Pope Benedict makes statement on Church Unity

[Konstantinos]

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 29, 2005 Benedict XVI pressed his efforts to improve relations with the Orthodox Churches, urging them to focus on what unites them with Rome rather than on centuries-old disputes.

On today's solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, the patrons of Rome, the Pope also bestowed the pallium on dozens of archbishops.

He addressed part of his homily toward a visiting delegation from the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, which was sent for the occasion by Patriarch Bartholomew I.

The Holy Father greeted the delegation and said: "Even if we still do not agree on the question of the interpretation and of the capacity of the Petrine ministry, we are however together in the apostolic succession, we are profoundly united with the others by the episcopal ministry and by the sacrament of the priesthood and we confess together the faith of the apostles as it is given in Scripture and as it is interpreted in the great Councils."

"In this hour of the world, full of skepticism and doubts but rich in the desire for God, we acknowledge again our common mission to witness together Christ the Lord and, on the basis of that unity that is already given to us, to help the world believe," Benedict XVI said.

"And we entreat the Lord with all our heart to guide us to full unity so that the splendor of the truth, which alone can create unity, will again become visible in the world," he added.

 

[Maximus]

How can unity be achieved by "focus[ing] on what unites"?

What unites is not what divides, and - at the risk of sounding overly simplistic - what divides is precisely the problem.

After all, "what unites" hasn't done much to keep Latins and Orthodox together thus far.

Focusing on what unites in order to repair a centuries-old schism is a little like going to the doctor because of an ailment and having him "focus on the parts that don't hurt."

More hot air blowing from central Italy.

 

[Servus Iesu]

I have to agree with you Maximus.

Focusing on what unites us won't settle the Filoque issue or papal prerogatives or any of the other issues that divide us. Personally, I don't see how the schism can be resolved, though I'm interested in any ideas.

It boils down to a central problem (and I think Orthodox will agree with this). Christ has only one Church. The Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The RC and EO cannot both be the One Church. Either one is the true Church and the other is a Church in schism or the other is the true Church (or we are both false anti-Churches).

If the above is true (and I don't see how it can be avoided) then the true Church has no concessions to offer. We cannot come to the table and barter doctrine, "hey you guys give in on papal infallibility and then we'll give up the IC." It seems like often times the ecumenical movement attempts to 'create unity' by issuing joint statements that are so ambiguous they cannot possibly resolve any differences we might have. I could sit down with a Muslim and produce a joint statement if I used enough semantical gymnastics.

With that said, there needn't be any animosity between us. Just because we have differences doesn't mean we should deny what we really have in common. What is needed is truthful and honest appraisal of what we agree on and what we disagree on.

 

[Photini]

Servus, thank you. I agree. And FTR, you are the first RC that I've seen come in here and support that view. Usually we are told that the Orthodox are too fixated on what divides.

 

[InnerPhyre]

You can count me in that camp as well, Photoni. I think concentrating on what "unites" us might make us feel fuzzy, but it really doesn't help things move along very much. If we want to make progress, we're going to need to have more than a few prayerful dialogues about where we're all coming from and where things went wrong.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Servus, thank you. I agree. And FTR, you are the first RC that I've seen come in here and support that view. Usually we are told that the Orthodox are too fixated on what divides.

I said the same thing over on OBOB. I was told that the reason Orthodox on TAW aren't all ecumenical is because some are converts and so are zealous.

What that has to do with it I don't know. Whether or not the Orthodox are converts doesn't change the papal infallibility issue or filioque etc one whit.

I'm not saying that an end to the schism is impossible. It will take nothing short of a miracle of Jesus though.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Usually we are told that the Orthodox are too fixated on what divides.

I think you guys value the truth and that is something I do respect. Real ecumenism has to be based on a love of truth above all else. Many Catholics are ready to sell out truth for ecumenical crumbs. I'm sure there are Orthodox who are the same way though.

 

[Rilian]

Servus, I think you should read this interview of Fr. Robert Taft. The last quarter of the interview I think gives one of the best descriptions of how reconciliation could occur that I've come across.

 

[Servus Iesu]

That was an interesting read and I heartily enjoyed many parts of it. Consider the following though:

Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’

That is all well and good but it doesn't really solve anything. John Paul II expressly stated that he was willing to allow Eastern Churches to choose their own Bishops by Synods. If Papal jurisdiction was the only issue or even the most important issue at hand the schism could end tomorrow.

What about all of the doctrinal issues? What about the dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church post-schism? Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary... How do you resolve those issues?

 

[Servus Iesu]

By the way, I think this is a good discussion. Why not take a good and honest look at the hard issues here?

 

[MariaRegina]

By the way, I think this is a good discussion. Why not take a good and honest look at the hard issues here?

This is a very fair, honest, and level headed discussion. One of the best I've seen.

Question is: Will the peace here be maintained?

 

[Rilian]

That is all well and good but it doesn't really solve anything. John Paul II expressly stated that he was willing to allow Eastern Churches to choose their own Bishops by Synods. If Papal jurisdiction was the only issue or even the most important issue at hand the schism could end tomorrow.

It's not a matter of choosing ones own bishops. It's really a matter of accepting the reality of there being particular churches in which the Pope does not exercise universal ordinary jurisdiction. Basically going back to the way things were before the schism, primacy and not supremacy.

Stating you're willing to do something and actually doing it are two different things. The Eastern Catholics are still in many ways struggling to establish their own identity and governance, and that's hundreds of years after the Unia.

Pope Benedict said concrete steps are needed, and I agree with that. The concrete steps have to happen first, communion is the last step. I'm willing to bet there are people in the RCC that don't like the idea of loosening Papal control because they fear what might happen if that takes place. Just think how people react to the ideas of Archbishop Quinn. Reconciliation is really as bound up in the internals of the west as it is with the concerns of the east.

What about all of the doctrinal issues? What about the dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church post-schism? Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary... How do you resolve those issues?

The starting point is to say the post schism councils are local and not ecumenical. There were local councils before the schism that the east never accepted.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Pope Benedict said concrete steps are needed, and I agree with that. The concrete steps have to happen first, communion is the last step. I'm willing to bet there are people in the RCC that don't like the idea of loosening Papal control because they fear what might happen if that takes place. Just think how people react to the ideas of Archbishop Quinn. Reconciliation is really as bound up in the internals of the west as it is with the concerns of the east.

The concept of the USCCB choosing its own Bishops is down right terrifying. With that said, John Paul II (of blessed memory) is almost entirely responsible for the make up of the present USCCB. It is really six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I have no problem with the East selecting its Bishops. This is a problem that could be overcome.

 

[Servus Iesu]

The starting point is to say the post schism councils are local and not ecumenical. There were local councils before the schism that the east never accepted.

As far as the RC is concerned, they were Ecumenical. The Lateran Councils, Florence, Trent, Vatican I etc made dogmatic statements that cannot be simply ignored.

If structural unity is to exist then there must be doctrinal unity. One faith and unity of belief. Otherwise, wouldn't our unity be an illusion? I don't think the EO will accept our dogmas and the RC can't take them back. This is the central problem in my mind and I have no clue as to how it can be overcome, other than Catholics becoming Orthodox or Orthodox becoming Catholics.

 

[Maximus]

The concept of the USCCB choosing its own Bishops is down right terrifying.

Ain't that the truth!

If they did, you might find unity with ECUSA easier to achieve.

Personally, I think the greatest obstacle to union between Latins and Orthodox is the idea of an infallible Magisterium.

It's the root of the problem.

 

[MariaRegina]

The concept of the USCCB choosing its own Bishops is down right terrifying. With that said, John Paul II (of blessed memory) is almost entirely responsible for the make up of the present USCCB. It is really six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I have no problem with the East selecting its Bishops. This is a problem that could be overcome.

In the OCA, the laity have a choice in the selection of a bishop also.

I was wondering, has there been a survey done on loyal tithing Catholics recently? If they surveyed Catholics who tithed, attended church regularly and went to confession at least 4 times a year, would these Catholics be more traditional?

Way back in 1995, a Catholic priest said that about l/2 of one percent of his parishioners were striving for theosis. And he was really concerned for the 99.5% who really didn't care. Is this still true today? Or better? or worse?

p.s. You should be aware that this good priest is in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is not representative of a typical Catholic Archdiocese, so I've been told.

 

[Maximus]

If structural unity is to exist then there must be doctrinal unity. One faith and unity of belief. Otherwise, wouldn't our unity be an illusion? I don't think the EO will accept our dogmas and the RC can't take them back. This is the central problem in my mind and I have no clue as to how it can be overcome, other than Catholics becoming Orthodox or Orthodox becoming Catholics.

That is exactly right.

From our pov, the RCC as it is would have to cease to exist.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Ain't that the truth!

If they did, you might find unity with ECUSA easier to achieve.

Personally, I think the greatest obstacle to union between Latins and Orthodox is the idea of an infallible Magisterium.

It's the root of the problem.

Indeed... US Catholicism would no longer be discernible from Episcopalianism.

Do you believe the Ecumenical Councils were infallible?

 

[MariaRegina]

Indeed... US Catholicism would no longer be discernible from Episcopalianism.

Do you believe the Ecumenical Councils were infallible?

Which ones?

I believe that the first seven as recognized by Orthodoxy were infallible.

 

[Maximus]

Indeed... US Catholicism would no longer be discernible from Episcopalianism.

Do you believe the Ecumenical Councils were infallible?

I believe that the dogmatic decrees - the infallible part - of the first seven were.

There are a couple of others that may have been ecumenical, but, honestly, I don't know enough about them to speak with confidence. They are accepted by many Orthodox as the eighth and ninth ecumenical councils.