| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 09:26 am |
|
Rome, Nov. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has said that he is prepared to recognize the primacy of the Pope-- although he does not accept the Catholic position on the implications of that primacy.
In an interview with a Bulgarian television network, the Orthodox leader-- who is himself recognized as the "first among equals" in the Orthodox world-- indicated his support for a statement released by the joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission at an October meeting in Ravenna, Italy. That statement had recalled that during the first Christian millennium, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the foremost of the patriarchs.
Patriarch Bartholomew went on to say, however, that he does not believe the primacy enjoyed by the Pope in the early centuries of Christianity included authority over other patriarchs. The primacy of Rome, he explained, involved precedence of honor rather than disciplinary status over the world's bishops.
The above article is reposted from Catholic World News.
Last edited on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 09:28 am by
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 152 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 09:59 am |
|
| Could the RCC view change on the primacy of the Pope?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 11:51 am |
|
Esther wrote: Could the RCC view change on the primacy of the Pope?
No. But much of the the role of the pope that we see today (appointment of bishops, approval of liturgy, etc.) could be attributed to his role as patriarch of the Latin Church, and need not necessarily apply to other patriarchal Churches. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI indicated their willingness to allow a refinement in the definition of just what authority the pope would have over other patriarchal Churches.
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 12:24 pm |
|
| I think what Rick wrote is the way most would see it. If my understanding of the history is right (and if I am in error I am sure someone will tell me so) papal infallibility might also be an issue, as no infallible statements were issued solely by the Roman pontiff until the 19th century--meaning separate and apart from an ecuminical council convened and/or approved by a bishop of Rome. (This is my understanding of the history). If what I indicate above is true, I feel to see how the Patriarch of the West could make universally binding pronouncements in a reunited Church without at least consulting the Orthodox Patriarchs. Then again, how all of this comes about and actually gets done I may have an inadequate comprehension of. At any rate, I rejoice in this news from the Eastern Church and look forward to reunification with some sort of acceptable understanding between the ancient holy sees. Shalom.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 12:49 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote: I feel to see how the Patriarch of the West could make universally binding pronouncements in a reunited Church without at least consulting the Orthodox Patriarchs.
While Catholic doctrine confirms the infallibility of the pope, it also states that he exercises that authority in union with and on behalf of his brother bishops and the entire Church, and is limited to matters already considered doctrine by the Universal Church. The requirement for collegiality was scheduled to be taken up in a follow-up session of Vatican I, but that session never took place. It could well be addressed in a council prior to / at the time of reunification as one of the conditions of the reunification.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 02:22 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote: papal infallibility might also be an issue, as no infallible statements were issued solely by the Roman pontiff until the 19th century--meaning separate and apart from an ecuminical council convened and/or approved by a bishop of Rome.
Remember, though, that there have only been two infallible pronouncements, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. As I understand it, the Assumption is no problem as the belief in Mary's assumption actually developed in the east, where the feast is celebrated as the "Dormition of Mary". Nor do Eastern Christians have a problem with the sinlessness of Mary. Their issue is whether her conception was somehow "special". They believe that Mary was given singular grace to avoid sin by her own free will, rather than being protected from sin from conception. The real doctrinal disagreement here is over the definition of "Original Sin", and the Catechism actually expresses the doctrine in quite eastern terms as a tendency to sin rather than as a "stain" of sin.
If in fact the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both true Churches, neither can be wrong in pronouncing doctrine on matters of faith and morals. It is more a matter of finding language to describe the doctrines that are compatible, and the recent Orthodox statement accepting the primacy of Peter goes a long way in that regard. Reunification will happen because God wills it. The only obstacles remaining are human pride. If everyone can agree to let the Holy Spirit take control, the issues will be resolved in short order. Remember, though, that God's time is not man's time, so "short order" could be years, decades, or even centuries. It is enough for now to see us walking in the same direction, with the difference between us gradually being reduced.
We're on our way. Praise God!
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 06:23 pm |
|
| I am truly excited and think my Anglican brethren should take a hint from this. We are going in the opposite direction and what the Eastern and Latin Rite Churches have been doing these past years has been most gratifying and unifying. If they were to mend the 1000+ year schism, the rest of Christendom would really have a marvellous testament to Jesus' instruction that we may be one. Thanks for bringing this up and for answering the questions I had. Shalom.
|
|
|
Current time is 04:00 pm | |
|
|
