honor" and declares that the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire church. If we reject Vatican I, I don't see how we can claim any consistancy in our Church, since we would be rejecting what we consider a legitimate ecumencial council.

I agree with another poster that it would be ideal to have the Pope have some limited jurisdictional authority when things are going downhill under some Patriarch (and we might be able to still endorse Vatican I), but what is to stop a future Pope from just taking over in all areas - he has the jurisdiction to, right?

It may be true that the current Pope and some others would not abuse this authority, but when you have the power, somebody will abuse it down the road.

Admittedly, I don't have any answers, just questions.
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/22/04 02:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[QUOTE] Those who wish to understand the Orthodox position on this issue should turn to the writings of Orthodox theologians.
As late as I am in reading your particular post...

I agree with you 100% here.

-ray
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/23/04 10:37 PM
Dear Rayk,

Sorry, but I've just now seen your reply to my earlier post concerning backsides . . .

You wanted some examples, did you? First of all, remember that as an RC, the Pope is already something that he is not for Eastern Catholics - he is your Patriarch and your immediate ecclesial coordinator/commander for the Particular Latin Church.

Well, in the case of the UGCC, Rome has allowed for the suppression of our tradition of married priests, our right (guaranteed previously) to control our own internal church affairs, appoint our bishops etc., enable us to affirm a Patriarchate in the spirit of the very Vatican II Council that is oft-quoted and the like.

Rome has also gotten mixed up in our own internal affairs on more than one occasion and our church is now, yet once more, the victim of Rome's failed Ost-politik with Moscow.

Ost-politik even got in the way of the beatification of Andrew Sheptytsky - something that the UGCC should have really had the most to say about, even though Rome is the one actually performing the ceremony.

But much can be forgiven!

If Rome acknowledged our Patriarchate - that would, in and of itself go a long way to allowing us to take control of our own internal affairs and would cover a multitude of sins.

So Rome has and does tend to crawl up our ecclesial backside.

I don't know of any more blatant evidence than the above.

Alex
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 02:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

Sorry, but I've just now seen your reply to my earlier post concerning backsides . . .

Alex
Funny how this thread came alive again huh?

OK.. I hear what you are saying... now what particular church is this? and are we sure it is the Vatican itself doing these things and not some lower monkeys?

If your Patriarch is the most important item on the list - how can that be moved along? Have you written to the Vatican agencies involved? If you (not meaning you personally) believe you are being done wrong - someone has to lay it on the table - all too often bad communication takes place and people blame each other when really each just needs to speak up and follow up in polite ways.

While I am not saying anyone here is... I dislike 'professional victims' (I mean that in the psychological sense). Often I have to force myself to get up and do something!! and most times I find out that it was just silly human nature fouling things up and there were no bad intentions on any side.

I know, you might say to me "better people than I have tried and failed" but I would say to you "So - YOU try."

Let us (I will help you if needed) draft a letter, contact some of your bishops and have them review it (so it is the mind of your particular church) and send that out to the appropriate Vatican office. And get back our response.. And if we get none we go to the next step.

My mother-in-law taught me a rule I often use anywhere. It most applies to the business world but I find it applies almost any where �If you have a complaint - take it to the proper complaint department. If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied then go to the next level (that persons supervisor). If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied cease talking with that person and go to the next level. If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied - ask who the president is and make an appointment.� Believe me - I have moved mountains with this method. You really find out how human nature operates as you rise up the levels and find out that each level is isolated from the lower level and usually has little clue of what is going on. In the business world, you eventually reach a level where the boss thinks �Why am I being bothered with this? Has no one lower taken care of it??� and as he goes out the door to his lunch meeting he shouts to someone �Tell So-andSo to straighten this out and give him what he wants - this should have been taken care of way before this small matter got to me.�

We just have to have the energy to - walk it through.

In the worst case we may find out that all - is really well - and the decisions being made are really the best ones.

I have dealt with many powerful people. My wife says I have more b*ll* than one man should have. (I don't know how she means that!!). I really don't call it b*ll*, I see it as ignoreing false fears that I am not good enough or that I do not know my subject. We might learn more real on the subject as we go.

Shall we begin??

-ray
Posted By: Deacon John Montalvo Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 03:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

If Rome acknowledged our Patriarchate - that would, in and of itself go a long way to allowing us to take control of our own internal affairs and would cover a multitude of sins.


Alex
Alex,

according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), the only noticable difference between a patriarchate and a major archiepiscopate (besides the easier pronunciation of the former)is the manner of enthronement for each Church's respective Head. The Major Archbishop, upon election and his acceptance, personally petitions the Roman Pontiff for confirmation (Canon 153). The patriarch is enthroned without confirmation, and the Patriarchal Synod merely informs the Roman Pontiff of the election and enthronement. After his enthronement, the patriarch requests ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Pontiff (Canon 76).

It is interesting to note that Canon 152 states:

"What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter."

The exception in common law refers to the requisite papal confirmation. Eastern Church canonist, Victor Pospishil, notes that major archbishops already possess patriarchal authority (without the title of "patriarch")and cannot expect more ecclessiatical authority.

In light of this, even if UGCC is raised to patriarchal status, it would not become evident until the enthronement of a new Head of the UGCC.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 02:37 PM
Bless, Father Deacon!

In fact, the Ukie Church today acts as if it is already a patriarchate (the upstarts!).

What is happening though, and I've seen it with my own eyes, is that when the Synod appoints a bishop (in this case, our own Vladyka Stephen), Rome takes its time approving it, as it to show "Not so fast, upstarts! We'll show you Slavic "kabanie" who is boss here!" wink

(Or, in Polish, "Psiakref Rusinie!" smile )

Major Archbishop - shamajor archbishop - the papal nuncio took extra pains at the consecration of our new Vladyka to underscore that it was HE and HE ALONE that is charged with the responbility to appoint new bishops for us.

With a patriarchate, we'll be united because even our Basilianist Catholics will acknowledge it, we can continue to appoint our own bishops etc. and inform Rome after the fact and otherwise take fuller control of what is already ours.

His Beatitude Lubomyr also did something by way of flexing his patriarchal muscles when, following the translation of the Relics of the Holy Hieromartyr Nicholas Charnetsky, he appointed a feast-day for it - something that is usually, in our Church, reserved to Rome.

Even when we have our patriarchate, the struggle would continue for the direct authority of the patriarch over the diaspora without Rome's encroachments, and even for the ancient right to canonize our own saints!

Perhaps our future patriarch will canonize saints for the Ruthenian Church too, if it would like.

And with all the children you have, Father Deacon, you would definitely qualify for the "martyr" level smile

Alex
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 05:52 PM
Father Deacon John and Alex...

I am guessing that what we are talking about is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church??

I am reading up on the situation now

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/press-releases/article;679/
(what a wonderful letter!)

I see that Moscow is involved. We know their motivations.

Speaking of coincidences... In our discussion regarding apparitions and such, I made note that apparitions of the Virgin have been numerous in the Ukraine. I now make note that often this type of - increase - in any area - is a preparation for spiritual upheavals and dark times (dark in the way of confusion and a test of faith). The Good Lord gives some extra �food� to fortify his children as they pass though.

From my reading Alex, it seems to me that the Pope has and is working very diligently to give full birth to your Church in a very protective way so that it will survive. If democracy fails there - and the Bear reasserts its domain - full independence from Moscow and full independence from Rome - leaves the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as weak prey. If democracy fails - they will then look to crush you. If that happens then only strong ties with Moscow or Rome - will save you physically. And of course one way is preferable to the other way.

-ray
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 06:09 PM
Dear RayK,

Yes, absolutely!

As Shakespeare said, "Rome and roome enough!"

Alex
Posted By: RayK Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 07:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

Yes, absolutely!

Alex
Well - any thoughts of me helping - have vanished like vapor.

The least I can do is make a pilgramage to the local Ukrainian Church, which, as New England would have it, seems to be only a few towns over, a 45 minute drive to Ansonia.

If it is open I will got inside and if it is not I will sit outside and offer my presence for the intentions of the Ukrainian Church.

-ray
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Petrine Primacy - 03/24/04 08:10 PM
Dear RayK,

Some of the best friends the Ukrainian Catholic Church has are Roman Catholics and specialists in Eastern Theology.

As a matter of fact, they know Eastern Theology better than we do! smile

God bless,

Alex
Posted By: Booth Re: Petrine Primacy - 04/04/04 04:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
As Shakespeare said, "Rome and roome enough!"
Hello!

Please tell me where this quote comes from. It's charming!
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: Petrine Primacy - 04/04/04 05:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Booth:
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[b]As Shakespeare said, "Rome and roome enough!"
Hello!

Please tell me where this quote comes from. It's charming! [/b]
Booth,

It's a slightly modified line from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the fuller text reads:

Quote
Originally posted by William Shakespeare (or whomever among the literary lights of the time that you believe authored the works attributed to him):

Now in the names of all the Gods at once,
Upon what meate doth this our Caesar feede,
That he is growne so great? Age, thou art sham'd.
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of Noble Bloods.
When went there by an Age, since the great Flood,
But it was fam'd with more then with one man?
When could they say (till now) that talk'd of Rome,
That her wide Walkes incompast but one man?
Now is it Rome indeed, and Roome enough
When there is in it but one onely man.
Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: Petrine Primacy - 04/05/04 12:26 AM
Patriarchal Sobor?
Looks like plans to me!
Stephanos I
© The Byzantine Forum