Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY Pope John Paul II again reached out to the Orthodox Church on Sunday, saying his efforts at reconciliation weren't just "ecclesiastic courtesy" but a sign of his profound desire to unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
John Paul made the comments during his regular appearance to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square. Later Sunday, he welcomed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at a traditional Mass marking the feast day of St. Peter and St. Paul.
"The exchange of delegations between Rome and Constantinople, for the respective patron feasts, goes beyond just an act of ecclesiastic courtesy," the pontiff said. "It reflects the profound and rooted intention to re-establish the full communion between East and West."
John Paul has made improving relations with the Orthodox Church a hallmark of his nearly 25-year papacy, visiting several mostly Orthodox countries and expressing regret for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Orthodox Christians.
Despite his efforts at healing the 1,000-year-old schism, he hasn't yet visited Russia because of objections from the Russian Orthodox Church.
During the Mass on Sunday, 42 new archbishops received the pallium, a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that symbolizes their bond with the Vatican. Two of the archbishops received the pallium in their home parishes; the rest took part in the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
That's how we know you really are Orthodox....
My recent thinking is that if the Trinity is one and also diverse, why not the churches here on earth?
What is unity? Must it carry the rubberstamp of a human?
You have me all wrong.
God can bring believers together. It won't happen by political maneuvering, though. I think the pope is way to optimistic about what divides us.
I don't mind arguments (I actually enjoy a good reasoned argument -- maybe over dinner or a good micro-brew) but most of this thread isn't an argument -- it's a brawl!
Paul
At any rate I think most Orthodox would be happy to sit back and let God do the work of unity. I am sure that you understand our concerns about domination and the pope and that you know well the differences in how we (RC and EO) view and accept vertical authority.
In light of obvious differences posted here along those same lines, it does seem that only God is able to mend this fence.
St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on the Gospel of St. John, the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians, the First Letter to Timothy, the Acts of the Apostles, etc. clearly stated that Peter held the authority and primacy (yes, that word) in the Church over the whole world.
Anyone with a glimmer of knowledge of Church history knows that once you admit Peter to the primacy, you give it also to the pontiffs. Thus the famous acclimation "Peter has spoken through Leo!" at Chalcedon, and "Peter has spoken through Agatho!" at Constantinople III. The Popes never have claimed anything more. "Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod" (Pope St. Gregory the Great). The formula in making an infallible pronouncement today invariably includes "By our supreme Apostolic authority", in other words, by the Authority of Blessed Peter, who lives on in my exercise of the Papacy.
Chrysostom can scarcely be accused of being ignorant of the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16.17-19, most recently sent to Constantinople in 382, a scant few years before his own accession to that throne. In fact, his Homilies give exactly the Roman interpretation sent by Pope St. Damasus I.
What is most important is that we are not legalistic. Several of my children were rec'd into the church with pouring, and standing in a basin. You remind me of people who think our fasting periods are only about food. It is like you see trees and want each one labeled definitely, when in truth our church is much more like a forest.
Again we are not legalistic. It is largely a matter of discussion and relationship between the priest and convert or individual. I have seen it hashed out for weeks in internet discussions among Orthodox. It is not ground in stone.
"Q. How do you interpret Jesus' words to Peter about being the "rock" of the Church? Does the Blessed Theophylact contradict Orthodox teaching when he writes: "The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him?" Do the Orthodox see the Pope as the world's Christian leader?"
"The verse to which you refer is one of the most controversial in the entire Bible: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18). Peter in Aramaic is Cephas, meaning "Rock" or "Rocky," a play on words by Jesus. Roman Catholics see this verse as applying to Peter himself and passing on the privilege to all the popes in history. Many centuries later, popes began to claim not only universal authority over the whole Church but also infallibility when speaking officially ("ex cathedra") on matters of faith and morals.
In contrast, Protestants have insisted that Jesus' words applied only to Peter's confession of faith. They would say that every Christian can make a similar confession, and this has nothing to do with privileges accrued to Popes centuries later. It seems that in their mutual antagonisms and search for ultimate authority Protestants looked to the Bible as an infallible book, whereas the Roman Catholics found it in an infallible Pope.
The Eastern Orthodox tradition, developing apart from Western controversies, offers a "golden mean" between the two extremes. Orthodox theologians mainly interpret Jesus' words as referring to Peter's confession of faith, but they also attribute special privileges to Peter and his successors. The popes, we say, serve as bishops of the greatest of all Christian centers--Rome.
Neilos Kabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonike (14th century), writes: "As long as the pope observes due order and remains in the truth, he preserves the first place which belongs to him by right; he is the [earthly] head of the Church and supreme pontiff; the successor of Peter and of all the apostles." This rhetorically generous and weighty statement goes along with two assumptions: (a) that the true head, rock, and foundation of the Church is Christ himself; and (b) that the Popes have not quite kept "due order" nor have "remained in the truth," since they first claimed a universal monarchy over the Church, and then erroneously covered it with the mantle of infallibility.
When Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria (11th century) implies in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus is speaking about Peter himself, not only Peter's faith, it is within the Orthodox tradition. But Theophylact's very next sentence addresses the essence of the matter: "Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, 'this confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation.'"
The Apostle Peter was Jesus' chief disciple. After the resurrection, Jesus honored him with a special commission with the triple charge "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). Peter was clearly the leader of the earliest Church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14; 15:7), however, he was neither the only nor the absolute leader (Gal. 2:9). If the Pope would truly follow the example of Peter and would share leadership with his fellow bishops according to the precedent of the first Christian Council (Acts 15), then the Orthodox (and many other Christians besides) could once again accord the Pope full honors as the world's Christian leader signifying the Church's universal unity in Christ."
I don't think any Pope has ever claimed the Universal-Ecumenical title. What is the big deal about Pope St. Gregory not wanting it? Are you trying to pretend he did not uphold Roman Primacy over the East?
Epp., XIII, l, "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches"
Epp., V, cliv, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church."
Claimed a primacy over all Churches as successor of St. Peter in Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii.
Epp., IX, xxvi, "As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."
Did they fail to teach you what Pope St. Gregory the Great claimed? Its no different than the claims of Popes St. Gelaisus, Leo the Great, Damasus I, Hormisdas (he of the Formula of Hormisdas fame), etc.
As I said several times before, read your own liturgy!
In the Office of Pope St. Sylvester in the Byzantine Liturgy, we read: "Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples."
Of course the Council would say "Our Decisions". So did Vatican I when it defined on the Primacy and Infallibility. What of it???
Again, are you denying the Popes Legates ran the Council, and that St. Sylvester called it in conjunction with Emperor Constantine? This is the testimony of the Greeks and of your Byzantine Liturgy.
"Hosius himself, the famous Beacon of the Spaniards, held the place of Sylvester, bishop of great Rome, along with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent, as they held council with the many [bishops]." (Gelasius of Cyzicus, AD 475, Patrologia Graece 85:1229)
These three men signed first. Do you think the Eastern Bishops would have allowed two mere Priests to chair the council and sign the documents before them, had they not held the place of Pope St. Sylvester?
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.