Yeah, I’m aware of all of that, but the problem I have with the contemporary Roman understanding of the Papacy is that all of those evidences are being used to justify the Supremacy of a Secular State, which is what the Vatican City-State is.
I believe all of that is recognition that Rome holds a special place, being as it is the Capital City. And I’m still in Communion with Rome for the first thousand years. My argument is that the current Papacy is a distortion and misapplication of what Christ had in mind.
I’m aware of the evidence; it’s a difference of interpretation and applicability.
The supremacy of Rome as the Highest See in the Church, as necessary for presiding over councils and doctrinal definitions, is a separate issue from the Vatican City State. The status of the Vatican, or the papal states, has changed throughout time. The supremacy of Rome as See, or the Seat of Peter, has not - nor could it, if ever it was supreme, which clearly it was universally recognized to be.
Regardless of crises or confusion, the principle of the papacy is what is at issue, and this principle as established by Christ cannot be said to change.
You should give that article by Timothy Flanders to which I linked a read, if you haven't. He was once Eastern Orthodox, but found I think important objections that proper recognition of Rome's primacy resolves.
The supremacy of Rome as the Highest See in the Church, as necessary for presiding over councils and doctrinal definitions, is a separate issue from the Vatican City State.
I know you say that, but the problem is that it’s a cover story. It’s a distinction that historically made no difference. The Roman Church chose to become a political organization, and set herself up to compete with the nations of the world. It’s just the reality. If it were not so, why were there such clashes between the Roman Church, and the Kingdoms of the world?
For example, why did the Japanese embrace Christianity for decades, sweeping their nation, to the point where the main cities had hundreds of churches - only to be completely rounded up and kicked out, closing themselves off to the rest of the world for a couple hundred years?
I’ll tell you why; Jesuits. If it weren’t for the fact they were attempting to infiltrate and subvert the Chrysanthemum Throne, Christianity would have continued to bloom in Japan. But they figured out it was a political move, and kicked them out.
By contrast, the Orthodox never infiltrate and subvert host nations; they respect them, and become welcome guests. To this day, there are about 120,000 Japanese Orthodox Christians in Japan. Even during the Russo-Japanese War, they weren’t kicked out. They were understood to be loyal members of their race.
This, because there was no actionable suspicion of dual loyalty.
This is an absolutely different approach than what happens under the Papacy.
As I said, I know the cover story. I’m not really interested in fighting about it though, because as I said, our efforts are much better served as a unified front. We’re in overwhelming agreement about nearly everything, and we’ll benefit more from playing to our strengths.
The Roman Church chose to become a political organization, and set herself up to compete with the nations of the world.
How can you affirm what is said of "the Roman Church" by your own saints and then think such a supreme authority in the Church of Christ could fall into competition with the world qua Church? Either the gates of hell will not prevail, as Christ said, or not. Unless we can recognize the distinction between the Church qua Church and the Church qua Her members, or distinguish between the Church in Her political actions versus Her doctrinal ones, then no serious discussion can be had at all. We must enter into the discussion in humility and charity, or else it will be too easy to conflate that which should not be conflated. It's just as Flanders says.
I’ll tell you why; Jesuits. If it weren’t for the fact they were attempting to infiltrate and subvert the Chrysanthemum Throne, Christianity would have continued to bloom in Japan. But they figured out it was a political move, and kicked them out.
This is a two-fold error of distinction, as well as a lack of recognition of the necessary relation that must exist between Church and state. First, whatever political actions the Jesuits may have taken - prudent or imprudent as it may have been - was conflated by the Japanese with the Faith (and thus the Church) itself; secondly, you are affirming this conflation by suggesting that whatever political moves the Jesuits may have - prudently or imprudently - taken speaks in any way against what the Church is. What political actions Catholic priests may or may not take has no bearing whatsoever on the essence of the Church, inclusive of which is the principle of the papacy itself. Finally, arguments can be made for the prudence of influencing a state to more than just tolerate Christianity, but affirm its supremacy, because of what the Church claims to be. The Church cannot believe itself to be a Divine institution and then settle for a position less than She is due according to Justice. It is the Church's mission to inform all states as the soul of all states. It was a very good thing for the Church that Constantine not only issued the Edict of Milan, decreeing that Christians were to be treated benevolently within the empire, but also Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica later on, which made Christianity the religion of the state. The second followed the first because the emperors came to recognize the Church for what She is - the Mystical Body of Christ, Our Lord's Bride, and the Divine Institution tasked with informing all states in the world. If the emperors moved from the Edict of Milan to the Edict of Thessalonica as a result of preaching from men like Ambrose or Athanasius, would this not be considered a good thing? If so, why then would Jesuits attempting to win a similar conversion in Japan be condemned? Because they failed? Because they may have gone about it the wrong way?
What is important is that the principle of the relation between the Church and state as significant remains grounded in our own tradition. How can anyone who recognizes the Christian tradition, who sees the relation between emperors and bishops, and indeed, popes, not understand how the Church cannot exist entirely separate from temporal state powers? Why then condemn the Jesuits in Japan, or the Church at large, for her relations (prudent or otherwise) with state powers?
By contrast, the Orthodox never infiltrate and subvert host nations; they respect them, and become welcome guests. To this day, there are about 120,000 Japanese Orthodox Christians in Japan. Even during the Russo-Japanese War, they weren’t kicked out. They were understood to be loyal members of their race.
Guests. This is beneath the dignity and mission of what the Church is. It is as if, through schism, the Orthodox recognize they lack the authority or the claim to the kind of supremacy that would compel them to attempt conversions and influencing of state powers. I don't view this as a point in their favour, but a demerit. Either the Church is called to guide all the world, or She is not. If She is not, She is not the Church.
As I said, I know the cover story. I’m not really interested in fighting about it though, because as I said, our efforts are much better served as a unified front. We’re in overwhelming agreement about nearly everything, and we’ll benefit more from playing to our strengths.
The prelates in my Church have done enough since Vatican II to work in an "ecumenical" spirit with other faiths. Emphasizing our similarities and ignoring our differences is not enough, nor is it what Christ taught. You are a friend and a brother, and it is because this is so that I cite the above Scripture and remind you that Christ sought not peace among such brethren, but war, insofar as these brethren were divided about Him (and thus, His Church).
Christ does not will for His Body, the Church, to be divided - but insofar as we are divided He expects us to fight until the divisions are resolved, not ignore our differences and press on. Don't you see? Only by truly uniting can we be at all efficacious in warring against the Enemy, and it is only under One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, united under Rome, that this unity can be accomplished. Recognizing this, Christ built His Church on the rock of Peter. I just don't see how this is escapable, and I have not seen arguments against the principle offered, only criticisms of the actions of Rome - or rather, the prelates obeying Rome. But no one has said every action must be sublime; even Peter, after being told he would be given the keys, denied Christ thrice - and Christ knew and predicted he would. Clearly we were being warned that we should not expect sinlessness or perfection of action from Peter or his successors; but insofar as his teachings are concerned, his authority, his pronouncements, this we are expected to trust, because it is Peter who holds the keys, it is Peter who feeds the sheep. And unless we submit to Peter's teachings - who operates by Christ's authority - we are left to our own pride, and that is not a situation we can afford to be in when our salvation is on the line.
(post is archived)