Rome Newsroom, Jun 13, 2024 / 09:42 am (CNA).
The Vatican published a 130-page study on papal primacy on Thursday containing suggestions from Orthodox and Protestant Christian communities for how the role of the Bishop of Rome might look in a future “reunited Church.”
The study document, titled “The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogue and Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint,” is the first Vatican text since the Second Vatican Council to outline the entire ecumenical debate on papal primacy.
In addition to identifying the theological questions surrounding papal primacy in ecumenical dialogue, the document goes a step further to provide suggestions “for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church,” including “a differentiated exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.”
The end of the text published on June 13 includes a section of proposals from the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity on “the exercise of primacy in the 21st century,” including recommendations for “a synodal exercise” of papal primacy.
Synodality
The dicastery concludes that “growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church” and that “many synodal institutions and practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches could inspire the Latin Church.”
It adds that “a synodality ad extra” could include regular meetings among Christian representatives at the worldwide level in a “conciliar fellowship” to deepen communion.
This builds off of dialogue with some Orthodox representatives who have asserted that “any restoration of full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will require, on both sides, a strengthening of synodal structures and a renewed understanding of a universal primacy – both serving communion among the churches.”
At a Vatican press conference on June 13, Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary-general of the General Secretariat of the Synod, said that this study document is being released as a very “convenient time” as the Church prepares for the second session of the Synod on Synodality in the fall.
A representative of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, who joined the press conference via video link, underlined that “the synodality of the Catholic Church is an important criterion for the Oriental Orthodox churches on our way to full communion.”
Defining responsibilities of the pope
The Catholic Church holds that Jesus made Peter the “rock” of his Church, giving him the keys to the Kingdom and instituting him as the shepherd of the whole flock. The pope as Peter’s successor is the “perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful,” as described in one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium.
The new study document proposes “a clearer distinction be made between the different responsibilities of the Pope, especially between his ministry as head of the Catholic Church and his ministry of unity among all Christians, or more specifically between his patriarchal ministry in the Latin Church and his primatial ministry in the communion of Churches.”
It notes the possibility of “extending this idea to consider how other Western Churches might relate to the Bishop of Rome as primate while having a certain autonomy themselves.”
The text notes that Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches emphasized the importance of regional leadership in the Church and advocated “a balance between primacy and primacies.” It adds that some ecumenical dialogues with Western Christian communities also applied this to the Catholic Church by calling for “a strengthening of Catholic episcopal conferences, including at the continental level, and for a continuing ‘decentralization’ inspired by the model of the ancient patriarchal Churches.”
Invoking the principle of subsidiarity, which means that no matter that can properly be dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher one, the text describes how some ecumenical dialogues argued that “the power of the Bishop of Rome should not exceed that required for the exercise of his ministry of unity at the universal level, and suggest a voluntary limitation in the exercise of his power.”
“In a reconciled Christianity, such communion presupposes that the Bishop of Rome’s relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops […] would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church,” it says.
‘Rewording’ of teachings of Vatican I
Another concrete proposal put forward by the dicastery is “a Catholic ‘re-reception’, ‘re-interpretation,’ ‘official interpretation,’ ‘updated commentary,’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of Vatican I,” particularly with regard to definitions on primacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility.
The First Vatican Council, which took place between 1869 and 1870 under Pope Pius IX, dogmatically defined papal infallibility in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus, which said that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church on a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world, the defined doctrine is irreformable.
An Anglican representative who spoke at the Vatican press conference highlighted how certain aspects of Vatican I have been a particular “stumbling block” for Angelicans.
The study document released by the Vatican pointed to how arguments have been made in ecumenical dialogue that some of the teachings of Vatican I “were deeply conditioned by their historical context” and suggested that “the Catholic Church should look for new expressions and vocabulary faithful to the original intention but integrated into a communio ecclesiology and adapted to the current cultural and ecumenical context.”
It describes how some ecumenical dialogues “were able to clarify the wording of the dogma of infallibility and even to agree on certain aspects of its purpose, recognizing the need, in some circumstances, for a personal exercise of the teaching ministry, given that Christian unity is a unity in truth and love.”
“In spite of these clarifications, the dialogues still express concerns regarding the relation of infallibility to the primacy of the Gospel, the indefectibility of the whole Church, the exercise of episcopal collegiality and the necessity of reception,” it adds.
‘That they all may be one’
The document summarizes responses by different Christian communities to Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical on Christian unity, Ut Unum Sint (“That They All May Be One”).
In particular to the Polish pope’s invitation in the encyclical for Christian leaders and theologians to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on papal primacy.
“It is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry. I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek — together, of course — the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned,” John Paul II wrote.
Ut Unum Sint says that the bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter has a “specific duty” to work for the cause of Christian unity.
The study document published by the Vatican is the result of more than three years of work summarizing some 30 responses to Ut unum sint and 50 ecumenical dialogue documents on the subject.
Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholics experts were consulted in collaboration with the Institute for Ecumenical Studies at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, noted at the press conference that one of the fruits of the ecumenical theological dialogue in the past three decades has been “a renewed reading of the ‘Petrine texts,’” in which dialogue partners were invited to “consider afresh the role of Peter among the apostles.”
The Vatican notes that the “the concerns, emphases and conclusions of the different dialogues varied according to the confessional traditions involved.”
As a study document, its goal is only to offer “an objective synthesis of the ecumenical discussions” on papal primacy, and “does not claim to exhaust the subject nor summarize the entire Catholic magisterium on the subject.”
Cardinal Koch explained that Pope Francis gave his approval for the dicastery to publish the document, but this does not mean that the pope approved every sentence.
Ian Ernest, the director of the Anglican Center in Rome, thanked Catholic leaders for publishing the new document, which he said “opens up new perspectives for ecumenical relations on the much debated question of the relationship between primacy and synodality.”
“As the personal representative of the archbishop of Canterbury, I am delighted that one of the most comprehensive and detailed responses to St. John Paul II’s invitation in Ut unum sint was given by the House of bishops of the Church of England in 1997,” he said.
Ernest described the Anglican Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting as examples of “synodality at work,” which enable the Anglican communion “to prayerfully understand the ecumenical dialogues and new perspectives which touch on … important doctrinal aspects.”
In response to questions from journalists, Cardinal Grech acknowledged that different Christian churches have different ways of conceiving synodality.
Grech noted that the synthesis report from the 2023 assembly of the Synod on Synodality asked theologians to examine “the way in which a renewed understanding of the episcopate within a synodal Church affects the ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the role of the Roman Curia.”
He added that “the debate is still open” as the Church continues the synodal process with the second assembly in the fall.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Trying to convert all Catholics into becoming Catholic anti-Catholic bigots simply will not work. A lot of Catholics like being Catholic just fine.
So true. And some of us even love being Catholic! 🤓
Is Pope Francis going to Loost all of Christ’s ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ 2000 years of papal bindings? Simply letting all Christians choose which Apostolic Successor Bishop they individually choose to follow seems to be the best ‘Ecumenical’ plan at this stage of Ecumenical disunity game. We will simply have the papacy as a ‘Queen of England’ styled, no power but symbol of false unity, papacy.
“No Salvation outside the Catholic Church”
“Catholic anathema only damns Catholics to hell. No Papal Church bindings to sin affect the Protestants, who are outside the Catholic Church!”, a fellow Catholic told me. I replied, “Well then it is better for me and my family to become Protestants. Then Papal Catholic anathemas cannot damn me or my family to hell. We will just sneak into Mass for the Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as Protestants”. “No! No! No!, If you leave the Catholic Church you are automatically anathematized and go to hell”, my Catholic friend responded.
Before Vatican II, we were taught that all non-Catholics went to hell. Along comes Vatican II and Ecumenicalism. All of a sudden I am hearing that the Pope no longer ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ binds Protestants to his Christ Commanded Authority over them.
In Catholic teaching, the Church, using Christ’s ‘Keys to the Kingdom’, binds even missing days of Holy Obligation as Mortal Sin! So, obviously, Catholics with fallen away Catholic Children, would be better off to tell their fallen away Catholic Children to reject our Catholic Pope as Martin Luther did. Then no ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ papal bindings to Mortal sin have any effect on them. Then have your fallen away, now Protestant, children simply sneak into the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Catholic Mass on Christmas and Easter. The Church teaches that all Protestants go to heaven through the Catholic Church anyway. You know, take all the good from Jesus, and reject all the ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Catholic Pope stuff that can damn your children’s souls to hell.
I would think that Justice towards Catholics would demand that Popes simply, ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ bind and loost, equally upon all people, Protestant and Catholic alike, who go to heaven through the Catholic Church. If Pope Francis is worried that Popes, ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ binding all people seeking Salvation through Jesus equally, might damn too many Protestants to hell, there is another option. Pope Francis can simply make all papal ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ bindings, optional and not binding up Catholics, as they have done for the non-Catholic world. This way the Catholic Church’s horrendous injustice against Catholics, by the Church not ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ binding everyone else in the world, except for Catholics, will go away.
Does knowledge make us culpable? If so, is it possible to loose knowledge in order to become less culpable?
At first glance it appears feasible to presume two separate functions of the Holy See, one as patriarch of the Latin Church to other as primatial for sake of unity. Although the pattern of equivalency between simple patriarch [there was reason that Pope Francis used the word patriarch since his demeanor had been to democratize, although no Pope has been as despotic within the Latin Church] of Rome as coequal with other patriarchs. The term itself Latin Church is a misnomer because the bishop of Rome, the Chair of Peter instituted not by man rather by Christ, invested universal authority of all Christianity attested to by the Church Fathers including Polycarp and Ignatius. That truth of our faith was not the alleged product of the historical circumstances of Vat I, presumed by Pope Francis and companions.
The martyrs and their companions, we recall Josaphat Kuntsevych in the East shed their blood in defense of the universal character of the Church centered on the seat of Peter in Rome, the Apostle Peter’s magisterial authority. Whereas Francis and his companions give indication, as they had from the start to liquidate that institution.
The Chair of Peter was instituted by Jesus. But the Chair of Peter was instituted as a charism for Peter.
Peter and the other Apostles then appointed other bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, while they were alive. While Saint Peter was alive, the Bishop of Rome did NOT possess the Chair of Peter.
When Saint Peter died, his chair was transferred to Saint Linus by an indeterminate process. It was then which the Bishop of Rome acquired the Chair of Peter.
The Latin Church is called the Latin Church because it is meant to be a Church of the Latin people, who are today the Italians. By the accident of European colonialism, the Latin Church became confused with the global church; and this has caused so many problems, especially in the last 500 years.
There is a genuine in-principle distinction between the OFFICE of the Bishop of Rome and the CHAIR of Peter.
Raphael, by what logic do you separate the Chair of Peter instituted by Christ with the words, You are Peter [Petrus which means rock in Latin], and upon this Rock I will build my Church, from the person Peter on whom he institutes this office of authority? By what logic do you claim that after Jesus instituted the Chair as the office of authority for the Universal Church with Peter, that afterwards Peter and the Apostles appointed bishops including the bishop of Rome? Who was the first bishop of Rome if not Peter, who was martyred while residing in Rome, wherein the universal authority invested on Peter would be assumed by the bishops of Rome.
That authoritative recognition was made by the universal Church, the early Fathers all who acknowledged deference to the bishop of Rome because it was the See of Peter. Read the early Church Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Tertullian. There was universal acknowledgement of Rome as the seat wherein Peter exercised authority. The Chair is associated with the authority [charisma] invested in a person, Peter, first Apostolic authority and the only apostle given universal authority over all Christians, to wit, the Church. The Church including all Christians East and West, Latin and Greek, Syriac and Armenian, Italy and Greece, Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia.
Hahahaha!…..what with this papacy, am pretty sure any patriarch offered the keys themselves to the Vatican would turn it down…unity from a papacy who alienated the entire continent of Africa, as well as the Orthodox and Coptic world and Eastern Catholics, and even the larger protestant denominations…hahahaha! They wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole, guilt by association…this is hilarious! It’ll take a major turnaround in Rome before any other Churches or churches risk being associated with Rome, and a LOT of time showing Rome can be trusted, even if the pope volunteered to demote himself to associate pastor.
Synodaling is ambiguous enough to lead the Catholic Church to Lambeth which says: “My will be done.”
Ut Unum Sint (“That They All May Be One”) is the prayer of Our Lord to the Father just before Gethsemane, where Our Lord prayed: “Not my will, but Yours be done.”
Good insights, dear ‘GF’. The actual texts are also very illuminating:
John 14:23b/24a – “If anyone loves Me they will keep My word and My Father will love them and We shall come to them and make Our home with them.”
This is the key that supports a correct exegesis of John 17:21a, roundly overturning universalist & other heterodox interpretations.
In a literal translation of John’s Greek text it reads:
“That all one may be as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee, that also they in Us may be.”
The way that Jesus is in The Father is by His total obedience to The Father.
Thus the essence of the unity Jesus calls us to is unity with all who lovingly obey His commands. THAT is what welcomes Him & The Father into our personal & collective lives.
Theologically this can be defined as ‘sympathetically resonant ideoenTheism’ through loving obedience of God’s instructions.
Basically, God knows all those who love God because they obey Him. These are those who Jesus calls to be one with one another. Those that Paul called: ‘The Israel of God.’
The first Pope teaches us, in 2 Peter 2:1 – that, as in the past, we too will have false teachers insinuating their disruptive views.
Yet, The WORD OF GOD has stood, is standing, and will stand, eternally.
Keep praying everyone; love & blessings in KING Jesus Christ, from marty
Christian unity is something to be hoped and worked toward. And, the above intro to this consultative exercise sounds generally promising and cautious, and surely out of my league. So here are just some broad-perspective questions from the back bleachers, while waiting to read the entire “study document” (the link comes up blank on my machine).
FIRST, such Christian unity is needed in the face of BOTH disintegrative Secularism in the West and natural religions across the globe—especially resurgent Islam which has twice as many members as all of Protestant ecclesial communities combined.
SECOND, the reference to SYNOD 2024: while “not-a-parliament” is the synod still a precursor-parliament, like the consensus techniques within non-Western Islam—ijma and ijtihad—which are neither bound by past consensus nor are binding on the future. Provisional, and not unlike fluid process theology…What might such a pluralist leveling and possible cultural (?) congruence/ convergence actually mean? The “fraternity” of Christianity in both a collar and a turban?
THIRD, does the working document begin to use INTERCHANGEABLY the terms (Orthodox) “church” and (Protestant) “ecclesial communities”—an essential distinction in Ut Unum Sint and retained in usage from the clarifying Second Vatican Council Documents?
FOURTH, the references to historical and cultural CONTEXT: so are the points explored in the study document to be understood within the context of Ut Unum Sint, or are the clarifications in Ut Unum Sint now to be understood as only provisional within what is already a more pre-emptive dialogue? …And, apart from the papacy, what about the directly related, individual, and personal responsibilities of EACH Catholic bishop as a successor of the apostles? How does Apostolos Suos (1998) come into play, prior to national and continental conferences?
FIFTH, curious, here, about the expressed “relation of infallibility to the primacy of the Gospel”…when it is the Gospel, itself, that identifies the role of the papacy within the living Tradition. And, is there clarity on Vatican I’s retained a distinction between papal primacy of jurisdiction versus doctrinal infallibility–not of the solitary person but of the Church/papacy in its definitions (!) of “doctrine concerning faith or morals.”
SIXTH, the primacy of the book is also an Islamic premise—“the word made book [Qur’an] versus “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14). Not much margin there or in Protestant sola Scriptura for a Church that is not of the book, but clearly sacramental and even Eucharistic as the Mystical Body of Christ.
SEVENTH, the reference to ANGLICANS and their synods…not to put too fine a point on it, but which Anglicans? Yours truly recalls reading a letter to an editor wherein an Anglican reader roasted Catholic efforts at dialogue: “we divided Anglicans don’t even know who we are.” This was in the 1970s!
EIGHTH, about some kind of autonomy, and then the reference to the MAGISTERIUM: does this refer to the inborn and universal Natural Law and to moral absolutes—which now are explicitly (!) folded into the Magisterium? And, about which the Church [however redefined] is neither the “author” nor the “arbiter” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, nn. 115, 56, 95).
SUMMARY: Yes, to renewed Christian unity. But, what is the irreducible difference between a Church synod and a synodal church—in possibly lower case?
As said at first glance it appears feasible to presume two separate functions of the Holy See, one as patriarch of the Latin Church to other as primatial for sake of unity. Although not during this current pontificate, though needless to say the effort toward unity, or what form of unity will be prolonged. In that context the question is what is unity? Meaning whether we’re seeking a limited form of cooperation or full compliance with Catholic doctrine.
The first form is compatible and good, as experienced among Christian bodies in Africa where there was mutual support while each body retained their message. That would require less effort, we already cooperate on different levels. Although in instances there were doctrinal infractions, example posting abortion services in Catholic facilities. To what degree can cooperation be improved absent betrayal of the faith?
The other form of unity,full compliance with Catholic doctrine, requires conversion. Actually our mission is to proselytize, to present the faith in its finest sense. That is the unity Christ envisioned for the world. A danger in working toward a lesser form of unity mainly cooperative is the surrender of the original mission to have one baptism, one faith. A synodal process can be a conversion process with a more convinced, faithful leadership. Discussion can have positive effect, perhaps a new platform for conversion.
“The dicastery concludes that “growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church” and that “many synodal institutions and practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches could inspire the Latin Church.”
I hope we (Eastern Churches) will stay away as long as ‘Fiducia’ and other unspoken but acted heresies are there. I am very concerned though. PF is desperate “to rule them all” or better to say those who are behind him (his worldly friends). This is the only reason for what he is doing.
If the Eastern Orthodox Church’s hierarchy swallow this bait the monastics and most faithful will stop being in communion with them. We have been through this before – our theology of ecclesia allows us to do this. “You should not pray together with heretics.”
As for “Eastern synodality” which the Vatican continues to wave as an excuse for all this mess, we do not have “synodality”, we have “sobornost” (“togetherness”). When the Russian Orthodox Church had its most revolutionary Council, just before the 1917 revolution, it was gathered to solve the most pressing problems like the election of the Patriarch and organization of parishes. We had laity, priests, bishops and monastics. Laity constituted half of the council, I think. All theological problems could be decided/voted by the bishops only. Laity would vote for non-theological, practical things. Most importantly, the Council did not try to invent “the themes”, they presented themselves. For example, in 1918 many of those who participated in the first part of the Council, were martyred and so the Patriarch who any second could be arrested, had to work out to whom to pass his responsibilities and so on. Or how to respond to the expropriation by the state of the liturgical (consecrated) vessels.
By 1919, the absolute majority of participants were prosecuted, most clergy and monastics murdered.
I said all this simply to show, as an Eastern Orthodox, how pathetic that “Synod of Synodality” is.
I believe we’re slowly getting closer to a Catholic/Orthodox reunion. Next year it’ll have been 1700 years since the Nicean Council. The Creed states that we believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. One means 1 true Church, and One means 1 unified Church. The Orthodox aren’t One because they aren’t in communion with the One Church. Some aren’t even in union with each other.
Orthodox Churches are Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with 7 valid Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), but they’re not One. Unlike the Catholic Church, they’re sadly missing one core point of the Nicene Creed. It’ll be 1000 years this century since the 1054 schism. May we all be One soon.
The fact that this pontificate is proposing a vision of the papacy as the sign of unity among Christians is risable at best. Pope Francis has done nothing but sow division in the Church. He pits groups against one another in a vindictive manner and, in my mind, has become a sign of disunity.
Great idea guys…let’s take suggestions on ecclesial unity from the dying “mainline” Protestant churches, the always in-fighting Eastern Orthodox (who aren’t even in communion with one another) or the always dividing decentralized evangelicals. The majority of Christians are Catholic. And because of the papacy the majority of Christians are united.
Plain truths so rarely acknowledged. Well said.
It seems like just another addition to the listening church or the church of anything goes
I’ve labored under the misconception that councils were infallible. I can think of one deeply conditioned by historical circumstances.
Having worked for over a decade in an Ivy League ecumenical theological enterprise I never once noticed an interest amongst the protestant brethren in a reunification with the Roman Catholic Church. Nor did I witness any earnest love for Roman Catholicism from those self-proclaimed Roman Catholic.
When I was a young lad in Catholic school in the late fifties and early sixties it was explained to us that the Ecumenical Council was going to be an effort to reunite the protestant “churches” to the One True Church. We prayed for the success of “the” mid-century council every day. The prayer card had a picture of John XXIII on the front.
Someone please provide specific examples of the protestant communities adjusting their practice to conform to the truths of the Roman Catholic Church?
History will look back and weep, as faithful Catholics do this day. The heresy of our time is ecumenism — and the cornucopia of scandalous error it has brought forth.
The ecumenical dialogue has been nothing but duplicity from the outset. Apparently it is replacing Holy among the four marks of the Church. The men responsible for this decades long deception bear an enormous guilt.
James: The Anglican Ordinariate would be an example.
Did the Anglican Ordinariate essentially exist as the well known Anglo-Catholic current of Anglicanism before the mid-century council? Does the Anglican Ordinariate exist because of the existence of Roman Catholicism or because those who constitute the Anglican Ordinariate could not digest a female clergy and episcopate? How will the Anglican Ordinariate digest future developments in an ecumenical enterprise formally recognized as Roman Catholicism?
Just a mention that Ive heard some Anglicans identify themselves as “Catholic and Reformed ” as opposed to every-day Protestant. But I know that varies.
I wish we had an Anglican Ordinariate parish nearby.
James, go, attend Mass and ask your questions. They are a welcoming bunch. If that is not possible, follow a Mass online. Reach out to their staff. https://ordinariate.net/about
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDSZCNwc38
Also the Uniate Churches, all relatively small but about 20 in number, including the Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Romanian, Coptic, Malabar and others: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/uniate-churches.
My recollection is that Pope Benedict XVI enabled (in 2009) the Anglican Ordinariate (below) partly because meaningful reunion with the Anglican ecclesial communion had been unilaterally put out of reach by their invalid “ordination” of female bishops, ever since 1989.
Anglicanorum Coetibus: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus.html
“An Anglican representative who spoke at the Vatican press conference highlighted how certain aspects of Vatican I have been a particular “stumbling block” for Anglicans.
WOW! If that is what the Anglican representative sees as a particular “stumbling block” between Anglicans and Catholics he must really have his head in the sand. We are father apart than we were in 1870.
In 1870 the primary reluctance to defining papal infallibility (within the Church as indwelled by the Holy Spirit) was that such an action was not false, but “INOPPORTUNE.” Especially in how it would be understood by the Protestant ecclesial communities.
One primary MOTIVE, back then in a world of consolidated and secular nation-states (even the eternal city of Rome had been occupied, causing Vatican I to be “suspended”, until Vatican II) was that the Church of the incarnate Jesus Christ maintained its spiritual domain and mission in the world.
Now, a century and a half later, Vatican II turned toward the leavening of SOCIETY rather than jousting with political nation-states. (Gaudium et Spes addresses atheistic regimes but the Soviet Union is not mentioned by name–a concession enabling permission from Moscow for the entrapped Orthodox Churches to attend).
And, today, the fragmented ANGLICAN sect points to a “stumbling block”…
Another historical stumbling block might be in 1558 when Queen Elizabeth I replaced the words of valid ordination, and “Matthew Parker was ‘consecrated’ Archbishop of Canterbury according to [the] invalid form. As the succession of the Anglican hierarchy descended through him, the Church of England, even though a state establishment, no longer possessed valid orders” (McSorley, “An Outline History of the Church,” Herder, 1945, p. 559). In 1896 Pope Leo XIII made his matter-of-fact observation to this effect: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm
TODAY, as we recall the non-inclusive (!) rejection of Arianism in A.D. 325; and where our “walking together” world has lost its footing; and where religion is rendered obsolete in the West; and where ideological clericalists evade real internal dialogue by dismissing the Church’s living Tradition as “backwardist;”. . . and where historic, sectarian, and global Islam challenges the spiritually invertebrate West…
…it does seem very “OPPORTUNE” (!) for the Catholic Church to dialogue—ecclesiastically and credibly—with Protestant ecclesial communities. And, regarding the homegrown LGBTQ tribal religion, not to marginalize all of Catholic and dissenting Africa as a “special case,” nor to risk sidelining many, many national hierarchies and the scandalized Orthodox Churches in favor of the Jesuit pied-piper James Martin.
James, I agree with you that the heresy of our time is ecumenism but let us make a distinction between pre and post VII definitions of it. Before VII, ecumenism meant reaching out to non-Catholics in an uncompromising manner in order to bring them into the fold for the salvation of their soul. After VII ecumenism meant incessant, unproductive dialogue and an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Protestant (various!) construct. Your praying as a child for the success of the mid-century council everyday is EXACTLY where this redefinition took place. So yes, ecumenism as defined and executed today is the heresy of our time.
In the 1970s the majority of Protestants supported abortion, but when they witnessed the persistence and consistency of Catholics on the matter vast numbers changed their mind and joined the cause. To this day they credit the leadership of Catholicism. This was true ecumenism. Now Francis is dedicated to its destruction through lowest common denominator pseudo-religion.
As in Genesis 11:4, the lust to: “make a name for ourselves” has lost none of its fire?
Synodalism is not an article of faith.
It makes no sense to need to immerse the primacy of the Holy See in anything as on its own it already was given to witness the Communion.
Ecumenism, this principle of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches, is both a complex and multifaceted concept. I agree with the article that it involves a commitment to dialogue and understanding across denominational lines, recognizing fully that while there are doctrinal differences, there is also a shared belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is that single belief that binds us to this mission of ecumenism.
The best approach emphasizes a respectful and supportive role for the Church, one that leads by example rather than by criticism or judgment. This perspective aligns with the view that actions often speak louder than words, and that living out one’s faith can be a powerful testimony to others. It also acknowledges the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding individuals to a deeper understanding of the gospel, suggesting a patient and discerning approach to religious instruction and conversation. Such an approach can foster a more inclusive and compassionate
community, united by common faith and purpose.
I see no reason to demean or shun ecumenical efforts. Rather, I believe we should stand faithful as Jesus’ disciples and allow the Holy Spirit take care of the role of conversion.
My freshman religion teacher, Brother Lawrence, used to refer to Anglicans as “Junior Varsity Catholics,”. Perhaps he knew something.
My own, personal position after worshiping for ten years with the Roman Catholics and studying RC mystical theology is that there is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and this term is equally applicable to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. We share the same Chalice and we are one in Christ. I also believe that pre-Chalcedonians also belong to One Church because they also believe in the Real Presence. And so, we are one unofficially.
Here is a typical point of view of an Eastern Orthodox about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. I copied it from an open forum:
“He’s [Pope Francis] trying to hold together a church which is being torn apart from the inside. It’s very possible the entire German Catholic Church breaks off (again lol?) over the gay marriage issue. The traditionalists are extremely unhappy with the suppression of their liturgical rite.. I very much disagree with his decisions and overall modus operandi, and I thank God for the structure of the Orthodox Church which has allowed us to maintain our liturgical rite and traditions of the saints and fathers, instead of having some guy unilaterally throw them out the window in order to “modernize” our church. There’s a reason Orthodoxy has been so good at maintaining…. orthodoxy. … Benedict was a better pope but they basically forced him out because he was too decent lol.”
Note the attitude to Pope Benedict who did not propose to become only “a bishop of Rome” etc., did not bend to the world, etc. The good-willing Eastern Orthodox saw Pope Benedict as a very Orthodox Catholic and a decent person so they could trust him to have a dialogue. And so, a true dialogue is only possible with a Pope who is truly solid, rooted in the deposit of faith. We also have a very monastic tradition and thus despise those who bend to the world. Hence, while I can imagine some Orthodox hierarchy mucking with PF, it will not reflect the overall attitude of the Orthodox people.
Another voice:
“Pope Francis, insofar as he leads the Catholic Church, seems to be leading the Catholic in a more liberal/mainstream direction. I can respect some of the recent Popes, like Benedict even if I disagree with them as an Orthodox Christian, but I cannot respect Francis.”
The total: we cannot have a dialogue with an unorthodox Pope. The fact that Francis appears not to see the major reason for a lack of a dialogue, his own deviation from the Church’s teaching, is very revealing.
No good Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, or other will have anything of Pope Francis’ anti-Apostolic, libertarian ‘improvements’ on The Faith.
In John 10:14 we hear our LORD identifying His own:
“I am the Good Shepherd, I know My own and My own know Me.”
In Mark 3:35 we hear Him again:
“Anyone who does the will of GOD, that person is My brother & sister & mother.”
Protestantisms run the gamut from agnostic universalists to ardent bible bashers to fragrant thurible swingers. Anglicanism, I understand, encompasses all such trends.
Is this the model some in the Vatican fancy as NuCatholicism. Hans Küng was rather a fan of this loosely structured type with a president-pope in the chairman’s oecumenical seat.
Indeed a generation may have to die out before any vestige of authentic «Catholicity» returns.
Are we not witnessing in Bergoglio’s seemingly usurped Papacy the triumph of freemasonry over the Holy Catholic Church?
The secret societies are at the root of the Protestant sects, from Luther’s Rosa Crucian blazon, to the salvation army. To accept protestant communities as relativist equivalents to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded not by freemasons but by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter is surely a betrayal of Sacred Tradition.
“Traditores” is the term used to describe those who during Diocletian’s purge on Sacred Scripture preferred to surrender what was sacred to the prince of this world rather than show “a suicidal attitude”.
“Traditores” is The best response to Team Bergoglio’s latest act?
You mention Freemasonry.
For whatever it’s worth, it was the Frenchman Leon Gambetta–who in 1870 proclaimed the Third French Republic, and who served as Prime Minister 1881-1882, AND who was a Freemason–who first announced: “Clericalism! There’s the enemy.”
One need not be a Freemason to parrot this view, but today the phrase is a bit anachronistic or even backwardist.
The salvific answer is as it always has been: “Place your trust in the LORD Jesu Christ and His New Covenant, never in the world of human dissimulation.”
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome means the petrine office which is a sign of the universal communion of the Church. It is biblically grounded when Jesus says to Simon, one of his disciples: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” He confessed the messiahship of Christ on his behalf and on behalf of his close co-disciples, the apostles. We are not talkiing here of the pope as the Sovereign of the city of the Vatican. Personal Infallibility regarding declarations on faith and morals is a co-lateral feature of petrine primacy. What is needed today in the context of a synodal orientation of the Church is to clarify how there should be a universal sign of communion in the Church. Some sort of primacy is required even in a future ecumenical Church that embraces Catholics, Eastern and orthodox churches and all the mainline proestant churches. Only Christians who accept this universal sign of ecclesial communion can claim membership in a future truely ecumenical church. Papal primcacy of the Bishop of Rome considered as an obstacle to a global ecumenically united church is no more relevant today. The only Church that has preserved the so-called petrine office, thanks be to God, is the Catholic Church. The bishop of Rome happens to be the one on whom it rests. It has noting to do with being the patriarch of the West.
I have yet to meet a RC who has a clue how different RC is from EOC, theologically. Every Roman Catholic seems to think we are “the same.” They usually go on to start talking about Aquinas shortly thereafter. There is so much the Roman Catholic Church has to repent from, anyone with a knowledge of both theological structures finds reunification laughable. Primacy is the smallest of concerns. The solution is only for the RC to return to being Orthodox. There is no other option.
I never thought or said they were/are “the same”. What I said was, all, whomsoever, Catholic, Orthodox, Christian and non-Christian -all are obliged to enter into the reality of the filioque which Christ entrusted with Peter and His Church.
I know some of the many ways in which the Orthodox churches differ from the Roman Catholic Church. I also know that they can differ among themselves. You seem to imply that they are a unified integrity or a common front when in fact they are not. They have their own types of disputes among them and they are not in a unity.
This is so basic Catherine how could you have missed it.
On the other hand, I do consider them “Catholic” in so far as they share in the fullness of faith and truth. Further there are some of them that are officially Catholic like the Maronite Rite and many informal groupings esp. disapora (aside from Maronite, etc.) who intuitively adhere to the Pope and will tell you so.
Dear ‘E.G.’, you’ve put our Catholic case for priority well; yet, some would question even how many of today’s core Catholics actually affirm they: “intuitively adhere to the Pope” (let alone those at the peripheries of the Church).
That issue has come to a head with the incumbancy of P. Francis who has been and is manfully striving to earn the title: Summus Pontifex Paganorum. It will be interesting to see how many of those of other Christian traditions will be willing to adhere to such a pope.
So obvious: one scarcely likes to remind oneself that Jesus Christ alone is our LORD, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light of the world, our one & only Teacher, Savior, Anointer with The Holy Spirit of GOD, and soon returning KING and eternal Judge of all. Every person who claims to be Christian, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Pentecostal adheres exclusively to the eternal, immortal, only-begotten Son Of GOD and He to us.
In this sense, catholicity has always prevailed; since Penetecost, there could never be a schism. All the ‘schisms’ of the past & present have had nothing to do with genuine followers of Christ Jesus, who were & continue to be one in their loving obedience to Him. Their’s is the unbreakable, unshakeable, unbeatable unity of love of GOD.
It is disobedience to King Jesus Christ that puts one out of the Church in truth.
Yes: it IS godly to have faithful episcopes to lovingly oversight good order in the many parts of the Church; maybe even one of their best to act as a Petrine figurehead & convenor. Yet: when compared with our wonderful 2 millennia of unity in the kerygma, this is a trivial matter. Striving for it in the past has often been a highly ungodly, murderous, even genocidal, stumbling block.
Today: what use would it be if all the churches adhered to Pope Francis and yet we lost our lovingly obedient adherences to Christ Jesus, our LORD?
He would say to us: “I don’t know you!”
So, it’s a matter of first things first:
1st let all Catholics and other Christians grow in adherence to God’s commands and to faithful witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ;
2nd let their unity in faith then also be expressed in an organizational unity convened by Peter’s successor.
If forced to choose, those who are mature in Christ, will always prioritize the salvific, and leave the fraught administrative to it’s own devices.
In short: Rome needs to RE-THINK, so as to sincerely prioritize obedience to Christ & His Apostles; true Christian administrative unity can only be built on that.
Ever in the grace & mercy of The Lamb of God; love & blessings from marty