Considering all of this, I'm obliged to admit that it's only the insurmountable obstacle of Matthew 16, 17-19, and the unbearable sense of loss involved in relinquishing the Roman rite that prevents me from making my own "peace with the East".
There was a time not too far past when I could have wriiten those same words. Read the rest of a very thoughtful essay here.
Our Pets Can Remind Us to Be Charitable
19 hours ago
8 comments:
Thanks for pointing to that -- a very good essay.
But concerning Matt 16:17-19, it is worth bearing in mind that St Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch as well as the first Bishop of Rome.
I tend not to read Roman blogs, but this was an excellent choice. Full of sincerity and friendship.
Thanks for the link, John, and for your own very interesting comments.
I agree with you also. But how do you deal with Bernadette of Lourdes, whose body is incorrupt? And with the many attested miracles associated with Lourdes? Yet that apparition styled herself as "the immaculate conception", which I gather is not accepted by Orthodox Christians. And how do you deal with the events of Fatima, in which 70,000 rain-soaked people were instantly dried after the miracle of the sun...yet that apparition refers to "the conversion of Russia" and "the reign of Pius XI"? And finally how do you deal with personages like Padre Pio, whose whole life and ministry center around obedience including reverence for the pope of Rome?
Those are the things--however slender they may seem--that give me pause.
I don't want to be polemical, but I am very surprised at your choice of Leo the Great as your example. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference in "the larger scheme of things" but since Leo clearly believed that the Bishop of Rome derived his authority directly from Christ through Peter, that the Bishop of Rome could overrule any other individual bishop or synod of bishops, that no decrees or definitions of an ecumenical council has any force or validity until the Bishop of Rome ratified them; in short, that the Bishop of Rome (alone) was the (in Leo's phrase) "indignus heres beati Petri" -- the (personally, ethically, meritoriously) "unworthy heir of Blessed Peter" (but who yet as "heir" inherited the fullness of juridical authority that Christ [in Leo's view] had conferred on St. Peter) -- it seems more likely than not that Leo, if per impossibile he could have been presented with the Vatican I decrees, would have marvelled at their restricted and limited scope, rather than thinking them heretical.
On these matters, one might read Trevor Jalland's *The Life and Times of Leo the Great* (1940), Eduard Horn's *Petrou Kathedra* (Paderborn, 1980) or "Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy" by Walter Ullmann, *Journal of Theological Studies,* N.S., XI (1960), pp. 25-51.
Dr. Tighe,
Thank you for your comment. There is absolutely nothing polemic about saying that you disagree with someone and expressing in very clear and polite words the reasons for your disagreement. For all the reasons you cited and a few I have come up with on my own, I agree with you. Leo was a very poor choice for a generic example when I was attempting to make a broader point regarding the sensus fidei of the undivided Church. I hope to put something more up on this over at Michael’s blog in a bit. Thanking you again, I remain…
Yours cordially,
John (Ad Orientem)
Thank you for this thoughtful and cordial response, for which I am grateful. I was a bit "sharper" with my posting at Mike's blog (which I posted first, and before making my first acquaintance with your blog), and now I am sorry for that, and ask your pardon.
Oh, and I have expressed a few more scattered thoughts on your reply over at Mike's blog, which you might find of interest.
Post a Comment