By Father James K. Graham
From Sophia (Journal of the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton), Winter 2008 (pp. 26-28).
[Emphasis added]
The works of the recently-reposed Archbishop Elias Zoghby, former Patriarchal Vicar in Egupt and Sudan, and retired Metropolitan of Baalbek, especially the essays collected in A Voice from the Byzantine East and Tous Schismatiques?, provide a vision of Melkite ecclesiology solidly based in the Eastern Tradition, representative of the thinking of the Melkite Fathers of Vatican II, and consistent with contemporary Orthodox ecclesiological thought.
Archbishop Elias bases his ecclesiology in the first millennium of undivided, but diverse, Christianity. During that period, he says, the Churches founded by the Apostles grew and evangelized the known world, developing liturgically, theologically, and ecclesiologically according to the particular needs of each geographical location and also according to their unique historical-cultural-political situations. A basic agreement on the essential content of the Christian faith, derived from the Scriptures and the teaching of Jesus and the disciples and their successors, and articulated for the universal Church at the seven Ecumenical Councils, united all Christians, despite their wide geographic dispersal and their many divergent local practices.
The Great Schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople came as the culmination of intensifying conflict between the two Churches, two cultures, and two political systems. The Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) aimed at reuniting the separated Churches, and despite the increasingly institutionalized condition of schism, both councils bear witness to a consciousness of some kind of continuing communion, for the bishops of both East and West convened and voted. This sense of communion without administrative uniformity, at least tolerant of each other’s differences, but still agreeing on the essentials of the Christian faith, forms the foundation of Archbishop Elias’ proposal for reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in our time.
Even in Tous Schismatiques?, which advances his notorious plan for immediate intercommunion between the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and its separated sister the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Archbishop Elias does not provide more than an outline of how the Catholic and Orthodox Churches should realize their reunion. Let us sketch that outline.
1) “The rapprochement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches requires a new formulation of the doctrine of Roman primacy. This formulation must be grounded in the common tradition of the first thousand years of Christianity.”
2) “Only the union of Latins and Orthodox on the level of equality can bring together the apostolic tradition in its fullness and make Catholic unity complete… [Orthodoxy] must, therefore, share equally in the government of the reunited Church, just as must the Latin Church, under the primacy of Peter, of course”.
3) The “East-West Christian dialogue should be accompanied by an even greater effort at the decentralization that was begun at the Second Vatican Council, and in the Orthodox Churches it should accompany an effort of extremely qualified centralization around Peter’s successor and in the framework of traditional collegiality.”
4) “All of the Churches ought to be governed by their own bishops; Eastern Christians have never conceived of Church government in any other way… The pope and his colleagues must not be entrusted habitually and normally with the government of all the Churches.”
5) The Pope cannot “exercise, normally and habitually, in the Eastern Patriarchates, the role he exercises in the Latin Church in his capacity as Patriarch of the West.”
6) “In recalling, with theologians and ecumenicists, that the faith is essentially the same in the Roman Church and in Orthodoxy, we understand that doctrine elaborated after the schism by one of the two unilaterally, that is, in the absence of the other, cannot be part of what is essential in this faith.”
7) Thus, doctrine and discipline defined at the General Councils of the West after the Schism oblige only the Latin Church, and definitions made at Orthodox synods after the Schism oblige only the Orthodox Church.
8 ) “It is our understanding of Church history and Tradition that the Church is to be governed by the bishops who are in communion with the Pope, but not exclusively by the Pope to the exclusion of the Episcopate.”
9) There can be no practical progress toward resolution of the problem of primacy and reconciliation of the Churches “as long as the actual government of the Catholic Church has not been wholly and uncompromisingly transferred from the hands of this minority [the Roman Curia] to those of the pastoral Episcopate, the only agent truly responsible for the Church of Jesus Christ.”
10) In ruling his diocese of Rome and the dioceses of Italy whose metropolitan he is, the Pope “ought to be assisted by his local clergy.”
11) “The responsibilities of ruling the Latin patriarchate of the West ought to be assumed by the Latin episcopate or their delegates near the Holy Roman See, assembled in Patriarchal Synod around the pope in the exercise of his powers as Patriarch of the West”
12) “Where the whole Church is concerned, the responsibility for its administration ought to fall upon the universal Catholic episcopate (or the representatives commissioned by them) to coordinate, under the world-wide primacy of the Pope, the life and activities of the entire Church.”
13) In order to make reunion with Orthodoxy possible, as well as to adapt to the free and democratic conditions of the modern world, the Roman Church must return to the synodal type of Church government that even it lived under the first Christian millennium. This means national or local church “government by genuine Bishops’ Conferences with real power,” not merely consultative or advisory bodies.
14) Episcopal authority must be reaffirmed and restored because it comes directly from Jesus Christ Himself, who founded the Apostolic College in accord with divine will. “Christ gave the ‘presidency’ of the Apostolic College to Peter only after having entrusted all the Apostles with a clear-cut, well-defined mission. The leader of the Apostles was designated, then, to be head of a College which had already been constituted, a College already enjoying authentic and inalienable powers.” The Pope is the first bishop in the Church because he succeeds Peter, who was a “member of this College when he received the mission of strengthening his brethren.”
15) The rights and privileges of the Patriarchs must be recognized, respected, and revitalized, for “the Patriarchate is the only genuine guardian of each Church’s patrimony and one of the only checks on the spread of heterodoxy.” In the Christian East, the Patriarchs are the agents of the episcopate, members of it and chosen by it. Archbishop Elias quotes Archbishop Peter Medawar as saying that the patriarch is “the most eminent guardian of the deposit of the faith,” having “major responsibility for its true and integral diffusion… He is the official spokesman of his Church and of its peoples in all circumstances… In conformity with the ancient law, the patriarchs have the right and even the obligation to carry the burden of governing the Universal Church together with the Holy Father and to do so in a more outstanding and formal manner than other bishops.”
16) The reinterpretation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome should be based on the Eastern understanding of his position as primus inter pares, which is sacramental rather than juridicial. That is, the pope is first among equals because he, the patriarchs, and all the bishops are equal by virtue of sharing the fullness of priesthood, which is episcopacy. This understanding does not exclude the possibility that the pope, like the patriarchs, may have certain powers that other bishops do not have, but these powers come from the rank of his see among the dioceses of Christendom, not from his personal succession to Peter, and they originate in canonical custom and legislation, not in divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith.
17) Referring to the Third Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, Archbishop Elias writes that “if the role of the Church of New Rome entails a veritable responsibility, witness, and diakonia in the service of the unity of Orthodoxy, one cannot be dealing simply with primacy of honor or precedence when one speaks of the Bishop of Rome, recognized by Orthodoxy as the first among equals.
18) In the reunited Church, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, so extensively elaborated by the Latin Church, would complement local autonomous Episcopal collegiality, so zealously safeguarded by the orthodox Churches. Excessive decentralization, the strength that has considerably weakened the Orthodox, would counteract excessive centralization, the weakness that has inordinately strengthened Rome.”
19) “Thus we would say that these rights reserved to the Bishop of Rome must be defined by mutual agreement of the Roman and Orthodox Churches. Since this matter must not in any way become a part of the essential deposit of faith required for canonical communion, it must be settled by the reunited Churches.” This statement, of course, reflects Archbishop Elias’ conviction that the shared faith of the first millennium suffices for restoration of communion.
20) In fact, he says, “it is easier to agree on what concerns God than on what concerns men, knowing churchmen and their powers and privileges… Reaching accord on doctrine will be easy once we reach accord on the division of powers.”
21) In matters of doctrine, the shared faith of the first millennium suffices; everything else is different non-essential formulations and elaborations of the same essential truths. And, since doctrinal formulations can never full express the truth of what we believe, much less the truth of the Mystery of God, it is wiser to avoid dogmatic definitions as far as possible. “If one is obliged to do so – which should be very infrequently after the stabilization of the depositum fidei – one should do so with Christian modesty, and without a priori exclusion of other formulations that could be equally legitimate and maybe even more adequate… Revealed truth can be formulated in different ways and in different contexts. Factors such as cultural, historical, and other situations can influence these formulations without changing the Truth, which always remains the same.”
22) Just as differences in doctrinal expression need not stand in the way of communion, so also differences in ecclesiology can be accommodated. “Until the 11th century, Rome and Orthodoxy each had its unique ecclesiology, at least germinally, and unity was not broken, one can conceive of these two difference ecclesiologies in the Church without questioning the Faith and without altering communion.”
23) We can even regard these differences as necessary for the wholeness of the Church, because “the Catholic Church, that is the Universal Church, can only consist of the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church reunited, since neither of them can claim to possess the whole Christian patrimony, spiritual, ascetical, liturgical, patristic, or doctrinal.” The wholeness of the Church is legitimate diversity in essential unity.
24) Archbishop Elias conceives of Church unity in terms of East and West, and favors preservation and development of the legitimate diversity of worship forms, theological expression, and church governance suited to peoples and countries. Jesus Christ is incarnated in each race, and each race shows forth in its own way the image and likeness of God. Thus, its expression of Christianity must be locally developed, not imported. In this context, he seems to regard the re-entrance into Catholic communion by the churches of the Reformation and their descendants as a matter for the Western Church to deal with. However, as expressions of legitimate diversity they figure in his larger vision of Christian unity: “no Church or group of believers, however humble it may be, should be compelled to accept union by assimilation or disappearance… Indeed, we envision the true unity of the distant future to include several different rites in which almost everyone can find a home: an Anglican Catholic rite, a Presbyterian Catholic rite, perhaps even a Jewish Catholic rite, and many, many more; with some of them containing even smaller subdivisions.”
25) Therefore, achieving the reunion of the Christian Church requires dedicated, humble, sacrificial effort on the part of all Christians, who should feel the pain of separation and who suffer from, as well as sometimes contribute to, its sinfulness. However, the Church of Rome, since it is the head of the Churches, bears special responsibility for healing schism and restoring unity. This is its God-given mandate; this is the proper exercise of its primacy. Fulfilling this role will require major changes in Roman self-understanding, a process begun at Vatican II, accompanied by fundamental changes in Roman dealings with other Christians, for “every attempt at unity centered in a pyramidal Church, built around an absolute juridical authority, and founded on submission to the Pope, instead of on co-responsibility with the older brother who is in Rome would be doomed to failure.”
However we may respond to this vision of Church unity – and as an ideal it has great appeal – our task here is to discover in it resources for fulfilling the ecumenical vocation of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, if we can. Let us begin, as we must, by flatly calling it a fantasy that ignores most of the secular and ecclesiastical history of the Christian age. Yes, the Churches should re-unite on the basis of the common faith of the first millennium, should accept legitimate diversity in worship and doctrine and discipline, and should govern themselves synodally under the benign primacy of the Bishop of Rome, first among equals, presiding in the service of charity. But at this time, and for the foreseeable future, such reunion seems at best highly improbable.
Nationalism, pluralism, colonialism, imperialism, and dogmatization of local customs and theological opinions contribute to the unlikelihood of reunion on these terms, as do centuries of carefully nurtured misunderstandings and even enmities. If the Churches truly hope one day to achieve reunion, they must strive diligently to resolve these misunderstandings and to heal these enmities, not simply at the level of international theological dialogue, not even at the level of the hierarchy or of clerical formation, but at every level of church life.
Agreement on theology by theologians has no meaning until the parishioners in church on Sunday can affirm it and apply it in their daily dealings with other Christians. As long as Catholics define themselves essentially as being “under the Pope,” and as long as Orthodox define themselves essentially as not being “under the Pope,” both sides ignorant not only of others’ faith but of their own, theological dialogue will remain so much wasted breath and reunion will remain a beautiful fantasy.
What, then, can Melkites learn from Archbishop Elias’ vision? They can, and should, recognize its basic validity – it expresses our authentic understanding of the Church. It should be taught and nurtured in church schools, in homilies, in adult education classes, in regional and national clergy-laity conventions, in deacon training programs, in seminary curricula, in continuing education of clergy, in the Patriarchal Synod. It should become intimately and integrally part of the meaning of “Melkite”.
As this happens, we must also share our conviction that this vision authentically points the way to human achievement of God’s will that His people should be one with Him. Such sharing will involve more than words – though words, written in church bulletins, pastoral letters, Episcopal statements, ecumenical documents, educational materials, popular magazines, and scholarly journals, will carry great weight. Such sharing will involve acting according to our belief – individuals, families, parishes, dioceses, the entire patriarchate must seek cooperation with fellow Christians, repudiate inauthentic forms of worship and teaching and governance, and do whatever expresses our authentic vision: ordain married men, expunge latinizations, elect our own bishops, restore true monasticism, and adapt our heritage of Holy Tradition to the demands of the life in the secular, pluralistic, technological, God-hungry world of the 21st century.
Often people contribute to making themselves invalids. They completely accept limitations or accidents, even further handicapping themselves by not daring to try actions that will challenge them but will not defeat them. Such people make themselves victims. They call themselves realistic. In effect, they deny God’s will and power. They defy God to heal them, without making any attempt to cooperate in their own healing.
Other people make every effort to overcome their handicaps or limitations. They constantly strive to reach farther or to walk longer or to stand longer by themselves. Such people make themselves victors. Others call them idealistic, but they too call themselves realistic. Consciously or not, they acknowledge God’s healing power and His willingness to cooperate with us when we try to cooperate with Him. Melkites (and, indeed, all Christians) must stop acting like invalids, victims of circumstances and dependent on what others do to or for us. We cannot be like the paralytic, lying by the pool for 38 years waiting for someone to put him in the water. We must be like Zacchaeus, willing to climb up a tree – perhaps even to go out on a limb – to overcome our limitations. The Lord will recognize us, reward our efforts, and bring salvation to our house.
Father James K. Graham is the pastor of St. Elias the Prophet Melkite Church, San Jose, CA.
(Thanks to Ghosty on the Byzantine Forum for providing the text of this article.)
I must say that, though I am all in favor of union with the east the is far too eastern a vision. In this a refer specifically to the decentralisation. I see no reason what so ever why the Latin Church should decentralise. Our centralised system is a legitimate tradition and the existence of bishops conferences have been a useless innovation as they have neither combated heterodox ideas nor enforced discipline. On the contrary they have lead to the growth of both. It is just an unfortunate fact that the Latin Church must have the structure it has so that order and orthodoxy might be maintained. I would prefer a decentralised Church but in the Latin Church this is just not possible in the present situation.
Secondly the other major flaw is the proposition that the See of Rome is not devinely instituted as a unique office taking its authority from Peter himself. This is totally nonnegotiable, and is supported by the writings of many Fathers of the Church.
I do, however, fully support his attack on Catholics defining themselves as ‘under the pope’. No! Being Catholic should be defined by an adherence to Scripture and Tradition. The pope is part of them. We must eliminate the idea that something is true because the pope says so. No! The pope says it BECAUSE it is true.
“Christian”- The problem the Orthodox have is not hte existence of the Petrine office, but the assertions of universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Those are not found in the writings of the Fathers.
And Scripture and Tradition are not dependent on the occupant of one office, over and above the Church, to declare them.
In saying “I see no reason whatever why the Latin Church should decentralise”, and in giving his reasons for this opinion, Christian has to my mind given an illustration of the double bind which faces the Catholic Church today as a result of its own historical shortcomings (I write as a Catholic).
Of course, the situation of the Catholic Church today looks chaotic. Of course, given the mediocrity of so many in authority in the Church, their weakness, cowardice and sometimes flagrant heterodoxy, it seems a reckless option to push for decentralisation. But can we say that the current centralised system has worked well? Let us take episcopal appointments for example. In the US you have had a lot of good episcopal apointments. But in other parts of the world – like my native UK – it is doubtful whether local churches could make a worse job of choosing their own pastors than papal officials have done .
I think that what has happened is all about maturity. At Vat II a lot was said about the laity “coming of age”, but in fact it is the whole Church, and not just the laity, which needs to grow up.
No-one passes from childhood to adulthood directly. In between their comes adolescence. What the RC Church is now going through is its own adolescence. The condition of the Church before Vat II maintained most Catholics – including most bishops and priests. Maybe ESPECIALLY bishops and priests – in a state of infancy. Making on’s own decisions was not an option where just about anything was concerned.
Then came the “glorious revolution’. Like most revolutions it has been a débacle. Down the plug-hole went the baby together with the bath water. The liturgy was the first victim. There is a space for legitimate diversity in all of Christian life. But in fact it has been doctrine which has been relativised, with a do-it-yourself liturgy as the spearhead of this deathly tendancy. THe no-longer-any-law of prayer has gone along with a no-longer-any-law of belief. In fact, there is een a sense in which the bath water was kept without the baby’s presence to justify it: resistance to the liturgical débacle was crushed using the weapons which had for more than a century used to quash any talk of innovation: YOU MUST OBEY. Many commentators on the reaction to Summorum Pontificum have largely failed to pick up on the fact that it is from conserevative episcopates (like the Polish) that some of the most restrictive interpretations have come. There is a reason. The idea of diversity of any kind in the Church’s life is just not comprehensible to those of the Vatican I mindset.
Worse, some people are now trying desperately to pour back the old, dirty bathwater without the baby being anywhere in sight. There is in the RC Church a tendancy to privilege adminisration as the most overidingly importance of the Church’s life. Episcopal apppintments from the time when they were almost exclusively made by Rome (which in the Latin Church is more recent than many realise – it is largely a 19th century reaction to state control, understandable and necessary in the contex of the period) have been made almost exclusively on the basis of administrative criteria. This has not changed. What is wanted is a safe pair of hands, a boat that will not get rocked. A bishop wll be much more certain to get fired for a financial scandal than for heterodoxy. Even the child-abuse linked resignations have probably more to do with the legal/financial consequences of clerica misdeeds than any apreciation of the moral enormity of episcopal abdication in the face of moral turpitude and doctrinal laxness.
The Latin Church will not recover until the clergy get their minds round the fact that the Church is built upon Peter’s faith, not his power or hisadministrative prowess. THe then Card Ratzinger in fact hit the nail on the head when he wrote somewhere that once bishops started to do their job, the much-desired decentralisation will happen of itself. Bishops and priests exist in order to teach the faith and to celebrate the sacraments handed down from the Apostles, and not in order to cling on to the vain fiction of exerting personal power under the appearence of structural uniformity.
I apologise of much of this seems like a bittrer diatribe. But I think some readers will grasp what I am getting at. THe post-conciliar years have seen an implosion of Church life which in fact has been a prolonged eccesial adolescence. The answer is not to turn the clock back and try to re-impose the discipline appropriate to the nursery. The response has to be to continue the process of growing up. If you treat people like chuldren they will continue to think and behave like children, even as they rebel and throw their adolescent tantrums. Rome cannot continue to pick up the toys from the nursery floor, while sternly threatening to deprive of their tea anyone who throws tem out of the cot again. THe local churches will have to learn painfully that if you throw your toys out of the cot, then you can’t play with them anymore. Once this lesson is learnt, they can stra
(Ctd.)
Once this lesson is learnt, they can start to gow up properly.
So I think that what Zogby proposes is necessary not only ecumenically, but aso for the Latin Churh’s own internal health. I have long been convinced that ecumenism, and the learning from each other that goes with it, is a necessary part of our becoming truly Catholic, and re-learning the parts of our Faith that have been neglected or passed over out of reaction against error, real or imagined, elsewhere. The Catholic Church can and must (re)learn the meaning of collegiality and synodality, and the witness the Orthodox Churches give us is invaluable in tis respect. The Orthodox Churches themselves, sadly fragmented and in perpetual jurisdictional disputes, could doubtless benefit from a rediscovery of the necessity of a universal primacy. But they will not be encouraged to do so as long as this primacy in action resembles a control-freak’s obsession with jurisdictional and administrative hegemony, less concerned with the dogmas of the faith than with placid uniformity, and not even efficient these days in procuring the latter.
Fr Paul,
While I agree on the desirability of decentralization in the abstract and think that it would have been a splendid notion in 1900 My problem is with now. Vatican II was a total disaster and all statistics prove this. The good and wise Cardinals saw this at the time. The only way in which the situation can be reverse is in a general Reform of the Church along the lines of the Counter-Reformation or Lateran IV. After that is achieved, perhaps in around a hundred years we can have some decenteralisation.
I am also English and fear that if the episcopal appointments where run like it is in the East we would probably all be Anglicans by now! Decenteralisation would mean the bishops choosing the new bishops and that is exactly what the Modernists want.
Joe,
“With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:2
“The churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.” Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History
Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ’such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.” St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople
Both universal jurisdiction and infallibility are indeed found in the Fathers.
In the Bible, too, for that matter.
Your sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions notwithstanding. ;)
Oops, just saw Christian’s patristic excerpts.
Many more could be provided.
Thanks, Christian.
;-)
I agree with Christian, too; and, for that matter, I am rather surprised that Fr. Paul could pass over unremarked Fr. James Graham’s explicit contradiction of what both the Council of Florence and Vatican I declared about the divine origin of the papal primacy. More generally, I would like to know from what sources the Melkites got the idea that they could “pick and choose” among the doctrines of the Church of Rome, with which they are in communion, and that not on terms of equality, either!
I have been receiving *Sophia* for just about 20 years, and it might make for interesting reading to review the issues of the past decade and to see on what other subjects the good father has expressed “interesting” ideas as well.
William
I sense a reproach in what you write. I was arguing a point about the merits and desirability of decentralisation, not seeking to ratify the entirety of anybody else’s arguments. I do not know Fr James and have never read any other of hos writings, so I can only reflect on the basis of what is given here. I do not think that he is NECESARRILY or EXPLICITLY denying the divine institution of the prmacy. Indeed, the 14th of his points seems to me to recognize it, at least implicitly. The 16th does contain at least one phrase which seems to me to be problematic for a Catholic, viz. the assertion that if the Pope, in virtue of the primacy, has powers which “originate in canonical custom and legislation, not in divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith”. However, I think that it is possible that by this the good father means that the specific historical forms of the exercise of the primacyare not of divine origin. I think is quite plausible to argue that this is not in contradiction with the diviine origin of the primacy in itself. The distinction betwen these two things is specifically recognised by JPII and the present Pope.
It may be that I have not read the article carefully enough, so if you can bring anything to my attention which shows unambiguously that my interpretation is wrong, I will revise my judgement. Of course, the best thing would be for Fr James to explain himself, so if anyone reading this is in contact with him and could persuade him to take part in our debate here, I think that would considerably enrich our discussion.
For the record, I myself believe that if one were to believe that the Petrine primacy is not of divine institution, there would be no point being a Catholic, either Latin or of oriental rite.
And Christian, although I see your point, I still think that decentralisation, allthough messy in the short term, would still be better in the medium and long term for the Latin Church.
From my reading, it sounds like Archbishop Zoghby believed that there is such thing as a Petrine primacy instituted by Christ himself. His only quibble is with the way that this primacy has developed/been expressed after the separation of East and West.
Note also that he believes that the Orthodox must accept “the primacy of Peter” although again this means something very different the sort of papal maximalism that prevails in the Latin Church today.
It doesn’t sound too radically different from the position taken up in moderate Orthodox treatments of the Papacy such as Olivier Clement’s “You Are Peter.”
I’m not 100% in agreement with everything Zoghby said, but I do think he’s generally on the right track when his proposals are panned by both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. :-)
eirenikon: I’m not sure “papal maximalism” is an accurate term. I see more “papal maximalism” in non-papal churches, frankly, where every pastor (or priest or hierarch, as the case may be) seems to arrogate to himself a sort of hyper-infallibility.While the real pope exercises the charism of infallibility only under certain strictly defined conditions, the self-appointed “super-popes” often seem to operate on the assumption that they are infallible every time they open their mouths. ;)
IMHO, comtemporary Catholcisim is no more “papal maximalist” than, say, Maximus the Confesor was. So, we’re in good company.
Bottom line, though: We are not gong to revoke Vatican I. It ain’t gonna happen. So, if Abp. Zoghby was on that track, he wasn’t on the right one.
BTW, as a side note: I was recently reading about the OT priests’ use of the Urin and Thummin (sp??) to determine God’s Will. The blogger also cited St. John’s statement that the High Priest spoke the prophetical truth because he was High Priest that year–IOW, by virtue of his office. If these are not Biblical prototypes of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, I’ll eat my Missalette. :D
Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, himself considered the current exercise of papal authority as maximal in his Principles of Catholic Theology. He wrote that it is not possible “to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christian the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” (p. 198). It sounds as though he’s saying what Fr. Paul and Eirenikon are suggesting here.
We must note that, in #16, Fr. James is not denying that papal primacy is a divine institution. It is the idea that the “the pope, like the patriarchs, may have certain powers other bishops do not have” which, according to him, originates “in canonical custom and legislation, not in divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith”. The point is nuanced, since he states that primacy should be conceived in sacramental rather than juridical terms. It’s not clear to me exactly what he has in mind, but let’s not accuse the man of denying papal primacy as a divine institution just yet! If Catholics can’t imagine papal primacy apart from jurisdictional authority, then we really have a problem, because it is a sure sign that we have imbibed the world’s understanding of leadership as power rather than service.
In Archbishop Elias’ writings, he clearly denies the ecumenicity of councils held since the Schism, citing Sessions V and VI of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The council Fathers said:
I, for one, am persuaded by Archbishop Elias’ argument.
Christian- isolated Patrisitc statements wrenched from context are of limited value. You’ll forgive if I’m a little short here, but I’ve been around this block many times.
Irenaeus- 1. The quote is a translation of a translation. The original was in Greek, and has been lost, so any nuances in the language (and, in context, the quote is far from being unambiguous) are not available to us.
2. “The Church of Rome” in Irenaeus’ time was not exactly equivalent to “The Bishop of Rome”. Even most Catholic authors admit this. The Roman Church was governed by a council of elders which was, of course, headed by the Bishop of Rome, but absolute equivocations between “Church of Rome” and “Bishop of Rome” are dangerous.
3. Most importantly, St. Irenaeus is speaking against the Gnostics in the context of complete doctrinal unity among the chruches (he says this). He is vindicating the apostolic tradition against the gnostics, and he simply says that the easiest way to ascertain the apostolic tradition is to check the teaching of the Church of Rome because its great prominence (which no one denies and which was based at that time at least as much on the capital status of Rome as on Petrine succession), because, as a *matter of fact* what the Roman church taight would be what the other churches taught as well. There is no implication that Rome could uniformly dictate doctrine to the other churches.
This is the same Irenaeus who “harshly rebuked” Pope Victor (Eusebius’ words) when the latter “attempted” to excommunicate the East over the Easter controversy, so I find it hard to believe that Irenaeus was espousing papal supremacy in his famous quote. Thsi episode in itself, in fact, pretty much conclusively shows that Pope Victor did not enjoy universal jursidiction.
Noen of the other quotes show that the early church as a whole reciognized universal jurisidiction or infallibility.
OTOH, where patristic writers specifically deal with the issue of authority on doctrinal disputes, as in St. Vincent of Lerins’ *Commonitories* (sp?) he explicitly talks scripture, apostolic tradition, bishops, and synods but says *not one word* about the Bishop of Rome. You might want to think on that. Joe
None of the other quotes show that papal supremacy
diane: I’m not sure “papal maximalism” is an accurate term. I see more “papal maximalism” in non-papal churches, frankly, where every pastor (or priest or hierarch, as the case may be) seems to arrogate to himself a sort of hyper-infallibility.
As applied to Orthodox churches I find that description self-serving and, considering your lack of experience in actual Orthodox parishes, suspect. I have attended several OCA parishes extrensively for several years and have invariably found the pastors to feel themselves bound by Holy Tradition and by their bishop.
Dr. Tighe and Diane,
With all due respect, if you think that unity will be achieved without a reexamination of some of the “dogmas” proclaimed in the post-schism western councils, you are under a serious misapprehension. Even Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, indicated differently. Joe
Joe: Benedict never said anything about reexamining dogmas.
I know the quotation you allude to, and it says nothing about dogmas.
Infallibly defined dogmas are not going to be reversed. It is not going to happen. Over and out.
Wei-Hsan: I think a good argument can be made that Gregory VII’s papacy was rather “maximalist.” ;) But the papacy today? No way. If it were, the pope would have booted Cardinal Mahony a long time ago.
Sure, the precise way in which the pope expresses his jurisdictional primacy can change; JPII invited such a discussion. But the esse of the papacy cannot change, and it clearly involves real authority. Just ask Maximos the Confessor. :-)
Joe: Bound by Holy Tradition, eh?
Does that mean they still accept and promulgate the ancient patristic teaching against contraception?
Just wondering….
Diane: Infallibly defined dogmas are not going to be reversed. It is not going to happen.
It has already happened; the “infallible” teachings of both *Unam Sanctam* and the Council of Florence have been reversed by Vat. II.
“Does that mean they still accept and promulgate the ancient patristic teaching against contraception?”
Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.
Joe,
Just to answer your points
1) You could be right
2)This is not necessarily true. I recently did a study of patristics on this issue and many believe that the reason why people rarely mention the current pope by name is because the Roman Church was under such heavy persecution that to name him in a letter might get him coght by the authorities who might intercept the letter.
3) There is no evidence to suggest that Rome being the capital was the reason for its importance. The use of the term ‘origin’ not ‘position’ would indicate a reference to the eminence of its founders. It is also well established that early Christian authors would often use the term ‘taught by all the Churches’ as a proto term for orthodox. Thus he is saying that Rome will never err. Furthermore, Ireneaus rebuced Pope Victor for his harsh actions but never questioned his right to do so. That correspondence is often used to prove papal primacy. Regarding the last point I would say that Roman primacy would be considered part of scripture, apostolic tradition, and synods.
The Church never has and never will change any dogma. If you think Vatican II changed *Unam Sanctam* or the canons of Florence you have either never read the documents or have read a bad synopsis. Hetrodox Catholics always like to make out V2 was a rupture as if if it had been that would make them any less heretical.
Procopius,
You will find that the Fathers do refer to ‘potions’ taken to temporarily sterilise. They condemn them. Is not ‘the pill’ such a potion?
Was the potion for men or for women?
I think the whole question far exceeds the situation of that time.
To merely repeat, without reflection, is useless.
Regarding Rome and its importance-
I suppose that if Sts. Peter and Paul had been martyred, ( say by “accident”) in some small village in Sicily, would that small village now be the headquarters of the Pontiff?
The importance of Old Rome was two-fold, as the site of martyrdom and as the capitol of the empire.
When Old Rome no longer was the capitol, being reduced to a powerless city, Constantinople began to understand itself as the New Rome.
While the Patriarch of Old Rome was always acknowledged, it wasn’t necessarilly because of its power but because of reverence for its antiquity and fidelity to faith.
Procopius
the answer to your (rhetorical I think) question about the place of Peter’s martyrdom must be that it was the will of Providence that the martyrdom o the Coryphaei of the apostles should happen in the city which was the political centre of the world. (This serves among other things to remind us of the ambiguous nature of all human authority, since the primacy is exercised where Nero and Caligula also exercised their tyrrany. Unfortunately in the history of the church, whether at Rome, Constantinople or elsewhere, the lesson has not always been well learned…) The fact that, as you say, the political factor has to be considered secondary, is borne out by the legend of the apostolic origin of the See of Constantinople, which was (as every honest Orthodox historian will recognise) “discovered” post fctum in order to bolster the patriarchal claims of that see, which were indeed based primarily upon its political importance.
I think it is also important to remember that the traditional belief in the indefectibilty of the primatial see is attributed to the Roman Church, and not considered a persoanl prerogative of its bishop. Too many RCs forget this (and presumably the Popes themselves would not have decamped to Avignon for a time if they too had borne it in mind rather better). I believe that a reinterpretation of the doctrine of Papal infallibilty and universal jurisdiction, on the basis of this acknowledged doctrine f the first millenium, is necessary if ecumenical progress is to be made. On the Catholic side, this requires a humble and honest soul-searching about the appropriateness of the juridical languafe in terms of which which the primacy has been expressed in the millenium since the schism occured. On the Orthodox side, the unchallenged belieg that the Filioque, for example, is heretical needs to be confronted with the widely acknowledged patristic belief that the Roman Church cannot fall away from the Faith once delivered to the saints.
Father Paul: I have always been taught that the charism of infallibility inhered in the papal office, not in the man qua man. And, of course, it comes into operation only on certain rare occasions, under strictly delimited circumstances. In this respect, it harks back to the OT, where the High Priests used the urin and thummin (sp?) to discern the infallible will of God. Presumably they were protected from error on those occasions, just as the pope is when he teaches formally ex cathedra re faith and morals.
I guess I do not see what is so “juridical” about the VCI definition. It could just as easily be called “Jeish” or “Biblical,” since it harks back to the similar exercise of a sort of charism of infallibility by the Jewish priests. Plus, it is actually a pretty modest definition–fa more modest than what the ultramontanists wanted!–and its whole purpose is the protection of the faithful. That is, it is there for us, not for the pope.
As to the Roman See’s indefectibility (so ringingly affirmed by Maximos the Confessor), doesn’t it inhere in the office of the bishop of Rome? Surely, then, said office still possesses it when it is temporarily located outside Rome? Obviously a papacy outsideRome is not the ideal, but it seems a stretch to imply that the papal prerogatives or the prerogatives associated with the papal see are suddenly rendered null and void when the pope step outside Rome. ;)
Sorry for typos–my keyboard is sticking a lot.
Joe: How many times has Mike Liccione answered you re Unam Sanctam etc.? Let us count the ways….
Daine: Joe: How many times has Mike Liccione answered you re Unam Sanctam etc.? Let us count the ways….
Answer: Never. And who is “us”? Are you speaking for others here?
Christian- I assure you I have read *Unam Sanctam* and associated documents for myself many times. In particular, I have read Thomas Aquinas’ *Contra Errores Graecorum* which furnished a lot of the theological reasoning used in US. Have you?
It seems to me that if we are to hold to the standards which you quote, then we need dispense not only with the post-schism councils, but also with Constantinople I, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III. On the other hand, even by the definitions given in that citation we should still retain Florence. In other words, with all due respect to the late prelate, it seems to me that Bishops Zoghby’s dog will not hunt.
Diane
I was not suggesting that the Pope cannot exercise his ministry, with the divine guarrantees attached to it, if he resides outside Rome. I meant that the Avignon popes behaved like emperors who could transfer the site of their court at will, and forgot in all but name that their mission was first and foremost to be pastors of the Roman Church. That they still claimed to be bishops of Rome, and were recognised by the church at Rome, is in my opinion what kept them being popes at all. (This is also on my opinion how we should judge who, during the Great Schism, was true pope and who was not: who was recognised at Rome?) But insofar as it was in practice barely better than legal fiction, it is an example of how an overly juridical view of the office distorts our view of it and prevents it being seen in a pastoral light, as a service to the other churches. Since I have brought up juridicism, this a convenient peg on which to hang my replies to other points of yours:
- yes the Petrine charism is vested in the office. But the office is that of being Bishop of Rome. The Church of Rome posesses the primacy, and exercises it in the person of its bishop. On this point I think we agree.
- about juridical language. To say that talk of “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is juridical language is self-evidently true to the point of being a tautology. While as a Catholic I must subscribe to the dogma, this does not mean I must believe that the choice of terms used to express it was necessarily the best available, or the most theologically balanced. The theologian can and should seek to identify the precise limits of the truth contained in the definition, and if he thinks he can he is free to try and express it in deeper and more universally acceptable language. Like all conciliar definitions without exception, it emerged in a given historical and cultural context, and it is not necessarily modernism to believe that it can be re-exxpressed in a better way in the different context which is ours, now that the Catholic Chuirch has, by God’s grace, committed itself to ecumenical dialogue.
- your use of the OT Urim and Thummim is an interresting use of typology. However, like all typology it is of little or no probative or apologetic use. The best use that could be made of it is an illustrative one, if we have good reason to say that the Pope is infallibe based on more compelling scriptural and patristic evidence. Before we decide that we do have such grounds, we need to decide precisely what we mean by infallibility; and I do not think that there is a consensus within Catholic theology on precisely what we do mean. Let us note only that Vat I says that the pope ex cathedra posesses the infallibilty which Christ willed for His Church.
I believe that Zhogby’s thought, allthough it is (or maybe BECAUSE it is) provocative, and allthough I have my doubts about some elements of it, is an important element towards a fruitful intra-Catholic debate on the subject.
As a follow up to my last post, and not adressing myself to any one in particular, it seems to me that it is insufficiently taken into account that the net effect of the Vat I definition has been in real terms to diminish the power of the Papacy.
As Diane has said, the definition came in terms far short of what the extreme ultramontanes wanted. It has been clear since Vat I that the pope is only CERTAINLY preserved from error in certain very limited circumstances. Before 1870 it was not so clear; many thought he was always infallible.
Newman wote in 1845 (in fact he is quoting Bellarmine, but it is clear that what he writes still describes the universal Catholic attitude in his own day) : “all Catholics agree…that the Pope when determining any thing in a doubtful manner, whether by himself or with his own particular Council, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful”" (Essay on the Development..).
Since Vatican II, a significant number of Catholics – including hierarchs and theologians – sift what the Pope says, and if they can say that it is not a solemn ex cathedra definition, cheerfully decide they cal ignore/oppose/attack it.
Some Catholics deplore this development, some applaud it. What is undeniable, in my opinion, is that the ultramontane project backfired. The historical irony is interesting in itself. I leave it to the reader to make what he or she will of its consequences both for the future shape of the exercise of papal authority in the Catholic Church, and for ecumenical dialogue.
Greg,
You and I have had a similar conversation over Cathedra Unitatis, and we did not get a chance to continue it.
1. Do you think that the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council were wrong about their criteria of ecumenicity? It’s not Archbishop Elias whom we have to deal with, but rather the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council (to whom the dog, I think, really belongs.) Could you comment on what you think these Sessions mean?
2. I’m not sure what you mean when you raise the list of councils that might fail to meet the criteria, but I do have question about one of the cases. In the case of Constantinople I, are you saying that the later ratification given by the Pope cannot be sufficiently regarded as “cooperation” (synergon), and therefore it seems that a council can be ecumenical even if it didn’t have the ratification of the Pope? (I’m merely trying to infer here.)
3. What if I were to take the position of a “non-Chalcedonian”, and really call into question the ecumenicity of Chalcedon and all subsequent councils? This is by no means my real theological stance, but I am suggesting that the “if you take this piece out, everything will fall apart” argument only begs the question, “And what if it does? Can’t we just rebuild?”
W.H.
Dear Mr Wan (or is it Mr Wei-Hsien; my apologies if I am mangling your name),
As I mentioned when last we discussed this subject, I am still somewhat skeptical that this is the view of the Nicene fathers. I cannot find the quote in the acta of the council. Granting that it is there for the sake of argument, however, I suppose that I do think that they are wrong to postulate these criteria because, as I said before, according to these criteria we would have to toss out councils which we all agree are ecumenical. If we are willing to overlook that which Bishop Zoghby is willing to give Chalcedon a pass on the Nicene-fathers-test, then I see no reason not to give Trent a pass as well.
Well, yes and no. What I am saying is that Constantinople I is an ecumenical council and has been an ecumenical council since it came to order in 381. And yet, for all that, no Pope ever gave his assent to the council until centuries after it had closed. Evidently, then, consent of a Pentarch is not an indispensible criterion of an ecumenical council, and if that is true of Constantinople I then it can be true of Vatican I as well. (Besides, the pentarchs all approved of Vatican I, at least so long as you are willing to consider the Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria as pentarchs).
But that is my very point – I was listing Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III as spurious-by-Zoghby’s-lights because the councils were held without the participation of interested parties. If that really is a critical failure of “ecumenicity,” then these councils (which we all regard as ecumenical) are spurious. Given that they are not spurious, it seems to me that we have to question the merit of Bishop Zoghby’s criteria.
Greg,
Thank you. Your response gives me much to think about.
The text I cited cannot be found in the Acta because they are in the Sessions, which I have in a form translated from the Greek. It is the work of a teacher of mine.
If the consent of the Pentarch is not part of the minimum criteria for an ecumenical council, what then would make a council ecumenical, apart from any self-claim of being so?
The existence of Latin patriarchates in the East is of course problematic–both canonically and theologically. Thanks.
W.H.
Off-topic but still an interesting thing to note, ( I stumbled upon this while inquiring into Peter of Spain and Dionysian
mysticism.)
“Does that mean they still accept and promulgate the ancient patristic teaching against contraception?”
From wikipedia;
Surprisingly, one of the most comprehensive recipe books for pre- and post-coital contraception was written by a man who became pope. Peter of Spain, who offered advice on birth control and how to provoke menstruation in his immensely popular Thesaurus Pauperam (Treasure of the Poor), was elected Pope John XXI in 1276 (Riddle, 1992). Many of Peter’s recipes have been found surprisingly effective by contemporary research, and it is believed that women in antiquity had more control over their reproduction than previously believed (Riddle, 1994).
Thank you all for your considered and brotherly discussion.
I am no theologian or historian. I am a Byzantine Catholic by accident of birth. And by that, I mean that I was born to Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans.) As such, reconciling myself to the Catholic faith in it’s fullness begins by joining in communion with my patriarch, the Bishop of Rome.
That is one way of looking at my journey, anyhow.
My point is that I really have no axe to grind either way. So, I intend no aspersion when asking if anyone notices that there seems to be an assumption that Orthodox ecclessiology is, well, orthodox. I think that our gracious host has a few posts describing the need for a clearer Orthodox understanding of it’s own ecclessiology.
And, again, perhaps my background looms too largely. For, certainly, it has come to be seen that one of the greatest impediments to reconciling the “protestant” traditions, as traditions, is knowing who speaks for them. Ecclessiology.
It is an entirely other matter, of course, with Orthodoxy. It is in no way defficient. (sorry if that smarts, my evangelical brothers). Nonetheless, an honest appraisal is quite essential.
Also: Are rank-and-file Westerners more open to compromise than rank-and-file Easterners?(Not suggesting more desire for unity in one direction or the other.)
Also: Don’t forget how important it is to PRAY together!
While all of this high-level discussion is necessary, living our own prayers, as well as those of our brothers, is at least as important if we are to finally find how to be obedient in this thing our Lord desires so much.
“Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.”
So procopius – is it your contention now that there was no understanding of abortifacients in the ancient world (in light of this discovery you present) or no?
What are we to make of the fact that the OCA on its website allows for couples to decide on the use of birth control but does not qualify it to barrier method only? Why is no mention made of “the pill” as still a no-no as it is frequently NOT a contraceptive but rather an abortifacient? It seems like a wise thing to do in light of the popularity of “the pill” – without such direction, doesn’t it stand to reason that these couples who are to “decide for themselves” could then be deciding on abortifacients?
“Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.”
Well, be ignorant no more – they certainly did.
Artificial means of contraception condemned
Gal 5:20; Rev 9:2; Rev 21:8
These three passages condemn “sorcery”. However, the Greek word used is pharmakeia, a word denoting pharmaceutical contraceptives and abortificants.
See also:
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.html
also (via wikipedia):
procopius – so now that your question has been answered that artificial birth controls were there in fact was abortifacient “remedies” back then.
The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of silphium, a powerful abortifacient in the parsley family. Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on the obverse and reverse of coins minted there. – Wiki
Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.
Now you do. Now why isn’t the OCA making it clear that abortifacient ABC is NOT allowed?
You’ll have to ask them that question, just as you’ll have to ask Peter of Spain why his book dedicated to alleviating the medical conditions of the poor included such information.
As far as I can see, the “problem” has certainly been around a very long time.
“just as you’ll have to ask Peter of Spain why his book dedicated to alleviating the medical conditions of the poor included such information.”
To “do ‘A’ just as ‘B’” requires that ‘A’ could be done the same as ‘B’… I can’t go back and ask Peter of Spain about this which is being said of him now… I guess I can write to the OCA’s Metropolitan being that he is alive on the same plane of existence as I.
But at least you are disabused of your ignorance of this heretofor being an issue – in fact “the pill” (what does it cure?) has been with us far longer than pills we call “the pill” have been.
(SS – Your comment #37 was caught in the spam filter. I only noticed it recently.)