Papal Primacy

[Stella]

A new document on papal primacy will be released on Thursday 13 June.

On Thursday 13 June 2024, at 11.30, a press conference will be held in the Holy See Press Office, Sala San Pio X, Via dell’Ospedale 1, to present the document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, “The bishop of Rome. Primacy and synodality in the ecumenical dialogues and in the responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint”.

“The Bishop of Rome” is a study document, published with the approval of Pope Francis, summarizing for the first time the responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint and the ecumenical dialogues on the question of primacy and synodality. The document concludes with a proposal from the Dicastery, identifying the most significant suggestions made for a renewed exercise of the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome, “recognized by one and all”.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... 0610d.html

I look forward to this document giving some clarity on Papal authority and how essential it is to unity. The 500 year experiment without an authoritative figure in the Seat of Peter guiding the Church (ie Protestantism) is a terrible failure. The Church has to regain trust that the Lord gave us this specific gift of Fatherhood or Papahood for the sake of Christian unity.

[Doom]

The argument made by the East, Protestants, and other anti-Papalists that Papal Primacy was exercised differently in the first millennium with local bishops having more autonomy than today is just not compelling. The lack of direct Papal oversight was more due to a lack of technological ability to exercise such authority over a long distance with limited communication than it was due to a lack of belief in Roman primacy.

The Roman Empire had the same problem, which is why Rome relied on local governors (like Pontius Pilate) and other local authorities who had a great deal of autonomy with limited oversight from Rome. This was not because the authority of the Emperor was not recognized but because imperial authority was more theoretical than real. The emperor had minimal power outside Rome and the surrounding regions. This is why, when the empire became so big that it became unwieldy, it was divided into East and West with two emperors, one in Rome and one in Byzantium (later Constantinople).

[anawim]

Just because the Pope wants unity, does not preclude that the Eastern churches will agree. I predict a dismal failure.

[Stella]

The argument made by the East, Protestants, and other anti-Papalists that Papal Primacy was exercised differently in the first millennium with local bishops having more autonomy than today is just not compelling. The lack of direct Papal oversight was more due to a lack of technological ability to exercise such authority over a long distance with limited communication than it was due to a lack of belief in Roman primacy.

The Roman Empire had the same problem, which is why Rome relied on local governors (like Pontius Pilate) and other local authorities who had a great deal of autonomy with limited oversight from Rome. This was not because the authority of the Emperor was not recognized but because imperial authority was more theoretical than real. The emperor had minimal power outside Rome and the surrounding regions. This is why, when the empire became so big that it became unwieldy, it was divided into East and West with two emperors, one in Rome and one in Byzantium (later Constantinople).

Same with the argument that it was James and not Peter who made the final decree about the Gentiles obligations at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). They say if Peter was the head, then he would have made the decree. That has always seemed like a weak case especially seeing that the hierarchy of the Church even today gives much weight to the DDF and it's decrees to which the Pope agrees.

[Stella]

Just because the Pope wants unity, does not preclude that the Eastern churches will agree. I predict a dismal failure.

When it's released on Thursday we'll have more clarity but I think the re definition will serve as more of a working definition in todays circumstances rather than as a challenge which would have the Eastern churches backs up. So much of what happens in the Church takes decades if not centuries to achieve.

[Doom]

in the 1994 encyclical, John Paul II asked for suggestions about how papal authority might work in a hypothetical reunified Church in the third millennium. Those suggestions were made, and now on the 30th anniversary of the original encyclical, the Holy See is going to respond to the suggestions. The document is not going to be a proposal, it is just a continuation of a dialogue, nothing more.

[Vadim]

Papal primacy was rejected by the Orthodox Catholic Church at the Council of Constantinople in 879-880, in canon 1, at the time of St. Photius. The then Pope John VIII confirmed these decisions, and it is not clear why Roman Catholics reject them. There is some debate withing the Orthodox Church whether this council should be called as the "Eighth Ecumenical", but in any case, its decisions are recognized and are considered to be authoritative. The Concil of Constantinople of 1484, which officially rejected the Council of Florence, referred to the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 879-880 and to the Blachernae Council of 1285 as to a reason for rejecting the Council of Florence.

[Vadim]

The lack of direct Papal oversight was more due to a lack of technological ability to exercise such authority over a long distance with limited communication than it was due to a lack of belief in Roman primacy.

Despite these technological difficulties, bishops sometimes gathered at the ecumenical councils, and the Pope, or his legates, could had shown their authorities at such councils, but the acts of these councils clearly show that they didn't. For instance, papal letter was examined at the Council of Chalcedon and it was compared whether it accords with the writings of saints.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

143 page document: http://www.christianunity.va/content/da ... 20Rome.pdf

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Rome reports: A new document published by the Vatican is the result of dialogue with non-Catholic churches on a topic that has been a source of division: the role of the pope. The document responds to an invitation from Pope John Paul II to all Christian confessions in the encyclical Ut Unum Sit. In it, he outlined the need to find a way for the role of the pope to be recognized by all.

1. Distinguishing the functions of the pope meanwhile emphasizing his role as Bishop of Rome

Among the proposals made in the document is a call for a clearer distinction of the pope's responsibilities. On one hand, he is Patriarch of the Western Churches. On the other, he holds primacy on a universal level because he is in charge of maintaining unity. He is also the head of a government—the Vatican City State—meanwhile serving as the Bishop of Rome.

The text recommends that the pope's role as Bishop of Rome be emphasized more as it may make it clear to other bishops that he is one among them.

2. The first Vatican Council

One of the conclusions of the First Vatican Council that has caused controversy in ecumenical dialogue was the declaration of papal infallibility.
This new document calls for an “updated commentary” of some of the decisions made in this council to adapt it to the current culture and ecumenical context.

3. Synodality

The meaning of synodality has been a central topic in the Catholic Church for decades. In the document, the Vatican recognizes the challenge of involving all levels of the Church in this discussion and also touches on the role of bishops' conferences.

The nature of this new document is not legislative nor does it impose new models of conduct for relations with other churches. But it is one more step in the theological dialogue where different points of view emerge. The document closes by outlining the need for continuing this dialogue and pointing out various ecumenical initiatives.

[Stella]

Thanks for posting that link, aussie oi. It is a long document but the Catholic commentators are on to it. Here from the Pillar is a summary.

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/the-bi ... rief-guide

One notable point...

One particularly controversial issue, it says, is the Catholic conviction that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was established de iure divino (by divine law), “while most other Christians understand it as being instituted merely de iure humano” (by human law).

But the document says that new interpretations are helping to overcome “this traditional dichotomy, by considering primacy as both de iure divino and de iure humano, that is, being part of God’s will for the Church and mediated through human history.”

This I think is where the Eastern Catholic and Western Catholic communion shines and maybe could guide the path of Protestant and Catholic communion in future. We know without doubt that Christ wanted a united communion of His followers. It should be our goal and priority to find this way.

[BobCatholic]

One particularly controversial issue, it says, is the Catholic conviction that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was established de iure divino (by divine law), “while most other Christians understand it as being instituted merely de iure humano” (by human law).

Since Jesus instituted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - and He is both God and Man, both can be right.