Adam de Ville, editor of LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, and blogger at Eastern Christian Books, has provided a wonderful summary of points of interest for Eastern Christians in the Pope’s newest book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Light of the World. Most of the points have to do with the nature of the Roman Papacy.
These points show, I think, that Benedict XVI truly understands Eastern Christian concerns about papal authority, and more than that, is sympathetic to them. I might even venture to say that this Holy Father appears to have a much “lower” (dare I say more Orthodox?) doctrine of the Roman Primacy than many of his ardent conservative and traditionalist Catholic supporters.
(Recently I had a discussion with a theology professor at one of the most “traditional” Roman Catholic seminaries in the States. He informed me that the Holy Father no longer believed the foolish things he wrote about the Orthodox as a young professor, i.e. “the Ratzinger Formula”. Not too long after this discussion, the Pope’s new man at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Koch, referred to this formula as a position, not just of young Professor Ratzinger, but of Benedict XVI.)
Eirenikon 
Very interesting. I was amazed at how many of Fr. Hopko’s misrepresentations the Pope incidentally managed to put down in those twenty short excerpts. :-D
If I had known this was coming, I would have just pointed Anastasia here and saved myself an evening of research, composition and typing.
On the “Patriarch of the West” issue, I really think the Pope’s Orthodox critics are reading too much into it. Whatever the title, he still performs the associated functions, which is what matters.
Adam de Ville writes:
“The pope is not exclusively the “vicar of Christ”: this title, rather, belongs to “every priest” when he “speaks on behalf of Jesus Christ” (7). This is important, not only because history clearly bears him out in refusing to see the title as exclusively papal, but also because, in the furor in 2006 over papal titles (about which more presently), Orthodox commentators like Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) noted that other titles, including “vicar of Christ” needed critical examination.”
I think that Mr. de Ville reads too much into the passage in question. The actual passage reads as follows:
“Peter Seewald: For the Catholic Church the Pope is the Vicarius Christi, Christ’s representative on earth. Can you really speak for Jesus?”
Benedict XVI: In proclaiming the faith and in administering the sacraments every priest speaks on behalf of Jesus Christ, for Jesus Christ. Christ entrusted his Word to the Church. This Word lives in the Church. And if I accept interiorly the faith
of this Church and live, speak and think on the basis of it, when I proclaim Him, then I speak for Him—even though of course there can always be shortcomings in the details. The important thing is that I do not present my ideas, but rather try to think and to live the Church’s faith, to act in obedience
to his mandate.”
What the Pope is clearly answering here is the question whether the Pope “speaks for Jesus”, and, really, there is nothing new in the Pope’s response. After all, the Catholic Church, before as well as after Vatican II, has taught that every priest is “alter Christus”, and surely every baptized Christian who proclaims the truths of the faith is, in some sense, also speaking on behalf of the Lord. Peter Seewald’s comment on the Pope as Vicar of Christ is merely a preamble to the question which the Pope answers; the Pope’s answer doesn’t touch at all on whether “Vicar of Christ”, used as a special title for the Pope, should also be applied to others as well.
More telling is that, after this exchange, Peter Seewald continues to apply the title “Vicar of Christ” in a special manner to the Pope, and the Pope certainly doesn’t object, but seems to implicitly approve its application to him as Pope. For instance, the following exchange (which I reproduce in full due to its great beauty):
“Peter Seewald: For a symposium on the occasion of the eightieth birthday of Paul VI youread a paper in 1977 about what a Pope should be and how he should act. He must “be the least one and conduct himself accordingly”, as you quoted
the English Cardinal Reginald Pole. He must profess “that he knows nothing but the one thing that was taught him by God the Father through Christ”. The Vicar of Christ is one who keeps Christ’s power present as a counterforce to the world’s power. Not by any form of domination, but rather by carrying his superhuman burden on human shoulders. In this respect the real place of the Vicar of Christ is the cross.”
“Pope Benedict XVI: Yes, I consider that correct even today. The primacy developed from the very beginning as a primacy of martyrdom. During the first three centuries Rome was the headquarters and capital of the Christian persecutions. Withstanding these persecutions and giving witness to Christ was the special task of the Roman episcopal see.
We can regard it as providential that at the moment when Christianity entered a period of peace with the State, the imperial throne was transferred to Constantinople on the Bosporus. Thus the Bishop of Rome could more easily set forth the independence of the Church, the fact that she is distinct from the State. We do not have to look deliberately for conflict, clearly, but rather should strive basically for consensus and understanding. Yet the Church, the Christian, and above all the Pope must always be prepared for the possibility that the witness he must give will become a scandal, will not be accepted, and that he will then be thrust into the situation of the Witness, the suffering Christ.
The fact that all the early Popes were martyrs is significant. Standing there as a glorious ruler is not part of being Pope, but rather giving witness to the One who was crucified and to the fact that he himself is ready also to exercise his office in this way, in union with him.”
Mr. De Ville also asks if the Pope is somehow backtracking from Dominus Iesus:
“Backtracking from Dominus Iesus? Discussing the conciliar language of particular churches, the pope notes that “the Eastern Churches are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the pope. In this sense, unity with the pope is not constitutive for the particular church” (89; my emphasis)! When I have time I’ll have to check this (especially the word “constitutive”) against Dominus Iesus and also the 1992 declaration on the Church as communio because it sounds like the pope is introducing an important clarification or nuance here…. ”
Again, I think Mr. De Ville reads too much into what the Pope actually said. The actual passage reads as follows:
“Peter Seewald: According to Gerhard Ludwig Müller, a bishop known for his ecumenical engagement, Catholics and Orthodox have already achieved 97 percent of ecclesial unity. The remaining 3 percent consists, Müller says, in the question of papal primacy and jurisdiction. Not only did you remove the
tiara as a symbol of authority from the papal coat of arms, but you also ordered the designation “Patriarch of the West” struck from the list of papal titles. The Bishop of Rome is, you said, only the first among equals. Significantly, even while still a cardinal, you stated in the declaration Dominus Iesus, which was issued in 2000, that genuine particular churches
exist, “although they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, insofar as they do not accept the Catholic teaching of primacy.” Will Pope Benedict XVI restructure the papacy in order to foster the unity of Christianity?
“Pope Benedict XVI: A few qualifications would of course be needed here now “First among equals” is not exactly the formula that we believe as Catholics. The Pope is the first—and he also has specific functions and tasks. In this respect, not
everyone is equal. “First among equals” would be immediately acceptable to Orthodoxy; it acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome is the protos, the first, as is laid down already by the Council of Nicaea. But the question is precisely whether the Pope has specific tasks or not. The citation from Dominus Iesus
is also complex. But these are contentious issues, which I would have to say more about than I can right now . . .
“Peter Seewald: Does that mean that Ratzinger as Pope is contradicting his earlier self as Cardinal and custodian of the faith?
“Pope Benedict XVI: No, what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage means that the Eastern Churches are genuine particular churches, although they are not in
communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church. Nevertheless, the lack of unity is also an intrinsic lack in the particular church. For the particular church is ordered to membership in a whole. In this respect, non-communion with the Pope is a defect in the living cell of the particular church, as it were. It remains a cell, it
is legitimately called a church, but the cell is lacking something, namely, its connection with the organism as a whole. I would also be less confident than Bishop Müller and would be shy of
saying that only 3 percent is still missing. First of all, there are huge historical and cultural differences. Beyond the doctrinal issues, there are still many steps to be taken at the level of the heart. God still needs to do some work on us here. For the same reason, I would also be shy about making any
predictions about when reunion will happen. The important thing is that we truly love each other, that we have an interior unity, that we draw as close together and collaborate as much as we can—while trying to work through the remaining areas of open questions. And it is important for us always to remember in all of this that we need God’s help, that we are incapable of doing this alone.”
So we can see that:
1) Pope Benedict XVI is certainly NOT backtracking from Dominus Iesus, as he himself emphatically affirms. Indeed, I would say that the above passage adds iron to the words of Dominus Iesus.
2) The Pope emphatically affirms the necessity for a church to be united with the Pope, and that the lack of such unity is an “intrinsic defect” and shows that it is not connected with “the organism as a whole”.
3) The Pope explicitly rejects the understanding of the Pope as “first among equals”.
4) Let us revisit the passage on which Mr. De Ville bases his question: “The passage means that the Eastern Churches are genuine particular churches, although they are not in
communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.” Mr. De Ville asks if the Pope is now introducing a nuance here. I see nothing of the sort. The Pope is simply stating that unity with the Pope is “not constitutive” for the (separated) Eastern Churches because they are still genuine particular churches despite not being in union with Rome. This, once again, is nothing new — the understanding of “sister churches” elaborated by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (“Church of Constantinople” and “Church of Rome” are sister churches, but we cannot speak of “Orthodox Church” and “Catholic Church” as sister churches) already provides for this, in addition to Rome’s age-old recognition of the apostolic succession of the Eastern Churches not united with it.
I have never been able to understand the attraction of some Orthodox to this oxymoronic Anglican formula of “first among equals.” As one old Orthodox priest once observed “if there is a first, the others are not his equals.” All bishops, including the Pope are equal sacramentally, but a bishop’s functions are not solely sacramental. The practice of primacy (Peter among the apostles, a metropolitan in his province, a Patriarch in his patriarchate) assigns special responsibilities of leadership to the protos. Thus, in the full sense, the protos is CANNOT be the equal of the others. I would have thought that this would be particularly evident in Orthodoxy where a hierarchy of priority is even more prominently exercised than in the Latin Church (where provincial and national primacies are now little more than affections of protocol).
And, of course, I’ve seen Orthodox primates treating brother bishops in ways that would make Pio Nono himself blush.
In disciplinary matters, granted. Has an Orthodox primate ever unilaterally defined dogmas for his brother bishops to believe?
Nothing “oxymoronic” about “first among equals”. The adjective “first” refers to a different thing than “equals”. “Equals” refers to the fact that all bishops have the same inherent episcopal authority from Christ (you know, as St. Cyprian of Carthage, among many others, taught). “First” means that there are some privileges deriving from Rome’s unique status in the early church due to its situation at the capital of the Empire and its close connection with Sts. Peter and Paul.
It’s really not that hard to understand.
Some final points:
1) To support the final point in my previous comment, I would like to point to the following passage in the book:
“Peter Seewald: Is it really true that the Pope does not regard Protestants as a Church, but, unlike the Eastern Church, only as an ecclesial community? This distinction strikes many as demeaning.
“Pope Benedict XVI: The word “ecclesial community” is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters: A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession, is present which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and by the priest…”
The Catholic Church has historically recognized the Eastern Churches separated from Rome as having the apostolic succession. In this sense unity with the Pope is “not constitutive” for these Churches because the lack of such unity hasn’t stopped them from remaining Churches in the proper sense. Nothing new there. Of course, as I pointed out above, the Pope also reinforces the teachings of Dominus Iesus in his latest book.
2) Speaking of the “Patriotic Catholic” bishops in China, the Pope says the following:
“A variety of factors have favored the positive development of the Catholic Church in China. I will mention just some of them. On the one hand, a fervent desire to be in union with the Pope has never been absent among the illegitimately consecrated bishops. This made it possible for practically all of them to embark on the path to communion, a process during which we
patiently accompanied them and worked with them one-on-one. There was a basic Catholic sense among them that said one is only really a bishop precisely in this communion.”
The final sentence is quite strong. “One is only really a bishop precisely in this communion”. Communion — with Rome, as the entire passage makes clear. And we are already talking here of bishops whose apostolic succession is beyond question (the Patriotic Catholic bishops in China all trace their consecrations to Chinese Roman Catholic bishops who were forced by Mao Zedong’s government to defy Rome and establish their own independent church in the 1950’s).
3) Again and again, in the book, the Pope counsels us to be patient and not to rush things. This is a lesson that needs to be heard loud and clear. True unity cannot be accomplished by forcing things.
Irenaeus — Cardinal Koch ain’t the Magisterium, and rumor mills do not authoritative Church Teaching make.
That said, the Ratzinger Formula has been grossly misinterpreted and distorted. Ratzinger did not mean, “Orthodox converts to Catholicism may reject Trent or VCI or VCII.” He meant what every Catholic believes — that all of those things (Trent, VCI, VCII, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are implicit in the first-millennium Church; indeed, they are part of the Deposit of the Faith. That is what Development of Doctrine means. NOTHING “new” has been “revealed” since the first millennium. Rather, post-Schism Catholic doctrinal development has elucidated — drawn out, articulated, crystallized — what was already there in the first place.
“He meant what every Catholic believes — that all of those things (Trent, VCI, VCII, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are implicit in the first-millennium Church; indeed, they are part of the Deposit of the Faith”.
Indeed. You can’t have two different sets of doctrines that are equally “valid” — one for Eastern Christians and one for Western Christians. Both “traditional / conservative” Catholics and “traditional / conservative” Orthodox agree on this one. The Pope’s words certainly tend towards this. See again the following part of the passage I quoted above regarding Dominus Iesus:
“Peter Seewald: Does that mean that Ratzinger as Pope is contradicting his earlier self as Cardinal and custodian of the faith?
“Pope Benedict XVI: No, what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church…”
For Pope Benedict XVI, papal primacy and the ecclesiology of Dominus Iesus are of the “heritage… of the entire history of the Church…”
Enough said.
>That said, the Ratzinger Formula has been grossly misinterpreted and distorted. Ratzinger did not mean, “Orthodox converts to Catholicism may reject Trent or VCI or VCII.” He meant what every Catholic believes — that all of those things (Trent, VCI, VCII, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are implicit in the first-millennium Church; indeed, they are part of the Deposit of the Faith.
This tortured intepretation would mean that a statement explicitly framed as an irenical outreach by Cardinal Ratzinger was really intended as a triumphalist gauntlet. This is in line with the same RC neo-con hermeneutics that translates JPII’s heart felt statement about the Church “needing to breathe with both lungs” as referring only to Eastern Rite Catholics (which the Roman church already had to breathe with) and having nothing to do with the Orthodox. Simply not credible.
“Of course, as I pointed out above, the Pope also reinforces the teachings of Dominus Iesus in his latest book…”
Eggzackly. After all, he was the one who wrote Dominus Iesus.
I think the tired charge that conservative Catholics are “more Catholic than the pope” needs to go….