www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Papal Authority

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post, as always!

Vatican I does not exist in a vaccuum and when we look at what it did say about papal authority, there should be no doubt that much more can be said and is being said subsequently.

The issue of how the Particular Churches govern themselves, by themselves and in union with the Pope was not well addressed by Vatican I - for an EC, to read Vatican I's decrees is to be immediately struck by the absence of that important aspect of church jurisdiction.

Roman Catholics don't see that as an absence, but this is because the Pope is also their Patriarch - when he is only a Pope for EC's!

Alex

Dear Stephanos,

Thank you for that insight! I always appreciated Rome's defense of Alexandria, but I never thought of it in the terms you have expressed. The Pope of Rome was not overstepping his authority at all in this instance by disagreeing with the Emperor and the Council - indeed, he was simply using his PETRINE PREROGATIVE to protect the RIGHTS of his fellow patriarchs, which is HIS DUTY and OBLIGATION. Now that I think about it, they (the Popes of Rome) were also defending Tradition - the canons of Nicea. From Damasus to Leo and even beyond, in this case, Rome was simply being true to herself.

Dear Alex,

The absence you speak of is GLARING. These are key elements upon which the East must insist needs to be clarified. If Western Christians are praying for unity, they should also call on their Patriarch to clarify the matter authoritatively and dogmatically. There seems to be a consensus among orthodox Catholic theologians that the Petrine Prerogative needs to be limited, if not in theory, then in practice.

Why is it that the Pope of Rome must take the initiative and request his fellow bishops about ways to interpret the exercise of the Petrine ministry? Rome has appellate jurisdiction according to the canons, so DO IT, my fellow Eastern brethren. APPEAL TO THE POPE TO CLARIFY THE MATTER, instead of simply grumbling about it (I am talking about not only Eastern Christians, but also [so-called] Oriental Christians)!!! MAKE USE of your/our RIGHT of appeal!!! Insist to your respective bishops that the Church needs clarification on this matter!!!

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Blessings,

Marduk

P.S.

This is, by the way, the example we find in St. Basil the Great, and St. Irenaeus during the Pneumatological controversy, and the Paschal controversy, respectively. They did not simply grumble and stew. They appealed to the Pope of Rome. Many, including myself (privately), have been guilty of criticizing this or that about Rome, when in fact, the mechanism is at hand for us to do something about it. The Pope of Rome did not want to pronounce on the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption without the commendation of the Catholic Church. Though Christians not in communion with Rome may have grievances about those dogmatic pronouncements, the Pope of Rome did what was proper and consulted the faithful throughout the world before acting, which is very commendable, if you really think about it. We as members of the Church also have a responsibility, not to take it upon ourselves to condemn, but to go through the God-appointed channels of appeal to redress our grievances. If something like the multi-million+ accord regarding the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption could be reached regarding the juridical concerns of the East, expressed by BOTH members of the Eastern AND Western Church, the Pope can do nothing but respond to it, since it is his OBLIGATION as primary (not sole) steward of unity.

Perhaps we need to wait for ROCOR and ROC to heal its schism first, since, biblically speaking, what use is it to criticize the actions of others, when your own internal household is not in order (log in the eye and all that good stuff).

Dear Mardukm,

Thank you for your insightful and encouraging post!

Your words are echoed in what Pope St Pius X told Met. Andrew Sheptytsky when our Metropolitan related to the Pope our rights and privileges etc.

The Pope replied, "Then make use of your rights!"

God bless!

Alex

Alex,

You are truly an encyclopedia of knowledge! Thank God for your input here.

Many years and blessings.

Marduk

Posted by Mardukum:

"Thank you for the definition you posted on "immediate." I am wondering if this is a personal opinion of a theologian, or this is the way it is suppose to be understood by the Catholic Church. If the latter, then there is indeed hope for development on the issue, since the Vatican I decree is not too clear on it."


Dear Mardukum,

Thank you for your kind words.

I am not a professional theologian though I have studied theology professionally! :rolleyes:

The text cited is an encyclopedia of Catholicism and the thoughts I found are explicitly stated there. So, at the very least they are a position held by at least some theologians in the Church served by Vatican II.

The dogma involved is that defined by Vatican I. It was defined during the invasion of Rome at the end of the Papal States. There were aspects of the dogma which were yet to be discussed and possibly defined; but events made that impossible.

In large part, that is what was done in the teachings of Vatican II. It seems safe to assume that the teachings of that Council are doctrine; though some of my brothers and sisters in the Western Church would find fault with one or another of the things decreed by the Council. It appears that there is a growing understanding of the need to examine the nature and exercise of the Petrine Ministry among the Churches in the context of that doctrinal statement.

There is an extant invitation by the Bishop of Rome for other Christians to join him in this examination and to help him to find ways that his ministry can be made useful to the Churches. The dogma is there; the doctrine is growing; and the theologians are hard at work; the laity are questioning. It seems certain that the working out of the definition of the term immediate will be on the table.

I agree that there is need for the leaders and faithful of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome to raise issues concerning how that ministry is being exercised among them now.

I'd like to suggest the leaders and faithful of the churches composing the Western Church need to raise issues also. It may be that some of the problems that some catholics have with the American bishops arise from this activity. These catholics appear to arise from the bishops taking up their own leadership roles in the Latin Church. This has led to changes not always easy to understand or deal with.

It is not just Eastern Bishops who are experiencing some problems with asserting their own authority which is part of the scenery in which the Petrine Ministry has to be discussed.

I pray that the Orthodox will join in the examination and clarifying of the Petrine Ministry as they find it proper to do so.

It might be an interesting part of a family reunion!

Just duck when the fur flies. Pick up the pieces they might be useful for repairing the bumps and bangs of egos of the persons directly involved in the "discussions."

Take care,

Steve

PS Have to run. Please excuse the poor editing.

What you are saying may well be true for HOCNA and ROAC, but I don't think it applies well to some canonical Orthodox churches like, say, the Antiochians. Unless you mean by "historical idolatry" an attempt to be consistent. In that case, guilty as charged!

At any rate, most of the liturgical issues the East finds objectionable are always overshadowed by the West's claim of absolute power. "Hey, we can do what we want. The papacy is the ultimate power of the Church on Earth and if he wants to have a mariachi mass, a disco mass, and an Oi! mass it's fine."

I know some of you will take offense at the use of the term "absolute power," but it seems to me that this is exactly what Rome was trying to say in Vatican I.

The defense is, of course, that the pope would NEVER abuse this power and would treat the Eastern churches with loads of respect. Well, he wouldn't abuse the power TOO much, anyway. If he did, it would be from a silly misunderstanding.

But the truth is that the Latin church teaches that the pope has the power to do what he likes at any level at any time in any jurisdiction with absolutely no consultation of anyone else, fair or unfair, Christian or not, he has the power to do what he likes. Indeed, Rome has done some pretty strange things regarding the Eastern Catholic churches. Things that have caused thousands of ECs to rethink their position. The claim that the pope is specially chosen and would always be a good fellow to Orthodox Christians is hollow for anyone who has read the history of the popes.

That's not to say the all Orthodox patriarchs and faithful have been much better. The difference between the mistakes of the East and the Latins is the Latin claim of the perfect theology and absolute power of an individual.

As to Alex's original questions

Question one is too complicated for this forum and I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus on the answer.

Question two depends on who you ask. If Vatican I and it's extreme interpreters HAVE to be right, then it likely did more.

Otherwise one must first agree on what Rome's current jurisdiction truly is over the Eastern Catholic Churches of today. When you guys reach a consensus on that, please let me know.

The Orthodox churches have examined and clarified positions on the Petrine Ministry ad nauseam. Why do you need more? The answer is not going to change.

Sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I can hear the Oi! mass now.

Reader after the first reading: "This is the word of the Lord!"

People: Oi! Oi! Oi!

"If God came down on Christmas Day, I know exactly what he'd say. He'd say, 'Oi!' to the punks and 'Oi!' to the skins, but 'Oi!' to the world and everybody wins." From "Oi To the World" by the Vandals. Actually, maybe we could learn something from that song. hmmmmm. Maybe not.

Sorry. Just a moment of nostalgic weakness.

Now, back to being serious. Oi! Oi!

Dear Cizinec,

Do you have any links so I can read up on these official documents that respond to the Pope of Rome's request for discussion on the Petrine ministry? I am not talking about singular theologians, nor am I talking about polemics. I am talking about a reasoned official statement from any of the Patriarchs as such.

Also, perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "clarify." I don't mean a one or two line sentence stating something to the effect that "the way it is now is unacceptable. Return to the way it was." Has ANYONE in an OFFICIAL capacity as representatives of their respective Churches (polemicists on both sides do NOT count) ever attempted to address the historical arguments and issues? If you can provide me with a link, it would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings,

Marduk

Dear Marduk:

Cizinec has been silent far too long! :p

Likewise, I am interested in such "official" response from any of the "major" Orthodox jurisdictions.

None forthcoming?

Amado

Dear Cizinec:

Another question. (BTW, your reference to Oi! may be lost on those who are not from England or have not been (happily) exposed to the subculture to which you are referring)

Are you saying that the Catholic Church (West) is in danger of becoming racist?

Marduk

I'm not certain that there has been an official response to this particular request. My original response, however, is my position. The Orthodox churches have examined and clarified positions on the Petrine Ministry ad nauseam. Why do you need more? The answer is not going to change. It seems to me that the "request" is rhetorical.

I have to say first, though, that not all Oi is racist. Some Oi bands are boneheads and some aren't. That's what "Oi to the World" was about.

"Haji was a punk just like any other boy
And he never had no trouble until he started up his Oi band,
safe in the garage or singing in the tub.
Till Haji went to far and he plugged in at the pub"

and, after Trevor and Haji have a fight . . .

"and went back to the pub where they bought each other bourbon."

And, of course, there is the long standing bickering between the punks and the mods. I've been out of that stuff for a while, but I suppose it's a bit like us.

Why can't we all just get along?

Let's sing it together. kum ba yah, my lord, kum ba yah. oh lord kum ba yah

At any rate, I was merely referencing the fact that there are differences beyond the hammering out of the role of the pope. Say that there is enough playing with terms so that the Orthodox can agree to accept their understanding of some tortured definitions. Then what? The Roman Church has a lot of other liturgical issues that would likely keep us out of communion. I can't imagine that the mariachi mass will go over well. (That just got me thinking. Why is there only a mariachi mass? If the point is to make the liturgy hip and fun, why not disco and oi?)

So then what? An Orthodox bishop says that this kind of nonsense won't do (and I don't think it is proper). A Latin bishop says, "Oh yeah, well the pope says it is fine, so your opinion doesn't count." Now the tortured definitions are meaningless because they cannot be implemented on the ground. The ecclesiologies of the Orthodox and Catholic churches are still at odds, regardless of whether we agree on a particular statement.

Amadeus writes:

Likewise, I am interested in such "official" response from any of the "major" Orthodox jurisdictions.

None forthcoming?

==========

REPLY:

Probably because we have already been over this in this section. One wonders just how many times we have to respond to this issue. Read my post under the subject 'A New Model Of Primacy dated 10/17/03 03:08 PM-

OrthoMan

Member
Member # 830

posted 10-17-2003 03:08 PM10-17-2003 03:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Father Thomas:

Suggest you read a book called "Orthodoxy In Conversation" by Emmanuel Clapsis which you can obtain from St Vlad's bookstore. It consists of Orthodox coversations with other Christians regarding specific issues. There is a whole chapter dedicated to the Orthodox/Roman Catholic consultations on 'Papal Primacy' in a reunited church.

Some of the following excerpts will either answer your questions or give feedback for further discussion. They, of course, are from the Orthodox Catholic point of view -

[The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father. IT HAS ITS ORIGINS AND PROTOTYPE IN THE TRINITY IN WHICH THERE IS BOTH DISTINCTION OF PERSONS AND UNITY BASED ON LOVE, NOT SUBORDINATION."]

{If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power OVER the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power OVER the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system.]

[The 34th Apostolic Canon states: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge he who is first amongst them and account them as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent...but let neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity..." From this canon, it is thus evident that the regional primay can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as the expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area.
We must understand the universary primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of Rome's claims of universal primacy. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY, HOWEVER, OBJECTS TO THE INDENTIFICATION OF THIS PRIMACY AS "SUPREME POWER" transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centtre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic Judeao-Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome - "presideing in agape (love)" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.]

[In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but a particular way of understanding that primacy. WITHIN A REINTEGRATED CHRISTENDOM THE BISHOP OF ROME WILL BE CONSIDERED PRIMUS INTERPARES SERVING THE UNITY OF GOD'S CHURCH IN LOVE. HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SET UP OVER THE CHURCH AS RULER WHOSE DIAKONIA IS CONCEIVED TROUGH LEGALISTIC CATEGORIES OF POWER OF JURISDICTION. HIS AUTHORITY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, NOT ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF EARTHLY AUTHORITY AND DENOMINATION, BUT ACCORDING TO TERMS OF LOVE IN MINISTRY AND HUMBLE SERVICE (Matt. 20:25-27).]

[In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus interpares within the Orthodox Catholic communon, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole church. The bisop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in times of need be its spokesman. THE ROLE OF ACTING AS THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH IS NOT, HOWEVER, TO BE RESTRICTED TO ANY HIERACHICAL ORDER WITHIN THE CHURCH, STILL LESS TO A SINGLE SEE. IN PRINCIPLE, ANY BISHOP, PRIEST AND LAYMAN MAY BE CALLED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO PROCLAIM THE TRUE FAITH.]

OrthoMan

Marduk,

Your contributions to this discussion have been greatly appreciated. This is one of the best discussions on Papal Primacy in a re-united Church I have ever seen on this forum or else where. For once, mature, reasoned unpolemical dialogue is being evidenced. I thank you for your insight into this.

P.S. By the way, your framing of the question in Canonical terms, I believe is the key to any hope of resolving the question of Papal Primacy. I think it is much more difficult when Roman Catholics explain the Bishop of Rome's role in theological terms. Keep up the good work.

Rayk,

Excellent point about the real meaning of heresy and heretic. This was a crucial point.

Alex and Steve,
Thank you for your very helpful posts.

I appreciate the spririt of openess, maturity and charity expressed by most on this thread. I will continue to read with interest.

Trusting in the Holy Spirit's Illumination,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

p.s. my own contribution to this topic is the following (for those interested):

Principals of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy
http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html