www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal Supremacy

I am relatively new to this forum and please excuse me if I am covering terrain already trodden and chewed up in the past by forum veterans.

In the time that I have been reading postings on this site, I have seen what seems to be strong sentiment by a number of the Eastern Catholics here against the teaching of Papal jurisdictional supremacy.

My understanding is that papal worldwide authority is an official dogma of the Catholic church, and it is one of the key reasons why I moved from Eastern Orthodoxy to Byzantine Ruthenian Catholicism. There is some support for this in the early patristic fathers, including an Easterner like Maximos the Confessor. And, as I understand it, this position further solidifies in the early second millenium and is dogmatically proclaimed at the Vatican I ecumenical council and reaffirmed at the Vatican II ecumenical council. Also, our 1990 Code of Canons for Eastern Catholic Churches clearly attests to this teaching as well.

Given all that, why the apparently significant numbers of Eastern Catholics here who refuse to affirm this teaching? Am I somehow in the wrong place as a Byzantine Catholic? Should I be moving to the conservative precincts of the Western Latin Church if I wish to fully affirm papal supremacy, councils such as Lyon II, Florence, and Trent, and the solemn dogmatic teachings that emanate from such councils?

The simple answer to your question is that many do not accept all the Teachings of the Church, such as contraception, Papal Infalliblity, etc.

Just like during the Arian Crisis when so few were orthodox, or actually just like any period within the Church, though to a lesser extent.

Thankfully Truth is not subjective or subject to a popular vote.

Logos Teen

Welcome Robster,

First of all I would say that as a Byzantine Ruthenian you are (in my opinion) in the most conservatively positioned Byzantine church under the Pope. That is to say the bishops are directly controlled from Rome, and are most obedient. There is no connection to a Patriarchate in the "home" territories, all such churches are smaller and likewise controlled directly by Rome, so there is no independent voice.

I also think that your small Ruthenian community in Minneapolis is probably not anything like this internet commmunity. My guess is it is composed mostly of latin transfers and perhaps a bi-ritual Latin priest. I hardly imagine the group being critical of the papal doctrines, and you have a well-respected much beloved Eparch.

That said, I am not sure that you are reading the population here correctly. There is a considerable mix of Catholics and Orthodox, with the Catholics coming from a wide distribution and varied jurisdictions. You would have to know if every remark you read is from a BC, and the posting members here may be much more vocal and opinionated than the nash in the pews.

In any case, for the Eastern Catholic churches the notions of Papal "Supremacy" as you say was an import from the Latin church. Those powers were not clearly defined when the churches were originally incorporated into rites of the Roman Catholic church (as it was then, not regarded as churches under Canon Law). As it is the decrees of Vat I were not on the table at the time the decision was made by Ruthenians, Melkites and Ukrainians to join the latin church. They were not asked to assent to them then and foreknowledge of the changes might have been a deal-breaker at the time.

The ecclesiology of the western church (as centrally organized as it is) is not really natural to Orthodox Christianity. I know you realize this, because your decision to become a Catholic is based upon your acceptance of those dogmas. Many (most) of the Eastern Catholics here dearly love the Popes, and really desire a communion arrangement with the Pope above any other Patriarch, not willing to risk that for any reason; but yearn also for Holy Orthodoxy and a connection with their ancient roots. Most are grasping for a way to make that possible, and pray for the Holy Spirit to move the church in just such a way to make it possible to be in communion with both east and west. Who can blame them?

In any case, there is always an option to 'dox, and everyone knows it. The decision to remain in the bosum of the (Roman) Catholic communion can be nothing short of heroic in light of the relative ease of switching and the pressures one can feel being in such a middle position.

I don't really believe that one can be a Byzantine Catholic and not feel the tension! It is a natural part of being in this position and charged with the task of working toward Christian unity.

It is well known that if reunion is ever accomplished the Eastern Catholic churches will disappear into their Orthodox mother churches and most EC's I have known would welcome it as reflecting a job well done.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly about the Papal doctrines and the 21 Councils you should consider the possibility of joining a Roman parish, it might be a better fit. You sound very latin already . However I think perhaps you will be no better off: you could easily find a large number of Roman Catholics who also have doubts about the Papal doctrines (among others), all the while having no trouble presenting themselves for communion.

I know for a fact that many BC's here feel as strongly about the papacy as you do, it's just that the attitude is not universally adopted. It allows for stimulating exchanges here at times.

It would do no good waving a stick at the EC's. Trying to enforce a compliance of De Fide Roman Catholic dogmas on the varied group of regular posting EC's here could be like shaking a tree full of ripe fruit, one never knows how many will pop loose.


+T+
Michael

Excellent, excellent post !

-- John

Hello Hesychois, thank you for the message and the gracious welcome!

I'm still troubled, puzzled and perplexed, nonetheless.

Clearly when Ukrainians, Ruthenians and Melkites entered into reunion, Lyon II, Florence, and Trent had already been held. What exactly was the understanding here? At least with regard to purgatory, the Brest Union is fairly explicit and clear, if I'm reading it correctly. And when Vatican I came around, Eastern bishops were clearly present and many were supportive, or disapproved for varying reasons. But if the church, clearly, authoritatively spoke at Vatican I, then how can Eastern Catholics reject or withhold assent in good standing, any more than Arians could reject Niceae I and remain in good standing?

Don't all Catholics have to share the same faith? Isn't it suppose to be, basically, a matter of differing expression, forms, and details? If not, then how can we be said to all share a common Catholic faith?

I don't wish to be harsh or uncharitable, and maybe I'm too much of a Westerner in thought and heart to be where I am ecclesialocally and cyber space wise, :0, but this simple isn't computing on a very basic metaphysical level.

I'm will to be Byzantine Catholic, but I need to be 'fully' Catholic. That doesn't mean Novus Ordu or Tridentine or azymes, but it does mean all authoritaitve Councils and teachings. Catholic must come first for me. I can't place Byzantine religious culture over and above Catholic religious truth.

Hello Robster,
I cannot really honestly answer these questions for Byzantine Catholics (no longer involved). I can only speculate on some of the topics. I am much better at explaining my own thinking than speaking for others.

In North America there have already been many thousands of Byzantine Catholics who had 'returned' to Orthodoxy. This is historical fact. There were two great schisms, one started less than 20 years after the Vatican Council of 1870. The second began in the 1930's.

It is even possible that some of your ancestors participated in these epic events (depending upon your prior affiliation and pedigree that may be the case).

The Byzantine Ruthenians who stayed behind were the most attached to Rome (or perhaps the most attached to their latinisms?), and their loyalties were sorely tested. Sadly, some communities experienced a great deal of hard feeling and anxiety with family and friends through the repeated crises. We know that has subsided tremendously and often these days Eastern Catholics and Orthodox can be the best of friends!

So you are now part of a church that has been tested again and again. Why there may still be a strong sentiment toward Orthodoxy or against the papal doctrines is hard for me to say personally. It would be nice if those Byzantines who feel strongly on the subject could speak up and explain their thinking.

For myself (and myself only) I became convinced that the church made some claims about Papal authority and integrity that cannot be sustained historically. Making a simple declaration even in council does not make a lie into Truth, it soils the solemn proceedings.

When I finally admitted to myself that I could not believe the declarations of Vatican Council I no matter how hard I tried, I left. I was absolutely determined not to become another so-called cafeteria Catholic. My interior struggle was enormous, it made me ill.

Why any Catholic who does not believe in the papal doctrines will not leave the church is beyond me. Officially they are cast out latae sententiae as far as I know. (Unless of course they have decided that a Latin General Council they don't believe is ecumenical has no authority to condemn them.) Or perhaps they would like to be part of the great enterprise as it struggles to find it's Orthodox roots, in which case they would be betting on a change coming. As appealing as that sounds to me I don't know that I could agree with approaching the chalice of a church that endorses teachings I cannot accept as Truth.

I hope that I have not offended you. I wanted to openly address your concerns. We are much alike really, we have both experienced the conversion process.

+T+
Michael

It would probably very boring here if we all agreed on everything. I also have noted that some of the 'Catholic faction' who post here do seem (to me) to be always on the lookout of loopholes in canon law to as if to determine their own personal contract of 'union' with the Pope. I think that this stems from a lack of understanding of 'what is the Church' and proper processes in the Church and Canon law.

I take it for granted there is an Orthodox bottom line, as their is a Catholic bottom line beyond which neither faction can go and that is taken for granted by me.

I belong to a fairly conservative Russian Byzantine stream within the Catholic faction and we just go with the flow. I must admit that we have out dream list of things we would like to see in place in a perfect world, but now is clearly not the time for them and we know it.

ICXC
NIKA

Hi Robster,

Welcome. Christ is risen!

Okay, here's my $.02...

As a former Roman Catholic who has been unofficially Byzantine for three and a half years, I too have struggled with the issue of papal primacy.... particularly since lately I'm feeling SOOOO tempted to "dox."

My take, based on what I've read and learned, is that the Bishop of Rome has always had a primacy-- that's clear from the writings of the holy Fathers of both East and West, from the earliest times, as well as from holy Scripture itself. Catholics and Orthodox agree on this much.

Where the disagreement comes in is precisely *how* this primacy should be exercised. Personally, while I agree that the Bishop of Rome is the "first among equals", I don't think he was ever meant to be a monarch, to whom other bishops are merely his underlings. If this is the case, then each diocese in the Catholic Church has not one bishop, but two. I don't think what the papacy looks like today is what it looked like in the first millenium-- or what it's supposed to look like.

God bless,

Karen

Nothing is as it was in the first millenium...thankfully. The Church like all living things moves and has signs of life about it. Nothing is as it was in the Church in the first century let alone the millenium. The excercise of the Papal ministry to the Church often reflects what is happening in the world the Church exists in.

We need to be careful when we talk on any subject when we feel the need to say 'whatever' is like and then proceed to use a particular terminology that is itself loaded. This 'it is like' does not in itself explain or do justice to the subject of the posting. After all I dont see any negativity in a monarch, as I have one as my head of state who is greatly loved and respected.

There is a need to be informed on the processes used by the Popes to reach decisions. The consultation with brother bishops and experts in various areas need to be understood as part of the process that Popes utilise.

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel,

Christ is risen!

Hmmm... you mention that the Church is "living", and that's certainly true. However, since when does "living" = "changing"?

Granted, the Church isn't stagnant, nor is it supposed to be. But does this mean that the Church must be constantly "evolving" doctrinally and theologically? How does this square with the Church possessing the "faith ONCE delivered onto the saints?" These are some of the questions that I've been pondering.

And no, monarchy isn't itself a bad thing... isn't Christ the King, after all? I'm just questioning whether God intended for the Church to be a monarchy with the Bishop of Rome as head... and I'm thinking that the answer is "no."

God bless,

Karen

The Church is a monarchy with Christ at the Head, the Pope is just the Prime Minister.

Just like Pavel's Queen is Elizabeth II and his Prime Minister is John Howard.

cf Matt 16:16-19 and Isaiah 22:20-23.

Actually Dr Eric he is not my PM he is HM Queen Elizabeth's PM. I am flattered you thought he was my PM. He is the prime or principal minister among a group of ministers of the crown who manage the various portfolios of state. Interesting thing is we dont actually own a crown either. We must be cheapscates. We did buy HM a state carriage but shipped it to London so that it could get some use. Just a bit of trivia we ahve 9 Governments over here. 6 state, 2 territory and 1x commonwealth or federal one.

what was the topic here

ICXC
NIKA

Of course saying that doctrine develops is not the same as it changing. Although how extremely early Christians (pre-Gospels) understood Apostolic succession, papal primacy is open to debate. And maybe we should be debating that rather than the constantly rehashed docs of VII.

At any rate, an alternative view going around the Catholic Church, which the Orthodox may agree with, is that despite its purported de-centralising effect, VII was if anything a clericalising council. The people who spout "collegiality" as a criticism of Pope JPII clearly haven't read the documents. Collegiality is clearly couched in terms of the colege of Bishops and Cardinals. JPII was nothing if not a VII pope. VII's biggest efect was to elevate the status of all bishops not just the Papacy. Whereas before VII the Bishop was a Priest, after VII the priest is only a priest by virtue of the fact he's a minor bishop..sort of. The council actualy increased the Bishop's sway, and the manner of his appointment under the last pope the Pope's in a like manner. So back to the original post, there's official and official. How Papal primacy is seen now is different to how it was prior to JPII's pontificate, which was different to how it was prior to VII, etc. Note I say how it was seen, not what it was. But how it was seen before our schism with the Orthodox or before the Gospels were comitted to writing is not my area, but I wonder...

N

Of course, Dr. Eric, in your analogy, the Queen is a mere figurehead with no real authority anymore... the Prime Minister is the real head. And let's face it, the popes of the second millenium acted like and were treated like and lived like monarchs (until the latter half of the 20th century).

I think the authority of the Church was meant to be more collegial... the Bishop of Rome not interfering in the jurisdictions of his fellow bishops-- unless there is a major problem among the bishops, in which case he acts as a moderator. This seems to be the way it was done in the early Church.

Of course, with the Western Church being in such a state of decay, and considering that the bishops are largely responsible, calling for more collegiality there now would probably make things worse...

God bless,

Karen

I enjoyed reading your posts Karen and I feel you have a valid argument. If the Church was to have one head then Jesus would have "ordained" just one apostle. But in fact He "ordained" 12 special apostles to carry on the ministry. Peter was of course "first among equals." But that's just it, first among equals, not first 'above' equals. The Papacy seems to have changed into a quasi-monarchy when the rest of Europe did. It had to in order to survive. I am Catholic but have serious problems with the steps the Popes have taken. Papal infallibility is a curse to the Church rather than a teaching device. The Church will make these grand pronouncements and then have to backpeddle and make up loopholes for doctrines to still be valid. They paint themselves into a corner. I like the whole unity thing and that's why I linger in the Church, but it is wrong for me to do so at the expense of my personal convictions. Peter was 'not' infallible. Also, Peter was married. How can we expect people to be celibate to be the Pope when our first Pope and 38 others were married?