The Papacy and Ecumenism

The Papacy and Ecumenism | Rev. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M. | From Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue

Editor's Note: This text is from the first chapter, "The Primacy As An Ecumenical Problem," of Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue. The extensive footnotes, many of them in languages other than English, have not been included here.

It was Paul VI who, with great incisiveness, highlighted the problems posed by his own ministry along the path of ecumenism. However, he was also the true initiator of the "dialogue of charity" and of the "dialogue of truth". In fact, in his address to the members of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians (April 28, 1967) he openly stated, "The Pope, as we well know, is undoubtedly the greatest obstacle on the path of ecumenism."'

These words generated a great deal of comment in special issues of journals and reviews, and above all in interconfessional inquiries and symposia. These  produced an "awareness of the difficulty arising from the existence of the papacy, and it was repeatedly affirmed that the role of the papacy in the Catholic Church constituted the greatest obstacle on the path toward the unity of Christians". In fact, it is often repeated, as a refrain, that the primacy is regarded by all confessions as constituting the main doctrinal difficulty for the union of Churches, a sort of boulder that blocks its path, insofar as it has sometimes "played a decisive role, fraught with responsibility, in the rise of the fatal divisions which are found within the bosom of Christianity". It is "a particularly controversial issue, and consequently as long as this divergence of opinion is not dealt with and clarified, all dialogues about the differences between the Churches will have something of a fictitious nature, but especially because the differing notions about this issue impede the common testimony of the Churches".

The obstacle constituted by the primacy has been emphasized also in various monographs by individual authors who have pointed out the various aspects of its seriousness and have indicated the crux of the problem by identifying its basis They have also underscored the unanimous and categorical concurrence of non-Catholics in their rejection of the idea that the exceptional privileges of the primacy can be reserved for one single person The conclusions that emerge from this are not very promising: "[As a result], the ecciesiology which we [have] presented can-at least in its essentials-be accepted by these Churches [of the East]. But from the time that the chapter on Roman Primacy is opened up, everything is spoiled. It is evident that the problem is complicated because of the groups which were born of the Reformation and its [s]pirit."

Continue reading...

Comments

[Randy]

The papacy is an obstacle but not in the sense they mean. It is not like a large animal standing on your path. It is more like a cliff that leads to the top of a mountain. The solution is not to remove it. The solution is to rise to the challenge it represents.

I know this is just chapter 1 but it seems everyone is squirming around for a way to avoid the challenge. How can we get unity without actually doing anything hard. Can we just play with words?

Re-founding the papacy seems very strange. Do they know it was founded by Jesus? Do they think Jesus is going to change it to suit modern tastes?

It seems they see ecumenism as simply a way to be more polite. Ecumenism is supposed to be a way to get closer to God. It is not about negotiation but about sanctification. It starts with the idea that we are all likely to get the faith very wrong without the communion of the saints. That is easy to say but it is very hard to swallow what that really means.

[diane]

Randy, I hear ya.

I am very, very concerned about resurrecting the pentarchy, which is not rooted in either Scripture or Sacred Tradition; in fact, in some ways, it was more a political construct than a theological one. And I sure don't see what we gain by reducing the pope to "primus inter pares" and adopting Orthodox ecclesiology. Orthodoxy has HUGE ecclesiological problems -- jurisdictional chaos; no definitive, authoritative, "official" answers to truly crucial doctrinal questions (it depends on which bishop you ask!); phyletism; etc. Thanks but no thanks!

Yes, we need rethink the precise way in which the popes would exercise their primacy in a reunited Christendom. But that does not mean giving away the farm. That would be disastrous. Our separated brethren *need* a strong papacy, not an impotent one. And, as you say, it was Jesus who founded the papacy...we have absolutely no authority to re-found it!

[LJ]

The parallel issue of the papacy is the infallibility doctrine. Contrary to what some thought at the time that the doctrine was infallibly declared by Vatican I, it should be the first issue for ecumenical dialogue, even prior to all other aspects of the papacy.

The infallibilty question is theological. That is to say there are a number of questions that can be posed regarding the doctrine; Is it possible that the Holy Spirit could protect his Church from error in that manner? Did Jesus not desire doctrinal unity as well as visible unity in his prayer the night before he was crucified? And so on.

If it is possible to find unanimity in the theological principles, then the other jurisdictional aspects of the papacy follow. In other words, without the theological basis, the papacy becomes only what many non-Catholics think it is, the top of a organizational heirarchy and no more. Even worse, for the feminist-influenced ecclesiologies, it is a patriarchy and offensive simply because it is populated by males.

I think that without theology first, people will tend to jump around in their objections, mixing theology with administration with jurisdiction, etc.

Bottom line? The rejection of the papacy has more to do with rejection of authority by denial of the existence of that authority, rather than any purely theological issue. The arguments give a patina of theology for the sake of appearance.

The problem with many of the solutions offered by the opponents of the papacy, is that however delicately and intrically they are phrased, without authority in faith and morals the real point and purpose of the papacy is moot, and the promise of Christ is mocked.

[Randy]

I think theology is the problem. It may not be for liberal theologians but for most protestants who believe in preserving the truth revealed by God their principle objection would be theology the pope is alleged to have gotten wrong. So you immediately get into the Marian dogmas, justification, sacraments, saints, contraception, etc. To accept infallibility is to accept that popes have been right about those things. It is very hard to open your mind to this possibility. The good news is that once you do there is much scripture and logic to back up the pope's positions. But getting past that obstacle of even openning the door a tiny crack to the chance the papacy might be right even when you are sure it is wrong. I don't see that happening. These are conservative protestants and it is against their nature to question settled doctrine.

[LJ]

These are conservative protestants and it is against their nature to question settled doctrine.

Randy,
That is so true, yet so ironic, especially in the context of discussing the papacy and the settled doctrines of the Church.
It also goes to show how little Sola Scriptura is adhered to in practice.