www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What are the so-called papal powers?

From Wikpedia on Pontifex Maxiumus
Also on Greogory the Great from the (old)Cath.Enc.
I am not at all clear on the "monarchy" terminology. What is this "monarchy" anyway? Is this something we regard as a perjorative? (Alex?) Is our negative sense just a manifestation of "modernism" that comes form American experience. Can we actually attach specific meaning of "monarchy" so that we are on the same page in the discussion?

Are we talking about conciliarity among patriarchs or among bishops within a patriarchate or both? "Monarchy" within a Patriarchate probably first developed in Alexandria http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm ("Greek", btw EM, since ~Chalcedon). Relationships among Patriarchates and the significance of primacy are not exactly easy to reconstruct and appreciate fully. As I was mentioning to Andrew Rubis, it would be nice if these discussions were tempered by some reality. We are all so familiar with every misdeed - real or imagined - of the Vatican. To assess "monarchiality" and its significance fairly, however, it would help to recognize the power wielded by the EP during his millenium as "first among equals". I say this not to diss Orthodoxy; I have no interest all in doing such a thing. Rather, ISTM, that a grip on reality and a fuller picture of history would help people get over their suspicions. Getting beyond suspicions is crucial in developing an ability to recognize "presiding in love" when it is before us.

I take it from your comment, Brian, that you view John Paul II as more Pius IX than Gregory I, more monarchial than presiding in love. Can you explain that perspective?

Dear Daniel,

I place my trust in the Great Church of Christ the Orthodox Church and those that are my beloved Hierarchs. It seems to me that an inclusive element in the acceptance of the manifestation of Papal supremacy, infallibility... would present "humility and love" with definition that is not considered well founded or embraced by the Orthodox and even some Roman Catholics at least that I have spoken with. Certainly, the results of these and other positions are experienced today to the utter dismay of many.

Daniel, I did not submit for your consideration Apostolos Markrakis's views on the papacy, and you can dismiss my original posting if you choose.

If it is God's will that many issues are resolved in accordance with the Truth of Orthodoxy then so be it.

I have quite a few icons to go paint now and I noticed that you paint as well. God bless you Daniel, having many friends that are iconographers there is certainly room for more.

Perhaps you could send me an email sometime.

In Christ,

Matthew P.

Hi Elizabeth Maria,

Yes, yes, that is the way I feel,too.

May the Lord fill us all with a keen desire for
Unity In Christ

I feel it is of the deepest importance that we (Catholics and Orthodox) work together towards true, deep, and lasting unity.

I have no idea if this book would interest any of you, but I am reading the book "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" by Butler, Dahlgreen, and Hess. I am filling my copy of the book with positive, questioning, and perhaps a few negative margin comments as I go along. It is a study book for me, and I find it very interesting. Later, I hope to go back and research some of what I marked up for further research.

The book carries approval by an Orthodox priest as well as a Catholic Bishop, and it looks at the primacy issue in some depth.

May the Lord grant us His true Unity In Christ.

Not at all. I did not name Pope John Paul II by name at ALL. I admire the Pope immensely, I just do not believe that he or any other one Hierarch is infallible. The Eastern Church does not subscribe to this ethos. That is what the point was about. I have great love for Popes such as John XXIII but love for the individual does not make me accept the particularly developed view of the Papal Office.

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your response. I had thought that you hold JPII in high regard, so I was surprised by your rejoinder to my post. My remark was made to EM, who expressed hope for a return to a Pope like Gregory I - "a model pope ... who valued the Traditions of the Holy Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church". This hope should be recognized as being fulfilled in our midst.

Well, I don't know if "lorded" would be the most accurate word available, but from a Catholic point of view, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome brought was exercised as an active primacy with real effects.

I was unaware of any Alexandrian Pope referring to himself, or being referred to by anyone, as Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps you could give a little more information? Maybe you're confusing the title of Supreme Pontiff with the simple usage of the title of Pope/Papa.


I think that question was answered by DJS (or another poster) earlier in the thread, citing Wikipedia.

The [conventional] Catholic position is yes. Eastern, and perhaps even Roman, Catholics on the Forum may disagree, but outside of the Byzantine Forum I've never encountered any Catholics who would submit that the Bishop of Rome could/would be devoid of some type of "supremacy." However, "supremacy" sounds like a dirty word, especially to conciliar-philes. But the Bishop of Rome has "presided in love" from the earlier of times. Supremacy doesn't necessarily include (and, in this case, should not) senseless domination.


Well, for one, because of Moscow, as you duly noted. But seriously, historical circumstances have deprived the Church of this luxury for the past millenium. Through a desire of unity and submission to Christ, this can and will be accomplished...but don't hold your breath, the Church works at a snail's pace.

I don't see how things are so drastically different now. Pope John Paul II is an Eastern European Slav himself, the son of an Eastern Catholic (apparently). He has expressed his deep appreciation for Eastern Christianity many times. The Second Vatican Council did its fair share of enhancing Eastern and Western Traditions in the harmony and unity of the Most Holy Catholic Church. I don't believe the Pope's role is currently wildly estranged from the role Pope Saint Gregory the Great played.

Maybe. But his constant evangelizing didn't invalidate his episcopal role in the Roman Christian community. I don't think "sitting" had to necessarily be a prerequisite for having episcopal dominion over an area, especially in the case of such great evangelizers and Holy Apostles as Peter and Paul.

Yes, but as I think Daniel explained earlier, Peter was martyed in Rome, and his successors to the Bishopric of Rome continued to hold exercise a primacy of honor and to preside in love.

Hold on. Are you saying that Peter was never Bishop of Rome at all, or that he was formerly Bishop of Rome, but passed his position on to his successor before his death? Please provide some type of documentation for your assertion. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'd just be genuinely interested in seeing documentation to support your opinion.

Are you sure about this? I didn't think any of the Twelve Apostles "consecrated" any of the other original Twelve Apostles. I've never heard of St. Peter consecrating St. Mark to be Bishop of Alexandria, only that St. Mark was delegated to be the first Bishop of Alexandria by St. Peter (and which is, I believe, debatable that St. Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria).


Well, I think it was conciliar and papal; certainly more conciliar than in the medeival Catholic Church, but then I say, so what (but that's just me and probably isn't a very educated position ).

Well, I think that's kind of difficult to pinpoint. What do you mean by monarchy? Do you mean to say that the Pope abused his power to the inappropriate exclusion of conciliarity? The Catholic Church has held 14 ecumenical councils since the original 7, so I definitely wouldn't say the Catholic Church has totally forgotten conciliarity.

Logos Teen

LT- What is this about JPII being the "son of an Eastern Catholic"? I haven't heard that; what is your source?

Dear Daniel N,

This is true, I have known this for quite a few years now. I believe that it was his mother, and definitely one of his grandmothers.

In Christ,
Alice

Daniel

I know it has been discussed on here quite a while ago - maybe a hunt will bring it to light

Daniel,

I'm almost certain the mother of Karol Wojtyla was Ukrainian by ethnicity as well as a Ukrainian Catholic. I believe her name was Emilia Kacharovska. Not only that, but I just read on a website that she was a "Russinka," a Ukrainian of Russian roots. Contradicting this, I just read from a website that the Pope has said himself that his mom was Ukrainian of Lithuanian descent.

So, it's not exactly clear, but generally it's safe to say that she was Ukrainian and a Ukrainian Catholic.

Logos Teen

Greetings all,
I have also read that she was a Ukrainian Catholic and I think most people will agree, but there is some confusion among the web sources as to how that is, therefore the conflicting information we see on websites.

It helps to understand the history of the area. The old commonwealth of Greater Poland before the partitions was mostly a result of the merger of the Grand Principality of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. The whole eastern region of old Poland was populated by Kyivan Rus but controlled by Lithuanians before the merger, they were probably scattered all over the place.

After Lithuania and Poland merged the populations began to drift around the kingdom following opportunities, building careers or generally getting pushed around and many towns had people of very diverse backgrounds in close proximity. People in the eastern areas could easily have had a mixed ancestry, but in a case like that the ethnic group you identify with could be determined by what church you are raised in, it could be the best clue a person would have of her ultimate identity. This is only speculation on my part but if the church records (the best records of the times) showed a few Lithuanian names in ones ancestry it could be thought of as representing nobility and would be remembered. The Poles and Lithuanians were generally but not always Roman rite, and the Bielorussians and Ukrainians were generally but not always Greek rite.

At the time of the birth of the Popes' parents, Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. The eastern border of Poland in the Popes' youth was nothing more than the cease fire line from the Polish Soviet war in 1919-1920 and the eastern border of modern Poland is rather arbitrary, and mostly corresponds to the partition line agreed to by Molotov and Von Ribbentrop in 1939. Although large numbers of people were forcibly relocated after the war there are still people on both sides of the border that belong to the other ethnic group. From what I can tell most Greek Catholics in Poland are assumed to be Ukrainians and the Byzantine Catholic church in Poland is attached to the Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan of L'viv (soon to be of Kyiv), Patriarch Lubomyr Husar.

At the time of the Popes visit to Ukraine a great deal was made of his Ukrainian ancestry, so there are probably some references to that fact in books and on websites describing the trip.

Michael

Thanks, everyone. Man, you learn something new everyday on the forum...and I have read several biographies of the Pope.

Michael,

Both the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Prezmysl-Warsaw (which is 900+ years old) and the Eparchy of Wroclaw-Gdansk (erected in 1996) are Byzantine Ukrainian. Their combined reported census in the 2003 Annuario Pontificio was 85,000.

There was an Ordinariate for Faithful of the Eastern Rites, but I'm not certain that it is still extant. I believe that zero data were reported for it in AP 2003.

Many years,

Neil

What of the Polish Orthodox church?

Is there any reliable DATA about the numbers and ethnic composition of the church that anyone can share?