Pope Benedict's Relationship with the Eastern Churches

[Milliardo]

How is Pope Benedict XVI's relationship with the Eastern rite Catholics? Being conservative, what is his stance regarding married clergy in the Eastern rites?

[patrickmichael]

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

--Ratzinger, Joseph: PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, Ignatius, 1988, page 199-200

Pope Benedict, being *orthodox*, will most likely continue to respect the patrimony and traditions (such as a married priesthood) of the Eastern Churches--those in communion with the Latin Church, and those that are not.

[JW10631]

I would think that Pope Benedict XVI would do nothing to hinder the call to the Eastern Catholic Churches put forth by +Pope John Paul II+ of eternal memory.

Pope John Paul II wrote Orienatle Lumen. It has been established. It began after Vatican II and Pope Paul VI. Pope Benedict XVI is a liturgist. It stands to reason that he will promote the liturgy in all of the Churches.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by patrickmichael

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

--Ratzinger, Joseph: PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, Ignatius, 1988, page 199-200

Thank you, I am glad you posted this.

Please note that he states that the Eastern churches should accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development (the time that the churches were separated). This is crucial, because there is actually nothing wrong at all with what the Orthodox believe, not any heresy to be found. The problem is in what they cannot believe: newer developments in the west.

Pope Benedict, being *orthodox*, will most likely continue to respect the patrimony and traditions (such as a married priesthood) of the Eastern Churches--those in communion with the Latin Church, and those that are not.

Pope Benedict literally has no choice, it is not within the realm of possibilty that he could change those traditions or spirituality. They stand upon their own merits and no Pope could conceivably succeed in suppressing them or modifying them. One could argue that he doesn't have the right to try.

Whether Pope Benedict respects the Eastern churches (Catholic or Orthodox) will have minimal additional positive affect on relations between the churches. In other words, it really doesn't matter even if he has twice the respect and desire for reunion that JP II had, he cannot move the situation to resolution by being nice or saying nice things, although he could conceivably insult or offend the East and derail any dialogue.

I close read of many threads started on this very message board system will show that a lot of Catholics are eager to "prove" Orthodoxy is wrong. It cannot be done. Every argument against the theology held by the Orthodox is a contrivance. The most one can say is that there are things they cannot accept, everything they do accept is what our own ancestor/predecessor Christians once also accepted.

If we read Pope Benedict's statement carefully, it says that the East should ideally accept the doctrinal developments of the West. All of the real work is there, the burden of proof is on the West. It is up to the West to make a very strong provable case to the East for the second millenium theology it holds, or if needs be drop the doctrines the East cannot accept!

I suspect that neither option is a possibility in our lifetimes. Relations between the East and the West will not change much for ages upon ages.

[patrickmichael]

All true. My apologies for providing H.H.'s statement and then failing miserably to articulate the truth on the commentary front.

[Catholic Tom]

I think that the "developments" in the west as it was put, were believed by everyone, everywhere, and the holy Spirit protects the Church in it's councils from error. So that said, these "developments" are divinely protected.

It is universal belief. There is no reason to "prove" Orthodoxy is wrong in doctrine, at least in that which it holds to the councils. However, they are not in union with the seat of St. Peter. I have read the Church Fathers and they always considered that all churches should agree with Rome. That Peter's place (which is the Pope of today) is that of authority among the Apostles. Why do you think that every council that the Orthodox hold on to had to be ratified by a pope!!!

This is where Orthodox are wrong, in my opinion of course. They left the church. They seperated from the church. The true church of Jesus Christ brought the faith to all the nations, only the Catholic Church can make that claim. Anyways, I don't really want to delve much deeper into this, because it always falls on deaf disbelieving ears, and it's not my place to either. I just pray for unity, which i believe is happening, slowly but surely.