Orthodox-Catholic Commission to discuss primacy of the Pope at the meeting in October in Italy

interfax ^ | 28 May 2007, 12:17 | interfax

[Kolokotronis]

“How the Roman church and Orthodox can reconcile this, I do not know, but it appears that one side must give completely way to the other.”

I don’t know either. But for Vatican I, I think it would be quite easy, frankly. Orthodoxy won’t buy into Vatican I. I think everyone, from +BXVI on down understands this. On the other hand, I understand the Roman system about its dogmas the same way you do. Given the clarity of the Vatican I anathems, it seems that any move away from their clear expression would mean anathemazation. I’ll comment, however, that +BXVI has said that Orthodoxy cannot be expected to accept anything more of Petrine Primacy than Orthodoxy accepted before the Great Schism. Now unless he was just fooling with us, I have to assume that he and the Orthodox hierarchs don’t see Vatican I as being the insurmountable obstacle that you and I see it as. Why they don’t is a mystery to me but I have to believe they all have better things to do than just flap their gums at each other.

[Andrew Byler]

He may well have been 100% correct, but that isn’t because he could or did infallibly declare anything and of course, as kawaii points out, a council could declare what he said to be heresy.

In general, Catholics view the indefectibility of the Church being such that such a profession would be protected from error seeing as it was widely adopted by the Church and presented to those outside the Church as a true confession of faith for them to adopt or continue in estrangement.

To claim that hundreds of years later a council could come along and say he erred formally in making this profession would be generally looked upon as being entirely contradictory to the promises of Christ to His Church - "behold I am with you always" and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", and the guidance given by the Holy Ghost to "lead you in all truth". If the Council could condemn, where was the guiadance of Christ and His Spirit for the 350 years that the Confession was held out as true?

No, Patriarch Dositheos is not in an of himself always infallible. But his profession is if it is widely adopted and held as entirely Orthodox for a long period of time.

Think of St. Vincent of Lerins dictum - "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally" - "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus"

If Patriarch Dositheos confesses that which had been believed up until then "everywhere, always and by all" then his profession is fully Orthodox and also partakes of the infallibility that Christ promised His Church.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Whoever is interested in the Schism should read the very short book After Nine Hundred Years by Yves Cardinal Congar. It's perhaps more constructive than tiresome rehashing of the filioque, 4th Crusade, Papal infallibility, etc. This book has been influential on the present Catholic policy toward the Schism. So both Catholic and Orthodox should read it. Download the djvu version and read it with Windjvu (freeware).

[Andrew Byler]

You will note that when Constantinople was raised to second place, it was because it was the New Rome, not because +Andrew founded, according to tradition, that particular church.

On this point, not only was Constantinople raised up, but Ephesus, the Church of the Apostle St. John, was thrown down and stripped of some of its privileges and powers. Similarly, Jerusalem was raised up to the Patriarchal dignity by the Fathers from nothingness, and powers taken away from Antioch and given to Jerusalem. In the natural order of things, Constantinople is now gradually being eclipsed, and Moscow is rising.

At least on the level of the Patriarchates, it seems clear that the powers inherent in the office come from the general grant of authority Christ gave his Church, and the manner of organization Christ wished his Church to have, which is a centralized heirarchical organization following the local population and administrative tendencies of the land in which the particular Church is situated.

Frankly, to say that the passage in Matthew establishes a monarchial primarcy in the current tenant of the Vatican because he is the successor of +Peter applies with equal force to Antioch, which as a Petrine See has the older and better established, historically speaking, claim.

I don't think this follows logically at all. St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch, and was its first head. But after he left for Rome, his successor in Antioch could hardly be St. Peter's replacement if he had a universal office, since St. Peter was still alive, and the Church cannot have two heads. Therefore, Antioch could never be the sucessor of St. Peter to any sort of universal primacy, since two men cannot simultaneously hold a universal jurisdiction.

[Andrew Byler]

No limitations there, are there!

Vatican I wasn't written to address limitations to Papal power. It was written to set forth the truth that the Pope is the head of the Church, and in what manner that headship is to be understood. I.e.:

(1) That St. Peter received a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church from Our Lord, (2) that the Roman Pontiff is successor of St. Peter in this office, (3) that the Pope has immediate, ordinary, and final unappealable Episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful in matters, of faith, morals, discipline, and government, (4) in order to safe-guard his judgement in these matters he is infallible in matters of faith and morals when teaching the faithful.

Vatican I was not concerned with the organization of the Church, the source, role, rights, and powers of Bishops, the criteria for the Pope to exercise his authority legitimately, the limits placed on these powers by the faith, Tradition and Revelation, and previous Popes, the general infallibility and indefectibiility of the Church, infallibility and jurisdiction held by others or available to others in the heirarchy, etc.

One might express this as Vatican I told us the truth that the Pope has the right to do or to ensure the carrying out of any action that any other heirarch has in the Church. But it doesn't follow from this truth that the Pope has the right to always carry out these actions and to abolish the rights of the other heirarchs to do them, even de facto.

[kosta50]

• The short answer is yes. The Patriarchs have the authority to write new canons, change the liturgy, and pass judgment on cases. They can call councils, depose Bishops and priests under them, judge and regulate monasteries, and discipline clerics, monks, and nuns, as well as the lay faithful. All these things they have done in the past

They have done it, but they are not necessarily canonical. The Serbian Orthodox Church just concluded its two-week synod where the major topic of discussion were liturgical changes implemented by one or a small number of bishops. The 'changes' involved keeping the Royal Doors open throughout the service and reading the opening prayers aloud , whereas a priest is supposed to recite them to himself according to the Typikon.

Some priests actually refused to 'radically' change the Orthodox Divine Liturgy and were suspended by the bishop(s). Their graces were also facing open opposition in the monasteries and laity.

The synod agreed to study the changes and see if there is any justification or need for them, but in the meantime, the Synod decreed (with the Patriarch, who presided, casting his vote as all the rest) that the liturgical service will continue as prescribed by the Typikon.

So, while a bishop is the final authority in any church, he is not at liberty to implement changes that are not canonical, just as a police officer is not allowed to break the law (i.e. speeding) unless in the legitimate performance of his duty. Such a police officer makes himself an outlaw; and a bishop who imlplements uncanonical changes ex-communicates himself from the Church.

• Its difficult for East and West to make a union of the Churches before they truly understand all the implications of how they actually live the life of faith

I think that is an excellent summary of what's at stake.

[kosta50]

How the Roman church and Orthodox can reconcile this, I do not know, but it appears

The Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility locked the doors and threw away the key. It made the separation of Orthodox and Catholic Churches real and final. It was a single offending act that practically assured true reconcilliation will not be possible without one side, as you say, giving in completely and – as someone once said [not so] eloquently – "that ain't never gonna happen."

[kosta50]

I have to assume that he [+BXVI] and the Orthodox hierarchs don’t see Vatican I as being the insurmountable obstacle that you and I see it as. Why they don’t is a mystery to me but I have to believe they all have better things to do than just flap their gums at each other

They are smart cookies, Kolo, and they have a way with words. they look at the situation under which the councils following the 7th took place and they say they were ecumenical because they consider themselves as One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church. And, we orthodox consider ours the same.

Technically, a Pan-Orthodox Synod could be an 'ecumenical council' under those definitions. We choose not to call them ecumenical because the Pope did not preside over them, but then that was his doing not ours. It has a historical precedent.

The Latins, on the other hand say that their councils were ecumenical but not binding to the Orthodox because their absence was not voluntary but a consequence of circumstances (which have all been forgiven in 1964), and a reflection of reality (i.e. communal separation).

So, we simply, don't call our councils ecumenical and don't Hold Latins to them, and they say that, due to circumstances, we cannot be held obligated.

[FormerLib]

The doctrine of infallibility is solemnly defined in the Dogmatic Constitution of first Vatican Council known as Pastor Aeternus.

Ok, imagine that Rome announces that it has declared that doctrine as optional, think filioque, in order to reunite with the Orthodox Christian Church. What do you do?

[kosta50]

That St. Peter received a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church from Our Lord

We agree, but the extent and nature of that jursidction is subject of disagreement.

Also, the majority of Orthodox hierarchs do not agree that papal primacy is biblical, but a reflection fo pre-eminence of Old Rome as the Imperial capital.

[old republic]

If I understand your question, what you are asking is what do you do if the Bishop of Rome decrees an infallible teaching in contradiction of another infallible question. The pope can declare an older fallible doctrine to be void by the use of his infallible authority, but he cannot contradict another infallible doctrine. I am not sure whether the filioque clause was ever infallibly proclaimed, though the Orthodox were very upset that the Pope presumed to allow the insertion of filioque into the Creed without the sanction of an ecumenical council.

As for an infallible statement contradicting another infallible statement, presumably this is not possible (because if two infallible statements cannot contradict by definition) so it would suggest that one statement or the other is a lie and therefore one of the two statements were sanctioned by an antipope. (This is why you end up with some sedevacantist groups who think that there hasn't been a legitimate pope since Pius XII, because they believe that the popes since have taught heresy.)

[Aquinasfan]

Peter is told he "will" be given the keys but Matthew 16:19 does not tell of him actually receiving them.

So Jesus didn't deliver on his promise to give Peter the keys?

It is in John that they receive the Holy Spirit along with the ability to bind and loose and they do so all at the same time.

No one is arguing that the Apostles are also given the power to bind and loose.

What Catholics argue is that only Peter is given the keys, which represent the vice-regency of the House of David. Historically, there was never more than one vic-regent, any more than there was ever more than one king ruling a kingdom. And in Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter.

There is a reason why the Vatican flag looks like this:

[Aquinasfan]

Also, the majority of Orthodox hierarchs do not agree that papal primacy is biblical

See my post #43.

[FormerLib]

...though the Orthodox were very upset that the Pope presumed to allow the insertion of filioque into the Creed without the sanction of an ecumenical council.

Being accused of heresy for not inserting the filioque in contradiction of the ecumenical council was problematic as well.

[FormerLib]

So Jesus didn't deliver on his promise to give Peter the keys?

He did when He gave all of the Apostles the powers to bind and loose, something literally done with a key.

But even if you put that aside for a moment, there is no historical or scriptural support (although I've seen volumes of cut-and-pastes of interpretations that attempt to claim otherwise) that gives Peter's successors absolute authority over the successors of the other Apostles.

We can now begin repeating ourselves ad infinitum, that's usually how these discussion play out.

[FormerLib]

Also, the majority of Orthodox hierarchs do not agree that papal primacy is biblical.

Quite correct. They will not be changing their stance on that or any of the other historical teachings of the Church.

[Andrew Byler]

Also, the majority of Orthodox hierarchs do not agree that papal primacy is biblical, but a reflection fo pre-eminence of Old Rome as the Imperial capital.

I believe it is both. Papal primacy itself is biblical, and the residence of the Pope in Rome as sucessor of St. Peter is an artifact of its being the Imperial Capital. Had Timbuctoo been the center of the civilized world in AD 33, St. Peter would have taken up residence there instead.

[Andrew Byler]

Bishop of Rome decrees an infallible teaching

The Pope does not decree infallible teachings. Rather, infallibility ensures that what he teaches the Church based on the Deposit of Reveltion is not liable to error. Infallibility is not a power of the Papal Office to proclaim truths, but a protective assistance given by the Holy Ghost to restrain the Pope from leading the Church into heresy. The Pope can only teach as far as he himself knows and understands. If he is an ignorant man, his teaching abilities will be quite limited, despite being infallible in them.

older fallible doctrine

The Church does not teach fallible doctrines. Individual heretics might, but not the Church. The Pope is necessarily held to this same distinction.

[Aquinasfan]

there is no historical or scriptural support

So are you saying that the historical office of the vice-regent of the House of David didn't exist? (see Isaiah 22)

Or are you saying that Jesus isn't the eternal king of the House of David, who holds the "Key of David"? (see Revelation 3:7)

Or are you saying that He doesn't give this key to Peter? (Matthew 16:19)

If you want to refute my argument, you will have to refute at least one of these biblical premises.

Otherwise, it is an established biblical fact that Jesus gave to Peter "the key of David," which represents the office of the vice-regency of the eternal Davidic kingdom.

You haven't addressed directly any of my very direct arguments. I assume this is because you cannot refute them. And in my many years here, no one has.