www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russians leave ecumenical talks in rift with Constantinople

What is somewhat ironic is that it was intra-ecclesiastical affairs that prompted the exit of the MP delegates, and nothing to do with the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue itself.

??? Why ??? The "power grab" didn't take effect until later...

Some would say...the "power grab" didn't officially solidify until Vatican I...because it wasn't until the infallibility doctrine was officially ratified by the Western Church...up until then there was hope...

Fr. Deacon...the lens, the lens....

Was it the person of Peter or the faith that Peter showed which the Church was being built upon...Members in Communion with Rome view it one way...everyone else views it the other...

Deacon Robert, I very much doubt the thinking that developed over this issue (on both sides) had anything to do with the distinction of Greek and Aramaic linguistic roots of the text. I would assume the parties on both sides basically assumed the text was composed in Koine, and interpreted in different ways. If the author of the Matthew gospel did compose the original in Aramaic, I think it's really beside the point. It's speculation as to his intentions with the phrase. The petros/petra distinction is also not the sole realm of Orthodox extremists, but the basic interpretation as taught by the church. One could of course make the point that they're all anti-papal apologists by nature.

In the end none of this would ever be resolved through hermeneutics anyway. It can be a fascinating mind game, but is essentially and endless maze of potential interpretations. It certainly would be fascinating to see if in the dialog the Catholic representatives brought up the topic of understanding the Matthew passage in Aramaic.

In the end what you have is a three way historical political dispute that has taken on a dimension of theological dogma. The last being the knot which looks like it has no way of unwinding without undoing the whole thing.

Another text which Catholic commentators utilize to support the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy is John 21: 15-17 ("Feed my Lambs"/"Feed my Sheep"), the point being made that the other Apostles are not addressed by the Master in the same fashion. I do realize that many Eastern Orthodox theologians and commentators do not deny that Peter has primacy, but have a problem with the way it is understood and exercised. Many, on both sides of the discussion, argue for looking at the undivided, first milennium Church as a "role model" in bringing about a restoration. Recent Popes, esp. JPII, have indicated an openness to changing the "how" of the exercise of the primacy. So, let's leave it to the Holy Spirit, and the good will of the participants in the dialogue.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I think the issue here is to try and understand what was intended by the writer, bearing in mind the fact that, whether or not Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he was quoting Jesus who had spoken in Aramaic! Furthermore, the NT attributes to Simon Bar-Jonah not only the name Petros, but Kephas as well.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

All of which tells me it would be impossible to base an ecclesiological principle not only on a single verse, but on this one particularly.

As far as the thread goes, it seems to me the Russians are in the right in their understanding of governance vis-a-vis the topic at hand. Both within the church and without.

Chris,

You completely miss the point. There is nothing in any of the texts mentioned that indicates a regional limitation. It is not a matter of interpretation or interpolation. It just simply does not say any such thing.

As to how these texts may establish the Catholic view of primacy, that is a matter of interpretation. I personally believe it to be the correct one, when properly explaied and understood. I think calling it a "power grab" is both inaccurate and more than a bit insulting. If Eastern Catholics starting saying such things about Orthodox Patriarchs past and present, do you think it would be tolerated for a minute? No - absolutely not...nor should it be. I think you should extend the same courtesy to your Catholic brethren.

In ICXC,

Gordo

what do you mean by this?

Job,

...the lens, the lens...

Everyone has a bias in interpreting any written text. Therein lies the rub...

Which is precisely why Christ established the apostolic college as a living magisterium to continue on through thousands of years with Peter (or at least one who has his office) as its head and occasional spokesperson.

In ICXC,

Gordo

As with most ors in our faith, the answer is YES.

Faith or and works - yes.
Symbol or and Real Presence yes.

As far as the Orthodox are concerned the bishops in general succeed all of the Apostles (including Peter), and so the Roman Church does not possess a unique charism or sacrament of primacy.

Gordo,

The notes in the ACW translation of St. Ignatius' letters makes it clear that it is impossible from the text itself to determine the geographic extent of Roman precedence. In other words, St. Ignatius' comments are ambiguous and are open to various interpretations.

My own view is that the only apostolic orders of the Church that can be traced back to the New Testament and the 1st century Church are those of Bishop/Presbyter and Deacon. Later, the offices of Bishop and Presbyter became seperated so that we now have the three-fold ministry. I do not think that there is an office of Patriarch or Pope per se. They are just honorary titles and are not indispensible. Interestingly enough, I found out yesterday that this is my priest's view and that it is a common one among Orthodox theologians.

So fighting over who gets to sit in the first chair and who gets to be called second is fruitless in my opinion. A bishop is just a bishop. There is no office higher than the Bishop.

Joe