Posted on 10/22/2004 10:49:52 AM PDT by Destro
Papal primacy: Land mine on the path to Catholic-Orthodox unity?
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnews.com ...
"A German Catholic theologian, Msgr. Hermann J. Pottmeyer, who participated in the 2003 symposium and the October book launch, said one promising idea is to clarify the difference between the pope's role as "patriarch of the West," with full jurisdiction and authority, and his role as primate of the universal church.
While in a united universal church his authority over the Christians in the East would have to be exercised in a less direct way, Msgr. Pottmeyer said, "he would not be just a brother," but would have to have some real power in order to be effective."
Why do they have to put it in terms of "power"? Fatherhood is about service far more than it is about power.
If all the Patriarchal churches are sui iuris, self-governing local churches (which is the way things are practically within the existing churches in communion with the Pope anyway) then why would the Pope need to have any involvement in their running at all?
If they wanted him to have a practical manifestation of his universal Primacy, then he could act as court of last resort when local Churches needed disputes sorting out at a higher level. However, there needn't be any obligation on them to pursue matters this far if they could resolve things at local synodal or Patriarchal levels.
Check out the link.
I did! Should be enough to keep them talking for a while.
JPII has already made it clear that he is prepared to look at changing the way primacy is exercised for the sake of unity.
IMO the Orthodox should call his bluff on it and see how far he is prepared to go. OTOH he may not be bluffing of course.
I don't think this Pope bluffs regardless of any feelings good or bad I have about him. Sometimes he contradicts himself (wanting dialogue with Serbian church but honoring a Croatian Bishop Serbs consider a villian as one example).
I don't get the impression its a bluff either. And I have at least some reason to believe that Constantinople and the Eparchies of the Ecumenical Throne are taking the matter quite seriously.
The reason why they use the word power is manifold. First I think the proper term is "authority" and not power. Be it as it may, the fact is that a bishop is the sole authority in his church. The various "ranks" among bishops are administrative (archbishop, metropolitan, etc.). I am not sure what is "Msgr" (an honorary title or administrative one) or why some bishops are cardinals (is that the same as archibishop?).
Historically, the Patriarch was the Bishop who presided in one of the historic first churches -- Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. The Old Rome became the seat of +Peter (and +Paul) and his successors, and then Constantinople assumed the role as the seat of +John and +James as the New Rome.
The Patriarchs, are first in honor among other bishops in that patriarchate, and they preside over the Synod (i.e. chairmen of the board). As such they exerts influence by their sheer primacy, in terms of decisions made by the Synod -- which always requires his concurrence.
The "sphere of authority" of a Patriarch was territorial. The Council of Chalcedon determined that eastern patriarchs will ordain bishops in their territory, and not the Pope. Thus no patriarch of the East could ordain a bishop in the domain of the Bishop of Rome, or vice versa. Needless to say, the Pope did not like this, but that's how the Church was run.
This was the "meat" of the issue between +Alexey II and +JPII over the so-called Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and I think the Pope made a wise and historically correct decision not to give in to the demands.
The final contention of the Orthodox is that the church is where the bishop is. Each bishop is a direct descendant of an Apostle and as such exercises the same degree of autonomy and authority as each Apostle did. There was no one in authority over an Apostle except Jesus Who received that authority from the Father and Who gave it to His disciples. Thus, what God has given only God can take away.
The Orthodox have the impression that a Catholic Bishop is but a representative of the Pope, and not of the Apostle who preceded him, and that the authority of each bishop is dependent on the Pope and subject to Pope's consent. That is contrary to the Apostolic tradition and succession. The Synod has the right to excommunicate an aberrant clergyman, if what he does is contrary to the teaching of the Church, which is determined by the Holy Synod.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Isaias 22:
And I will drive thee out from thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry.
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open
* Peter (Pope) alone is given the Keys and ultimate authority (on earth). He is, like Eliacim, the Prime Minister, the one with authority; like Eliacim, the Pope is a father-figure and the office of the Papacy is one of succession.
The office of Prime Minister continued as long as David's Kingdom continued. Catholics beleive Christ is King and the Pope His Prime Minister. Christ is the Head, Pope His earthly representative.
Other Apostles/Bishops have authorty to bind and loose (Matt 18:18) but not in the same individual manner as Peter when he was given the Keys. Only Peter was given the Keys.
I dont intend this post to start a war. I am just posting the Catholic position as I understand it.
Of course the Pope knows this - and a heck of a lot more - and I trust him to make whatever agreemnts are necessary to achieve union with some of the best and the brightest and holiest men and women on earth - those of the Orthodox Church.
Since each bishop is a direct descendant of one of the Apostles, he is the carrier of their authority by apostolic succession. The final authority in either side of the Church is the bishop. There is no "rank" higher than the bishop in terms of ecclesiastical authority. Some bishops fulfill administrative roles (archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc.). A priest has no "power" without a bishop. Each church under a bishop is a full Body of Christ. Churches are not "parts" of Him. I can't argue with your belief or the beliefs of Catholics, even if they are mistaken.
* You not only can't argue with them, you didn't even acknowledge their existence. I cited the relevant Scriptures behind the Christian Doctrine of Papal Primacy and The Keys. I accomplished my goal.
Peace, brother
You will need to do more, brother, 'cause you accomplished nothing, unless you make statements to convince yourself to believe that which you already believe. I suppose that you makes yourself appear here to try to convince those who don't agree with you that yours is the correct belief. Well, if that is so, you have accomplished nothing. You need to show me where in the New Testament does it say that other Apostles reported to Peter and that their authority was subject to Peter's approval and that he could override it! Otherwise you will sound like the broken record that has not convinced anyone -- except those who just want believe that this is so.
You also need to visit the Catholic Encyclopedia and read the definition of bishops in the Catholic Church and then show me how their function and authority relates to the Apostles form which they received their title? Let me save you the effort: it's unrecognizable! But don't take my word for it -- read it yourself.
The territorial jurisdiction of the Patriarchs was established by an Ecumenical Council -- against the wishes of the Pope (I believe at Chalcedon); the oridnation of the bishops of the East was not a Papal prerogative.
It was Chalcedon, in Canon 28, confirming the 2nd Council and indeed Leo did reject it, but nobody paid any attention to him and his successors up to a point certainly ascribed the second place to Constantinople. The Dictatus Papae was probably promulgated in 1087 and said:
"1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men."
Rather different than what the Councils had said, isn't it? The timing is interesting too, coming 32 years after the Great Schism. As far as I know, its still "good law" in the Roman Church. It seems to me that before there is any in depth tslk of unity, we ought to hear what Rome or RCs have to say about this.
Nevertheless, the position of the Catholic Church is, to the best of my understanding, that the Pope reserves the right to appoint and dismiss bishops without having to refer to the synod. It is also clear, from the Catholic definition of the office of the bishop, that he is not an Apostolic representative by virtue of his direct lineage to an Apostle, but that the sole authority of all Apostles is convergent only on the successor of Peter.
Needless to say, this is not what the Latin Church believed and how it operated prior to the Great Schism. It looks like the first signs of this increasingly imperial makeup of the Western Church started precisely with Gregory VII, and culminated in the Vatican I. The position and authority, as well as the election or nomination of Catholic bishops became revised at the Council of Trent [16th century!], which specifically (re)defined the rights of a bishop. Consistent with a continuous "evolution" of the Catholic Church, the final definition is summed up in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Anyone vaguely familiar with the history and practices of the Church of the first millennium and the Orthodox Church thereafter will know that this is not how it was but that the Catholic Church "reinvented the wheel" probably in an attempt to marry the pontiff's ecclesiastical authority with the secular realities of his monarchy.
Of course. But it all boils down to the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church (from the 11th century onward): the Pope is the Church. Changing that would fundamentally de-engineer one thousand years of Roman Catholicism.
To me that in itself makes any reconcilliation impossible. Not only do we have serious theological issues of language and concepts to deal with, but our understanding of the ecclasiastical authority and roles is almost mutually exclusive.
The best we can hope for is a mutual recognition of authority and sharing of Sacraments but not theology or restoring the Church. Perhaps that can make it easier for people to cross over -- simply by reciting the Creed of either side (which is what it should be now -- I really do not understand why the Orthodox insist on Chrismation of Catholics whose Baptism and Confirmation is valid). Maybe it is time to part for good and confess that our limited human capacity does not live up to God's standards.
"I really do not understand why the Orthodox insist on Chrismation of Catholics whose Baptism and Confirmation is valid)."
Here is the reason usually given, from the Second Ecumenical Council:
"Canon VII
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies -- for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians: -- all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. "
Even a rudimentary historical perspective can only lead one to that conclusion. Defenders of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibilty rarely touch on the confluence of political and religious macchinations (sp?) and imperatives of the time.
One Biblical passage that was given to me as proof of the Doctrine of Infallibility was "Peter I pray for Thee." Christ said this to Peter prior to his arrest, and for the express purpose of strengthening Peter's resolve in openly declaring himself a Follower. Peter failed that test, he denied the Lord. Jesus' prayers were not insufficient in any way, The Holy Spirit was not kept from strenthening Peter in any way, Peter's will was weak, his recourse to the Holy Spirit not fully-hearted.
I try not to think about the Infallibilty thing too much, I don't want to set my heart hard against it.
Are you suggesting the Church is comparing Catholics to Arians and other heretics? I am sorry, this just doesn't fit the bill. Especially since the Orthodox Church will receive members of the Oriental orthodox Churches on profession of the Symbol of Faith alone -- even though many of those Churches are actually heretic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.