Thank you very much for this podcast. I'm wondering do Orthodox scholars recognize what St. Maximus has stressed regarding papal primacy and the Pope's role for unity. You mentioned St. Vladimir's publications of St. Maximus. What do the likes of Fr. John Behr & other Orthodox scholars on St. Maximus have to say regarding Orthodox official positions on the papacy vs. St. Maximus' support of papal primacy?
Hi MT, I have a response from Mike for you, but before that I will mention that a while back I saw a couple of Eastern Catholics argue on Twitter that Maximus, virtually by himself, upheld orthodox doctrine in some matter contrary to the decrees of a Pope and many of the bishops of the time, and was only later vindicated by the official Church. When I looked at the details (which I now forget) it seemed like a sketchy historical claim, but as they were using it to try to undermine the Pope's authority in the present day to make changes to the liturgy, I can also imagine Orthodox using such a narrative about Maximus to complicate his statements on papal primacy. Anyway, here is Mike's response: "Thank you for listening. Maximus’s statement about the papacy is striking for its passion, but it’s not essentially different from what I’ve encountered in the work of Thomas Hopko, David Hart, and other ecumenically engaged Orthodox writers. Maximus wrote that “the Apostolic See … has received, from the incarnate Son of God Himself, universal and supreme dominion, authority, and the power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God. This is confirmed,” he said, “by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, which are in the whole world. For with it the Word, who is above the celestial powers, binds and looses in heaven as well.” The statement is, I think, compatible with the notion of a Roman “primacy of honor” that’s floated by some Orthodox theologians. There are, on the other hand, those who claim that the popes have misused and mistranslated Maximus. You can see a bit of this in play in the Wikipedia page devoted to “Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy.” I have to confess I've had minimal engagement with modern Orthodox thought - even though I lived across the street from an Orthodox Church for two decades and had a good relationship with the pastor. I have observations about parish life, but that's all. One problem in answering such questions is that there is no universally recognized source for “Orthodox official positions” on anything, as we’ve seen in recent years in the disputes between Moscow and Constantinople. Opinions on the papacy abound, but it’s hard to see how they’d ever achieve “official” status, except in some very limited or local sense."
@@CatholicCulturePod Thank you so much for taking my question seriously and with respect. I must admit the preface to your response has me wondering first your comment: "they were using it to try to undermine the Pope's authority in the present day to make changes to the Liturgy" - I will readily admit I'm bothered by Pope Francis' seemingly abrupt removal of Cardinal Sarah as Prefect for Divine Worship when in his properly authoritative position he exhorted priests a few Advents ago to begin celebrating Ad Orientam. For theological (see Pope Benedict's "Spirit of the Liturgy" & Cardinal Sarah's own commentary in the exhortation) and unitive reasons his directive seemed to be "proper & just" as we say & pray in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. What say you?I'm very much interested in what you think. And now I will read Mike Aquilina's commentary. Such a privilege to learn his perspective too. Very thankful again for your sincere efforts and this channel.
@@CatholicCulturePod Mike, thank you so much for your thought-provoking reply to my question. I'm a Byzantine Catholic and for reasons I won't go into here am living the Tridentine TLM liturgical life presently. Your reply regarding the "Apostolic See's universal & supreme dominion, authority & power of binding & loosing has me wondering, can we in good Catholic conscience draw a distinction and practical application between the Holy See and the Holy Father? For example, please see my previous question to the Moderator of Catholic Culture regarding Cardinal Sarah's authoritative plea to all priests universally, in his former position as Prefect for Divine Worship, to begin (re-)introducing their flocks to Ad Orientam worship a few Advents ago. Should this not be considered at the very least an encouragement, if not directive, from the authoritative Holy See. And on the same note, is not the Holy Father also bound to the binding & loosing Tradition that he inherits?
@@MPFXT I don't think this is in Mike's wheelhouse any more than mine so I'll answer myself. Basically, the Holy See is just the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, so anyone else in the Holy See - the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship etc - only has authority insofar as his acts and writings are promulgated by the Holy Father. The Holy Father is only bound to what cannot change, not to what can change (discipline). Also, as far as Cdl. Sarah is concerned, I agree with him, but his advocacy of ad orientem has come in interviews, talks and personal writings, not in any official writings when he was head of the CDW. So none of his advocacy of ad orientem had any kind of official, magisterial or legal character.
This channel is a treasure to anyone who wants to know the truth about Christian beliefs
Thank you very much for this podcast. I'm wondering do Orthodox scholars recognize what St. Maximus has stressed regarding papal primacy and the Pope's role for unity. You mentioned St. Vladimir's publications of St. Maximus. What do the likes of Fr. John Behr & other Orthodox scholars on St. Maximus have to say regarding Orthodox official positions on the papacy vs. St. Maximus' support of papal primacy?
Hi MT,
I have a response from Mike for you, but before that I will mention that a while back I saw a couple of Eastern Catholics argue on Twitter that Maximus, virtually by himself, upheld orthodox doctrine in some matter contrary to the decrees of a Pope and many of the bishops of the time, and was only later vindicated by the official Church. When I looked at the details (which I now forget) it seemed like a sketchy historical claim, but as they were using it to try to undermine the Pope's authority in the present day to make changes to the liturgy, I can also imagine Orthodox using such a narrative about Maximus to complicate his statements on papal primacy. Anyway, here is Mike's response:
"Thank you for listening. Maximus’s statement about the papacy is striking for its passion, but it’s not essentially different from what I’ve encountered in the work of Thomas Hopko, David Hart, and other ecumenically engaged Orthodox writers.
Maximus wrote that “the Apostolic See … has received, from the incarnate Son of God Himself, universal and supreme dominion, authority, and the power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God. This is confirmed,” he said, “by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, which are in the whole world. For with it the Word, who is above the celestial powers, binds and looses in heaven as well.”
The statement is, I think, compatible with the notion of a Roman “primacy of honor” that’s floated by some Orthodox theologians.
There are, on the other hand, those who claim that the popes have misused and mistranslated Maximus. You can see a bit of this in play in the Wikipedia page devoted to “Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy.”
I have to confess I've had minimal engagement with modern Orthodox thought - even though I lived across the street from an Orthodox Church for two decades and had a good relationship with the pastor. I have observations about parish life, but that's all.
One problem in answering such questions is that there is no universally recognized source for “Orthodox official positions” on anything, as we’ve seen in recent years in the disputes between Moscow and Constantinople. Opinions on the papacy abound, but it’s hard to see how they’d ever achieve “official” status, except in some very limited or local sense."
@@CatholicCulturePod Thank you so much for taking my question seriously and with respect.
I must admit the preface to your response has me wondering first your comment: "they were using it to try to undermine the Pope's authority in the present day to make changes to the Liturgy" - I will readily admit I'm bothered by Pope Francis' seemingly abrupt removal of Cardinal Sarah as Prefect for Divine Worship when in his properly authoritative position he exhorted priests a few Advents ago to begin celebrating Ad Orientam. For theological (see Pope Benedict's "Spirit of the Liturgy" & Cardinal Sarah's own commentary in the exhortation) and unitive reasons his directive seemed to be "proper & just" as we say & pray in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. What say you?I'm very much interested in what you think.
And now I will read Mike Aquilina's commentary. Such a privilege to learn his perspective too. Very thankful again for your sincere efforts and this channel.
@@CatholicCulturePod Mike, thank you so much for your thought-provoking reply to my question.
I'm a Byzantine Catholic and for reasons I won't go into here am living the Tridentine TLM liturgical life presently. Your reply regarding the "Apostolic See's universal & supreme dominion, authority & power of binding & loosing has me wondering, can we in good Catholic conscience draw a distinction and practical application between the Holy See and the Holy Father?
For example, please see my previous question to the Moderator of Catholic Culture regarding Cardinal Sarah's authoritative plea to all priests universally, in his former position as Prefect for Divine Worship, to begin (re-)introducing their flocks to Ad Orientam worship a few Advents ago. Should this not be considered at the very least an encouragement, if not directive, from the authoritative Holy See. And on the same note, is not the Holy Father also bound to the binding & loosing Tradition that he inherits?
@@MPFXT I am a supporter of Cardinal Sarah as well, and of traditional liturgy. But I was referring to the question of the Pope's legal authority.
@@MPFXT I don't think this is in Mike's wheelhouse any more than mine so I'll answer myself. Basically, the Holy See is just the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, so anyone else in the Holy See - the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship etc - only has authority insofar as his acts and writings are promulgated by the Holy Father.
The Holy Father is only bound to what cannot change, not to what can change (discipline).
Also, as far as Cdl. Sarah is concerned, I agree with him, but his advocacy of ad orientem has come in interviews, talks and personal writings, not in any official writings when he was head of the CDW. So none of his advocacy of ad orientem had any kind of official, magisterial or legal character.