|
Oddvar Moi
|
The Question of the Petrine Office
in Catholic - Lutheran Dialogues.
|
PONTIFICA UNIVERSITA S. TOMMASO
Second Semester 2005-06 - Prof. F. M. Bliss, sm
Seminar: The Problem of Church Authority in Ecumenical Dialog
The Question of the Petrine Office
in Catholic - Lutheran Dialogues
by
Oddvar Moi
For presentation on May 10, 2006
INTRODUCTION
When we, in the beginning of this semester, were given
the topic for our papers, my first reaction when I saw the title:
"The Question of the Petrine Office in Catholic - Lutheran Dialogues",
was that the title was too narrow. "How can I write about a dialogue
that hasn't started yet?" I wondered; it would be better to write
about the more general topic of Ministry in these dialogues, since
I knew that issue had been discussed quite a bit.
I soon understood that I had been ignorant about several
Catholic-Lutheran dialogues around the world that had discussed the
issue of the Petrine office, but my first reaction also shows something
important; on the question about the pope, Lutherans and Catholics
have very different views, and any possible agreement seems to be
far away. This is in contrast to the issue of justification and the
agreement reached between Lutherans and Catholics on that topic in
1999. Justification had ceased to be a divisive issue between Lutherans
and Catholics in many countries and churches several years before
the "Joint Declaration on Justification" was signed in Augsburg
October 31, 1999.
Defining my task
In this paper I will try to find out how the question
of the Petrine office has been treated in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogues
over the last 40 years. I will also look briefly at the controversy
over the same issue at the time of the reformation, but I will not
discuss the development or history of the Petrine office in general.
I will look at the international Catholic-Lutheran dialogues,
as well as selected national ones, and see how they have treated my
topic, starting with early dialogues, where I expect this issue has
not been treated very thoroughly, then move towards more developed
treatments of it in some later dialogues. I will also look in some
detail at two papers given by George A. Lindbeck and Harding Meyer
on this issue, to see how they describe events of the reformation
and summarize the Catholic-Lutheran dialogues on this issue. Finally,
I will mention briefly a recent lecture on this topic by William Rusch.
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC - LUTHERAN DIALOGUES
The dialogues between Catholics and Lutherans have
gone through four distinct phases. The first phase lasted from 1966
- 1972. At the beginning of that first phase, there were some introductory
meetings and a report issued before the dialogues really started.
In this introductory, "First Official Report of the Joint Working
Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation",
from 1966, we read the following:
The discussions have convinced the two delegations
that the traditional theological problems between Roman Catholics
and Lutherans are still with us. Through the emergence of the modern
world, however, they now appear in different perspective.
A number of topics for future discussion emerged from the deliberations,
centering on the following themes:
I The Word of God.
II The Presence of Christ in the Church.
III Christology.
IV Pneumatology.
V Justification and Sanctification.
VI Renewal and Reformation.
VII Missionary and Pastoral Problems. [1]
Under point II above we find the following subheadings:
Baptism - Eucharist - Priesthood of Believers - Authority and Ministry
in the Church - The Purity of the Gospel and the Fullness of the Church.
Authority and Ministry in the Church is as close as we get
to the Petrine office in this first short report - maybe that question
was too difficult to even put on the list of issues to be discussed
in the near future?
Commission on The Gospel and the Church, 1972 ("Malta
Report")
In the Malta Report, the first (real) report from the
Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, we find a slightly different attitude
than in the introductory report. The introduction here says that the
last issues they dealt with were "questions of papal primacy
and intercommunion". [2] What follows is
extracted from the last section of the document, called The Gospel
and the Unity of the Church:
65 The commission was unable to deal with the problem
of the unity of the church in a comprehensive way. It limited itself
to a few aspects which appeared important in the context of its theme.
A) The question of papal primacy
66 In this connection the question of papal primacy emerges as a special
problem for the relationship between Lutherans and Catholics. Catholics
pointed to the beginning of this doctrine in the Biblical witness
concerning the special position of Peter and also to the differences
in the understanding of primacy in the first and second millennia.
… … The office of the papacy also includes the task of caring
for legitimate diversity among local churches. The concrete shape
of this office may vary greatly in accordance with changing historical
conditions. It was recognized on the Lutheran side that no local church
should exist in isolation since it is a manifestation of the universal
church. In this sense the importance of a ministerial service of the
communion of churches was acknowledged and at the same time reference
was made to the problem raised for Lutherans by their lack of such
an effective service of unity. ...
67 The question, however, which remains controversial between Catholics
and Lutherans is whether the primacy of the pope is necessary for
the church, or whether it represents only a fundamentally possible
function. .... [3]
It is interesting to notice how the dialogue-partners
limit themselves to a discussion of only some "aspects"
of the Petrine office, since this question is quite complicated and
controversial (that is my reading of no. 65 above). The statements
about the pope's function are mostly descriptive, stating what the
two churches believe, not so much trying to see what they agree on.
It is interesting to notice that they single out one question as more
controversial in this discussion than all others; That is if the Petrine
office is necessary for the Church (the Catholic view), or
only one possibility for how to organize the Church (the Lutheran
view).
Second phase 1973 - 1984
In this second phase of dialogues, the document "The
Ministry in the Church" (1982) is one of several documents, but
really the only one to deal with our question. I want to quote one
paragraph from it that shows us how difficult the issue of the Petrine
office was perceived to be:
.... It was possible to deal with fundamental christological
and pneumatological questions quickly as here there are no major controversies
between the two churches. The same is not the case with respect to
the theme of the papal office, which represents a serious problem
between our churches. In view of the complexity of the exegetical
and historical problems connected with this theme, a separate study
needs to be devoted to it. ... [4]
The third phase of these dialogues, from 1986
to 1993, dealt with the issue of Justification, and came to a very
happy conclusion with the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1999,
but it did not touch on the issue of the papacy.
The fourth phase of the dialogues, begun in 1995,
is still underway. It deals primarily with questions about apostolicity
and ministry and has been given the name "Lutheran-Catholic Commission
on Unity". Some analysts say that these dialogues have taken
so long because the questions they deal with are so difficult, others
say that this is a normal time span. Meanwhile, the talks seem to
have finished and the final report is due to be published at the end
of this year, [5] but, as I also understand, the
question of the Petrine office is not dealt with in any detailed way.
NATIONAL DIALOGUES
In addition to these international dialogues, there
have also been national dialogues between the two churches in several
countries. I will limit myself to mentioning the results of the dialogues
in Norway and the United States.
The dialogues in Norway (my country) are exemplary
for how little has been achieved concerning a common understanding
of the Petrine office. About 90% of the Norwegian population belongs
to the Lutheran church and just over 1 % to the Catholic Church. There
have been three rounds of dialogues between the two churches from
1979 until 1991, and three papers have been published with the results
of the dialogues: The Eucharist (1982), Ministry (1986) and Justification
(1991). But when it comes to the issues of Ministry, which touches
on the issue of the Petrine office, what follows is an expression,
it seems to me, of how much Lutherans and Catholics still disagree:
The Office of Bishops and the Petrine Office
Common for both churches is that they in addition to the office of
presbyters also have an office of bishops. But the relationship between
these two offices is perceived in a very different way. The same is
true about the so-called Petrine office.
…. (Then the Catholic understanding of these offices is described,
and the document goes on. …. )
According to the Lutheran view the differences between bishop
and presbyter rely solely on human right. It is a question of order.
The office of bishops was introduced because such an office was deemed
helpful, it is a practical, not an issue of principle. The bishop's
office is a special kind of priestly office, but not over it. That
is: The church is not hierarchically structured.
.... The Lutheran reformation always kept the notion that an ecumenical
council would be a helpful forum to discuss issues that threatened
the unity of the church, but it should be a council without formal
teaching authority. The road towards such a council seems long ...
and seen from the Lutheran teaching about the church it would be impossible
to imagine a council that depended on an acceptance of the pope's
teaching authority. [6]
In the United States, on the other hand, the
eleven (!) rounds of Catholic-Lutheran dialogues have rendered much
more spectacular results. For example, it seems that the report from
round seven in these dialogues, Justification by Faith, 1983,
was the first major step towards the international Joint Declaration
of Justification, signed in 1999.
The fifth round, Differing Attitudes Toward Papal
Primacy, 1973, is one of the very few dialogues to deal extensively
and directly with the question of the Petrine office. In the introduction
of the report the dialogues partners state what they have achieved:
In these sessions, we have once again found common
ground. There is a growing awareness among Lutherans of the necessity
of a specific Ministry to serve the church's unity and universal mission,
while Catholics increasingly see the need for a more nuanced understanding
of the role of the papacy within the universal church. [7]
In the report, some statements are common, held by both
sides, while others are separate Lutheran and Catholic Perspectives.
This is what the Catholics say:
(26) The church's teaching office is not above
God's word, it rather serves the Word. Indeed this is true of all
ecclesiastical authority. The gospel may require that church offices
be exercised in very different ways to meet the needs of various regions
and periods. New means of exercising authority may have to be discovered
to fit the cultural patters arising from the changing forms of education,
communications ...
(27) Further, it is an important political principle that authority
in any society should use only the amount of power necessary to reach
its assigned goal. This applies also to the papal office. ... Thus
one may foresee that voluntary limitations by the pope of the exercise
of his jurisdiction will accompany the growing vitality of the organs
of collegial government, ... [8]
After the common report, the Lutheran and the Catholic
participants of the dialogue wrote separate additions. This is what
the Lutherans wrote:
Many Lutherans as well as Roman Catholics will
be startled by the convergence on papal primacy recorded in the preceding
joint statement. This issue is both more sensitive and more difficult
than any of those previously dealt with ... It is doubly necessary,
therefore, that the Lutheran participants explain ... (1) why we have
dealt with this issue, (2) what seems to us the positions of the Lutheran
tradition on this matter, and (3) why we believe the time has now
come for our churches to consider seriously the possibility of a role
for the papacy ... [9]
It is interesting to notice that the Lutheran participants
in the dialogue find it necessary to explain why they were even willing
to discuss this difficult topic! We also see in this report that the
Catholics are willing to, and find it necessary to, discuss how Papal
authority should be expressed in the church, while the Lutherans are
willing to see the pope's ministry as a possible good for the unity
of the church, but not necessary in the way Catholics see his role.
The book wherein the report of the dialogue is published
also gives us some of the background material used by the commission
in their work. I will discuss one of these papers later.
Round ten in this series of dialogues finished in 2004,
with the report: "The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures
and Ministries". This is quite a comprehensive report, and it
deals also with the question of the Petrine office.
The fifth of seven main headings in the document is
called "The bishop's office and the Petrine office". Here
the Lutheran view of only one ministerial office (the presbyter) is
presented; in the Lutheran church the bishop is a priest with some
extra responsibility. The Catholic view of the threefold office is
also presented, the difference is noticed, and then they go on to
discuss the universal office of the pope. I find it interesting (and
a bit discouraging) to note that the dialogue partners have not come
closer to a resolution of this problem in the many years from 1973
to 2004. The Lutherans see a certain need of a unifying ecclesial
office, and the Catholics are willing to discuss how the Petrine ministry
is exercised, but has anything more been achieved? This lack of progress
may be adduced from the following quote:
114. In relation to a universal ministry at the
service of the unity of the universal church, this dialogue is far
less ready to propose any official actions. The bishop of Rome, the
only historically plausible candidate for such a universal ministry,
remains a sign of unity and a sign of division among us. ....
1. Catholic Reflections on Universal Ministry
115. Pope John Paul II in Ut unum sint (1995) emphasized the
bishop of Rome's responsibility to serve the unity and communion of
the church. ... ... With the power and authority without which such
an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion
of all the Churches. ...
117. We recommend that Catholics explore how the universal ministry
of the bishop of Rome can be reformed to manifest more visibly its
subjection to the gospel in service to the koinonia of salvation.
2. Lutheran Reflections on Universal Ministry
118. In light of Ut unum sint and other Catholic and ecumenical
statements on papacy, Lutherans have been involved in considerable
discussion of universal ministry. ... ... If the interdependence of
assembly and ordained ministry is typical of the structure of the
church at the local, regional, and national level, then why should
such an interdependence not also be found at the universal level?
119. Lutherans have been concerned with whether the papal office is
necessary for salvation. … To what extent may such an office
of universal ministry be needed for the unity of the church in a koinonia
of salvation? ...
120. We recommend that Lutherans explore whether the worldwide koinonia
of the church calls for a worldwide minister of unity and what form
such a ministry might take to be truly evangelical. [10]
LECTURES ON THE PETRINE OFFICE
Now I want to present three lectures given by well-known
Lutheran ecumenists on the Petrine office, the first lecture given
in 1972, the second one given in 1997 and the last one in 2006. It
will be interesting to see how they understand the possibility of
Lutherans accepting the Petrine office, under which conditions, and
how the Lutheran view has developed over 34 years.
George A. Lindbeck, Papacy and Ius Divinum: A Lutheran
View
Lindbeck's paper is based on a lecture delivered at
the February 1972 meeting of the US Catholic-Lutheran commission.
Lindbeck says in the beginning of his paper that "the main purpose
of this paper is to explore possible Lutheran response to newer Roman
Catholic thinking on ius divinum especially as this applies to papal
primacy." [11] Lindbeck then points out that
in the Malta Report "there is in some circles a remarkable convergence
in the structure of Catholic and Lutheran thinking about the papacy."
[12]
Lindbeck then puts forth five propositions that describe
the Lutheran attitude to the question of the papacy:
1. Lutherans recognize the importance of what I
shall call "the Petrine function" …
2. They are open to the possibility that this needs to be more effectively
institutionalised than has been true in Lutheranism until now.
3. They do not exclude the possibility that the papacy could rightly
exercise this function.
4. In order to do this, however, it must be reformed theologically
and practically in order to make clear its subordination to the primacy
of the gospel.
5. Even if this were to happen, however, Lutherans do not agree that
the papacy is the necessary institutionalisation of the Petrine function.
… (about the present time he adds) "Only the fifth thesis
is said to be a matter of controversy." [13]
The next question is then; what does it mean that the
Petrine function is necessary? First Lindbeck describes what he sees
as two different Catholic answers of the question:
As far as I can see, there are now two major ways
of answering this question. One is exclusively functional. Here ius
divinum adds nothing to the historically and functionally conditioned
necessity which we have suggested Lutherans can also attribute to
papal primacy. The other way … appears to go farther. A de iure
divino structure must be irreversible or permanent. There are some
post-biblical developments, such as papal primacy, which are irreversible
and therefore qualify as de iure divino. Lutherans … deny that
the papacy is de iure divino in this second sense. In contrast, they
have no difficulty with the functionalist interpretation of the ius
divinum character of certain post-biblical developments. [14]
Lindbeck goes on to say that "not only Lutherans,
but also some Catholics espouse the functionalist view, and the Malta
Report does not go beyond it", [15] and if
this view prevails, the whole problem would really be solved.
Harding Meyer's lecture on Lutherans and the Petrine
Office
Harding Meyer's paper is called "Suprema auctoritas
ideo ab omne errore immunis": The Lutheran Approach to Primacy"
and was given here at the Angelicum in December 1997 at a symposium
called "The Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church"
with theologians from several churches.
Meyer starts his lecture by describing how the Lutheran
reformers reacted against the pope, so far as to calling him the anti-Christ.
First of all they criticized him for setting himself above the Scriptures,
[16] and, even though they did not in principle
rule out the possibility of the papal office - by human right, seeing
that it could possibly be good for the unity of the church etc. -
they would not accept that the Petrine office would be there by divine
right. [17] Melanchton for example would gladly
give the pope first place in the church if he would 'allow the Gospel'.
[18] This criterion is of utmost importance for
the Lutheran reformers and means more or less that righteousness by
faith would be taught pure and sound. [19]
After the reformation there was not much movement in
the Lutherans' view of the papacy [20] until
Vatican I and Pastor aeternus - which made it even harder for Lutherans
to accept the papacy. But with the more balanced view of the relationship
between bishops and the pope and the general ecumenical opening taught
by Vatican II, the question of the Petrine office is again as open
as it was in the 16th century, according to Meyer. [21]
The Lutheran "conditional openness" to the
papacy is very much at the centre of Meyer's lecture, as is the expression
"ministry of unity" [22] when it comes
to describing what good the pope can do for the church as a whole.
The conditions the pope must fulfil are clearly seen in the Catholic-Lutheran
dialogues we have had thus far. Meyer quotes the Malta Report, §66:
"The office of the papacy as a visible sign of the unity of the
churches was therefore not excluded insofar as it is subordinated
to the primacy of the gospel .." From the fifth Catholic-Lutheran
dialogue in the US, § 28, he quotes that the pope 1) should serve
the gospel, 2) serve unity and 3) not subvert Christian freedom. [23]
Meyer goes on [24] to focus on
questions of the papacy's structural and juridical aspects. These
questions, related to the primacy of jurisdiction, are particularly
difficult for Lutherans to accept. In this area Lutherans will expect
a voluntary self-limitation from the pope and an openness to cooperation.
[25] But even this is not enough; Lutherans have
even more deep-seated and theological questions to the role of the
pope: that his office should be instituted by God and that under certain
situations his teaching will be infallible. [26]
Meyer tries to find out in what way it could be possible for Lutherans
to accept that the pope has his role by divine right; in the sense
that it in practice is necessary for the church, which could be acceptable
for Lutherans, or in such a way that it questions the ecclesial status
of today's Lutheran churches, which would not be acceptable. [27]
The final problem Meyer tackles is the issue of infallibility,
and he starts by bringing up examples [28] from
the time of the reformation: What if the pope or the bishops err,
by acting against God's will? The reformers often talked about ecumenical
councils to sort out the disagreements, but on the other hand they
admitted that even the councils could err - Melanchton uses examples
from the Old Testament to illustrate his point, that Israel often
sinned against God. According to Meyer, Lutherans agree with Catholics
[29] that "ecclesia not potest errare",
but they see this guarantee somehow different from the Catholics.
Catholics believe that the Magisterium, all the world's bishops with
the pope as their head, can not err when they define doctrinal matters,
Lutherans place this assurance with the whole people of God.
The Lutheran reformation itself is an example of this
safety device, that the whole people of God had to protest against
the false teaching of the Magisterium, and Lutherans need the same
assurance today; [30] if the Magisterium teaches
anything against the Bible/Gospel, then their decisions will have
to be annulled. How this Lutheran view of the Magisterium can be resolved
with the Catholic understanding remains to be seen.
At the end of the symposium about Petrine primacy in
1997, Jean-Marie Tillard summed up all the lectures and the discussion,
and said something that applies to Meyers point here.
Allow me to underline the agreement here with the
great principle of discernment that, at least since Robert Grosseteste,
bishop of Lincoln (around 1250), and Tomas Aquinas, is found throughout
the West: the primacy only exists ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem
Ecclesiae. ... this principle will inform Reformation theology, and
will re-emerge at Vatican I ...
The criteria for judgment are therefore the same. But, whereas (Roman)
Catholic tradition tends to apply them mainly in particular cases,
to judge the authenticity of one or another decision, the value of
one or another Pontificate ... the Reformation uses them to judge,
at one and the same time, the forms taken by the primacy and the primacy
as such. [31]
William Rusch's lecture at the Centro pro unione, March
2006
Several people in our class were present at the lecture
of professor Rusch, where he started out by saying that his presentation
was only one of several Lutheran views on the topic. [32]
He then went on to give a detailed description of the attitudes of
the Lutherans on the Petrine office at the time of the reformation.
Even if Melanchton and (particularly) Luther attacked the Papacy very
strongly, this was because of the abuses, but was not in principle
a rejection of the papal office. The reformers indicate that it could
be possible, even good, for the church to have such a papal office
of unity.
Rusch went on the say that this Lutheran (potential)
openness to the papacy was retained through the centuries - at least
it was regained after Vatican II, after the problems created by Vatican
I and the new Marian dogmas. After the Second Vatican Council the
question of the papacy was discussed in several Catholic-Lutheran
dialogues, and Rusch quoted from § 66 of the Malta report (see
earlier in my paper).
Dialogues in the US have also dealt with this issue
quite thoroughly and Rusch mentioned dialogue round V, Papal Primacy
and the Universal Church, 1973 and VI, Teaching Authority & Infallibility
in the Church, 1978. He quoted from the document published after round
VI, where the Catholics speak about the papacy as an obstacle: "Aware
as the Catholic church is that the papacy remains to this day for
many Christians one of the greatest obstacles on the road to unity
of the churches, it nevertheless hopes that as it is structurally
renewed in the light of Holy Scripture and the tradition, it may more
and more in the future provide an important service to unity."
And the Lutheran members of the dialogue also say: "the possibility
begins to emerge that the Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome also
need not be excluded by Lutherans as a visible sign of the unity of
the church as a whole, insofar as [this office] is subordinated to
the primacy of the gospel."
The new proposals in professor Rusch's lecture came
when he started to look at how we in practice can come closer to a
resolution of this difficult issue. He spoke about the concept differentiated
consensus, which has been used in ecumenical dialogues the last
few years, after which he introduced a newer concept, that possibly
can help us deal with the problems of the Petrine office. The new
concept is differentiated participation, and it suggests how
churches can live together even though not all differences and disagreements
have yet been dealt with.
Rusch suggested, for example, that Lutherans should
abstain from all polemics against the pope (of the kind that belongs
to the reformation period) and they should admit their lack of a universal
and unifying leader. What the Catholics should do to accomplish this
unifying practice he left up to them to decide. First however, the
two churches need to have serious dialogues about the pope's place
in the universal church, secondly, based upon achieved agreements,
they should have to find structures that gradually could lead to the
development of a more common life.
Rusch ended his lecture with the famous quote from Cardinal
Ratzinger from 1976, that Catholics dialoguing with the Orthodox about
the papacy should not demand from the Orthodox more than what they
agreed on the first 1000 years. Catholics would have to show a similar
generosity towards the Lutherans, Rusch said, "but only hard
work and the guidance of the Holy Spirit could lead the two churches
to a resolution of this difficult issue."
CONCLUSION
My conclusion is limited to five short observations:
- The issue of the Petrine office has been considered a very difficult
problem in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogues.
- Lutherans have not quite ruled out the possibility of the Petrine
office - even though they at one point called the pope the anti-Christ.
Some Lutherans see the need of a unifying office in the church, though
they are not really sure this office should be set up.
- There still seems to be two very important questions/problems between
Catholics and Lutherans when they talk about this issue: a) Is the
Petrine office necessary for the church and b) how should it be exercised?
- I have noticed a certain imbalance in this dialogue; the Lutherans
seem to need to change a lot to accept the papacy, while for Catholics
it is more a matter of presenting the papacy in a more open way.
- There is a certain openness among some Lutherans to accept the Petrine
office, yet after the last 30-40 years of dialogue, this potential
solution has remained just that; potential. And it is really very
hard to say if or when Catholics and Lutherans will come closer to
an agreement on the Petrine office.
Bibliography
International dialogues between Catholics and Lutherans
These dialogues a found at the Pro Unione web page:
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/e_lr-c-info.html
Further study on projected dialogue; establishment of
Roman Catholic - Lutheran Working Group, 1966
First Official Report of the Joint Working Group between the Roman
Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation.
Commission on The Gospel and the Church, 1972 ("Malta
Report")
Final report from the first phase of dialogues.
The Ministry in the Church, 1982
One of several reports in the second phase of dialogues, published
after a meeting March 9-14, 1981 - Lantana, Florida (USA)
National dialogues between Catholics and Lutherans
Report from the dialogue in Norway on Ministry, 1986
(Found in Norwegian at this address: http://www.katolsk.no/info/nbk/kls-1986.htm
)
Report from the dialogues in the United States
Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Lutherans and
Catholics in Dialogue V (1973)
Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1974
Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church,
Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI (1978)
Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1981
Common Statement of the Tenth Round of the U.S. Lutheran-Roman
Catholic Dialogue, 2004
Found on the web pages of USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Lectures on the Petrine office
George A. Lindbeck
Papacy and Ius Divinum: A Lutheran View
Printed in: Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Lutherans and
Catholics in Dialogue V
Harding Meyer
"Suprema auctoritas ideo ab omne errore immunis": The Lutheran
Approach to Primacy
and
Jean-Marie R. Tillard, O.P.
The Ecumenical Kairos and the Primacy
Printed in
Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church
Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue, James F. Puglisi, editor
The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1999
(Papers from a Symposium held at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas,
December 4-6, 1997)
William G. Rusch
A Contemporary Lutheran View of the Papacy. The Possibility for Ecumenical
Advance
Lecture at Centro Pro Unione, Rome, 23 March 2006
Footnotes
1. First Official Report, § 5.
2. Malta report, § 5.
3. Ibid., § 65-67.
4. The Ministry in the Church, § 3.
5. I heard this here in Rome from Turid Karlsen Seim, a Norwegian
member of the International Commission.
6. Catohlic-Lutheran dialogue in Norway, Ministry, 1986, §5.
7. Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy, p. 10.
8. Ibid., p. 20-21.
9. Ibid., p. 23-24.
10. The Church as Koinonia of Salvation, § 114-120.
11. Lindbeck Papacy and Ius Divinum: A Lutheran View, p. 193.
12. Ibid., p. 194.
13. Ibid., p. 195-196.
14. Ibid., p. 202.
15. Ibid., p. 204.
16. Harding Meyer, ”Suprema auctoritas ….”: The Lutheran
Approach to Primacy, p. 16.
17. Ibid., p. 17.
18. Ibid., p. 19.
19. Ibid., p. 17-18.
20. Ibid., p 20.
21. Ibid., p. 21.
22. Ibid., p. 21.
23. Ibid., p. 24.
24. Ibid., p. 26.
25. Ibid., p. 16-17.
26. Ibid., p. 28.
27. Ibid., p. 29.
28. Ibid., p. 30.
29. Ibid., p. 31.
30. Ibid., p. 32.
31. Tillard, The Ecumenical Kairos and the Primacy, p. 187.
32. What I write here is based on my own notes from the lecture.
Hva syns du om denne oppgaven? Send
meg dine tanker, meninger og reaksjoner.
Any reactions to this paper? Send
me your thoughts and reactions.
|