www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Leaders Could Accept Papal Primacy

Russian Orthodox Bishop Says Orthodox Leaders Could Accept Papal Primacy [orthodoxytoday.org]

Papal Primacy under what terms?

Hello,

I've read one of John Paul II's books...I think the first one out as a Pope...I can't remember the name of it...it has white and gold covers...attractive looking...

Anyway...the book is so hard to understand...but there's a part in there that I do understand...that John Paul II said that all bishops (I'm paraphrasing here) are like "popes" for his own Diocese.

That's cool.

Anyway...my point of view about Pope of Rome having Primacy of Honor does NOT mean Supremacy...ruling over other bishops. To me...a Pope should be like a "President" of a Board...ya know? Faciliating and keeping everybody together...etc. A sign of Unity...etc. ya know.

Yeah...a president of a board of directors. That's what a Pope is. Also whatever problems other Eparchs and Patriarchs have...they go up to him and he'll settle it out.

That's just how I see it.

Also...there should be more CLEAR and CRISP lines between Patriarch of the West and Pope of Rome. Patriarch of the West have direct jurisdiction over Roman Church...while the Pope of Rome should not have jurisdiction over other Churches.

I wish the Pope would just identify himself to certain people based on a certain role...like for instance...if it has to do with Roman Catholics...he should call himself Patriarch of the West in letters to them or whatever.

If the Pope addresses to the whole world..he'll sign himself as Pope of Rome or something.

Thoughts?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

This a very exciting prospect!

As far as Primacy under what terms, I think Apotheoun supplied some excellent information on this view of Primacy and Synodality as being important.

Full Article [thetablet.co.uk]

I say wonderful! I pray for realization.

Terms I doubt the RCC will ultimately manage to assent to, because what Metropolitan Philaret is stating is really nothing new. In the RCC now bishops gain their validity by nature of being in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and the Roman Pontiff in turn reserves the right to intervene and exercise his own jurisdiction in the affairs of any local church. That I believe is what Metropolitan John Zizoulis was referring to in another interview in 30 Days as the pyramidal structure of the RCC.

Metropolitan Philaret articulated his belief in 30 Days if I understand him correctly that bishop�s gain their validity from their own sees and their own apostolic succession; they are not laterally dependent on another bishop to be �true� churches. He also says where the Eucharist is present, so is the fullness of the church. I would guess he would say primacy is something intrinsic to a synod, and cannot be exercised over and above a synod as the definition of infallibility states. I would think he would also see primacy as being appellate and mediatory in nature, and not something that could be invoked to wield authority beyond ones own canonical boundaries.

Basically I don�t see things changing because supremacy and not primacy is a cornerstone of modern RCC ecclesiology and identity, and is something which has dogmatic backing. I honestly don�t see how the RCC could reform itself in order to come in line with the Orthodox view of primacy.

Andrew

I don't think the problem is going to be with the RCC but the Orthodox. What in the world is the Orthodox going to do with Papal Infallibility?

I just think reunion is a pipe dream that only IC XC can make it happen.

Dear Ray you said:

"I don't think the problem is going to be with the RCC but the Orthodox. What in the world is the Orthodox going to do with Papal Infallibility?"

I say:

I don't think it's Papal infallibility, but rather the two doctrines that came with that infallibility. If they can be decided, then the issue is no issue...or at least it shouldn't be.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

Explain further.

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy that had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.

Pope Benedict XVI, on Orthodox Tradition 02/05

james

Is the problem that this was made in to a dogma, or that the Orthodox believe it is wrong? It depends on ones perspective I suppose.

The only real basis for some sort of reconciliation would be to return to the situation before the schism (as the Ratzinger quote states). So who is closer to being the church as it was at the time of the schism, and who can most easily return to that state? That is where the problem lies.

Yes.

Andrew

I believe zenovia refers to the two dogmatic statements that were pronounced "Ex Cathedra"
Namely, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, and the Assumption into heaven of the Theotokos if I recall correctly.

Dear Friends,

I rather think that the two dogmas at issue here are those dealing with Papal Jurisdictional Primacy and Papal Infallibility - they both add something that was not recognized by the Orthodox prior to the schism of East and West.

Papal infallibility outside the context of an Ecumenical Council is simply unthinkable for the Orthodox Churches. The RC Church would have to further develop it to return the focus of that charism back to the ecumenical council as being representative of the entire Church and to tie it back to the idea that the Pope does not "make up" new doctrine - but merely affirms what was already always believed etc.

Papal primacy of jurisdiction is also something that the RC Church needs to further develop (please note that I did NOT say "cancel").

That development needs to return the focus of papal jurisdiction to one on "presiding in love" where, in practical terms, the Particular, Local Church deals with its own internal organization and where the Pope ONLY intervenes during a time of crisis ie. if Canons binding on all are broken OR if a bishop or theologian wishes to directly appeal to the Pope for a hearing etc.

In actual fact, the IC and Assumption dogmas pose very little problem for the Orthodox East INSOFAR as they can be seen as developments of the Particular Latin Church that add NOTHING to the Orthodox East's CONTINUAL veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos as "All Holy" from her Conception in the womb of St Anne and as having been taken to heaven, body and soul, - all on the basis of the Orthodox "lex orandi, lex credendi" tradition.

Rome should also recognize that not all aspects of faith need to be defined by way of infallible pronouncement either.

Roman Catholics should also recognize that the Eastern Churches have always highly venerated the many Popes of Rome glorified in the first millennium and have been quite adamant about underscoring their role in various conflicts over heresies in that time. The Orthodox, for example, have NO problem acknowledging the Pope of Rome as successor of St Peter in a way that other Patriarchs are not.

But being a successor of Peter does not automatically guarantee that a pope cannot fall into what the Orthodox see as heresy. Pope Honorius - whose excommunication by the Sixth Council was repeated out loud by his Papal successors until the 12th century - is a case in point.

As Meyendorff quotes one Orthodox teacher as saying, "Do not argue with the Latins over the Primacy. It is good for the Church. When the Pope confesses the faith of Peter (i.e. original Creed) then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Alex

Everytime I read what the Orthodox Theologians and Bishops have to say and consider what I have learned these past 7 years since my reconversion, I just don't get what the problem is. From what I've read of the Bible, the Catechism, the Early Church Fathers, the Councils, etc... I don't see how there is a problem.

If we take away how Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X applied the Papal Primacy and go back to the original applications of the doctrine, I don't see a problem and I think that the Servants of God Popes Paul VI and John Paul II were trying to go back to the middle road on this doctrine that had swung to the right since Bl. Pius IX (or maybe sooner than him.)

If we really get down to it there is no essential difference in the Theologies in the Two Lungs of the Church (the human lungs actually have 5 lobes; 2 on the left {Rome and Alexandria} and 3 on the right {Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem.})

Most of the polemics I have read on the Forum really were just two people talking (writing) past each other.

The West says the Theotokos was born without Original Sin and the East says Conceived in All Holiness, potaytoh potattoh.

The West says that She was Assumed into Heaven Body and Soul and the East says she fell asleep in the Lord and was taken into Heaven, tomayto tomatto.

Where do we essentially disagree? Is most of this not politics being played by both sides?

I am not looking for a fight but clarification, I see no difference in the theologies between the two Churches just different expressions and terminologies. If there can be no agreement on these issues why do the Eastern Catholic Churches exist?

I believe the Immaculate Conception has been discussed ad nauseum on this site. The real issue with the Latin forumalation is that if true, would preclude the Theotokos from having achieved true theosis and for that reason is not acceptable. The way the dogma was proclaimed, while again not acceptable to the East, is the lesser problem in my estimation.

The other issues of UOJ and infallibility are certainly the other well known show stoppers.

Andrew

~I~ have to wonder would the Union of Brest ever have happened if papal infalibility and the Immaculate Conception were added to the list of dogmas to be believed.

Gaudior, pondering

The Latin formulation in no way would preclude "true" theosis, any more that the sacraments precludes you from achieving it.