James Chastek, Maurice Dionne on a critical text concerning analogy

Since Cajetan, the central text in considering St. Thomas’s doctrine of anally has been the Scriptum super Sententiis I d 19 q.5 a. 2. Interpretations of this abound, along with refutations of all of them. Dionne’s explanation of the text is so simple I found myself wondering how there was ever a dispute over it. All one has to do is distinguish the order of names of the order of being.

I cut out two sentences that seemed clunky, and cleaned up some of the syntax to make it more English like. So if you are reading this in the post-apocalyptic world where this is the only version of the text, put me in a footnote somewhere.


3. Super I Sententiarum d. 19 q. 5 a. 2.

Before examining this text, we note that St. Thomas here responds to a difficulty. The difficulty involves the passage from the level of the intentional to the real.

It [the objection] involves asking whether there is only one truth, the uncreated truth. It seems there is. One has said in the previous article, in effect, that that truth is an analogous term. But there is only one health numerically, from which the animal is called healthy since it is the subject, from which medicine is called healthy, since it is the cause, and urine is called healthy, since it is the sign. In the same way, it seems, one needs to say that there is one truth from which all things are called true. We note that in the minor of this argument one treats of predication: true is an analogue. In the major, one treats of reality: the analogue only exists in one. Only the first analogue is possesses the form intrinsically, from which it is denominated. Of all that is called healthy, for example, only the animal possesses health intrinsically. From these two premises, one infers the unity of truth one says that there is only one real truth, just as there is only one real health.

In order to deal with this difficulty, St. Thomas needs to treat of analogy not only in intention, but also analogy secundum esse. He will gather the term analogy in all its possible senses.

St. Thomas distinguishes three ways in which something is said analogously. The first is secundum esse and not secundum intentionem. Since one here excludes the analogy according to being, one could here speak of extrinsic denomination. This happens when the intention relates to many inferiors according to a certain order, but which has being only in one. This is the case of health, which relates to the animal, the medicine and the urine in a certain order, but exists only in the animal.

The second kind of analogy is secundum esse and not secundum intentionem. This happens when many inferiors relate to some common intention. The being is nevertheless not common in all. For example, we can consider body as it is said of corruptible and incorruptible things, according to the understanding of the ancients. Logically, it is a univocal name. But with respect to the natures, there is not question of considering them wholly univocal.

Last, the third way of speaking about analogy is secundum esse and secundum intentionem. There one has equality neither in the intention of the name, nor in being. This is the case with the word being, which is said of substance and accident. One has a common nature that has some existence in any of its inferiors, but is different relative to whether there is more or less perfection. We nevertheless note that for the logician the fact that the analogy secundum esse is imposed on the analogy secundum intentionem does not make the word analogous. The moment one has a non-equality in a common intention, one has an analogous term; this inequality on the level of representation suffices for the doctrine of analogy as such. In the case of health and of being, the word “analogy” is said indifferently. But if one is forced to consider conditions on the side of things, he needs to use the example of health being an analogy secundum intentionem only and being being secundum esse and secundum intentionem.

See the original at Just Thomism for all of the italicizations.

The Succession of Masters

American graduate programs are disinclined to accept applicants who attended the same university for their undergraduate education. The same sort of mentality exists when it comes to hiring faculty -- American universities are reluctant to hire graduates. The alumnus candidate must be truly exceptional to be admitted or hired. The reason? It looks bad on the quality of the program or school if they accept or hire too many of their own. It is expected that a university will admit students from other instutions and regions, as this sort of diversity is supposed to reflect well upon the school or program. Most schools or programs want to avoid the appearance of not being good enough to attract students or teachers from elsewhere (in particular other schools with a reputation for excellence). Of course, such thinking encourages rootlessness and mobility.

From an East Asian perspective (or what I imagine it would be)... such admission policies go against the stability of the master-student relationship. It resembles a purely commercial relationship more than anything else. A teacher might permit his student to find another teacher if he knows he is not qualified or he cannot teach him any more, but this is not what American professors believe about themselves.

As to the selection of new faculty members, for a faculty to not consider one of its own graduates for a position may not mean a lack of confidence in his ability to teach their students, but it may give that impression. Let us suppose that the choice is between a graduate and a non-graduate. If everything else is equal and the non-graduate is hired solely because he is not a graduate of the program, then doesn't appearance take precedence over loyalty? It is more important for a school to base its reputation on its ability to attract faculty from diverse educational backgrounds (from institutions within a certain range of quality, with the proper recommendations -- the right pedigree) than it is to be loyal towards one's own.

There seems to be an excessive concern with appearances and the opinion of others guiding the decision-making for both processes. What is the criteria for judging the quality of a school or program? The quality of the faculty is primary, but this is evaluated through the opinion of others, their peers or reputed experts in that field, and surveys, and perhaps by what is produced by the faculty. Given the avoidance of most important truths, the modern university or college can consider only minor truths as objective evidence of someone's qualifications for an academic position -- whether they are good scholars and exegetes, if they can make a "good" argument regarding a text and provide sufficient evidence to back up their judgment. There is no expectation of or requirement for that scholarship to be in service of some higher truth.

An East Asian scholar would ask what other confirmation of his ability or honor can there be than for a student to succeed his master? Similarly, what teacher does not want want one of his students to replace him? He may naturally also wish to see his students given [important] positions elsewhere, or starting their own schools. But why would he want an outsider to replace him, rather than one of his own? This is especially important when one is passing on some sort of tradition, and not just generic skills of scholarship. Confucians, Taoists, Buddists at least agree that they are cultivating wisdom and pursuing truth, even if they disagree on the particulars. (Some Buddhists may dispute that there is truth, but they are being contradictory for the sake of appearing wise.) How many teachers today aspire to be the bearers of some intellectual tradition, as opposed to being "impartial" scholars who can dissect texts and give a proper exegesis?

The smaller, younger Catholic schools look for who is most qualified and who best fits the purpose of the college; they don't have to worry about the opinions of members of larger institutions. (Especially since few analytic philosophers consider medieval philosophy to be philosophy and so on.) As a consequence, they do not have any problems with hiring alumni, and as a result they have a stronger communal identity.

I should look into how appointments were made in the medieval universities, and what sort of criteria were used to judge candidates. The practices of religious houses of study, such as those operated by the Dominicans, appear to be somewhat similar to the East Asian ideal as I briefly lay it out here, in so far as the religious orders developed their own intellectual traditions which they passed on to each generation, and they raised members of their own orders to be teachers within their houses of study. Is the same true of the universities? (I'll have to confirm what I just wrote about the Dominican houses of study; I should read "First the Bow is Bent in Study": Dominican Education Before 1350.)

I had started this post last Thursday (1/28/10), while I was thinking about the dismal state of American universities. With Dr. McInerny's passing on Friday, it seemed appropriate to write a few words about one of the giants of his generation, and a master who taught and influenced so many. (His funeral Mass was this past Monday, at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. A ND press release was given on Monday.) May his students be his legacy.

The Big Mac

(source)

I referred to Dr. Ralph McInerny as the "Big Mac" when I talked about him with my sister KK because his son Daniel McInerny was also at Notre Dame, as associate director of the Center for Ethics and Culture. (The Little Mac got a position at Baylor last year.) Dr. McInerny's wife died several years ago and the Big Mac had been in semi-retirement, still offering some sort of class every now and then. I believe he also helped out with the (Thomistic) reading group. I believe Dr. McInerny was a Third Order Dominican, which would not be surprising since he took St. Thomas Aquinas to be his master.

I didn't really study Aquinas until I was at OLGS, and even then I did not read his works. I can't say that I read Dr. McInerny's books right away, but he quickly became one of my early favorites. (His brother Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny still teaches at OLGS.) I became more and more aligned with Dr. McInerny, as opposed to the existential Thomists like Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain.

It was through Dr. McInerny (and one of his students who was a professor at Christendom) that I learned of the Laval School and Dr. Charles De Koninck. After I entered graduate school, I had the honor to make his acuqintance and the opportunity to be near him when he permitted me to spend part of a summer at the Maritain Center going over the papers of Dr. De Koninck. Towards the end of my stay, I had the opportunity to talk with him in his office for a bit, and he was quite helpful. He also told me of his studies at Laval. (I have a photo of him with me from that Summer, taken shortly after I first asked him to sign his books. I should look for it and upload it onto FB.)

While I am not competent to judge his personal sanctity, I can attest to his helpfulness and his display of the virtues proper to a gentleman and a scholar. Generous with his time and resources, he was always welcoming and friendly when I would see him at the Center for Ethics and Culture Fall conferences. And he was always happy to sign his books for me whenever I asked him. His humor, smile and gentle laugh were easily noticeable, as well as his humility and friendliness. I admire him greatly, and though I do not consider myself to be one of his students, except in so far as I have learned from his books, I pride myself as being a "fan" or a "follower." If I were to construct an intellectual lineage (or "family tree") as East Asians did in the past, I would definitely reserve a place for him on it.

One might not think of Thomism as a tradition by its own tenents concerning logic and the intellectual virtues. But the passing on of these habits from one generation to the next is a form of tradition. Beliefs are said to be "handed down" metaphorically, and this can also be said of scientiae and artes. The Laval School of Thomism* can also be distinguished from other contemporary schools of Thomism (analytic, existential, transcendental, platonic, etc.) by certain characteristic positions or teachings held in common by its members. Dr. McInerny was editing the collected works of Dr. De Koninck for UND Press. The first two volumes have already been published, and I think Dr. McInerny was working on a third. I don't know if that has been completed, or if someone else will now be taking up the work.

Dr. McInerny was a great bearer of this tradition and he will be missed; may we be as devoted as he to the service of Christ and truth and to the study of Aristotle and St. Thomas and strive to follow his example in teaching others. May he rest in peace.

*The two prominent schools of Aristotelian-Thomism in North America were the Laval School and the Dominican River Forest School. I do not know much of Aristotelian-Thomism as it existed in Europe, though Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., while he has been called a "Thomist of Strict Observance," was also an Aristotelian-Thomist with respect to philosophy. I suspect that Aristotelian-Thomism was strong in some of the Dominican houses (Toulouse, for example, and maybe in Spain as well), but not so in others. What of its existence at Louvain? How quickly did it disappear after Dr. De Koninck completed his studies there? Did it disappear before Vatican II or afterwards?

From 1/30/02.
Zenit: Ralph McInerny Dies at Age 80
Inside Catholic: Ralph McInerny passed away this morning
I suspect some sort of notice will be published for The Catholic Thing.

2/2/02
Ralph McInerny (1929-2010)
By Robert Royal, Michael Novak, Bruce Fingerhut, and John O’Callaghan

Zenit: Funeral Held for Ralph McInerny

*Cross-posted at The New Beginning.

I see that M. Michèle Mulchahey, the author of "First the Bow is Bent in Study ...": Dominican Education before 1350 was appointed the first holder of the Leonard Boyle Chair in Manuscript Studies at the PIMS in 2007.

(Google Books)

Zenit: On St. Dominic
"He Always Spoke With God and About God"

Last Things: Aristotelian Principles
James V. Schall, S.J.

Last Things: Aristotelian Principles
James V. Schall, S.J.

Dominican Friars: Dominican Moral Theology
Fr. John Corbett, O.P.

Dominican Friars: The Importance of the University--Fr. Kurt Pritzl, OP on the Feast of St. Thomas and Feast of Saint Thomas Aquinas--Dominicans Celebrate the Angelic Doctor.

De unione ecclesiarum: Sententia synodalis

"Below is presented a translation of a formal declaration made by a synod held in Constantinople on Friday, May 3rd, 1280 under the presidency of Patriarch John Bekkos. The synod dealt with the case of the referendarius Michael Eskammatismenos, who had erased the word ἐκ (“from”) from a theologically-significant passage of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Lord’s Prayer."

American Papist: Photo: Professor with large family awarded $30k by Pontifical school and meets pope

James Chastek, Is analogy a lot simpler than the controverises over it?

I’m starting to wonder whether the reason St. Thomas never wrote a separate question on analogy is because he saw it as much more simple and unobjectionable than we do, and that our confusions are based on a convoluted and over-dramatic notion of what analogy is. Why not say that analogy is a second imposition, and that’s it? As second, it is known only in relation to a first. So taken, when we say “being is said analogously of God and creatures” what we mean is “The meaning of the word ‘being’, when it includes God, can only be a secondary imposition of the word, and the first imposition of the word is not said of him” or “when we consider what the word being first means, it cannot include God, though a second meaning can”. St. Thomas gives various reasons why this is so (God is a cause while we first know effects, etc, see ScG I 32-34) We might even, for all I know, have a meaning of the word being that can be said of God and creatures- but all St. Thomas insists on is that the first meaning can’t include God.

Why this order in impositions or meanings? Because there is an order in our knowing. That is all. Contemporary English speakers figure that a word can mean whatever we want it to, whenever we want it to, and so we find it odd when St. Thomas insists there must be an order in meanings. In fact, our tone-deafness about order in meaning is probably founded on our general tone-deafness about any order of knowing- or maybe even of hierarchies altogether.

The first meaning cannot include God, but somewhere down the line it might be possible to have meaning that can be univocally applied to both God and creatures? What do the Scotists say to that? See the comments to the post for more clarification.

Dr. McInerny's Introduction to Moral Philosophy for ICU

Part 2,3,4, 5

International Catholic University

Dr. Ralph McInerny has passed away.

Joseph Bottum, Ralph McInerny (1929-2010)

Please say a prayer for this great American Thomist.

UND
Center of Ethics and Culture

Zenit: Pope Remembers Seminary Days in Freising

Pope Remembers Seminary Days in Freising


"We Knew That Christ Was Stronger Than the Tyranny"



VATICAN CITY, JAN. 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of the German-language address Benedict XVI delivered extemporaneously Jan. 16 upon being made an honorary citizen of the south German city of Freising at a ceremony at the Vatican. He spoke of the time he spent there as a seminarian, and the day of his ordination.

* * *

Dear Mayor,
Your Eminence, Dear Archbishop,
Dear Auxiliary Bishop,

Dear Citizens of Freising,
Dear Friends,

It is a moving moment for me to have now legally become a citizen of Freising and thus belong in a new and deeply profound way to the City to which I feel I intimately belong.

For this reason I can only say from the bottom of my heart "Vergelt's Gott" (may God reward you). My joy at this moment will stay with me.

In my life biography in the biography of my heart, if I may the City of Freising has played a very special role. In this City I received the formation that has marked my life ever since. Thus, in a certain way, Freising is always present in me and I in it. And as you noted, Mr Mayor the inclusion in my coat-of-arms of the Moor and Bear of Freising shows the whole world how closely I belong to it. Then the fact that I am also now legally a citizen of Freising, is the crowning point and I am profoundly glad.

On this occasion a whole horizon of images and memories wells up within me. You have mentioned some of them, dear Mr Mayor. I would like to take up certain points.

To start with there is 3 January 1946. After a long wait, the time came at last when the Seminary of Freising could open its doors to all who were returning home. Indeed, it was still a hospital for former prisoners-of-war, but we were then able to begin. That moment marked a turning point in our lives: being on the path to which we felt called.

In today's context we lived in a very "old-fashioned" way without comforts. We were in dormitories, study halls and so forth, but we were happy and not only because we had at last escaped the wretchedness and threats of war and Nazi domination, but also because we were free and, especially, because we had set out on the path to which we felt called.

We knew that Christ was stronger than the tyranny, than the power of the Nazi ideology and its mechanisms of oppression. We knew that time and the future belong to Christ and we knew that he had called us and that he needed us, that there was a need for us.

We knew that the people of those changed times were waiting for us, they were waiting for priests to arrive with a new impetus of faith to build the house of the living God. On this occasion I must also raise a small hymn of praise to the old athenaeum to which I belonged, first as a student and then as a teacher.

Some were very erudite, and some were even known internationally, but what, to my mind, was most important was that they were not only scholars but also teachers, people who not only offered the first-fruits of their specialization but were concerned to give the students the essential, the healthy bread they needed in order to receive faith from within.

And it was important that we if I may now say we did not feel like individual experts but rather that we were part of a whole, that each one of us was working for theology as a whole; that our work had to make visible the logic of faith as unity and thereby increase our ability to account for our faith, as St Peter said (cf. 1 Pt 3: 15), so as to pass it on in a new epoch with new challenges.

The second image that I would like to mention is the day of my ordination to the priesthood. The Cathedral was always the centre of our life, just as at the seminary where we were one family. And it was Fr Höck who made us a real family. The Cathedral was the centre of it and for our entire life represented the unforgettable day of our priestly ordination.

Three moments are particularly deeply impressed within me.

First of all, lying stretched out on the ground during the litany of the saints. In lying prostrate on the ground, one becomes newly aware of all one's poverty and asks oneself: am I truly capable of it? And at the same time the names of all the saints of history and the entreaty of the faithful ring out: "Hear us; help them".

In this way the awareness grows that, yes, I am weak and inadequate but I am not alone, there are others with me, the entire community of the saints is with me. They accompany me and thus I can make this journey and become a companion and guide for others.

The second moment, the imposition of hands by the elderly, venerable Cardinal Faulhaber who laid his hands upon me, upon all of us, in a profound and intense manner and the knowledge that it was the Lord who was laying his hands upon me and saying: "you belong to me, you do not simply belong to yourself, I want you, you are at my service"; but also the awareness that this imposition of hands is a grace, that it does not only create obligations, but above all is a gift, that he is with me and that his love protects and accompanies me.

Then there was also the old rite in which the power to forgive sins was conferred at a separate moment. It began when the Bishop, pronouncing the Lord's words, said: "No longer do I call you servants... but... friends". And I knew we knew that this is not only a quotation from John 15 but a timely word that the Lord is addressing to me now. He accepts me as a friend; I am in this friendly relationship; he has given me his trust and I can work within this friendship and make others friends of Christ.

You have already alluded to the third image, Mr Mayor: I was able to pass a further unforgettable three and a half years with my parents at Lerchenfeldhof. Thus once again I could feel completely at home. These last three and a half years with my parents were an immense gift to me and truly made Freising my home. I am thinking of the celebrations, of how we celebrated Christmas, Easter and Pentecost together; of our walks through the fields together, of how we would go to the woods to gather fir-tree branches and moss for the crib, and of our outings to the fields on the banks of the Isar. Thus Freising became a real homeland to us, and as a homeland it lives on in my heart.

Today Munich airport is located at the gates of Freising. Those who land or take off from there see the towers of Freising Cathedral, they see the mons doctus, and can perhaps understand a little of its past history and of its present.

Freising has always had a sweeping view of the chain of the Alps. By means of the airport it has become, in a certain sense, also global and open to the world.

And yet I want to say: the Cathedral with its towers points upwards to heights that are loftier by far and very different from those we reach in airplanes; the true heights, the heights of God from whom comes the love that gives us authentic humanity.

Yet the Cathedral does not only indicate the loftiness of God who forms us and shows us the way, but also indicates an expanse, and this is not only because the Cathedral embraces centuries of faith and prayer, because it contains, so to speak, the whole community of saints, of all those who went before us who believed, prayed, suffered and rejoiced. It indicates, in general, the great host of all believers of all time. Thus it also shows a vastness which goes beyond globalization, because, in diversity, even in the different cultures and origins, it gives the strength of inner unity, in other words it gives that which can unite us: the unifying power of being loved by God. Thus for me Freising also continues to point out a path.

In closing, I would like once again to thank you for the great honour you have conferred on me, and to thank the band, which evokes here the true Bavarian culture. My desire my prayer is that the Lord may continue to bless this City and that Our Lady of the Cathedral of Freising may protect it, so that in the future too it may be a place of human life, faith and joy. Many thanks.

© Copyright 2010 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, January 28

(source)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
SEP entry; IEP.
McInerny Center for Thomistic Studies
Stephen Loughlin's Page
Center for Thomistic Studies

Vivificat: Orthodox and Catholics Seriously Discussed the Role of the Roman Primacy back in 2008
(via Rorate Caeli)

US Lay Theologian Wins Pontifical Academy Prize


ROME, JAN. 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A lay theologian from the United States has been selected for a €20,000 ($28,189) prize for his doctoral thesis, "Understanding St. Thomas on Analogy."

John Mortensen, a Wyoming Catholic College professor, was selected to receive the prize given by the Coordination Council of the Pontifical Academies. This was announced today by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Archbishop Ravasi, also president of the coordination council, added that Mortensen will receive the award Thursday at an audience the Pope will have with representatives of the academies.

The archbishop explained that the prize recognizes "young investigators, artists or institutions that have distinguished themselves in the promotion of Christian humanism."

Mortensen earned his doctorate from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome in 2006.

From 2002 to 2007 he was assistant professor at the International Theological Institute, an institute of papal right in Gaming, Austria, teaching courses in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, fundamental theology, and Trinitarian theology.

The prize given by the Coordination Council of the Pontifical Academies was instituted by Pope John Paul II in 1996.

Wyoming Catholic College
photo

Archbishop Bruno Forte on Theology

From Part 2 of his interview by Zenit. (Part 1)

How will we respond today to the developments of theology, but also of modern epistemology? I would answer by referring to the great 20th century philosophical and theological conquest, which is the powerful rediscovery of hermeneutics, that is, of the science of interpretation. When many years ago, as dean of the faculty of theology in Naples, I invited Hans Georg Gadamer, the father of contemporary hermeneutics, author of "Truth and Method," to a quaestio quodlibetalis. A first year [student] asked him this question: "What is hermeneutics?" To which Gadamer, without being ruffled, said, after a moment of reflection: "Hermeneutics means that when you and I speak we make an effort to reach the vital world that is behind the other's words, and from which they proceed."

Therefore, epistemology illumined by hermeneutics means not only to understand what is immediately perceptible, the visible, the phenomenalistic, the rational, but to also understand, or at least to try to reach, those vital worlds from which these expressions stem. In this context, one discovers that science is not only that of phenomena, but that there is an ensemble of sciences, which are the sciences of the spirit, which make an effort to reach what is not said, what cannot be said, what cannot be wholly divided into parts, but which is the vital world in which human processes, historical processes, etc. are situated. And there is a further level that points to that experience of the mystery of life and of the world and that all of us have and which cannot be referred to a mere linguistic or rational formula, that is, an excess of the Mystery that surrounds the world, that surrounds the life of each one of us and that we continually perceive with surprise, with wonder, which we can reflect in words only up to a certain point.

However, a science that takes wonder seriously in face of this Mystery, the possibility that the latter be said without betraying oneself, that is, the possibility of Revelation, and that one make it the subject of one's thought, becomes an absolutely precious science. In a similar hermeneutical dimension, interpretative of reality -- which does not stop at the immediate but always seeks the ultimate, the profound connections -- it seems to me that theology is presented with full dignity as a science of which man is in need to live and to die, as he needs God and the meaning of life to live and to die.

Is theology that takes the modern subjective turn seriously doomed to failure? Is a realist theology better suited to the task? If we are confined by our words, and words are not signs of reality but only of our thoughts, then how can we attain the real? I do not think Gadamer is a (naive) realist, but what sort of understanding of the relationship between language and reality does he offer to replace realism?

Disagreements over the nature of papal actions.

The preparatory document prepared by the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church of the First Millenium is supposed to be the starting point for discussion about the office of the pope and how it was exercised during the first millenium of our Lord. If some sort of common vision can be reached concerning the papacy of the first millenium, then it may serve as a basis of reconciliation of Catholics and Orthodox. I recall that Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger?) said that the Orthodox should only be held to an understanding of the papacy as it was exercised during this period. So both sides will look at the historical data, and the relationship between the pope and the general synod, the college of all the bishops -- how much authority does he have apart from a synod, and what consent is required by other bishops, and so on. Will there be any substantial disagreement about papal documents and actions, and how they are to be interpreted? If there cannot be a common (interpretation of) history, then can Catholic and Orthodox dogma on the papacy be harmonized? It seems that would not be possible...

A postscript was published today for the article by Sandro Magister:

POSTSCRIPT - The day after the publication of this article on www.chiesa, January 26, 2010, the pontifical council for Christian unity issued the following statement:

"The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has learned with disappointment that a media outlet has published a test currently being examined by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

"The document published is a draft text consisting of a list of themes to be studied and examined in greater depth, and has been only minimally discussed by the said commission.

"In the last meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held in Paphos, Cyprus, last October, it was specifically established that the text would not be published until it had been fully and completely examined by the Commission.

"As yet there is no agreed document and, hence, the text published has no authority or official status."

Is there anything within the document that would be a cause of controversy for either side?

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium


Link from Sandro Magister, "The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs." Just How Remains to Be Seen