Orrologion has posted the original text of the “Twelve Differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches” by Teófilo de Jesús along with excellent responses to each of the twelve points from Fr Alvin Kimel, of Pontifications* fame, who in his extended period of discernment after leaving the Episcopal Church studied the claims of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in great depth.
Some excerpts:
On Primacy. Is it true that the Orthodox Church rejects totally any understanding of ecclesial headship? What about the bishop of a diocese? Does he not wield and embody a divine authority given to him by Christ Jesus? Is he not the head of his community, which precisely is the Church? And when Catholics speak of the Pope as the earthly head of the Church, are they in any way denying that Christ alone is properly head of the Church? When Catholics speak of the primacy of the Pope, are they exalting the Pope above the Episcopate, as if their power and authority derived from him? And are Orthodox theologians incapable of entertaining an authentic primacy within the episcopal college for the bishop of Rome? …
On Conciliarity. The Catholic Church understands the Church precisely as a communion of particular Churches and local dioceses; moreover, the Church as the universal Church is not to be understood as simply the sum or collection of all particular Churches: each diocese is itself a truly catholic body … Catholic ecclesiology is so much more complex and diverse than is sometimes appreciated …
On Original Sin. I’m sure there are differences between Catholic construals of anthropology and Orthodox construals of anthropology (please note the plural); but I do not believe that this is because the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches a forensic imputation of original sin and the Orthodox Church does not. Why do I say this? Because it is not at all clear to me that the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches the *forensic* imputation of Adam’s guilt to humanity. I know that some (many?) Catholic theologians have sometimes taught something like this over the centuries, but the Catholic Church has strained over recent decades to clarify the meaning of Original Sin not as the forensic transfer of Adam’s guilt but as the inheritance of the Adamic condition of real alienation from God–i.e., the absence of sanctifying grace … Important differences on the nature of original exist between St Augustine and magisterial Catholic teaching …
On Liturgical Reform. I agree here that there are important differences between Catholic and Orthodox liturgical praxis at the present time. Sadly, many sectors of the Catholic Church appear to have uncritically embraced the thesis that the Church must adapt her liturgy to the spirit of the modern age. This has been disastrous for Catholic life and spirituality. One does see signs, however, that the insanity is passing.
On Grace and Deification. While perhaps it might have been true at some point in the past that Catholic theologians tended to reduce grace to a created power, this cannot be asserted today. Catholic theologians are quite clear that everything begins with and centers around Uncreated Grace. Catholic theologians do have a problem with some of the Palamite construals of grace and the popular Orthodox rejection of any notion of created grace–they do not see how the Palamite position does not lead to the annihilation of human nature–but this does not mean that Catholic theologians and poets cannot envision an eschatological life as full and vivid as the Orthodox. Surely Dante’s Paradiso may be invoked at this point. But I do acknowledge a difference of homiletical and ascetical emphasis between Catholics and Orthodox on theosis, sanctifying suffering, and the life of the resurrection.
* I was inspired to begin blogging after reading Pontifications, though I am not nearly as erudite and well-spoken as Fr Kimel and some of his interlocutors, both Catholic and Orthodox.
May I address liturgical reform, since that is the stick with which our Orthodox critics so often beat us upside the head?
Once, when I pointed out to an Orthodox critic that his Church was not completely and utterly problem free — as witness EO jurisdictional chaos — he replied breezily, “This too shall pass. An eternal Church can afford to think in terms of centuries, not mere decades.”
Amazing, isn’t it, how this argument applies to problems roiling Orthodoxy but not, apparently, to problems afflicting Catholicism?
The liturgical turmoil that followed VCII has lasted c. 40 years — a mere blip in the cosmic timeline. The turbulence following I Nicaea lasted much longer — and that’s but one example. Just as the Orthodox Church has struggled for decades and even centuries with jurisdictional conflicts and rampant phyletism, so we Catholics have struggled for 40 years with liturgical abuses. In a real sense, to quote from my kids’ beloved Monkey Island computer games: Big Whoop. “An eternal Church can afford to think in terms of centuries, not mere decades.” What’s good for the goose….
In any event, as Father Kimel notes, we are emerging out of the liturgical mess, so that particular pretext for Catholic-bashing really is a nonstarter…..
Diane
Oh by the way…the Orthodox guy who answered me thus breezily has since gone on to Continuing Anglicanism, returned to Orthodoxy, and is now considering the Primitive Baptists. (He has mellowed a ton, too.) This seems to be fairly par for the course for the convert Orthodox I know via the Internet. Meanwhile, most of my Catholic friends — and I — remain happily Catholic. Go figure. ;)
Regarding primacy:
Bishops exist as possessing a grace different then either Priests or Deacons (namely that of ordination). But there’s no such thing as “fourth” thing in the Church, a “grace-ful” (?) stage above the bishop. (Archbishops, metropolitans or patriarchs are not a “fourth” thing: they are rather degrees among bishops, just like arch-priests or protopriests or economs or cross-bearrers are different divisions among the priests; but they do not possess a grace from God that differs from what the others of their own “species” have). But the Pope, on the other hand, has the charism of infallibility, which is said to be essential to or for the Church, so he breaks the algorithm or analogy, so to say, and therefore has to be a “fourth” thing.
Furthermore, no-one gives what he himself does not possess: that’s why priests can’t ordain their bishops (contra “presbyterianism”), or fallible cardinals an infallible Pope. (It’s that simple).
Not simple, Lucian. Simplistic. You demonstrate, over and over again, that you do not know or understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches. And, because you are so convinced you are right, so impervious to correction, you cannot be set straight re your factual errors.
It’s rather depressing. All I can do is pray.
Diane
Lucian,
I will not deny that there are some Catholics who might find a “fourth order” congenial to their ecclesiology. But their view (a sort of extreme ultramontanism, which no Pope is on record as subscribing to) is cartoonish and has never been part of what the Catholic Church teaches about itself.
The Pope does not have what the other bishops lack. When he teaches infallibly (which is not the same as being “infallible”), he does so as president of the episcopal college, not in an individual private capacity. If you are going to insist on referring to an “infallible Pope”, why do you not refer to Orthodoxy as having an “infallible episcopate?” Do you see how silly and misleading that sounds? And yet, I trust you acknowledge that at least in particular circumstances, the episcopate can and has taught infallibly as it did at least through the seven councils Orthodoxy recognizes as ecumenical.
Diane,
Sancta Simplicitas! :-) If God is ‘absolutely simple’, who then am I –a mere mortal– to be more ‘complex’ than my own Lord God and Creator? ;-)
Michael,
When he teaches infallibly he does so as president of the episcopal college, not in an individual private capacity.
no. He does so ex cathedra: council or no council, consent or no consent.
The 20th Ecumenical Council.
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)
Session 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
(Source).
Lucian,
Please read ” The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue” edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper, published by the Newman Press 2006 and “Towards a Papacy in Communion” by Hermann Pottmeyer, Crossroad Publishing, 1998.
I am reading them and I find that the statement you quote is not the definitive one and has a much more nuanced interpretation than you think it does.
You really should read these books. They will give you a far better response to your questions and explain to you the historical and theological background necessary in order to see the issue properly.
Michael has pointed to you the “solution” but you should read these books to see how that “solution” has been arrived at.
Lucian,
You are missing a few important nuances.
1. The Pope can only teach infallibly ex cathedra. It follows then that, when he is not teaching ex cathedra, his teaching does not enjoy the charism of infallibility. So if the Pope is sometimes fallible (when not teaching ex cathedra), it should then follow that word “infallible” cannot be applied to him as a person in any unqualified sense. Significantly, no Catholic formulary describes him as such. Hence insistent characterization of the Pope as “infallible” is is sloppy misrepresentation of Catholic belief at best, and polemic baiting at worst.
2. “Irreformable” is a technical term which in layman’s terms means no more than “cannot be wrong and so in need of correction”. An irreformable definition can still be subject to post facto clarification, amplication, nuance and restatement in new terms.
3. The consent referred to here is post facto consent, i.e. the infallibility of a papal teaching is not subject to subsequent verification by any other organ of the Church. I think it is safe to assume that Catholics and Orthodox differ on this point. But this is not meant to imply, as you seem to be maintaining, that a papal definition can be arbitrarily independent of the previously expressed faith of the bishops (or of the Church as a whole). No Pope has ever, in the almost 2,000 years since Pentecost, presumed to teach infallibly against the considered beliefs of the majority of the bishops in communion with him.
Michael,
no, I wasn’t unaware of these things. Yes, the Fathers of the Council were not absurd: they did allow for the Pope to entertain private opinions and make personal speculations on matters, without these being automatically binding on the Roman Catholic faithful. And they didn’t think that the Pope can’t make a joke once in a while either. :-) And yes, neither side “won” at the First Vatican Council: both were `censored` to a certain extent, that’s true. But what You have said about the Pope needing to speak on behalf of a Council for his teaching to be considerred infallible — that’s simply not true either. (And yes, Catholic theologians are masters of reinterpretation, reclarification and rephrasing).
Lucian. that is not what Michael said. He wrote:
But this is not meant to imply, as you seem to be maintaining, that a papal definition can be arbitrarily independent of the previously expressed faith of the bishops (or of the Church as a whole). No Pope has ever, in the almost 2,000 years since Pentecost, presumed to teach infallibly against the considered beliefs of the majority of the bishops in communion with him.
Please address what Michael actually wrote.
You are simply wrong if you claim the pope can issue a formal dogmatic definition “independent of the previously expressed faith of the bishops (or of the Church as a whole).” The pope does not make stuff up out of thin air.
Lucian,
I never said the Pope needed to speak on behalf of a “Council” for his teaching to be considered infallible. He needs to speak on behalf of the episcopate because, other than through him (or through a council in symphony with him), the episcopate has no means of speaking with one voice. I don’t mean to bash you over the head with this, but you should really acquire the habit of responding to your interlocutor’s actual words rather than to your own tendentious rephrasings.
Next, relating to prior constraints on the infallibility of Papal definitions: during Vatican II, Pope Paul suggested that the Council adopt an old phrase traditionally applied to the Pope’s canonical authority in the Church and give it wider application to all aspects of his primacy. The phrase in question was “uni domino devinctus”, i.e. accountable only to God.
Here is the text of the response of the Theological Commission (essentially the drafting committee for Lumen Gentium) in explaining why the phrase should not be adopted in this wider sense:
“… because it is an over-simplified formula (nimis simplificata). For the Roman pontiff is bound to keep within Revelation itself, the basic structure o fthe Church, the sacraments, the definitions of the first councils, etc. We cannot list them all.”
Obviously, the judgement of the the Theological Commission was not “infallible”, but the Pope acknowledged the validity of the point and his proposal was dropped.
There is some force to your argument that “reinterpretation, reclarification and rephrasing” characterizes the process of dogmatic definition. I submit to you that it has always been so, even at the time of the Councils of the undivided Church.
If Orthodoxy has been free of this particular “vice”, it is because it has progressively abdicated (for a number of reasons) the practice of offering dogmatic definitions. The only exception seems to relate to regional or “pan-Orthodox” conciliar formulae intented to refute Roman “innovations.” These notoriously seem to be reformulated from council to council in response to what might strike Catholics as passing theological and terminological fads.
“Reinterpretation, reclarification and rephrasing” are inescapable aspects of dogmatic definition because of the distinction between a truth and the words used to communicate this truth. Language is, alas, an imperfect mode of communication (which explains in part the continuing importance of analogy, symbolism, and allegory in the transmission of revelation). Words bear multiple meanings, and these change over time. Concepts are better expressed in some languages than others.
The same applies to the theological methodology and reasoning that underpins the wording of a definition. Acceptance of a definitions can be secured independently of the methodology used to express them or the theological reasoning used to reach them. Sometimes dogmatic definitions are reformulated to take account of alternative, yet legitimate theological traditions and language.
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, dogmatic definitions are usually crafted with a residual degree of creative ambiguity so as to allow scrupulous but catholic-minded skeptics to subsribe to them at the time they are issued. Sometimes such compromises allow the mind of the Church to coalesce over an extended period reflexion and continuing communion in a more eirenic atmosphere and so resolve scruples that could not have been otherwise addressed in the heat and tension leading up to the definition. Sometimes such compromises leave open doors that should in retrospect have been closed shut, and this can also lead to a need for reformulation.
This is also why it is always important to read dogmatic definitions in light of the debates that preceeded them, in light of Scripture and the writings of the Fathers, and in light of subsequent explications offered by the magisterium (as in the cathechism, for example).
I have to apologize for the often poor editing in my posts. They are often long and I pour them out as fast as I can to keep pace with the discussion. This leaves ample room for silly typos and artifacts of incomplete corrections. I hope these errors still let my meaning shine through.
There is one aspect of the papacy that can and has been debated. This is the “monarchical” interpretation of the papacy. This interpretation of how papal power/ authority is expressed is relatively recent and reflects the rise of the centralized monarchy/ state as a political power. It could be argued that the papacy/ Vatican has never had as much power and authority as in the recent past, ( going back to the nineteenth century basically).
This view of the papacy as “monarch” was to have been changed because of Vatican II.
e, I think that’s largely a bogeyman. As Lenin famously said, “How many legions has the pope?” ;-)
And, as any Catholic can tell you, no one experiences the papacy as some sort of despotic monarchical tyrannical force (the “Overbearing Dishpot” syndrome). I understand that Protestants (and Protestant converst to Orthodoxy) often fear such a papacy, but it truly does not exist. I’m not sure it ever did.
Personally, I would far rather be “under the pope” than under the Antiochians’ Met. Philip. One priest who recently converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (from the OCA, I believe) reportedly said that he’d always been led to believe the pope was a tyrant. Then he learned how tyrannical Orthodox bishops can be. The pope is a pussycat by comparison. He is far happier under the pope. :D
sorry for typos…am typing between insane-o-deadlines, as always.
I’m referring to the two books mentioned above which do discuss the “monarchical” papacy.
The appointment of bishops, for instance, is now done through the Vatican, for the most part, and not through the conference of bishops in a particular region, ( previously bishops were often selected by national heads of states, ( Gallicanism in France, other variants of this in Germany etc;) and this led to some real problems).
No one is saying the Pope is a tyrant, merely that the “style” of governing is “monarchical” and that bishops often do not have a voice in what is being done.
There can be other styles as the two books mention.
This is why there has been an examination of the “non-monarchical” style of the papacy that existed before the rise of nation-states.
I think that you’re both talking past one another.
But e–appointment of bishops is precisely one of those negotiable things that JPII put out on the table in Orientale Lumen. So, no problema. ;-)
If I’m not mistaken, Eastern Catholic patriarchs already select their own bishops. (I could be wrong about this, but I was pretty certain….)
Also, even in America, I believe the USCCB makes recommendations to the Vatican…and even proposes a short list. (Again, could be muistaken about that.)
In any event, it is soooo negotiable. :D
Did Jesus breathe the Holy Spirit on Peter, and then have him ordain all the others as Apostles and bishops? Did all the ordinations of bishops go through St. Peter and/or the other Popes, in all those previous centuries? A change in doctrine results in a change in practice: “lex orandi, lex credendi” — it’s that easy. (You see, arche means “source” primarily, and not just head or chief). Back in the (g)olden days, it was a plurality of bishops gathered in a synod that ruled the church in matters of dogma and practice. And then it all changed — legitimately, of course; no need to think otherwise…
Lucian, you are confusing praxis with dogma. Nice try, though, friend. ;-)
Where the Latin rite is concerned, the theoretical norm is that the bishop is elected by the senior clergy of the diocese, but in practice, the Popes of the last 200 years have reserved virtually all appointments. This is to protect the episcopate from the pressures of national governments or, in this age, from that of secular society (of course, if you think the Episcopal Church offers a better model…). Election by fellow bishops as in Orthodoxy could have been an alternative, but the Latin rite is too large for this to be a practical choice.
The Pope has a far more limited role in the selection of Eastern rite bishops, though he vets the selection of the heads of the particular Churches.
In any case the system works, and the only ones who seriously argue for a return to clerical election tend to be liberals.
In defence of monarchical government in the Church, let me point out that bishops exercise monarchical authority as do abbots. There are also various types of monarchy, and they don’t all involve absolutism.
Excellent points, Michael.
It may also be noted that we are not the ones who address our bishops as “Master.” ;-)
And, as you say, we orthodox U.S. Catholics would far rather that the pope choose our bishops than that they be chosen by the likes of Richard O’Brien or Cardinal Mahony. As you also say, it works. I am certainly more than happy with our bishop, Peter Jugis. An inspired choice on the Holy Father’s part! :)
Then what I pointed out is correct.
As far as the Vatican selecting the bishops, one can see problems with that approach just as much with local elections.
Some of the bishops appointed by the Vatican have turned out,( to be charitable), to be quite controversial.
It’s an ongoing debate. As concerns the labels “liberal” or “conservative”, there’s an irony if “liberals” want to see an older form of selection and “conservatives” the more recent approach.
As far as a bishop or an abbot having “monarchical” powers..true to some extent but there’s always the appeal to Rome when things get out of hand.
Generally, in the Orthodox Church, from what I’ve seen of the process, bishops are appointed by a patriarch or a metroplitan after consultation with bishops.
Also, the recent election of Metropolitan Jonah, in the OCA, came about at a convention of bishops, clergy and laity. Quite a “democratic” process.
Over-centralization, as with Rome, is just as bad as over-de-centralization, as with the Orthodox, ( who have their own problems with examples of more than one bishop in an area- often due to problems with national identity, philetism).
As there seems to be interest in the matter let me describe the Latin rite process in a bit more detail (and also point out why despite Papal selection, sometimes less than perfect choices are made, as suggests Evagrius).
One of the jobs of the Papal Nuncio in each country is to canvass local clergy and members of the national episcopal conference for suitable candidates, looking for right fits for particular dioceses. He compiles a list of the three best candidates and forwards it to the appropriate Congregation in Rome which ranks them and then sends the list to the Holy Father. Almost always he confirms one of the three, though sometimes he might pick someone he knows personally either from his earlier life as a bishop or who works for the Vatican bureaucracy. Unlike in Orthodoxy, the choice does not have to rest on a monk, though regular clergy (i.e. members of religious orders) are often selected.
The criteria are orthodoxy, scholarship, administrative competence, and pastoral sensitivity. Unfortunately, perfect candidates are rare, and some choices are unfortunate ones. This can happen particularly when it is felt that one of these criteria must trump the others in response to particular challenges a given national Church is facing at a particular time.
One gets the impression that the choices under Paul VI tended to fall on candidates with credentials as good administrators, possibly in response to a number of dioceses facing financial difficulties in the 60s and 70s. This may have led to a failure to confront secular society more courageously, and to a clericalist and insensitive response to sexual abuse, particularly in North America.
On the other hand, Papal selection of the Latin episcopate means that it takes the universality of its calling very seriously which explains why phyletism (while it does appear) is so rare. Phyletism is perhaps more of a problem in some of the Eastern rites, but is mitigated in that both Latin and Eastern bishops participate together in the national and regional synods as well as separately in rite-specific synods.
While I am no liberal in Church matters, I do have a residual fondness for the old elected tradition, and would like to see Rome test local Churches more from time to time by leaving occasional scope for local election. I recognize, however, that this would often lead to a requirement for post facto intervention, either by Rome or neighbouring bishops to prevent the ordination of unsuitable or controversial but otherwise popular candidates. A contested election can all too often lead to messy and scandalous schisms. Orthodoxy seems to have more tolerance for this kind of messiness, but the Latin rite is viscerally allergic to it.
In very rare cases the Pope’s choice is in local eyes so transparently unsuitable it causes sufficient scandal for the Pope to back down. This would probably have happened most recently in Linz if the Pope’s choice as auxiliary bishop had not ruled himself out in light of a public outcry.
“Before”:
— in matters of dogma: the bishops gathered together in a synod to decide what’s right and what’s wrong.
— in matters of ordination of bishops: the bishops gathered together in a synod to decide whom to appoint to that particular see left vacant.
“After”:
— in matters of dogma: the Pope, ex cathedra.
— in matters of ordination of bishops: the Pope.
A change in doctrine regarding the Papacy (Vatican I) lead to changes in practice regarding the role of the Pope: “lex orandi, lex credendi”. — Still not clear enough? (Do I really need to spell it out any clearer than that?)
Lucian,
You’re simplifying to the point of exaggerated caricature.
Please take a look at how all this was done in the Orthodox church-
Before, the Emperor called a synod to decide questions and often used pressure to decide things.
Before, the Emperor used great pressure to appoint the bishops he wanted.
Read Runciman’s The Great Church in Captivity for how the Patriarchy of Constantinople became a plaything of the Ottomans.
Look at Russian history concerning the influence of the State on Church governance. I would suspect the same occured in other Slavic countries/ nationalities.
It must be granted that, at present, the situation is a bit better with a government meddling a little less evident but that’s only recently.
Friend,
I need look no further than to the 50 years of communism in my own country. :-) – And do You wanna hear something really funny? Despite all of the communists, tsars, Turks, and emperors, our little religion looks pretty much like it was before. — How’s Yours doing, BTW? :-)
Diane
if you remember, we have debated robustly already here in the matter of electing bishops. I was – and still am – in favour at least in principle. You and others used our depressing experience in recent decades as an argument against, as you do here. I agree with you entirely that it is entirely negotiable – and I agree too that in the short term many results would not be pretty, given our current situation of doctrinal confusion; a situation which which remains parlous, although it is improving visibly even as we debate.
However, it is my conviction that our present woes are most often consequences of the weaknesses of the pre-Vatican II status quo. For example, it seems clear to me that the liturgical chaos of the seventies – still with us alas – is a direct consequence of a wrong-headed take on the scholastic stress on matter and form, and the ex-opere operato principle. Father X has been told that if he pronounces the “magic words” correctly, then he confects the sacrament, and that is what matters. So when he is freed from the rubrical cage he grew up with, the freedom goes to his head. He does what he likes – or what Sister Y or whoever is in charge of the liturgy team likes – with the texts and actions of the liturgy, so long as he does not mess with the magic. (I know some priests went further, but most did not.)
Now, it is to come to the point, to the bishops’ responsibility for the doctrinal chaos prevalent still in much of our preaching and catechesis. Most bishops are and were orthodox. The few that were not have done terrible damage, but I believe more still was done by the far greater number who, while perfectly orthodox, did little or nothing in the face of widespread rebellion and almost ubiquitous confusion to TEACH THEIR FLOCKS with serene clarity and courage, and to correct in a timely manner at least the more egregious abuses.
Why was this? As Michaël states (although he understates the case: among other things, it began before Paul VI and it carried on well beyond his reign) their quality as teachers of the faith was (and still is in many places and circumstances) in practice well down the list of the nuncios’ desiderata. Chosen because they appeared good administrators, or because they were part of the clique currently in power, most Latin rite bishops are loathe to involve themselves in doctrinal matters. To come finally to my main point, another huge factor in this state of affairs was the prevalence of ultra-montanism. Doctrine was the province of the Roman authorities. A generation of bishops appointed because of their compliance, when they learnt that Rome had put away the big stick, were compliant to their new masters: the pseudo-theologians currently in vogue, the pseudo democratic institutions burgeoning within their dioceses, the media. It never occurred to them that their new-found unsupervised responsibility within their own dioceses, and collegial responsibility for the Church at local, national and international level, made it incumbent upon them to carry out first and foremost the responsibility which their episcopal ordination presented as paramount: to teach and defend the Faith delivered to the Apostles whose successors they are.
Thank God the situation is changing rapidly for the better now, and the present Pope has continued and accelerated the progress made by his successor (although the progress remains patchy and there continue to be lapses). However, let us not forget that the Church, in Europe especially but also – alas – in most of the advanced world, is shrinking rapidly. In my native UK, for example, it is foreseeable that in a generation only a tiny remnant will remain. In practice this will mean that the “cultural Catholics”, those who participate in the life of the Church because of a quasi-tribal self-identification having little if any doctrinal content, will have fallen away. Those who remain will be those who know something about Catholic doctrine and consent at least to the essentials thereof. I am far from rejoicing unequivocally at this. I admire the Greek Orthodox church when I see how the vast majority of Greeks, however ignorant of their Faith and lukewarm in their practice, identify themselves as Orthodox Christians and know what this means to an extent now unimaginable in my native UK, for example, or in France where I ministered for many years.
Now, when the Catholic Church is reconfigured as a community of believers who know what they believe, know why they believe it and have adhered to it despite a very secular society’s pressure to dissuade them, do we really think that they would make a worse job of choosing their bishops than does the Vatican bureaucracy?
Fr. Paul,
While I largely agree with your sentiments, I wonder if you might not be at some risk of looking at the medieval and ancient “electoral” practice with rose tinted glasses. The choice of bishops was never democratic, and the electoral process was always restricted and highly qualified. Indeed, the Apostolic ideal was that a bishop should choose his own successor.
Democratic election, even with a franchise restricted to the regular churchgoers, would in practice be a radical innovation with a largely unpredictable impact. I am not ready to go down the congregationalist route just yet, but I might be willing to consider more modest experiments such as having a diocean lay/clerical committee winnow down a somewhat expanded list of candidates offered by the Nuncio for consideration.
But as Diane has mentioned, and as Lucian still refuses to internalize, these are all maters of canonical praxis where the key issues in substantive controversy are clearly not doctrinal. Popes have reserved Latin episcopal appointments to themselves on purely practical grounds and on the authority the bishops have vested in them as the main organ for the elaboration and implementation of canon law in the Latin rite. It has nothing to do with their universal primacy, else the same rules would apply in the Eastern rites as well.
as Lucian still refuses to internalize, these are all maters of canonical praxis [and] are clearly not doctrinal
Yes. And praxis reflects what? It reflects doctrine, does it not? And the Pope being infallible when speaking ex cathedra is dogma, is it not? — As You said, Michael, this custom is some 200 yrs old… about the same time as Vatican I, which took place some 150 yrs ago: … don’t You find that in the least bit interesting?
It has nothing to do with their universal primacy, else the same rules would apply in the Eastern rites as well.
Ever heard of the term “compromise”? Or “hybridization”?
Indeed, the Apostolic ideal was that a bishop should choose his own successor.
Oh, really, since when? Since the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions? Since the Didache and Teaching of the Twelve Apostles?
Praxis reflects doctrine and it rests on doctrine. Your mirror reflects your image, and your chair supports your weight. By your reasoning (well, not just yours; I have heard this argument before) you are the mirror and are of one substance with your chair.
“…don’t You find that in the least bit interesting?” Not particularly.
There is a link, but one doesn’t have to dig for doctrinal causal conspiracies to find it. Papal Primacy and canonical authority, as well as the moral autonomy of the Church in relation to civil society, had been under consistent attack in powerful circles (the Enlightment, the absolutist state, liberal revolution) for some time. By universalizing reservation of canonical appointments, Rome was able to undermine the legitimacy of political interference in Church affairs. Vatican I served to defintively put the kabosh to Gallicanism and other Western manifestations of phyletism which had served as an ideological lever through which to exercise state interference in ecclesial affairs.
They were thus both responses to the same general phenomenon. But it doesn’t follow that the earlier change in ecclesial praxis (which preceded the definition) must have been the product of the subsequent doctrinal definition. Just because Romanides says it is so doesn’t make it so.
I frankly cannot think of a time in the Western Church when the Pope’s authority to reserve an appoinment was legally contested in theory (though obviously it was often contested in practice). What changed circa 1820, was that reservation became the norm.
Absent a contextual understanding of modern history, your analysis might certainly be a superficially plausible one and, as it seems to comfort your a priori assumptions and prejudices, that seems to be enough to establish its truth in your eyes. Unfortunately, I don’t share your assumptions and prejudices (though obviously I am subject to my own), and intellectual scruples would in any case prevent me from adopting such a facile understanding of causality.
Perhaps you might find your notions less simply and conclusively obvious if you invested more time and effort subjecting them to critical reflexion, and less time basking in the self-confessed brilliance of your insights. ;-)
“Indeed, the Apostolic ideal was that a bishop should choose his own successor.
“Oh, really, since when? Since the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions? Since the Didache and Teaching of the Twelve Apostles?”
Once having founded a Church, and upon moving on to their next mission, did the Apostles designate a local leader or did they take a straw poll?
There are good practical reasons why this ideal did not become the norm once the Apotsles had left the scene. Nevertheless, the principle continues in vestigial form in the process of episcopal vetting and co-ordination (though this serves other, mainly sacramental, purposes as well).
Just because Romanides says it is so doesn’t make it so.
I did read Romanides in my life, Father, but I didn’t got this idea from him. (I got it from myself, by simply looking at reality). — Sorry to disappoint. :-\
What You’re saying is true: there are down-to-earth things which led to the two things, but that does not mean that the two things are not connected: they most obviously are. The doctrine and praxis of the Roman Catholic Church changed (or tweaked) in *reaction* to a certain situation (as it did during the *counter*-reformation).
And I honestly don’t understand Your (religion’s) very distorted view of: “It’s da state! Boo! Run for your lives!” Seriously, Father, is that how they did things in the Old Covenant? Or in the Ecumenical era? Or in the first 300 yrs, when things were more gruesome than even in the post-Enlightment era!?
Obviously, it directly and logically follows from here that the other sister Christian Churches (which shan’t be named here), and who experienced neither the blessings of the Reformation, nor the splendor of the glorious Enlightment, didn’t have the need to perform such little tweaks, changes and small modifications to either their faith or their practice.
Michael,
Apostles are Apostles; bishops are bishops. (And yes, they did take a straw-poll when they appointed Matthias, because Judas was too busy hanging himself, and forgot to appoint a direct succesor).
You don’t need more than one Apostle to appoint a bishop, just like You don’t need more than one bishop to appoint priests and deacons; but You *DO* need a *plurality* of bishops to appoint a bishop. — otherwise imagine what would happen if one bishop falls into heresy: he could start basically all by himself a whole new church! — That’s why You need plurality and unity and consensus in such matters.
Actually, I think Michael’s observations are pretty hillarious, since the Pope neither appooints his own successor, nor does any bishop do as such; and furthermore, … doesn’t the college of cardinals actually vote who the future Pope is goinf to be, and there even has to be a majority of two thirds I think… prety parliamentary, if You ask me… :-) Not quite the same as a poll straw, but not far from it either… :)
Your mocking tone isn’t helpful, Lucian. Get your act together or I’ll have to moderate all of your comments from now on.
Lucian,
“You don’t need more than one Apostle to appoint a bishop, just like You don’t need more than one bishop to appoint priests and deacons; but You *DO* need a *plurality* of bishops to appoint a bishop. — otherwise imagine what would happen if one bishop falls into heresy: he could start basically all by himself a whole new church! — That’s why You need plurality and unity and consensus in such matters.”
I cannot presume to speak for Orthodoxy, but according to Catholic sacramental theology you do not need a plurality of bishops for a valid ordination to the episcopate. One bishop suffices. The requirement for three “or at least two” is a matter of canon law, not doctrine.
“Actually, I think Michael’s observations are pretty hillarious,”
I am pleased to at least serve as a source of entertainment.
“since the Pope neither appooints his own successor, nor does any bishop do as such;”
Actually, it is an established and explicit principle of canon law in the West that the Pope can appoint his successor, if he so determines. The specific selection process currently in force was, in any case instituted by the Pope and has been periodically ammended by the Pope, at least twice in my life time.
“and furthermore, … doesn’t the college of cardinals actually vote who the future Pope is goinf to be, and there even has to be a majority of two thirds I think… prety parliamentary, if You ask me… :-) Not quite the same as a poll straw, but not far from it either… :)”
Two thirds +1 actually. Keep in mind that all the cardinals are chosen by the Pope, their specific voting rites (or not) are decided by the Pope, and the procedure of election is determined by the Pope. John XXIII’s will specifically asked that Cardinal Montini be elected as his successor, while still allowing the cardinals to pick another. They complied.
I find it ironic given your predisposition to find papal authoritarianism under every Catholic bed that you should choose to deny a rather incontrovertible example. :-)
Canon law and doctrine go hand in hand: I said You changed both things in tandem. Ordination is one of the sacraments: You don’t just change apostolic tradition. (Otherwise You’re no better than the Protestants, the only difference being that while they take things in one direction You go the other).
For clarification, now that You made me curious: can the Pope actually impose his succesor? And if yes: since when? (I mean, making suggestions is not something unheard of, so if that’s all there is, that’s fine, I guess).
Irenaeus,
my tone wasn’t “mocking”, I was just being light-hearted (or eirenic) — key word being “was”; now I feel like that guy in Kafka’s “Trial”. :-)
Uh huh. Well, it’s possible that your “light-heartedness” in calling your opponent’s position “hilarious” might, just might, be interpreted by some (including the owner of this blog) as a kind of mockery not befitting the conduct of a Christian. You’ve been warned.
Lucian, we love you, kiddo. It just gets a bit frustrating sometimes dealing with some of your arguments, which seem to be coming out of left field. :-)
But, as I’ve said before, I’m actually quite fond of you. You sort of grow on one, LOL.
And, if it makes you feel any better, I’ve been told I’m out of line (online) on more than one occasion. ;-)
Perhaps the discussion could benefit from actual quotes of canon law rather than interpretations of said law.
But that might take up another post.
Lucian,
“Canon law and doctrine go hand in hand: I said You changed both things in tandem. Ordination is one of the sacraments: You don’t just change apostolic tradition. (Otherwise You’re no better than the Protestants, the only difference being that while they take things in one direction You go the other).”
Without wishing to overstate the matter, my impression is that this not an issue on which Catholics and Orthodox see eye-to-eye. The relationship between canon law and doctrine would be better described, from the Catholic perspective, as canon law operating within more or less broad or narrow parameters in compliance with doctrine.
Canon law is mutable, doctrine is eternal. Doctrine is binding, canon law merely sets rules encapsulating general best practices.
This is the background to the Catholic distinction between valid and licit acts. Licit acts conform to canon law, illicit ones do not. Nevertheless, a sacramentally qualified individual may perform an illicit act that remains valid if performed with minimally proper form and intention.
You might also note that Catholics do not treat provisions of canon law set by an ecumenical council as inherently more or less binding than those issued by any other general council or competent authority. Only the explicit doctrinal definitions of ecumenical councils have binding force. Anathemas, exhortations and legal provisions stand until amended, repealed, qualified or suspended by the Pope or another general (i.e. not necessarily ecumenical) council.
“For clarification, now that You made me curious: can the Pope actually impose his succesor? And if yes: since when? (I mean, making suggestions is not something unheard of, so if that’s all there is, that’s fine, I guess).”
Absolutely. When I get home, I will find some explicit references that spell this out. Full authority in canon law for the Latin rite has been vested in the bishop of Rome by his brother bishops. This includes legal provisions for the selection of bishops. The Pope holds final appelate authority, and is free to amend or suspend any provisions of Western canon law (within doctrinal limits) for the good of the Church. His own acts cannot be judged by anyone without his consent. He doesn’t enjoy such authority by divine right, however, as it is of human origin. This is simply the way the Latin bishops decided they wanted it, for a number of reasons.
Such overarching episcopal authority over canon law isn’t found anywhere in Eastern Orthodoxy, but is not unprecedented in the pre-Chalcedonian Church. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria enjoyed similar canonical authority within his own patriarchate until the 19th century.
Conceivably, a more collegial canonical structure could be substituted in the West, but the current one was consciously chosen and remains largely consensual. Orthodox should, if they pretend to consistency, accept how Latin bishops have chosen to run their own affairs. This does not, however, serve as a model for how the Pope’s universal primacy should be exercised outside his Patriarchy. For that, look to the canons of the Council of Sardica (A.D. 343-344).
Michael,
in times of persecutions, a single bishop might ordain another (if it’s hard for more to be physically present), but he has to at least inform the others in the area, and get their consent.
also, a Metropolitan (and the Pope is more than that) can do the same, but the same rule applies: he has to inform the others and get their consent.
but in general, it’s the synod that appoints a bishop to a see, and there have to be at least three present.
[What I presented above is found all over the canons: starting even with the Apostolic ones].
In any case, can/could/would You please show me where this whole “one bishop is enough to ordain another bishop” idea first came from? (Is it a scholastical thing? Or does it have its roots somewhere in the synods? If so, which synods exactly?)
Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII)
Section 2. Election and Ordination of Bishops: Form of Service on Sundays
Concerning Ordinations.
IV. Wherefore we, the twelve apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge those divine constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being present with us Paul the chosen vessel, our fellow-apostle, and James the bishop, and the rest of the presbyters, and the seven deacons.
In the first place, therefore, I Peter say, that a bishop to be ordained is to be, as we have already, all of us, appointed, unblameable in all things, a select person, chosen by the whole people, who, when he is named and approved, let the people assemble, with the presbytery and bishops that are present, on the Lord’s day, and let them give their consent. And let the principal of the bishops ask the presbytery and people whether this be the person whom they desire for their ruler. And if they give their consent, let him ask further whether he has a good testimony from all men as to his worthiness for so great and glorious an authority; whether all things relating to his piety towards God be right; whether justice towards men has been observed by him; whether the affairs of his family have been well ordered by him; whether he has been unblameable in the course of his life. And if all the assembly together do according to truth, and not according to prejudice, witness that he is such a one, let them the third time, as before God the Judge, and Christ, the Holy Ghost being also present, as well as all the holy and ministering spirits, ask again whether he be truly worthy of this ministry, that so „in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.“ (Matthew 18:16) And if they agree the third time that he is worthy, let them all be demanded their vote; and when they all give it willingly, let them be heard. And silence being made, let one of the principal bishops, together with two others, stand near to the altar, the rest of the bishops and presbyters praying silently, and the deacons holding the divine Gospels open upon the head of him that is to be ordained, and say to God thus :— [The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Bishop.]
—————
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles.
XLVII .1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.
2. A presbyter by one bishop, as also a deacon, and the rest of the clergy.
—————
First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)
Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
—————
All of the subsequent Ecumenical Coucils upheld all the decisions, dogmas, and canons of the previous ones.
It seems I may have to retract regarding the Pope selecting his successor in that this is not the apparent consensus opinion of canonists. Prominently, GH Joyce wrote:.
“The electoral college of cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event of his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a consistorial allocution.
“It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope — Benedict II (530) — who meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the Church’s canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for the needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he regards as fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way the election of Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the action of the cardinals. The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in which the subsequent election shall be carried out, determining the composition of the electoral college, and the conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the result of a series of enactments on this subject.”
This contradicts what I read elsewhere (I am still looking for the citation), but the contradiction may be more apparent than real given the precedents Joyce cites. Benedict presumably felt he had the authority to do so, but opted not to for the good of the Church. Also Joyce appears to rest the Pope’s inhibition on the matter on contemporary practice and the ancient rights of the college of cardinals, without discussing how these might be consciously abridged by a Pontiff. Be that as it may, I am now less confident in my assertion.
Another canonist, WHW Fanning wrote as follows:
“It has sometimes been said that in the earlier ages popes have appointed their successors in the pontificate. Thus, St. Peter is said to have so chosen Clement I. The authority on which the statement rests is now generally acknowledged to be apocryphal. Boniface II chose Vigilius for his successor in 531, but later repented and publicly withdrew the nomination. Baronius (H.E., ann. 1085, 1087) states that Gregory VII in 1085 elected Victor III as his successor; that Victor in like manner chose Urban II in 1086, and Urban elected Paschal II in 1099. It is to be noted that the canon “Si Transitus” in the “Corpus Juris” (can. “Si Tranc.”, 10, dist. 70) seems to imply the right of the pope to nominate his successor, since its opening words are: “If the death of the pope take place so unexpectedly that he cannot make a decree concerning the election of his successor, etc.”. However, these so-called elections were never more than nominations, for none of the persons thus named ever presumed to declare themselves popes before the ratification of the legal electors had been obtained.
It is certain at present, that, according to ecclesiastical law, the pope cannot elect his successor. It is commonly held also that he is prohibited from doing so by Divine law, though the contrary has also been held by canonists.”
So this remains a murky though essentially hypothetical area.
The Apostolic Constitution issued by John Paul II which currently governs the electoral process, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, does state:
“It is in fact an indisputable principle that the Roman Pontiff has the right to define and adapt to changing times the manner of designating the person called to assume the Petrine succession in the Roman See.”
Nevertheless, the constitution seem to presuppose that this designation is by election.
Regarding the Pope’s authority with respect to the governance of the Western Church, here are the relevant passages from the Code of Canon Law:
PART II
SECTION I.
THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 330 – 367)
CHAPTER I.
THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
Can. 330 Just as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves.
Art. 1.
THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Finally, Lucian asked for a citation regarding unilateral episcopal ordination. The catechism (1573) states that “The essential rite of the sacrement of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop’s [n.b. singular] imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop’s specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.”
So much for the doctrinal point. In terms of praxis, however, the catechism (1559), citing Lumen Gentium, also notes that “the character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church’s ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.”
According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. However, the bishops of South America have the privilege of being consecrated by one bishop assisted by two or three priests, if it prove difficult for them to obtain three bishops (Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII “Trans Oceanum”, 18 April 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis”, 1896-97, XXIX, 659).”
I think we are all familiar with the illicit but valid origin of episcopal orders within the SSPX. Episcopal ordination by a single bishop also occurred from time to time in the catacomb church under communist rule.
Thanks, Michael, for all that effort. (I hope You didn’t have to type it all by hand…) :-(
Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. (except in cases where the objective circumstances don’t allow it: South America, communist rule, etc).
That’s what I was suspecting… so I assume then that it is a scholastical thing, which can (and sometimes does) lead to some loose ends (wandering [straying?] bishops, etc) …
I guess it’s almost the same in Orthodoxy, only that if ordination to the bishoprick is done unilaterally, by a single bishop, and then it fails to be accepted by the rest of the bishops in that area, it becomes null and void, and then another one is, or has to be appointed, by the local synod. (So our algorithm doesn’t allow for loose ends such as wandering or straying bishops). In any case, in Orthodox theology, a bishop is always the bishop of a certain diocese… he can’t just `float around in space`, as it were…
Lucian,
The citation re South America is over 100 years old. I am sure the situation there has improved since, so this special legal provision may no longer apply. I don’t see that there is anything “scholastic” here, but I may be unfamiliar with your use of the term.
I think you may be overstating the difference with contemporary Orthodoxy. What happens when an Orthodox bishop resigns or converts, for example? Sacramentally, he still remains a bishop even though, canonically, he “just floats around in space”. There is a danger in trying to compare good and proper Orthodox legal practice with what amounts to an illegal abuse of sacramental authority for which the penalty in the Western Church is usually excommunication (which, of course, has little effect among schismatics). Also Catholic bishops, who are licitly ordained are always ordained to a certain place even when (as is common with auxiliary bishops) the “certain place” is a see that has remained essentially vacant for centuries (in North Africa, for example).
And yes, unilateral ordination can lead to the nuisance of vagrante bishops, but the existence of a number of schismatic groups means they can often find more than one bishop to ordain them in any case, so this is not a problem strictly related to unilateral ordination.
Note also that St. Patrick unilaterally ordained his own episcopate in Ireland, and even in the East, St. Athanasius seems to have unilaterally ordained orthodox bishops in the dioceses of his Arian opponents.
What happens when an Orthodox bishop resigns or converts, for example?
He ceises being a bishop (as far as we’re concerned).
“In any case, in Orthodox theology, a bishop is always the bishop of a certain diocese… he can’t just `float around in space`, as it were…”
Even if there’s no one there, ( Metropolitan John of Pergamum)?
Lucian,
Let us consider a concrete and unambiguous Orthodox case. When Photius assumed the patriarchal chair in 858, he was ordained a bishop, was he not?
When St. Ignatius reoccupied the patriarchal throne in 867 was he reordained?
And after St Ignatius’ death, when Photius was again elected in 877 (and this time recognized by Rome) was he ordained to the episcopate a second time?
If you think through the implications, you will see that in Orthodoxy as in Catholicism episcopal ordination is permanent, and a bishop remains a bishop sacramentally even if he loses his see or is otherwise inhibitted.
The difference, as I see it, lies in that Orthodoxy considers a non-serving bishop incapable of performing valid sacramental acts, whereas Catholicism concedes that such acts, while illicit, retain their sacramental validity.
We don’t rebaptize and we don’t reordain. (Yes, You perceive the difference correctly: we don’t like wise-guys and impertinent behaviour).
We have drifted off topic, passed the 50 post mark, and are now sadly reduced to agreeing with each other. Perhaps our kind host might consider baiting us with something else on which to gnash our teeth. ;-)
Quite right, Michael. I have a new piece of bait I’ll throw your way soon. :-)
[…] “Twelve Differences” This comes to us from Vivificat! via Orrologion via Eirenikon. […]