Jonathan Pageau and Bishop Barron Discuss the Papacy: The Hope and the Danger

📱 SOCIAL MEDIA

[jeremyfirth]

Decentralized authority is much slower to change, more resistant to corruption, and contributes enormously to stability and to conservation of traditions.

[notloki]

"the world is moving in such dark directions that it's not clear that a central authority would be good"

So true.

[LHWakefield]

I am so glad the two of you are able to discuss this topic charitably. Would love to see more of this kind of dialogue in the future!

[johnbrion]

I pray for the day when the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church reunite.

[cm]

Bishop Barron should sit across from Fr Trenham. That would be fair

[AgapeCircle-jw]

For an interesting discussion between two Orthodox priests on related matters, hear the 2014 episode entitled "The Pope and The Patriarch" on Ancient Faith Ministries between Fr. John Whtieford and the great Fr. Matthew Baker of blessed memory. It took place prior to the meeting between Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Incidentally, Pope Benedict had high esteem for Orthodoxy.

[iliya]

When I was Roman Catholic I struggled to comprehend this as well, but it’s not that difficult once you get acquainted with the historical and apostolic ecclesiology (Orthodoxy), before papal supremacy manifested in the Church (prior to the 11th century). There is no higher apostolic office of clergy than that of the bishop. Period. The Patriarch, Metropolitans, Archbishops, etc hold a practical function of governance because you need good order and, well, hierarchy. But ontologically there is nothing different between a bishop, Metropolitan, and the Patriarch. They have a kind of honor and authority that is recognized in them for the sake of good order and according to Tradition (apostolic canons). So it was with the Pope of Rome as the Protos (“first”, most honored) Patriarch. That doesn’t make a Patriarch a special kind of bishop, ontologically speaking. He’s still a bishop, but with particular honor and obedience to him is granted due to that honor and by pious custom. That doesn’t equate to the need for a special emperor-bishop with universal jurisdiction. The Orthodox (and historical governance) of the Church is simply what was handed onto us and we did not “develop” into some other form of governance like what happened in the West. What bind us all together? Gathering together under a canonical Bishop [often through his priests] who offers the Eucharist, forming us in one Body, animated by the Holy Spirit, with Christ as our Head. The Patriarchs are called by Christ *explicitly* to NOT lord it over the brethren like the rulers of the Gentiles who make their authority felt. We forget that when the Lord said this, he said it to the apostles, and St Peter was there.

As for “not being able to hold a Synod”, I believe Jonathan is likely referring to Ecumenical Councils in particular. We’ve had many local Councils over the centuries that get received as dogmatic by the universal Church, but the reason these “Ecumenical” Councils happened more easily in the first millennium was of a practical nature due to the the Orthodox Roman Empire being able to facilitate such a thing. The Emperor called all the Ecumenical Councils. Not the papacy. With the lack of civil union and shifting national borders, it’s not very easy to call such a Council with local Churches in different places. But again, that’s not a serious problem for us because our local Church Councils can handle what needs to be addressed in a given place and then other Churches can accept their content later on, which is what we have done. At best, it’s inefficient but that’s about it.

Unity can only be found in Truth. Not by blind obedience.

[ricardogarcia-vihv]

The pride risk applies not only to the pope, it also applies to a bishop that will see himself as someone with no authority overhim.

[timbubb]

The most recent episode of the podcast, "The Sacramentalists" (on YouTube), is an interview w/ Anglo-Catholic Bishop Chandler Holder Jones and takes a look at a paper the Vatican recently put out that is directly relevant to this topic - it's a study of the role of the Papacy in the first millennium, and how it ought to function moving forward. Honestly it's stunning some of the admissions the Vatican is making in this paper. The Eastern Orthodox and the Anglo-Catholics seem to mostly be on the same page re: the proper role of the Bishop of Rome. Definitely recommend that podcast.

[AndyReichert]

not sure what i expected, but i didn't think this would be such an awesome way to see peter.

[gauguin]

When I first watched this video in its entirety, I thought Jonathan made a good point here — to see the actions of the Pope, as an echo of St Peter overreaching himself.

[patrickscarangella]

A check or balance against Peter, I like that.

[riserumtheeashes]

The Popes decrees are what led me to orthodoxy. I don’t feel his teaching that Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God is accurate if Jesus himself says, “those who deny the Son deny the Father" is 1 John 2:23. If Christ is denied, so if Christ is God and Muslims and Jews deny it, they also deny God. The Pope is so willing to compromise the church and people please. He will do anything to unite. That’s the problem. Uniting under a lie is wrong. And he is wrong for what he has done.

[matheusmotta]

To summarize Jonathan's point about the Papacy and the Orthodox view: the Orthodox would gladly accept the Roman Bishop as the spiritual leader and head of the Eartlhy Church and the Roman See as the first see again. We just demand that Rome repents from her errors before doing so.

Since Roman Catholicism doesn't even recognize that the Roman Pope is capable of heresy, that's a tough call for them. We Orthodox affirm Petrine Primacy, first place of authority and honor in a Conciliar Church, but not a monarchy, universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility like the Roman Catholic Church claims.

[geraldmurphy]

The entire point is that the Holy Spirit animates the Church and the central authority. It sounds like prudence but it is a lack of faith

[jacobledkins]

The massive problem is that we are missing the first century Jewish context of "the rock" statement. The "rock" Jesus was referring to was Mt. Hermon as he was standing at its base, and the "gates of hell" is literally a grato at its base. A first century Jew(disciples) would of easily understood the reference of Mt. Hermon because they are affluent in the 2nd Temple Jewish work of the book of Enoch. Mt. Hermon in layman terms is the devils mountain and the gates of hell would of been the gate to the underworld in the Disciples minds. Jesus is saying I'm literally going to build my Church/Body on top of the enemies stronghold. By defeating death, hell, and the grave. These "gates of hell" in front of me will not withstand my Church/Body. Not only will I live again, but so will those who believe in me, the Church. Jesus changing Simon to Petra or Peter is symbolic of how all of his believers will defeat the grave. And how the entire Church should preach this message. Peter is symbolic of humans as a whole. He is not being elevated to head of the Body. He is not being given Papal Supremacy. We know this because the very next story is the Transfiguration. 6 days later Jesus Transfigures on top of Mt. Hermon. Putting the Kingdom of darkness on notice. Moses and Elijah show up for the purpose of showing that Jesus is the sum of the Law(Moses) and the Prophets(Elijah.) Peter being there gets nervous and asks the Lord if they should build 3 tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Peter is not worried about Moses getting his beard rained on. He is a Jew in the wilderness. He wants to build a Tabernacle(tent) or place of worship for the 3 of them. As soon as he says this God removes Moses and Elijah and states "This is my son of who I am well pleased, listen to Him." Meaning don't elevate man but Jesus alone. These 2 passages are meant to build off of each other in Scripture. The very "Rock" passage that people use to elevate Peter with is bookended with don't elevate man, but Christ alone. And the Peter is ironically the culprit. I love the Early Church Fathers, but they are not pur filter for the New Testament. Second Temple Judaism is the filter. The Church Fathers, as amazing as they are, are centuries removed.

[aisthpaoitht]

My thoughts as a Catholic:
- Orthodox should recognize the need for a single head of a unified Church.
- Catholic Church should humble itself and make the Pope more of a symbolic head and less of a political head.

Basically, humility is required from both sides.

[gregorycarbajal]

⁠John, we can discuss awhole list of what is wrong but only to discuss NOT argue. I don’t like arguing with Novus Ordo because it will only hurt the Church further. Vatican II taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.

[joolz]

Yes, I think this is Bishop should be talking to a bishop in the Greek Orthodox Church, because I’d be more on the same page.
I think that God in heaven, once all of this to be together and he doesn’t care about the differences that are not crucial to him. He just wants to be loved. He wants his mother to be loved. He wants to be followed. He wants us in heaven why is there such division my goodness

[tonyl]

This pontificate is certainly concerning, even to many faithful Catholics, so I understand where you're coming from. But that still doesn't justify the sin of schism. Can't be thankful for any sin, even though God is bringing good out of it. The modern world has sunk so deep because of a rejection of central authority on matters of faith and morals, which has bred theological and moral relativism.