The jig is up! Your host has been exposed in his dastardly attempt to suppress one article by a Jesuit scholar dealing with Eastern synodal traditions as they might apply to a reform of national episcopal conferences in the Roman Church. Surely I must have known that this one article has within it the power to raze the entire papal edifice to the ground! Congrats to the internet sleuths for blowing the lid off right off this scandal.
No, to be serious, admittedly, I had not read the article when I found the article by Brian Daley, S.J. from the same collection. You can chalk it up to simple oversight on my part, or to a more sinister motive. Whatever. Now that I have read it, I find it to be quite informative and interesting. But I fail to see how it constitutes a “hostile witness” to the ecclesiological viewpoint that I have been exploring here. I am entirely open and receptive to what Father Fahey has to say here. While I am coming to appreciate the Petrine Office at Rome as an essential part of the life of the Church on earth, I have stated many times on this blog that I do not defend some of the problematic ways in which this Office has been exercised over the centuries (for instance, I can’t imagine why it’s a good idea for the Pope to personally appoint all the bishops of the world). And in saying this, I don’t think that I’m outside of the orthodox Catholic mainstream.
UPDATE – As one reader has pointed out to me privately, I am probably being over-sensitive here. Apologies if I have offended with my sarcastic response (I claim neither infallibility nor impeccability, though I do admit my primacy as the chief of sinners). My impression, hopefully mistaken, is that I am being accused of purposely ignoring the article in question (in other words, a suppressio veri). I do not pretend, nor have I ever pretended, that this blog is neutral. It is an exploration of the theological and historical claims of the Papacy. I currently lean strongly towards the veracity of these claims (as anyone who reads this blog can obviously tell), but I always give equal time to commenters who disagree and are willing to express their viewpoint intelligently and respectfully. I would be very happy for Acolyte at EP to comment here on the specific points of the article which he finds to be detrimental to the Catholic understanding of the Petrine ministry.
I am glad to know that either your or readers read my blog. Thanks for the free traffic!
Nothing personal was insinuated. I only noted that it was being ignored. I shouldn’t have to note the way that the Papacy “developed” in different ways and sometimes in opposition to the tradition of the other patriarchates. That work is done by the article, and hence the reference.
I always recommend that people read the best literature on both sides since I am confident in my considered judgment. So I have no need, nor the time (alas! three children!) to elucidate the points in question. Enjoy the read.
Oh no! Not another slam-dunk against the papacy!! How many of those have been lobbed by our critics throughout the past 2,000 years? Gazillions, probably. And none of them made the basket.
No doubt to the immense chagrin of the latest would-be Michael Jordans, the Catholic papacy still stands. And will stand long after these critics and their slam-dunks have faded into oblivion.
(Sorry for mangled metaphors.)
Diane
Thanks, Perry, for the clarification. I do read your blog from time to time. If you happen to find any free time, please do mosey on over here again and feel free to add your Orthodox viewpoint to the discussion.
I distinctly heard the sound of several swishes.
many have deduced from his earlier writings that Benedict XVI’s intention in abolishing the papal title “Patriarch of the West” is to restore to the West the “three-tiered” ecclesial structure that Fr. Fahey recommends here/
Diane,
The game (your metaphor) seems to be going on in our individual hearts and minds. We choose who is faithful, or faithful enough to the Apostolic Tradition, and decide what should be done about any unfaithfulness and to which group we think handles the unfaithfulness most faithfully, which may be handled better than we would have found by ourselves. This unified group handling is why I’d rather be Catholic then Protestant, but have found Orthodoxy more faithful and unified to Truth, rather than to a singularly natured person.
Btw, we aren’t wanting to do away with the Papacy, but wish that it be put back in its conciliar, though premier, place. Idealism doesn’t take precedence over reality, eschatological correctives not withstanding.
Hear, hear! Andrea!
But as you well know, Diane likes to paint Orthodox into the extreme opposite of her views–it makes it easier to blow away those straw men.
I’m afraid that my sarcasm has probably already ruined this particular thread, and for that I apologize. So let’s move on, shall we?
[...] 5th, 2007 by Benedict Seraphim The blogger at Cathedra Unitatis, writes in a recent post: I do not pretend, nor have I ever pretended, that this blog is neutral. It is an exploration of [...]