Catholics and Orthodox on papal primacy (Update)
In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger made some remarks about facilitating an eventual reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, remarks that have been widely quoted ever since and particularly since he was elected pope. On the one hand, he said, Catholics cannot give up the claim to papal primacy; on the other hand, they cannot regard “as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” He went on:
Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today…. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had. …
My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice.
To advance this spiritual preparation for an eventual reunion of East and West, he said that
it is the task of every responsible Christian and, in a particular way, of theologians and leaders of the Church to create a spiritual climate for the theologically possible; under the compelling mandate of a unity without sameness, to see and experience the antithetical at all times without specious superficiality; to inquire always not just about the defensibility of union, of mutual recognition, but even more urgently about the defensibility of remaining separate, for it is not unity that requires justification but the absence of it.
I was reminded of these remarks of Ratzinger the theologian when I read the message that Ratzinger the pope sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the feast of St. Andrew, where he referred to the recent meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which, like the North American Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue, is now studying the question of primacy. Was the Pope possibly thinking of his earlier proposal when he wrote:
The theme of the plenary session, The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium, is certainly complex, and will require extensive study and patient dialogue if we are to aspire to a shared integration of the traditions of East and West. The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity (Saint Ignatius of Antioch), is understood to be the Servus Servorum Dei (Saint Gregory the Great). Thus, as my venerable predecessor the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wrote and I reiterated on the occasion of my visit to the Phanar in November 2006, it is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognized by one and all (cf. Ut Unum Sint, 95). Let us therefore ask God to bless us and may the Holy Spirit guide us along this difficult yet promising path.
I am interested in the meaning of that phrase “inspired by the model of the first millennium.”
Update: Two pieces in today’s Zenit are relevant: (1) the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the visit of Cardinal Kasper to Constantinople; (2) the publication by the Patriarch of Moscow of writings of Pope Benedict XVI. Here is the link to the first of these.
on December 1st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
In the first quote, himself citing the Patriarch, the early Pope refers to “the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity” as “the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium.”
I can’t help but feel dissatisfied with the degree of precision of the content of this “essential content.” What does it mean to preside? Is judgment implied, or is a presider an honorary, ceremonial position? What does it mean to succeed Peter? What kind of authority is involved in the confirmation of the brethren, for example? (Lk 22:32, cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis #4)
on December 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Very good questions, Kathy, the kind that arise regularly in the Dialogue.
on December 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
This is a good development. Clearly, even according to Benedict the papal powers got out of hand in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the first millennium Rome was more a consultative body rather than the ultimate decider. Allowing for exception like Boniface who cowered before kings anyway. (Amazing how Ratzinger took advantage of that absolute power to be a hammer of orthodoxy)
The following statement by Benedict would be certainly welcome inside the church. “This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity.” Then bishops would be shepherds among their people and not merely parrots of Rome. More would be required of them than just being “choir boys” and Bernardine complained and which the bishops now are.
Hopefully, the mounting union between the East and West will right the West’s own ship.
on December 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“I can’t help but feel dissatisfied with the degree of precision of the content of this “essential content.” What does it mean to preside? Is judgment implied, or is a presider an honorary, ceremonial position? What does it mean to succeed Peter? What kind of authority is involved in the confirmation of the brethren, for example? (Lk 22:32, cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis #4)”
Is ambiguity essential to unity? :-)
I’m sure this is a naive question, but I’ll put it out there: could we look to see how papal primacy is expressed vis a vis the Eastern churches that are in full communion with Rome? They acknowledge him as more than a ceremonial head, a la the Queen of England, don’t they? For example, he can make laws for the Eastern churches?
on December 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
When Benedict/Joseph Ratzinger says that the papacy is not about power he is thinking above all, I dare say, of the way Christ envisaged the role of Simon Peter. The historical reality has taken a rather different turn. The Pope is mutatis mutandis the last of the European absolute monarchs. He presides over a large bureaucracy and an army of servants around the world (I mean the bishops) all of whom, but only since 1918!, he claims the right to appoint and some of whom he honors especially as virtually incardinated in his diocese. He may say this is power in the service of unity and truth, but power it is and power when wielded by human beings has a tendency to corrupt, ant the greater the power, the greater the tendency. Anyone who denies that is perhaps deceiving himself. He should deceive no other. Spiritual preparation is surely needed for the promotion of unity. Dialogue can only succeed when one has already serious asked himself the questions one is least likely to be inclined to raise.
on December 1st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Fr. Komonchak–
Thanks for initiating this thread. I hope you won’t mind a few questions from someone with little background about the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical efforts that have been underway for some time.
1. The issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is, as BXVI notes in his message to the Ecumenical Patriarch, “certainly complex, and will require extensive study and patient dialogue if we are to aspire to a shared integration of the traditions of East and West.” I am assuming that the ecumenical efforts intentionally began with less difficult issues and that momentum and good will were gathered as a result of resolution of those initial issues. Is that a fair (if simplistic) assessment of what has preceded dialogue about the primacy issue?
2. The discussions about the primacy issue will no doubt be prolonged. Do the plenary sessions addressing that issue take place in public? Will the details of those discussions be available to the general public? Or do the sessions and the details remain confidential until an agreement is reached? If confidentiality is the rule as discussions continue, then how widely are the details disseminated within the Church?
3. What issues comparable to the prominence and difficulty of the primacy issue remain to be discussed and negotiated?
4. Finally, there are a number of Orthodox Churches participating in the Dialogue, the most prominent being the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. I am assuming that the goal of all parties to the discussions is to reach resolution of the primacy issue among all of the participants. However, suppose that the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox Church were able to reach resolution, but that no resolution could be reached with the Russian Orthodox Church and the other participating Orthodox Churches. Would the Vatican enter into an agreement with the Greek Orthodox Church only?
I know that you are now a gentleman farmer and no longer a college professor :), so if my inartful questions are a bother in any way, please feel free to direct me to a book or other source that might answer my questions. Many thanks.
on December 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mr. Pauweis: A balanced theology of the primacy would have to take into account how it operates with eastern churches in full communion with Rome. One difference: how bishops are chosen. Rome does not appoint them in the east, but gives a letter of communion.
Mr. Gannon: The problem you raise is regularly raised by the Orthodox in our dialogue: Are there any effective limitations on the exercise of the primatial power, and if not, in what way does it differ, as Benedict XVI has said several times, from an “absolute monarchy”? Mere words won’t answer that. At the last meeting of our North American dialogue, I have a paper on the proposal that the French theologian Hervé Legrand has made: that the right of appeal to Rome acknowledged by both East and West at the Council of Sardica (341) provides a procedural way that could be explored while the theolotical differences are explored.
Mr. Collier: (1) The NA Dialogue has already discussed several issues and put out statements on them, in particular on baptism and on the Filioque. (2) The minutes of our Dialogue are not regularly published, but papers prepared for the meetings are often published, and a statement on any consensus reached is eventually published. (3) We are in the process now of deciding on the next subject of our dialogue. (4) Several of the Orthodox Churches participate in both dialogues, but there is a problem with the international dialogue at the moment, because the Russian Orthodox Church refused to participate if one of the Orthodox Churches in eastern Europe was allowed to take part. It is ironic that you chose the Greek Orthodox Church as your example, since it is powerful groups within that Church that are most vehemently opposed to the dialogue. The monks of Mt. Athos, for example, don’t even acknowledge the validity of our Roman Catholic baptism!
on December 1st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I think I must mention the liturgical question. It once seemed a settled thing that the conferences of bishops should be ordinarily responsible for liturgical translations and this seemed to be embedded in the letter as well as the spirit of Council and its documents and subsequent documents all with papal approval. Then with Liturgiam authenticam and the reformation of the committee responsible for translation it seemed the Vatican took full charge of the Anglophone translations leaving the bishops with little to do but approve, with the assurance that if they did not in a timely way, their approval might even be found unnecessary. The bishops, themselves papal appointees, did not for a moment consider defiance as a tactic. I am sure these events have not escaped the notice of the Orthodox Churches. The Pope may wear velvet gloves, at least on occasion, but his hand is always firm.
on December 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Further questions on the role Rome/The Pope plays vis-à-vis the Eastern Rite Churches:
Do these churches determine and define their own Canon Law with tacit/pro-forma Roman approval?
Do these churches determine and define their own liturgical practices with tacit/pro-forma Roman approval?
Do these churches determine their geographical boundaries, i.e., dioceses (eparchies?), without prior Roman permission?
Are there papal nunciatures for the Eastern Catholic Churches?
on December 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“Then with Liturgiam authenticam and the reformation of the committee responsible for translation it seemed the Vatican took full charge of the Anglophone translations leaving the bishops with little to do but approve, with the assurance that if they did not in a timely way, their approval might even be found unnecessary. ”
Hi, Joseph, I don’t think it’s quite (yet) a case of Rome taking “full charge”. It is true that the Vatican, about ten years ago, created a “Vox Clara” group to “assist” with English liturgical translations. But in its first projects, e.g. the revision around that time of the US Lectionary, the process was consultative – Vox Clara met with US bishop representatives to come to a consensus on problematic passages.
In that light, this recent development in which Rome took upon itself the translation of some antiphons, is disquieting. Even so, for the vast majority of the new missal, the process followed the prescribed path, i.e. ICEL translates; the episcopal conferences revise and ultimately approve; Rome provides the recognitio.
on December 1st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I wouldn’t think that the Vatican’s authority over the Roman Rite is likely to raise questions on these liturgical issues. Surely there are governing liturgical bodies and persons in Orthodoxy as well. The closer analogies are the Anglican Use and the Eastern Rite Churches. Insofar as their practices are respected, I wouldn’t think that even the governance issues of the current reforms of the Roman Rite would be seriously questioned by the Orthodox.
Regarding the strictly liturgical issues of sacrality and cult, I am pretty sure that the Orthodox would be much more likely to sympathize with the intentions of the Pope than with many Catholic liturgists of the recent past.
on December 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Once the International Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue has moved from the exercise of papal primacy in the first millenium, will it then go on to address the same topic with regard to the second millenium? I suppose in one sense things have moved forward in once unnimaginable ways. Yet I recall that this month in 1965 as the Council closed I had the hope of seeing unity among the Christian Churches in my lifetime. That seems most unlikely forty-four years on.
I believe that the Church of Greece has proved the most relunctant of the Churches in Orthodoxy to work for unity. It, of course, has a very privileged place in Greece, and guards that role with great determination. Its relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch have not always been happy. The attitude of the Greek Church in North and South America, Europe, Australia is quite another matter. There openness to dialogue remains, I believe, very strong.
on December 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“reluctant” Nor has my typing improved in the past forty-four years!
on December 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Joseph Gannon has, it seems to me, raised a key point. What is the reaction in Orthodoxy to the changed attitude on the part of the Roman authorities over the past decade or so with respect to collegiality, and specifically the role of conferences of bishops? The synodal model is so important in the East.
on December 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Given that recent popes have, contrary to the express directives of an ecumenical council, assumed the role of *the* approver of liturgical translations, why should the Orthodox Churches trust what Rome commits itself to?
About the monks of Mt. Athos, I have wondered for years about their own orthodoxy. One of their most rebered mystics is St. Symeon the New Theologian. He asserts his identity with God, and asks in so many words concerning his view: is this heretical? And he answers Yes. What do the Orthodox call the unity of mystic and God? As I remember it is something like “divinization”. So my question is: who is the heretic — East or West? And is there a. Eed for unification even before talks with Re take an even more serious turn?
I know that the word “heretic” is a red flag in ecumenical discussions, but I don’t see how such issues can be avoided. Even St. Symeon saw the problem with his own teaching. So, the meta-question asked above is crucial: who will be the decider of orthodoxy?
on December 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Ann: who decided and definied “orthodoxy” in the first 300 years of the church?
Ecumenical Councils, that’s who. To expect the Orthodox to accept Papal fiat as opposed to Conciliarism is to be smoking the wrong weed.
on December 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Oops — should be:
Is there a need for unification among the Orthodox Church(es) even before more serious talks with Rome begin?
on December 1st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
The monks of Mt. Athos, for example, don’t even acknowledge the validity of our Roman Catholic baptism!
They are a touchy bunch up on Athos. An ecumenical agreement which could gain their approval would surely be a sign of divine intervention.
Indeed, if memory serves, the Russians felt compelled to send warships there shortly before the First World War to resolve one theological dispute.
on December 1st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
One other thing I’m curious is the status in the dialogue of one particularly touchy topic: the Councils of Lyons and Florence.
on December 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I believe that the international dialogue intends to move on to the second millennium in its discussion of primacy. That will certainly entail a discussion of Lyons and Florence.
At our last North American dialogue meeting, the question arose as to the obstacles to unity posed by certain realities in the Orthodox Churches, in particular autocephaly and phyletism, the latter the mixing of religious and national or ethnic identities. The question of unity in and among the various Orthodox Churches is a serious one. As one of the Orthodox participants said, only half-jokingly, “Our Orthodox problem is how we cope now that we don’t have an Emperor.”
on December 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I was reading today about Maximos IV Sayegh, Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and what he had to say at Vatican II. There’s a page, The Melkite Church at the Council, that has a lot of interesting info on the subject.
on December 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Harvey Cox maintains that we are moving more to an age of faith as opposed to belief. Belief meaning creeds whereas faith is in someone like God and Jesus. If we proceed on a faith basis unity become easier. We should note here that faith is quite consistent with the ten commandments and the gospel. It is when we assert personal likes and dislikes that the problems occur. For example the filioque problem really absurd when it is examined. I mean nobody knows how God is within God’s being. Amazing.
on December 1st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Kathy
You say “I wouldn’t think that the Vatican’s authority over the Roman Rite is likely to raise questions on these liturgical issues.”
I don’t necessarily disagree. Authority over liturgy of the Roman rite might have been credited to the Pope’s title as Patriarch of the West, had that title not been dropped as superfluous. But my main point is this. Something may seem to be settled as to who does what. Then the Pope may decide he is going to assert his universal authority because, as with the translation of the liturgy, things are not turning out to his taste or preference. What is needed, as I think Fr. Komonchak suggests, is a solid theological foundation for reunion–and governance in the West too, really–that would discourage and inhibit Popes from trying to micromanage church affairs–in a word, our much praised notion of subsidiarity well understood.
on December 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 am
Thanks, Fr. Komonchak, for addressing my questions.
on December 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
FWIW – there are certain things I pray for every day. I will try to remember to start praying for Christian unity every morning.
on December 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
I think Joe Gannon put his finger on the problem and it seems to be underscored by the somewaht different faces BXVI has toward outside the Church and within -which will be perceived by other faiths outside prospectively.
on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
A very relevant passage from the Patriarch’s homily:
“It is with vigilant concern and unceasing prayer that we follow the process of the ongoing official Theological Dialogue between our two Churches, co-chaired by Your Eminence, and now embarking upon the examination of critical ecclesiological issues, such as the question of primacy in general and that of the bishop of Rome in particular. Everyone is aware that this thorny issue proved a scandalous contention in the course of relations between our two Churches, which is why the eradication of this impediment from among us will surely greatly facilitate our journey toward unity. We are, therefore, convinced that the study of Church history during the first millennium, at least with regard to this matter, will also provide the touchstone for the further evaluation of later developments during the second millennium, which unfortunately led our Churches to greater estrangement and intensified our division.”
I’m glad to see the consonance of language between the Pope and Patriarch, “the first/ second millennium.” On the other hand, I do hope that the historical research is carefully done. In college I was in an Orthodox-Catholic study group of patristic authors, and was surprised by the ancient evidence of primacy.
The imperialist model is happily waning, on both sides, but that is not the only kind of leadership possible.
on December 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/user/vatican#p/a/u/1/Gn9DhkDGfJI