Available February, 2010
In the second edition of this major work, Dominican theologian Aidan Nichols provides a systematic account of the origins, development and recent history—now updated—of the relations between Rome and all separated Eastern Christians.
By the end of the twentieth century, events in Eastern Europe, notably the conflict between the Orthodox and Uniate Churches in the Ukraine and Rumania, the tension between Rome and the Moscow patriarchate over the re-establishment of a Catholic hierarchy in the Russian Federation, and the civil war in the then federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, brought attention to the fragile relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which once had been two parts of a single Communion. At the start of the twenty-first century, in the pontificate of Benedict XVI, a papal visit to Russia—at the symbolic level, a major step forward in the ‘healing of memories’— appears at last a realistic hope.
In addition, the schisms separating Rome from the two lesser, but no less interesting, Christian families, the Assyrian (Nestorian) and Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite) Churches, are examined. The book also contains an account of the origins and present condition of the Eastern Catholic Churches—a deeper knowledge of which, by their Western brethren, was called for at the Second Vatican Council as well as by subsequent synods and popes.
Providing both historical and theological explanations of these divisions, this illuminating and thought-provoking book chronicles the recent steps taken to mend them in the Ecumenical Movement and offers a realistic assessment of the difficulties (theological and political) which any reunion would experience.
Aidan Nichols OP is the John Paul II Memorial Lecturer in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford, and a member of the Dominican community at Blackfriars, Cambridge. He is the author of many books on theology and spirituality including Lovely Like Jerusalem, Looking at the Liturgy, and Hopkins: A Theologian’s Poet.
I have no comment to offer on the good Brother’s history, not having read it, but I thought I would just call attention to the rather amusing intervention on Dr. Gilbert’s site briefly provoked by one Orthodoxlurker re historical epistemology.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/chains-of-st-peter/
I had always wondered how Dr. Gilbert kept his site so free of trollish behaviour, and now I know… :-)
Michaël
Oh. My. Gosh. Boiling bones. I’d never heard that one before. At first I thought the guy was kidding. Mamma mia!!!
I must say, Protestant fundamentalist anti-Catholicism can get pretty lurid and colorful, but it cannot hold a candle to Orthodox anti-Catholicism. LOL!
Yes Diane that is somewhat true. The same can also be said of the sedevacantist Roman Catholics, and sadly even some of the Traditional Latin Mass Roman Catholic faithful who often make less than favorable remarks about the Orthodox, but hey, they often make the same less than favorable remarks about Novus Ordo Roman Catholics. At least they spew their venom and hatred consistently. LOL.
There is some truth to that, especially on the Internet. I had personally never encountered an anti-Orthodox Catholic until I began to meet them on websites. Previous to that I would have been skeptical if anyone had claimed they existed. That said, sedevacantists may be Latin Christians, but they aren’t Catholic. This isn’t to say that anti-Orthodox Catholics don’t actually exist, but they really are very rare outside the Ukraine or the former Yugoslavia.
Orthodoxlurker, however, is hard to take seriously. There is something deeply pathological and sad about that level of hate-filled credulity.
I am much more concerned with the types of Fr. Robert “I’m not anti-Catholic” Hart of the Continuum.
Michaël
no anti-Orthodox Catholics? Come to Greece…
Yesterday, after I preached on ecumenism (mainly telling the foreign Catholics who are a huge majority among RCs here that it might be a good idea if they learnt something about the faith of 95% of their neighbours) a lady came to see me. She told me that she did not want to be united with the Orthodox; was this a sin? I replied – as tactfully as I could – that perhaps it was, giving the Lord’s expressed wishes on te question. After an hour she left, unconverted…
Admitedly the lady in question is somewhat…er…eccentric. But I have the feeling that in her eccentricty she is simply expressing honestly the unavowed feeling of most Catholics in Greece. Admittedly they have suffered much from bigotry and discrimination. When told that perhaps they should move on, they usually manifest quite unambiguously that bygones, for them, are not bygones at all.
Fr. Paul,
I wish no disrespect to your work, but there aren’t really many Catholics of any variety in Greece. I only mentioned Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia because they have a large enough critical mass of Catholics from which to make meaningful generalizations. Also, not wanting communion with Orthodoxy is not necessarily the functional counterpart of gleefully believing and spreading hateful canards about Catholics or Catholicism.
I would say the Croatian Roman Catholics are no “fan” of Orthodoxy, but, the Serbs feel the same as they do about Roman Catholicism.
Michaël
there are about 50,000 native Greek Catholics, now swamped by about 6 Catholic immigrants for each one of them. This may not be a critical mass for you, but I assure you that I am not making unmeaningful generalisations. Yes, the Orthodox canards are often more hateful and more ignorant, but I think it is good to do good to those who persecute us, and do good to those who despitefully use us (though I never pretend it is easy).
her,
I don’t disagree at all, and readily admit that Catholics can sin in this matter as well, both in Greece and elsewhere.
I also agree that good must be returned for evil.
Turning a practical apologetic response, however, I would see three classes of anti-Catholic Orthodox:
1. The merely ignorant who unwittingly hold to unfortunate untruths about Catholicism, but who are open to being corrected;
2. Those who are both ignorant and hostile (the latter possibly for historical reasons);
3. The positively hateful.
I am not really sure the first class should really be considered “anti-Catholic” as such. The third is largely beyond reasoned discourse; our only hope is to see them not replaced as they die out (and some of them are yet quite young).
It is the second class (in which I would include most anti-ecumenists) that offers the most interesting challenge. But it certainly is a challenge, notably because putting the Catholic case to them requires that they unlearn much of what they think they already know about Catholicism.
Quoting from authoritative papal or conciliar documents is often not enough, as the false notions these people hold often rest on genuine dogmatic snippets, though usually taken out of context or wrongly interpreted. When I try to point out such limitations I am made to feel disingenuous or unrepresentative of what Catholics “really” believe or Catholicism “really” teaches. It doesn’t help, of course, that in the background some speculative Catholic theologian at some point in the past can be found to have written almost anything at odds with what the magisterium actually teaches.
And all this is just to get in the front door, for it is by no means assured that to know Rome is to love it or agree with it. I would be happy enough, however, for the Church to be merely disliked for what it really is or teaches.
If “Orthodoxlurker” is the one in the same that I have encountered on the internet, then…it makes alot of sense (not his views, but the attitude he projects).
I, and many other Orthodox in the US, don’t have any real cultural conflicts with Catholicism (there were a few incidents but nothing on a national scale). I think that’s the difference between Orthodox-Catholic fighting in culturally religious countries and those same issues in secularized nations. That is why I find it strange when converts like myself espouse anti-Catholic sentiments…where’s the beef? I also wasn’t an anti-Catholic Christian (or much of a Christian at all) before I was Orthodox–and those facts just add to my confusion, I bet.
It’s interesting living in a cosmopolitan, pluralistic society. There’s been no government religion creating cultural tensions and conflicts, no national religious rebellions/causes, but we prefer to make them up anyway, apparently.
I would offer one reason as to why Roman Catholic and Orthodox relations do not enter into great cultural conflict in America. I believe conflict is minimalized because America was and somewhat still is a Protestant religious society. Protestantism once completely imbedded and inculturated almost all of secular American society. I do not see Roman Catholics and Orthodox as enemies, but as the old proverb goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have for the greater part of American history been considered cults or sectarian religious bodies because they were such small (Orthodox) or counter cultural segments (Orthodox and Roman Catholicism) of the greater society around them. Rome tried to rectify this with Vatican II. Some Orthodox believe relations were better between Roman Catholics and Orthodox hierarchy and laity before Vatican II. I will cite one example I know of from the Russian Church Abroad because they are known for taking a strong stand against ecuminism: When Holy Trinity Cathedral was consecrated in Jordanville, New York the local Roman Catholic bishop was seated in a place of honor on the right choir stall and then at the Abbot’s table in the refectory. This would not be done there today. Many Orthodox in Jordanville were furious when the former Metropolitan of the O.C.A. was given permission, after the union with Moscow, to serve a memorial service for the repose of Metropolitan and Abott Laurus’ soul, and the O.C.A. are Orthodox.(Sad but true. I know because I was there.)
I am by no means an expert on Vatican II and do not pretend to be. That being said, one of my profs. went into this subject a little bit today in Dogmatic Theology. He believes Vatican II intensified the differences which exist between Roman Catholics and Orthodox in America, and also allowed the American Roman Catholic Church to become far more inculturated then the Orthodox. However he was sidetracked when he said this and did not give specifics, but he no doubt could as a former Byzantine Catholic priest. I
Subdeacon Joseph,
I am just curious as to what your prof found to be so divisive about Vatican II apart from the way that it has been carried out (mostly liturgical problems, facing the people, happy clappy masses, plainer vestments, “happy are they” ((which, by the way, is on the way out with the new translation of the mass)), etc.)
From what I read, and I read most of the council itself, and understand, Vatican II, at least theologically tended to actually borrow from the east more than the west. John Paul II’s pontificate and the resulting codification of Eastern Canon Law shows this in one sense, and that many more RC parishes are borrowing traditional Byzantine style iconography shows this somewhat, and Benedict XVI’s theology, especially the recent treatise on St. Symeon the New Theologian speak to this fact.
It seems to me that much of what Orthodox, of whom I am one, find wrong with Vatican II is more of the irreligiousness and dumbing down of the mass. Still, one has to think about why they did it? Was it really because the liberals won out, or as some have presented, that they truly were attempting to return to older sources than Trent, and that included replacing the Latin Rite (now extraordinary form) with the Novus Ordo, which, at least in its Latin form, seems to match with scholarship about the older Roman liturgy prior to its codification at Trent. But, alas, I have not read up on that aspect very well. Perhaps someone can help me here with the history.
If my personal anecdote about the attitude to Orthodox of Catholics in Greece has any wider application, it is that cultural, historical and political factors play a more important role than theological ones in perpetuating hostility, contempt and (occasionally) real hatred directed against “the other side”.
In particular, perceived “rapports de force” are decisive I think. Relatively oppressed minorities within a culture are likely to be prone to simmering resentments, rather than to outright hatred – since it is difficult to hate most of the people you frequent day by day. Thus the attitude of the Greek Catholics I talked about is but a more striking case of the same attitude that affects English Catholics like myself with regard to Anglicans, for example. That distrust and suspicion in the latter case has died down in recent years is, alas, as much a result of spreading indifferentism and loss of cultural identity among the Catholic population as it is of any spiritual and doctrinal rapprochement.
Where things heat up is in the case of countries and peoples considered collectively. A national culture almost wholly tied up with a religious identity which is a minority one in a supra-national context is fertile soil for hatreds masking as religious zeal. When the people or nation in question have had their freedeom and indeed their very identity menaced historically, then things can get nasty.
Greece, with a population of only 12 million and an inflated sense of its cultural importance, surrounded and threatened in the past by Catholic and Muslim powers with designs on its territory, then occupied for 400 years, is a case in point. The underlying fear is of being absorbed by a much larger and culturally agressive Western europe haunts the Greek psyche. The threat is identified more or less conscioulsy with Catholicism, and then (worse still) a Papist-Protestant hydra represented by the forces of ecumenism and the EU. Serbia is another case, made more volatile by the fact that inter-confessional violence is a phenomenon in the much more recent past. If the Serbs were in the international spotlight above all as perpetrators in the 1990s, then we must remember that they were indeed victims on a massive scale as recently as the 1940s. This does not excuse anything – but we need to start by understanding.
An odder phenomenon is that of convert Orthodox, usually in North America, who buy into ethnic paranoias in which they have no hereditary stake. Here, one can only point out that they are a field of study for the psychologist more than the historian or sociologist. The day I get my own faith and Christian life 100% dissentangled from my own neuroses, then I will feel on safer ground in commenting. However, if by the grace of God I ever get to that point, then I will be too busy contemplating the vision of God – don’t mind really whether it’s His essence or His energies, I’ll find out when I get there – to be greatly preoccupied by the question!
If my last post was long, I could go on for ever about the significance of Vatican II. the Council and the subsequent reforms deserve to be revisited much more deeply in the context of Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, and would make a fitting subject for at least one discussion consecrated to them ex professo (Irenaeus, that was a hint..) A few remarks might not only allow me let off some personal steam, but could also go towards answering the questions of people like Ben.
In considering Vatican II we have to distinguis two related but distinct phenomena – the TEXT and the EVENT. That is: the teaching of the Council as set out in its texts on the one hand. and on the other the explosive cultural phenomenon within Catholicism triggered by the Council’s deliberations and the cultural context in which they occured.
I think the agenda that emerged as the leitmotiv for the orientations embraced by the Council majority was a double one, that can be summed up in two foreign words: the Italian word aggiornamento, meaning “bringing up to date” or adaptation to the modern world, which was used by John XXIII as a watchword for his papacy, and the French ressourcement, which can be translated “going back to the sources”.
The opposition to both these movements was carried out by men who inhabited the narrow mind-set of neo-scholasticism. Many scholars in post-war Europe (Vatican II was essentially a continental European pheonomenon – Catholic theology in the anglo-saxon world was running along behind trying to catch up throughout thye conciliar and immediate post-conciliar periods) were re-discovering the depth of scriptural theology, and of the teaching of the Fathers both of East and West. The 19th and 20th century manuals which had been the prism through which most Catholics saw theology before the 1950s looked dessicated and narrow in comparison with the depth and breadth of vision offered by the immense progress of biblical and patristic scholarship.
Most of what an Orthodox Christian would wekcome in Vatican II comes from the ressourcement mivement. The Greek Fathers were little known in the Latin Church before the 20th century, and when they were they were read through the prism of Latin scholasticism, rather than understood in their own terms within their proper historical context. Their rediscovery meant that it became clear that there were riches to be shared which were but little known before, and that although there was one Faith received from the Apostles, there was more than one possible way of expressing it. For example, they realsed that it was possible to speak of the Church as a communion of sharing in the divine life rather than as a juridically defined institution, of salvation as deification rathrr than a forensic process etc. When the theologians engaged in this process went back to the great Latin scholastics like Thomas and Bonaventure and read them with a renewed attention, it became clear that they too were nourished by these intuitions, in a way not always taken into account by their commentators in the modern age. Of course I am generalising and schematising here, but I hope to give the flavour of a theological movement which was a real renewing force.
It was hoped that these insights would open up possibilities of dialogue with a modern culture for whom the neo-scholastic categories were incomprehensible, and which because of them perceived the Catholic Faith wrongly as being a kind of straight-jacket retricting human life and freedom. This was where aggiornamento entered the scense. Its use by Pope John occurred at a time when there was enormous – and often, as it soon became apparent, misplaced – optimism about the technical and moral possibilities for “modern man.” Of course, the Chuch in every age must, and invariably does adapt itself to the prevailing cultural climate. (Some of those who today lament the passing of what they consider traditional Catholicism too often ignore the extent to which they confuse tradition with the state of the Church of the 19th and early 20th centuries, itself marked by the cultural concerns of that period) The pope’s call for a balanced adaptation was caught up in a way he could not have foreseen with the prevailing tendancy to despise the past and idolize the contemprary. Adapting to modern times became a superficial slogan linked to the uncritical ecceptance of every contemporary nostrum. The events of 1968 – which in Europe had a much more profound cultural impact than in the USA – compounded the tendancy. When people spoke of the “Spiit of the Council”, they often confused it with “the spirit of May 1968″.
This confusion and the resulting turmoil is what I mean by speaking of Vatican II as EVENT, and the devestation is all around us: the Catholic liturgy resembles a field full of ruins; catechetics are in a lamentable state, assimilated to the secular educational dogmas which have produced a generation of semi-illiterates; the Catholic cultural identity is all but disappereard, leaving the sentimental smorgasbord of cafeteria Catholicism in its place. Ressourcement has been submerged under a tidal wave of ill thought out aggoirnamento.
Of course the pendulum has swung, and the younger generation (or at any rate the small minority of those who care) are attempting to redress the balance. Now, however, we have the danger of excessive reaction. Among the ruins we find the occasional Disneyland-like reconstruction of a vanished past built by those too young to remember it, complete with Baroque liturgical splendours, unreconstructed neo-scholastic teaching, and a strident moral tone learnt in large part from militant fundamentalist protestantism. In medio stat virtus.
The response is surely a return to the Council as TEXT, with a concomitant application of the agenda of ressourcement purged of secularising ideology. If I am forced to choose between the ageing advocates of a secularised and de-supernaturalised Catholicism on the one hand, and the young zealots of restorationism on the other, then I suppose I would have to go for the latter. But we have more choices than that. The present pope has talked not so much of a “hermeneutic of continuity” (at least if that means a lock-stock-and-barrel return to an idealised recent past) as a “hermeneutic of reform”. The documents of Vatican II did not fall from heaven and they are not perfect (Gaudium et Spes, for example, is now almost funny to read, with its naive 1960s pieties). They need, however, to be read with an open mind and heart. And (and this is why I hope our long-suffering blogmaster will forgive this over-long rant as being not entirely off-topic) I believe that dialogue and prayerful searching for lost unity with the Christian East will help the Latin Church tend its self-inflicted wounds, by helping us rediscover the depth and breadth of a common heritage. Let us only remember, as John Bekkos wrote seven hundred years ago, that the truth consists not in verbal formulae but in the mysteries whose meaning beyond words which they attempt to express.
Ben,
Fr. Paul said in his very articulate post, “the Catholic liturgy resembles a field full of ruins; catechetics are in a lamentable state, assimilated to the secular educational dogmas which have produced a generation of semi-illiterates; the Catholic cultural identity is all but disappereard, leaving the sentimental smorgasbord of cafeteria Catholicism in its place.”
Today at breakfast one of my profs.(not the one mentioned above who was formerly a Byzantine Rite Catholic)mentioned how he lived through Vatican II as a Roman Catholic seminarian. The interpretation of Vatican II by the American Catholic Church led him to the Orthodox Church for the reasons above, and a few other reasons also.
Several years after Vatican II my priest/prof. no longer saw the same Church he grew up in and loved, but, he saw a reflection of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church in the Orthodox Church.
Having worked for the Roman Catholic Church for around six years for five priests I would often here them say concerning the Orthodox Church, “We used to be that way.” This could be said about fasting, the celebration of a certain feast day, Sub-deacons, or other reasons. Those priests could see a memory of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism in the Orthodox Church. Because of this fact I do not find it unreasonable that some Orthodox no longer see as profound of a reflection or similarity to themselves in the post Vatican II American Roman Catholic Church.
So, what I’m hearing is that the major problem is not necessarily the text of the council, but the actual American interpretation (highly influenced by liberals, rather than the resorcemente’s that influenced the actual council itself.)
I just read Fr. Paul’s comment. Very well explained. Thank you. We must all be careful in our resourcemente tendencies (and they are present in the Orthodox just as much as the Catholics, unfortunately they turn into hatred or indulging their psychological neuroses) This reacting, is what my priest warned me against when I came into the Church from Protestantism. We must be careful not to react, but pray, and hope for unity. May the Lord have mercy on us all.
It seems to me that much of what Orthodox, of whom I am one, find wrong with Vatican II is more of the irreligiousness and dumbing down of the mass.
As Father Paul so well explains, the fault lies not with the Council itself but with the “Spirit of Vatican II” interpretation thereof, which effectively turned VCII on its ear.
But not to worry. Things are definitely turning around, big-time. In the great scheme of things, the post-VCII turbulence was but a momentary blip. It is already fading. (Most ecumenical councils, BTW, are followed by turbulence of one sort or another. I Nicaea is a prime example.)
Question: Since the Roman Catholic Church considers VII an ecumenical council, does the Roman Catholic Church therefore consider its conclusions binding only to the West or to the Orthodox as well in a hopefully unified Church?
Subdeacon Joseph,
“Question: Since the Roman Catholic Church considers VII an ecumenical council, does the Roman Catholic Church therefore consider its conclusions binding only to the West or to the Orthodox as well in a hopefully unified Church?”
Doctrinal positions defined at ecumenical councils are not “true” because they are defined at ecumenical councils; they are defined at ecumenical councils because they are seen as objectively true.
This should answer your question, albeit in a round about way. One thing that often distrubs me in discussing such things with Orthodox is this inference that truth is somehow “created” (as it were) by ecumencial councils. I know that no Orthodox who actually thinks these things through actually believes in “created” truth, but this notion of “binding” is for those individuals who in conscience have difficulty internalizing an article of faith but accept the Church’s authority to teach, not for those who just prefer their own or some other witness. The question is thus inherently offensive even if unwittingly so.
The Council Fathers witnessed to what they understood as objective truth, not just some relativistic “truth” for Catholics.
That said, truths can be expressed in many ways, and language is a notoriously imperfect mode of communication, so perhaps the truths intended at Vatican II could be expressed differently, more completely or with greater nuance. Perhaps a later council of a reunited Church will set its hand to such a task. But if the truths of Vatican II are true, they are so independently of having been authoritatively defined.
Michael,
Please forgive my unknowing offense. I understand truth is truth and is not subjective.
The reason I asked this question is that there are those theologians in the Orthodox Church who are of the opinion that the acceptance of all councils, doctrinal formulae, etc, as an a priori condition of unity is no longer an absolute necessity concerning the Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox. I was curious if Romans felt this way toward the Orthodox Church concerning her post schism ecumenical councils.
Once again I met no offense and apologize.
Joseph,
Your recast question doesn’t allow for an easy answer, but I will try.
First, just to be clear, Catholics view the authority of ecumenical councils somewhat differently than do most (or at least some) Orthodox. For Catholics, the canons are infallible (“binding” for lack of a better word) only insofar as they explicitly express witness in positive terms to what is to be believed by faithful Christians as an article of faith or morals. Canons promulgating laws or rules, defining best practices, expressing judgments, condemnation, anathema, depositions, excommunications or simply adjudicating disputes, and the like call for respect but enjoy no divinely assured authority (at least for Catholics).
Some would narrow the scope of infallibility even further, arguing that infallibility only provides the assurance that a teaching is “safe” (i.e more than likely true but, at any rate, no bar to salvation even if objectively untrue), though that’s probably a minority understanding within Catholicism.
The second qualification that has to be considered before your question can be answered, deals with what one means by “acceptance.” You can “accept” a doctrine without necessarily subscribing to it as the best and most nuanced possible expression of the truth it is intended to covey. There can also be some scope for legitimate diversity in interpreting given doctrinal formulations.
So, with respect to the Oriental Orthodox, for example, Catholics need not feel bound by the condemnations of Chalcedon. Rome is now satisfied with a qualified Oriental Orthodox acceptance of Chalcedon’s Christological formulations and, at the same time, is now willing to concede that non-Chalcedonian formulations (if themselves properly qualified) can be seen as legitimate attempts to express the same truth only differently and in different language.
Now returning to the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics would expect Easterners in a reunited Church, for example, to accept (in this qualified sense) the formulations of Lyon and Florence concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit as at least legitimate (however imperfect or incomplete) expressions of genuine truth that can be understood as conforming with the Patristic witness. In essence, Orthodoxy thus would have to revisit its condemnation of Bekkos at the council of Blachernae. This is what makes Dr. Gilbert’s work on Bekkos so important (and, to anti-ecumenists, so threatening). But we are not there yet.
I hope this helps. I fear I don’t have Fr. Paul’s ability to cut directly to the heart of the matter in answering such questions.
To try and live up in part at least to Michaël kind words and”cut to the heart of the matter” – I don’t think that there is a consensus among Catholic theologians about what need to be asked of Orthodox concerning the post-schism councils in the event of restored communion.
Fist I think it needs to be pointed out that our talking about 21 “Ecumenical” Councils is a matter of convention, and not dogmatic definition. Most Catholic theologians would now consider that the term “Ecumenical Council” is not univocal in such a way as to necessarily endow the post-schism councils with exactly the same authority as the first seven, nor indeed among themselves. Paul VI once famously referred to the 2nd Council of Lyons as a “general Council held in the West”. In avoiding speaking of an “Ecumenical Council” he clearly wished to signal that there was some room for debate.
Vatican II holds a special place in that it professedly did not intend to define new dogmas. To characterise it as a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one (as Catholic traditionalists often do, quoting a phrase used by John XXIII and Paul VI in order to relativise its authority) is true in this sense. It did of course teach dogmatically, but essentially its dogmatic teaching repeated that of earlier councils. Vatican II confirmed the teaching of Vatican I on the papal office, for instance, while placing it in the context of a more synthetic treatment of the theology of the Church and the episcopate than was done in 1870. The desire to conciliate the East was one of the motivations for this, but even more essentially it was done for the sake of a greater internasl cohesion of Catholic doctrine, and in my opinion this will be the Council’s greatest and most lasting achievement.
Among the documents, not all have equal authority for Catholics. The two Dogmatic Constitions are the keystone of its teaching, while the decrees, declarations etc. have lesser authority. Allthough proclaiming no new dogma, the Council’s desire to elucidate existing dogma led to its taking several authoritative positions on disputed questions. The first was about the relation of Tradition to Scripture as source of revelation, namely that they are not two separate sources but one source, with the former essentially elucidating the latter. I confess that I am not as well informed as I should be on Orthodox positions on this question (all information gratefully received). On the second major issue, namely that episcopal ordination is a sacrament and not a mere conferral of jurisdicion (i.e. bishops are not just priests given extra powers by the pope) the now official and authoritative Catholic teaching has moved decisively towards the Orthodox teaching.
The aspects of Vatican II which might scare orthodox rather more – the mandate for liturgical reform carried out fromthe top down for example – concern manifestly only the Latin rite. I do not know how many Orthodox might share traditionalist Catholics reserevations about religious liberty – they are unlikely, I am glad to say, to assign the same degree of authority as do the latter to historically conditioned pronouncements of 19th century popes on a matter not directly connected to divine revelation.
To come back to our starting point, the more ultramontane theologians would doubtless insist on you signing up to all 21 “Ecumenical Councils”. Others would say that all that must be required concerning post-schism councils is that they be recognised as not erroneous, but binding only on the Western Church since they were convened to addresss the latter’s problems (like the Reformation). Lyons II, and especially Florence, would of course provide thorny difficulties but not necessarily insuperable ones, once the principles ably enuntiated above by Michaël are borne in mind.
In the same way, Catholics would presumable have to accept eastern Synods like the Palamite Councils as orthodox, although Orthodox would similarly need to recognise that they are not binding on the West – at least as far as adoption of their terminology is concerned. Blachernae is of course a specially difficult case. Since it forms the object of my own research, parallel to that of Dr Gilbert, I am in the process of thinking it through…
Might it be conceivable that communion be restored while the two halves of Christendom had real, unresolved difficulties, such as the post-schism development of Catholic teaching on the authgority of the Bishop of Rome? A certain Joseph Rastzinger thought it was. If he, and the organisms of the Roman curia have since chosen to express caveats and even slam on the breaks…well, the job of pope, or even head of the CDF, is not the same as that of the theologian. The last word has not necessarily been said.
The barest and most essential minimum is that each side recognise the other’s official doctrine as non-heretical, but as Michaël points out, this is not necessarily the same as signing up to it as revealed truth. It might surprise some readers to learn that there is some dispute among Catholic theologians (and I mean really Catholic – that is those who recognise the Church’s right to deliver binding decisions) about what the Church is irrevocably committed to and what she is not. In fact there is some such leeway, and there are grey areas just as there are among Orthodox theologians. The grey areas may indeed be the spaces in which the Holy Spirit can show us how to move forward.
Father Paul:
Could you identify those gray areas for us? (Asking very sincerely…not trying to put you on the spot, Father. ;-))
Once again, I hubristically rush in where angels fear to tread. ;-) (Hmmm, is there such a word as “hubristically”?) With fear and trembling, I venture to suggest that theologians, no matter how orthodox, are not the Magisterium. Even the greatest (e.g., Augustine and Aquinas) erred in some of their conclusions. The final word re what is irrevocable and what isn’t rests with the Magisterium.
This is not to deny that there is leeway, BTW. But I do believe that the Holy See and the Magisterium have identified some non-negotiables. Truth is not up for grabs. For instance, as we’ve all observed here at one time or another, papal praxis is changeable and has in fact changed over the centuries. But the esse of the papacy is not changeable.
I do not mean to minimize the role of theologians. Our current pope, after all, is a gifted theologian. But, in the final analysis, the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit sifts theologians’ theories and makes the Spirit-blessed decision regarding what is gray and what isn’t, what is negotiable and what is negotiable and what isn’t. Personally, I take great comfort in this. :D
Diane
P.S. BTW, I didn’t mean to spark another debate regarding who is more anti-Catholic, Catholics or Orthodox. In this country, IMHO, it’s no contest: The Orthodox win hands down. But that wasn’t my point. Rather, I was admiring and appreciating the lurid colorfulness of the “boiled bones” stuff. In a perverse sort of way, I find stuff like that pretty funny. I don’t take it seriously enough to resent it. I think it’s comical and colorful. And I think it shows a lot of imagination — much like Jack Chick’s infamous Alberto Rivera comic books, which paint a hilarious picture of secret Jesuit cartels plotting to take over the world.
BTW, Father Paul — please forgive anything in my previous post and in any other previous posts that smacks of obnoxious hubris. I do recognize, of course, that you are about a bajillion times more conversant than I with current ecumenical thinking and scholarship. When I get too obnoxious and disrespectful, therefore, please feel free to smack me down. (Unfortunately, we are separated by an ocean; otherwise I would consider it a huge privilege to ask you to hear my Confession. :))
Seems as this box has substituted for the normal dialogues. I guess we’re all ready for more discussion. Now, if the blog owner agrees, let the party begin! :)
Diane
well yes indeed, the magisterium has the final word, otherwise there is no point having one. The qeustion is, however, when the FINAL word has been said (after Ephesus, Chalcedon rdressed the balance, after the Syllabus and Vatican I, Vatican II redressed the balance). Historically, many things that were thought to be the final word turnd out not even to be penultimate! Everything I have written is subject to the proviso that in the end I submit me judgement to that of the Church – but nonetheless there are degrees of authority, and in many cases throughout history theologians have been censured and gone on to become doctors – the Sorbonne condemned St Thomas, we should remember, and at the time that was considered an authoritative tribunal.
Of course, apppealing to a fututre council is the tactic of heretics of every age, and we do well to remember that just because “my” ideas have been condemned, perhaps even if it is certain that “my” ideas have not been well understood, fairly argued against or adequately refuted, this still does not necessarily mean that “I” shall be vindicated. Nestorius thought Chalcedon had vindicated him – history judged otherwise. The point is that sometimes it takes a great deal of history to happen before it becomes final what was and what was not definitively rejected or taught.
The “Zoghbyite” theses – which I will admit approximate to my own thoughts – have been the object of a statement by a Roman dicastery which is on the whole a fairly negative verdict on them. This is not a definitive judgement and does not claim to be – it is a prudential response. To assert these theories aggressively as certainly true would be disobedient I bekieve; but it cannot be asserted that they are heretical until pronounced so by the competent authority. Until now these views have not been condemned outright, nor any public attempt made to silence their defenders. Some will think that this is a sign of the decadence of post-conciliar Catholicism. I do not – though you will have seen that I do admit and lament the existence of such a decadence. The views now in question may be daring, but to advance them as a possible position in Catholic theology seems to me to be a part of the historical process of dailectic by which Catholic dogma has developed.
Asserting this means that expecting a reaction and taking it seriously must also be considered a part of the same process. Nothing that you have written seems to me anything other than a perfectly respectable position which is in part contrary to mine. Rather than be offended or angry (that would be acting hubristically – yes I think the word does exist) , I should and do thank you for expressing it (I have to confess that I thought you and others would!), listen to it and dialogue constructively with it. In a few generations, I think the interraction between the strands in Catholic thinking humbly represented by my arguments and yours respectively should bear fruit which is (whatever else it may be) interesting.
Pax!
>Michael said: One thing that often distrubs me in discussing such things with Orthodox is this inference that truth is somehow “created” (as it were) by ecumencial councils. I know that no Orthodox who actually thinks these things through actually believes in “created” truth, but this notion of “binding” is for those individuals who in conscience have difficulty internalizing an article of faith but accept the Church’s authority to teach, not for those who just prefer their own or some other witness.
I have no idea where you would have encountered this “inference”. I find that glib assertion quite offensive. Orthodox believe that Truth stands on its own, and that any authority, including ecumenical councils, can at most reocgnize it.
The only place I have run across the idea of councils “binding” some Christians but not others to particular dogmas is in the writings of some Eastern Catholics.
Joe,
I would have thought from the context of the remarks that it would have been clear that the inference I drew related to “truth” as it emerges defined by ecumenical councils not so recognized by the East, ergo that these truths would have been “created” for Catholics via conciliar fiat. If you have never encountered this notion among Orthodox, you should talk to more anti-ecumenists.
My point was precisely that Catholics and Orthodox have exactly the same understanding of the role of councils in relation to truth, belief and submission, and hence that the question posed by Subdeacon Joseph (as I then understood it) was inherently offensive (as it seemed to imply that Catholics had a plastic understanding of truth).
The misunderstanding now seems to have been cleared up, and we have moved on.
Hey guys,
Does anyone here know why this book is still on back order? At Aquinas & More they say it will be available in April; that’s the only date thus far that I have been able to find.
http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/Rome-and-the-Eastern-Churches/sku/23805
Other sites usually just say it’s on “back order.” Did anyone get a chance to buy a copy? I’ve read the first edition — just wondering what’s been added and how good it is.
-Veritas
I was told today that copies of the second edition are now being shipped out. I’d also be interested in hearing what’s different in this edition if anyone has seen it.
I think they are available now on Ignatius Press, Amazon, Aquinasandmore, etc. I just got mine today.