A very interesting article about the dialogues going on between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome, from Chiesa News, where there is more:
The dialogue remained frozen until, in 2005, the German Joseph Ratzinger ascended to the throne of Peter, a pope highly appreciated in the East for the same reason he prompts criticisms in the West: for his attachment to the great Tradition.
First in Belgrade in 2006, and then in Ravenna in 2007, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started meeting again.
And what rose to the top of the discussion was precisely the question that most divides East and West: the primacy of the successor of Peter in the universal Church.
From the session in Ravenna emerged the document that marked the shift, dedicated to “conciliarity and authority” in the ecclesial communion.
The document of Ravenna, approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” And in paragraph 41, it highlights the points of agreement and disagreement:
“Both sides agree that . . . that Rome, as the Church that ‘presides in love’ according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.”
“Protos” is the Greek word that means “first.” And “taxis” is the structure of the universal Church.
Since then, the discussion on controversial points has advanced at an accelerated pace. And it has started to examine, above all, how the Churches of East and West interpreted the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium, when they were still united.
11 Comments •
The heart of the matter.
For Anglicans who take a sympathetic interest in these developments, there are two great classics on this subject which I highly recommend.
I have been delighted to discover that at least the first edition (although the third is much better) of F. W. Puller’s great work, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, has now been reprinted and is available through Amazon. A preview of the book can also be found at Google Books.
Father Puller was a priest in the Church of England and a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist. In my estimation, he capably demonstrates that being in communion with the See of Rome was not the sine qua non of Catholic Christianity during its first centuries and that the exaggerated claims of the modern papacy would have been unrecognizable to the early Fathers, just as they always have been to the Orthodox Churches of the East.
“Primitive Saints” is a favorite among Anglo-Catholics but I see no reason why its contents would not be just as readily appreciated by Evangelicals and mainstream Protestants.
The other item is The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches by Abbé René-Francois Guettée. A French priest in the Roman Church, Abbé Guettée (later Father Vladimir) ran afoul of the Jesuits with the publication of his History of the Church in France. That, together with his reaction to the newly promulgated dogma of the Immaculate Conception, caused him to carefully reexamine the claims of the Roman Church.
The conclusion he arrived at: “I re-read the words of the most erudite defenders of the papacy, and I became convinced that it is based neither on Holy Scripture nor on the Tradition of the Church Universal.” He then became a member of the Orthodox Church and, like Father Puller, carefully addresses Romanist claims in light of early Church history. The English edition of “The Papacy” was published with an introduction provided by an Episcopal bishop and it also remains thankfully in print.
I will admit to being quite biased in all of this. I think it is terribly important for Anglican Christians to get up to speed in this area. Theologically literate Orthodox Christians usually already are and we would do well to follow their good example. These two gems of 19th century apologetics might make for appropriate Lenten reading and a good place to start.
I do think that an attempt at meaningful dialogue with the Roman Church is a worthwhile thing but I cannot imagine that she will ever budge on something as important as her understanding of papal supremacy. And it is just as well that her partners in the discussion are Orthodox Christians since they are, for the most part, much less tolerant of the kind of ecumenical mush we Anglicans have grown so fond of in recent decades. I wish them success.
Oh, and my confidence in the Patriarch of Moscow remains high!
[1] Posted by episcopalienated on 02-09-2010 at 10:18 AM • top