Primato del Vescovo di Roma e dialogo cattolico-ortodosso.

• Autores: Adriano Garuti
• Localización: Antonianum, ISSN 0003-6064, Nº. 1 (Ianuarius-Martius), 1998, págs. 3-42
• Idioma: italiano
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • From initial reactions among non-Catholics to the Holy Father's invitation to undertake a common search for new forms of the exercise of the Primacy, it is clear that this question continues to represent the "greatest obstacle in the parh of ecumenism." One reason for the persistence of this question mau be found in the ecclesiological vision underlying the Carholic-Orthodox dialogue, which finds expression in the commentaries on the documents. Through a distortion of eucharistic ecclesiology, which is itself a traditional concept, the local Church and Universal Church are counterposed and the importance of the visible unity of the Church is consequently diminished. The relationship between local Church and universal Church is considered in the context of the communion of Churches, another traditional concept. However, by starting from a notion of the particular Church as a subject complete in itself, the universal Church comes to be understood as arising from the mutual recognition among particular Churches, with the risk of implying a "self-sufficiency" of the local Church and of reducing the communion among the Churches to conciliarity or synodality. It would seem that such an ecclesiology, far from expressing a common understanding of the Church, represents instead a view particular to the Mixed Commission and not only raises questions from the standpoint of Catholic doctrine, but is also not fully acceptable to Orthodox theology, in spite of being inspired more by that perspective. Such a conception of the Church has repercussions for an understanding of the Primacy, to the point that it has even been stated that a eucharistic ecclesiology could act as a counterbalance to Catholic teaching centered on the Pope. In the brief notes found in the documents themselves, and in commentaries on these documents, no mention is made of communion with the Bishop of Rome as one of the necessary conditions for being in ecclesial communion, and yet it is an essential requirement. Among the proposed solutions, the thirty-fourth Canon of the Apostles has been presented as a model for putting conciliarity into practice and for governing the relationship between Primacy and collegiality. This solution however, reglects the Orthodox conception of the Primate as primus inter pares, a view that cannot be accepted as such by the Catholic Church, and does not seem to take sufficient account of the local origin and merely practical and disciplinary purpose of this canon. Thus, after the experience of some fifteen years, it would not seem illegitimate to wonder whether the moment has not arrived for a reassessment of the methods of this dialogue and for adopting, as the basis for the discussion, the ecclesiology proper to the different Churches, and not that of certain exponents of the Mixed Commission.