The irenic tone is much appreciated… shouldn’t it always be that way?
My question is, how does all this fit with Articles 16 and 19 of the Chieti document, that is, the agreed upon statement from Vatican appointed Catholic scholar-theologians and Orthodox theologians?
The irenic tone is much appreciated… shouldn’t it always be that way?
My question is, how does all this fit with Articles 16 and 19 of the Chieti document, that is, the agreed upon statement from Vatican appointed Catholic scholar-theologians and Orthodox theologians?
16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way.
Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The plain reading of these agreed upon statements is that the primacy of Rome was always understood differently by the West and the East…. and that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
These statements seem to me to belie the often stated notion that in the first millennium the East shared Rome’s concept of its own primacy, meaning that while the East recognized Roman primacy, it did not understand it as supremacy since they were not under the canonical authority of Rome but rather under their own bishops, etc.
This has always been my understanding from a holistic reading of church history away from the ‘quote mining’ techniques often used to argue the issue. I was surprised (and pleased) that Catholic theologians at the highest level acknowledge it.
Now I am sure there is much more of a back story to these agreements as well as ‘spin’ that can be put on them, explaining away with this or that nuance, and saying that the plain reading of the text is not what it seems. But if these statements stand, it seems to me that dialogue needs to continue on a different course.
I would point out that primacy, if it is to mean anything, has to involve some aspect of finality: not that the pope dictates to the Eastern bishops who they should appoint, how they should govern day to day, or what their own procedures should be, but rather, that a court of final appeal really must be that, and a dogmatic determination must be that. Otherwise, the primacy is nothing more than a fancy coat or hat, an honorific label.
Adrian Fortescue gathers some truly remarkable testimonies from the Eastern first millennium in his book "The Orthodox Eastern Church." Even granting as wide a difference in canonical, liturgical, and theological traditions as one wishes, the testimonies point to a veneration for the successors of Peter that is, if anything, over the top.
I read Fortescue decades ago. It was clear, to me at least, that he didn’t care much for the Eastern Church… I should look at it again and see if I still find that animus…
Yes, I believe the issue ultimately revolves around the definition of primacy, how it was understood then and how it is understood today. For what it’s worth it seems to me that ‘canonical authority’ speaks to more than episcopal appointments and managerial functions but one would need more information to better interpret the authors’ intentions.
The first paragraph of this reply brings to mind something I've contemplated regarding a theoretical East-West reunion: that the Orthodox would need to place their trust in Rome's ability to respect the limits of its authority over them.
Yet what has Rome demonstrated through the way it treats the bishops and rites already under its purview? It abuses its authority through overreach, selective enforcement, bureaucratization, and increased centralization of power to itself. Comparative respect for Eastern rites notwithstanding, it's not irrational to be wary of your estranged father who mistreats your siblings who live at home.
Barring divine intervention, we can't expect true East-West union until the West fixes its own dysfunctional relationship with authority. How can we bring our Eastern brethren to a proper view of the Church's hierarchy while we're catastrophically failing to model it ourselves?
Until we do that, we're stuck arguing Petrine primacy *and* the complexities of Recognize & Resist when we speak to Orthodox believers. "Yes, the Pope has authority, though he frequently and egregiously abuses it, so here's how to spiritually and psychologically defend yourself should you submit to him." Individuals are sometimes won over by this, but it's not a promising basis for widescale unification.
I like to look at a blog of the Spectator called "Holy Smoke." Recent one had a Ukrainian religious fellow explaining all the intricacies of why there were two (or is it three) separate Ukrainian Orthodox Churches -- plus that one in Moscow. The interviewer also had a man-in-the-street session with a young woman. Asked if it was difficult during wartime to make one's way to the proper church, she said: people go to the closest one. After all, the words are all the same. In other words, the people go to church to pray, while the bishops duke it out with each other.
The irenic tone is much appreciated… shouldn’t it always be that way?
My question is, how does all this fit with Articles 16 and 19 of the Chieti document, that is, the agreed upon statement from Vatican appointed Catholic scholar-theologians and Orthodox theologians?
To recap:
https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html
16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way.
Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The plain reading of these agreed upon statements is that the primacy of Rome was always understood differently by the West and the East…. and that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
These statements seem to me to belie the often stated notion that in the first millennium the East shared Rome’s concept of its own primacy, meaning that while the East recognized Roman primacy, it did not understand it as supremacy since they were not under the canonical authority of Rome but rather under their own bishops, etc.
This has always been my understanding from a holistic reading of church history away from the ‘quote mining’ techniques often used to argue the issue. I was surprised (and pleased) that Catholic theologians at the highest level acknowledge it.
Now I am sure there is much more of a back story to these agreements as well as ‘spin’ that can be put on them, explaining away with this or that nuance, and saying that the plain reading of the text is not what it seems. But if these statements stand, it seems to me that dialogue needs to continue on a different course.
Thank you very much for your comments.
I would point out that primacy, if it is to mean anything, has to involve some aspect of finality: not that the pope dictates to the Eastern bishops who they should appoint, how they should govern day to day, or what their own procedures should be, but rather, that a court of final appeal really must be that, and a dogmatic determination must be that. Otherwise, the primacy is nothing more than a fancy coat or hat, an honorific label.
Adrian Fortescue gathers some truly remarkable testimonies from the Eastern first millennium in his book "The Orthodox Eastern Church." Even granting as wide a difference in canonical, liturgical, and theological traditions as one wishes, the testimonies point to a veneration for the successors of Peter that is, if anything, over the top.
https://osjustipress.com/products/the-orthodox-eastern-church
I read Fortescue decades ago. It was clear, to me at least, that he didn’t care much for the Eastern Church… I should look at it again and see if I still find that animus…
Yes, I believe the issue ultimately revolves around the definition of primacy, how it was understood then and how it is understood today. For what it’s worth it seems to me that ‘canonical authority’ speaks to more than episcopal appointments and managerial functions but one would need more information to better interpret the authors’ intentions.
It's true that Fortescue is curmudgeonly at times, but he's also that way about the Latin West, so fair play!
A good book in terms of recent (and placid) scholarship is Erick Ybarra's "The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox."
https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Revisiting-Between-Catholics-Orthodox/dp/1645852210
The first paragraph of this reply brings to mind something I've contemplated regarding a theoretical East-West reunion: that the Orthodox would need to place their trust in Rome's ability to respect the limits of its authority over them.
Yet what has Rome demonstrated through the way it treats the bishops and rites already under its purview? It abuses its authority through overreach, selective enforcement, bureaucratization, and increased centralization of power to itself. Comparative respect for Eastern rites notwithstanding, it's not irrational to be wary of your estranged father who mistreats your siblings who live at home.
Barring divine intervention, we can't expect true East-West union until the West fixes its own dysfunctional relationship with authority. How can we bring our Eastern brethren to a proper view of the Church's hierarchy while we're catastrophically failing to model it ourselves?
Until we do that, we're stuck arguing Petrine primacy *and* the complexities of Recognize & Resist when we speak to Orthodox believers. "Yes, the Pope has authority, though he frequently and egregiously abuses it, so here's how to spiritually and psychologically defend yourself should you submit to him." Individuals are sometimes won over by this, but it's not a promising basis for widescale unification.
I so agree with your comments!
I like to look at a blog of the Spectator called "Holy Smoke." Recent one had a Ukrainian religious fellow explaining all the intricacies of why there were two (or is it three) separate Ukrainian Orthodox Churches -- plus that one in Moscow. The interviewer also had a man-in-the-street session with a young woman. Asked if it was difficult during wartime to make one's way to the proper church, she said: people go to the closest one. After all, the words are all the same. In other words, the people go to church to pray, while the bishops duke it out with each other.