Joel I. Barstad, Russian Catholic and professor of theology at St John Vianney Seminary in Denver, attempts to answer this question. From a rather interesting blog entitled The Augustana Greek Catholic: An Irregular Journal of Ecumenical Experiments.
Abstract:
Many Greek-Catholics define themselves as Orthodox-in-Communion-with-Rome and appeal to the First Christian Millennium as providing the foundation for this communion. This way of identifying themselves found confirmation in Joseph Ratzinger’s proposal that, with regard to the primacy, Rome need require nothing more from Orthodox churches than what was acknowledged during the First Millennium. With a similar conviction the Melkite synod in 1995 adopted the Zoghby Initiative as the framework within which it might reestablish communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church, without breaking communion with Rome.
This article considers the viability of such a project in light of Pope John Paul II’s Ad tuendam fidem, and its companion commentary on the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity, published in 1998.
Eirenikon 
Speaking as a Latin, I have to confess that the Zoghby initiative causes me some discomfort. While I can sympathize with the aspiration, the Statement of Faith as presented strikes me as logically premature, and requiring serious qualification or, at any rate, more nuance. Perhaps it just comes out very awkwardly in English.
Let me focus on the first credal proposition:
“1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.”
I would first have to object that Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t teach anything. Eastern Orthodoxy is a praxis and a belief system, not a person or institution capable of instructing. The point could have been more properly formulated as:
“1. I believe everything the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) teach(es).”
But this would then raise the disturbing apparent omission of a balancing:
“1b. I believing everything the Church of Rome teaches.”
Is one to infer from the omission that the believer sees the two as different, and the one more worthy of credence than the other?
The omission might still be unintended, however, a mere reluctance to state what should pass as obvious. But given the context of the profession, I think I might be forgiven feeling a frisson of unease.
But let us set fidelity to the Roman doctrinal standard aside for the moment, and return to my first objection, specifically to trust in that abstraction: “Eastern Orthodoxy.” The stated aim of the profession, as I understand it, is not in the first instance communion with Orthodoxy writ large, but with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. So a more proper formulation might be:
“1. I believe everything which the Orthodox Church of Antioch teaches.”
And this is where I begin to get really disturbed. What Melkites demonstrably share with their Orthodox Antiochan brothers (and, by extension, the other Orthodox Churches) is unity of rite, whereas unity of faith cannot be presumed in the current context of schism which one party (at least officially) purports exists at least in part on doctrinal grounds.
And yet there are genuine Antiochan Churches with which one would have normally assumed the Melkites shared unity of faith (Maronite, Syriac). The fact that these figure nowhere in the initiative’s Statement of Faith raises an inconvenient question: by apparently giving primacy to rite over faith, is the initiative betraying symptoms of the very Byzantine self-absorption and self-sufficiency that Catholics see as causally sustaining Orthodoxy’s share of responsibility for continuation of the schism?
I might further point out the incongruity of presuming to articulate “Eastern Catholic Hopes” in defence of an “Eastern Catholic Identity” while blandly ignoring one’s sister non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches.
But let us assume for a moment that our doctrinal differences are more apparent than real, that they result from misunderstanding, or lie purely in areas on which orthodox Christians might legitimately differ. Let us further assume that unity of rite is an imperative that warrants such special doctrinal dispensation as to allow cross-communion communion (to coin an ugly phrase). Finally, let us set aside non-Byzantine Eastern Catholics as less relevant to the exercise because of presumed (but contestable) greater distance from their their non-Catholic counterparts (Assyrians and Oriental Orthodox). Should the initiative not more properly be Byzantine (Catholic and Orthodox) rather than strictly Antiochan?
One presumes that, as a Russian Catholic, this is how Joel Barstad understands it. But I wonder. At any rate, I can easily understand how the initiative, in not explicitly addressing these issues, has failed to gain wider Catholic traction in either East or West.
Since this paper deals mostly with the question of the viability of the two proposals from a Roman Catholic perspective I will let the Catholics address that subject. I will however note that as I was reading the particulars of the Oath now required of Eastern Catholics under their new Rome dictated Code of Canon Law that I had mental image running through my head.
I saw a Roman Catholic bishop scrambling up the slopes of Mt. Athos to deliver the Oath they must all now swear in order to restore communion with Rome… followed by the sound of thousands of monks doubled up in fits of hysterical laughter.
This essay has been remarkably instructive on many levels.
In ICXC
John
It’s indeed a comical scene, John. But I can’t imagine, for a moment, Rome imposing ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’ on the Orthodox. I can imagine a reunion council and the drafting of a common statement of faith (which, of course, the Holy Mountain would still resist).
But this brings up a good point of the Zoghbyite Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome crowd (for whom I have a great deal of sympathy): If Rome would never require ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’ of the Orthodox corporately, and would never impose on the Orthodox the Eastern Code of Canon Law, why does Rome insist on imposing these things on the Eastern Catholic Churches?
And of course all of this feeds the totally understandable impression of the Orthodox that, at this juncture, communion with Rome would mean not just a compromise of their beliefs but also a sort of self-annihilation.
“If Rome would never require ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’ of the Orthodox corporately, and would never impose on the Orthodox the Eastern Code of Canon Law, why does Rome insist on imposing these things on the Eastern Catholic Churches?”
A very good question. With all the changes in the relationship between the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches since Vatican II, this has remained a constant. In fact, the Eastern Code of Canons was promulgated in 1990 and ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’ dates from this decade. Eastern Catholic Churches (outside of the Patriarchal “territories”) are still managed by the Eastern Congregation. Ordinations of married men in Eastern Catholic Churches in this country still have to be approved by Rome. The Pope appoints the Bishops of Eastern Catholic Churches in this country.
Now, does it not make sense that Orthodox would look at this and wonder what model Rome has in mind for a reunion of Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church? I think everyone here (or maybe I’m wrong about the feelings of people here?) would say it’s not the model currently lived by the Eastern Catholic Churches. But, if you look at how the Vatican and the Eastern Catholic Churches relate to each other, it doesn’t look like Rome is preparing to let go of any of its authority.
Upon reflection, it strikes me that my initial response to the Barstad article might be viewed as snide and uncharitable. I was not so much attempting to critique or rebut the piece as trying to explain my disquiet at some of the assumptions the author seemed to be making. I would now like to go further and offer a more substantive and perhaps more readily charitable assessment.
“Is Rome satisfied with Eastern Catholic loyalty in terms of the Zoghby Initiative?”
This is the lead question, and the answer strikes me as an obvious and emphatic “no.” For reasons that are unclear to me, Barstad seeks in the article to frame Eastern (or more properly “Byzantine”) Catholic loyalty solely in terms of the Initiative, when in reality the Initiative does not exist in a vacuum, but in a context that includes formal and explicit acceptance in both doctrine and liturgy of all the Catholic Church teaches. So far as I can tell, the Melkites have not repudiated anything Rome teaches. So the question would be better phrased as “Is Rome satisfied with Eastern Catholic loyalty?” or “Does the Zoghby Initiative lead Rome to doubt Eastern Catholic loyalty?” with “yes” being the answer to the former and “no” to the latter.
“In 2002 this question was submitted several times to various speakers at Orientale Lumen Conference VI, but never received an answer.”
I would argue that this is because the question lacks nuance. Are we talking solely on the basis of the Initiative or in a wider unstated but assumed context?
“Eastern Catholic Hopes
“Many Eastern Catholics, in the wake of 20th century improvements in relations between Rome and Constantinople, the ecumenical declarations of Vatican II, and Roman insistense (sic) that Eastern Catholic churches recover their authentic liturgical traditions, have found courage to abandon the theological hybridism of uniatism and claim for themselves the identity of Orthodox in communion with Rome.”
I have two problems here: first, my previously mentioned objection to Byzantine Catholics appropriating to themselves the whole of the Church’s “Eastern” identity, and second, this reference to “the theological hybridism of uniatism.” I might grant that “uniatism” historically involves some (provisionally inevitable) hybridism in ecclesiological and (abusively) ritual praxis, but “theological” hybridism? We have problems enough with liberals and “traditionalists” trying to institutionalize “à la carte Catholicism” without having to deal with a hermeneutics of discontinuity from the East.
“Much thought also went into reflecting on the possible implications of the distinction between the Bishop of Rome’s role as universal primate and as patriarch of the West. The hope was that if the West could properly distinguish between those roles and recover an adequate understanding of the patriarchate, Eastern churches would have a secure foundation for an appropriate autonomy which until then seemed incompatible with the Roman self understanding of its universal jurisdiction.”
I would argue, as John Paul explicitly made clear, that the practical limitations applied to the autonomy of the Eastern Churches lie not in the failure of the Western Church to “properly distinguish between the bishop of Rome’s role as universal primate and as patriarch of the West”, but in the failure so far of the Eastern Catholic Churches to actualize in themselves full union with their non-Catholic counterparts. In their current state, the Eastern Catholic Churches are models of the theological unity (pace theological “hybridism”) between East and West and not of the ecclesiological praxis proper to a reunited of East and West. As things stand, the current state of the various Eastern Catholic Churches is provisional. They enjoy autonomy in proportion to their ability to embody in substance the whole of their rite. On this scale, the Melkite and Syriac Churches (each representing the majority in their respective rites) enjoy far more autonomy than, for example, the Russian-rite Catholic Church. Indeed, were it not for the Maronite Church’s reflexive (and arguably excessive) wish to cleave to a privileged intimate dependence on the Holy See, it would enjoy all the institutional autonomy even the most Orthodox-minded Melkites could wish for.
“Then professor Josef Ratzinger, owing to his later role as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is credited with articulating the possibility that communion
could be restored on the basis of the shared faith of the first millennium together with a mutual recognition that the subsequent developments of both churches were legitimate
and orthodox.”
This strikes me as an eminently reasonable approach (at least from the Catholic point of view). I cannot understand why Barstad seems to consider this proposal as the functional equivalent to the Zoghby Initiative.
“Although the “ifs” here are significant, the conditions of the “Ratzinger Proposal” are certainly less strenuous than requiring the Eastern churches to accept all the developments of the Roman magisterium during the second millennium as their own.”
This would depend very much on what one means by “accept as their own.” If one accepts a theological development as legitimate and orthodox, then one recognizes its orthodoxy. If one recognizes its orthodoxy, how does one then not accept it as one’s “own” (barring self-identification with heterodoxy) except insofar as one might not incorporate the development into one’s liturgical or devotional practise?
“For example, some advocates of the return to the first millennium consensus as grounds for restored communion, such as Archbishop Zoghby…”
An agreement to disagree, while possibly irenic, does not represent a consensus, and it is specifically here that I suspect Barstad’s grasp of what the Catholic Church understands by “development” is open to question. Development is not the creation of new doctrine, but the refinement and clarification of existing orthodox belief and the resulting exclusion of heterodox doubts or alternatives. The Catholic Church would be very challenged to find anything that it taught as part of “the first millennium consensus” that it does not teach now. So what exactly would it be returning to? What Barstad seems to understands as the “first millennium consensus” is in fact merely an absence of clarity and specificity characterizing the first millennium on a number of issues that have now been more maturely and authoritatively expressed.
“…further relativize the second millennium developments by emphasizing the distinction between the first Seven Ecumenical Councils and later “general synods of the West,” pointing especially to Pope Paul VI’s use of this terminology in relation to the failed reunion council of Lyons in 1274.This distinction is based on the criterion for ecumenicity laid down by the Seventh Council (Nicea II, AD 787) itself, requiring acceptance of a council by the churches of both East and West so that neither could claim ecumenicity for its own separate synods. Councils that lack such agreement, these advocates would argue, are not ecumenical and should not be considered infallible.”
Do we really have to explain to a Catholic that councils (even ecumenical ones) are not “infallible,” but may merely teach infallibly in particular circumstances? And what is one to make of this conflation of infallibility with reception?
“Combining this position with the terms of Ratzinger’s proposal, then, the Eastern churches could acknowledge the orthodoxy of Vatican I, for example, while not regarding it as infallible or its teaching as ecumenically binding. Such a stance might allow the separated churches to enter into communion and then work toward full reconciliation of their second millennium differences.”
Catholic communion is already open to Orthodox faithful who are so disposed, so the question is more properly addressed to the Orthodox Churches, i.e. would they consider acceptance of Vatican I to be a bar to communion?
“Some such hope is expressed by the proposal for double communion by Archbishop Elias Zoghby on the basis of the following profession of faith, which was endorsed by a large majority of the Melkite hierarchy in 1995/1996:
Profession of Faith
1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.”
Beyond the problems I have already alluded to, what exactly are these “limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium,” where are they spelled out, and who is their authorized interpreter?
“The letter acknowledges the offer made in John Paul II’s Ut unum sint to consider other modalities in which to exercise the Petrine ministry, but it reiterates the fundamental point of Roman ecclesiology on which the Melkite proposal founders: the communion of particular churches with the Church of Rome is the principle of their communion with each other. “It is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, “The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion” (Ut Unum Sint, 97).””
That is certainly one way of expressing the difficulty for Catholics. A more pointed one would be the absence of any ecclesiological justification for being institutionally in communion with Churches that are pointedly not in communion with other Churches with which you are in communion. Communion with Rome is in large part an instrumental proof of communion with the broader Catholic Church.
“From the Orthodox side first step toward unity on the doctrinal level is not to consider as ecumenical the Western local councils which the Church of Rome convened separately, including the First Vatican Council.”
This is confusing substance with process. What is really at issue here is not the ecumenical status of particular councils but the binding nature of the “truths” they expressed. Truths are binding not because they have been defined by ecumenical councils, but because they are true. The first step to unity is thus not a reflection on the authority of the organs that defined these truths, but a study of the truths themselves to see in what way they can be faithfully received (and if necessary reformulated) in conformity with the common tradition.
“And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils.”
Well, that’s a show stopper right there. It’s not like anyone put a gun to their heads. The Melkites formally accepted everything the Catholic Church taught before, at and after these councils. If individual Melkites wish to repudiate their expressed faith, they are free to cross the floor.
“Moreover, intercommunion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first.”
A bit of good sense that seems lost on Barstad.
At Orientale Lumen VI in 2002, Patriarch Gregory III reiterated his commitment to the 1996 document of the Synod, making no reference to the letter from the Eastern Congregation cited above. He did acknowledge that there are problems. “The difficulty lies in the fact that Rome is not ready to accept the genuine rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches as proclaimed by Vatican II (OE; n. 5).” Eastern Catholics “have to speak up, to discover the real Eastern ecclesiology and to develop it, and help the Western mentality to mature in that regard.”
By calling for an institutionalization of cafeteria Catholicism?
“Eastern Catholics are called to be a bridge or window between East and West, “Orthodoxy with a plus”, namely, the plus of being in communion with Rome. But at present the Roman denial of the genuine rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches obscures that identity. “Rome would more easily give them to the Orthodox Churches. We do not represent, in the full sense, genuine Orthodoxy to Rome or, for that matter, to the Orthodox Churches. But that should not stop Easterners from fulfilling their role.”
Dissent from universal Catholic teaching does not figure amongst the “genuine rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches.” If they are Catholic and in communion with Rome, then they are, in the current constellation, not Orthodox, so I don’t see why they should represent “genuine Orthodoxy” to Rome or anyone else. What they do represent is the Eastern tradition(s) within the Catholic Church.
“The question, then, is not whether Rome is satisfied with communion on these terms, but whether and for how long it will continue to tolerate those, like Patriarch Gregory III,
who understand the terms of communion differently.”
Until such time as they explicitly repudiate Catholic teaching their predecessors accepted as part of the terms of union or subsequently.
“Well, that’s a show stopper right there. It’s not like anyone put a gun to their heads. The Melkites formally accepted everything the Catholic Church taught before, at and after these councils. If individual Melkites wish to repudiate their expressed faith, they are free to cross the floor.”
Actually, at Vatican I, the Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef stated:
“The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of and ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.”
According to a Melkite Catholic friend of mine, this is what happened post Council:
“The Melkite hierarchs voted non placet at the general session and left Rome, together with some other Eastern Catholic hierarchs, before Pastor Aeternus was adopted. Subsequently, a legate was sent to secure their signatures – which they affixed, but over the caveat ‘excepting always the rights and privileges of the Oriental Patriarchs’.
On His Beatitude’s next visit to Rome, papal guards threw him to the floor before Pope Pius, who planted his foot on the Patriarch’s neck, presumably to make clear to him that – like it or not – the Melkites were subservient to Rome. I’d say that was a fair indication of Rome’s attitude toward Eastern Catholics at the time.”
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/337880/Re:%20Ecumenical%20Councils#Post337880
I guess I will have to be clearer and yet more explicit. Genuine autonomy does not, will not and cannot extend to dissent from the Roman *doctrinal* standard. This is why Barstad’ suggestion that this be considered part of the genuine rights of the Eastern Churches is flatly unacceptable. Rome is not interested in communion with some Eastern equivalent to Anglican theological incoherence.
No one is forcing “azymes”, the filioque, baptism by aspersion, or Augustinian notions of original sin on the Eastern Churches.
Local election of bishops, rite specific canon law, and freedom to ordain married men into Eastern Catholic Orders can all be envisaged.
But repudiation of the dogmatic content of Trent, Vatican I and II, and the Marian definitions is not a “Catholic” option.
“On His Beatitude’s next visit to Rome, papal guards threw him to the floor before Pope Pius, who planted his foot on the Patriarch’s neck, presumably to make clear to him that – like it or not – the Melkites were subservient to Rome.”
I know Melkite priests who assert that this accusation is mythical, first being propounded at Vatican II, decades after the supposed incident. Ironically, the myth was started by a Melkite. Interestingly, Eastern Christians in attendance at the Council -Melkite and otherwise- demanded some sort of documentary proof to substantiate such an awful accusation. None could be produced then. No one has been able to produce evidence for this since. And none existed at the time of the alleged incident. But the accusation persists. Such a bold and scandalous accusation should be supported by substantial evidence. Otherwise, it is detraction at best and slander at worst.
I as an Eastern find the perpetuation of this accusation disturbing. Forgive me if I was pejorative.
I meant to add this to my post:
I do not mean to scandalize anyone with this account. But, I think this illustrates that there is a lot more to the Eastern Catholic experience and identity that needs to be taken into account in discussions such as these.
“On this scale, the Melkite and Syriac Churches (each representing the majority in their respective rites) enjoy far more autonomy than, for example, the Russian-rite Catholic Church.”
Argh! That should of course be “Melkite and Chaldean” Churches. My bad.
Speaking as a Latin, I have to confess that the Zoghby initiative causes me some discomfort.
You and me both, bro’. And it strikes me that we are not alone. Did not Cardinal Ratzinger himself indicate to Abp. Zoghby that he had gone too far? I seem to recall this distinctly.
Re Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement (c. 1983 or earlier, I believe) that the Orthodox should not be required to embrace anything re the primacy beyond what was contained in the first millennium: I do wish people would stop misconstruing this. As Catholics, we believe that, not only was the entire Deposit of the Faith present in the first millennium…it was present in its fullness in the apostolic witness, i.e., by the time of the death of the last apostle. IOW: at the very outset of the first millennium.
That means the whole ball of wax — including Petrine / papal primacy and papal ex cathedra infallibility — is contained in the primitive Depositum, which dates from the very beginning of the first millennium. Later definitions (such as at Trent, VCI, and VCII) are adumbrations of this primitive Deposit. But they are not novelties or additions. The Faith, like Christ Himself, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger made his proposal back in 1983 or whenever, he was not saying anything substantially different from what any pope has ever said: i.e., that the Catholic Faith of the first millennium is the same as the Catholic Faith of the second (and third) millennia. Perhaps he was calling our Orthodox brethren to truly examine — in its entirety — the evidence of papal primacy provided by the first millennium. ISTM that part of our ecumenical conundrum is Orthodox refusal or inability to really engage the first-millennium witness to papal primacy. There is copious evidence from primary sources that first-millennium saints and Fathers (both Eastern and Western) accorded the papacy far more than a mere “primacy of honor”…yet many Orthodox either ignore this evidence or try to minimize it or explain it away. There are some notable exceptions, thank God, but they only seem to prove the rule.
Gotta run…more later….
Diane
Once more around the mulberry bush.
I think that what is needed are very clear definitions of all the terms involved, definitions agreed by all concerned.
Until the definitions are agreed to, we’ll continue dancing round the bush.
I think you are precisely right. It isn’t Zoghby I am taking issue with. I have no grounds for questioning the Archbishop’s orthodoxy. It is Barstad who has chosen to understand the initiative as articulating a primacy of rite over faith.
Zoghby, as is his right, has merely argued that the theological differences between Melkites and Antiochan Orthodox are not such as to necessitate schism. There is nothing radical here as this reflects the position of the Catholic Church with respect to communion with the Orthodox Church as a whole. For Catholics, the schism is disciplinary and not doctrinal.
The Orthodox Church argues otherwise which is its right. Barstad, on the other hand, appears to be arguing that Byzantine Catholics should be granted dispensation to dissent from such beliefs as Orthodox deem to be obstacles to communion. He would thus reduce the significance of Melkite union with the rest of the Catholic Church to some abstract “loyalty” to the bishop of Rome devoid of any doctrinal significance.
The Ratzinger Proposal was unworkable from the beginning:
Reunion could take place in this context if,
on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the
developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and
would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form
she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other
hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox in the
form she has always had.3
This is simply incoherent: if the “Church of the East” is recognized as “orthodox in the form she always had” then the Catholic Church cannot be accepted “as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of… devlopment”, and vice-versa, since the two believe different things post-schism.
Diane wrote:
>ISTM that part of our ecumenical conundrum is Orthodox refusal or inability to really engage the first-millennium witness to papal primacy.
Such a statement could only be written in ignorance of such works as Olivier Clement’s *You Are Peter* and *The Primacy of Peter*,
Meyendorff, et al., which engage quite intelligently the first-millenium witness to papal primacy.
>There is copious evidence from primary sources that first-millennium saints and Fathers (both Eastern and Western) accorded the papacy far more than a mere “primacy of honor”…yet many Orthodox either ignore this evidence or try to minimize it or explain it away.
Of course, as has been brought out many times, “primacy of honor” is far from the empty concept that many Catholic apologists paint it as being. And of course, it is entirely possible to give the Pope a real primacy without adopting the doctrines of universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility as proclaimed at Vatican I.
Joe,
I think you are being unfair to Diane. Obviously some few Orthodox theologians have seriously attempted to grapple with the patristic evidence on the subject. I personally admire Meyendorff greatly. However, the fact remains that Orthodoxy has notably failed to define explicitly in doctrinal terms its own understanding of what Roman primacy in the first millennium involved, and this despite being repeatedly challenged to do so.
I humbly suggest that it is precisely because the Orthodox are not of one mind on the subject that no such statement has been forthcoming. The substantive “primacy of honour” YOU may be willing to acknowledge may not be an empty shell, but I can assure you that I have encountered Orthodox clergy who have mockingly dismissed it in just such terms. I am sure Diane has as well.
As for the definitions of Vatican I, did not Sardica vest final appellate authority with the bishop of Rome (with only Arianizing bishops dissenting)? Did not St Cyril come to Ephesus with a papal deposition of Nestorius in his pocket (conditional on Nestorius’ refusal to recant within 10 days)? Did not St Cyril and the Council Fathers conclude from this that Nestorius could not attend the Council except as a penitent? How would this make any sense unless Papal authority were superior to that of Constantinople (or for that matter, any other Church)? So what is Vatican I stating in this matter that Cyril and the Council Fathers at Sardica and Ephesus didn’t already take for granted?
If one makes an effort to read Vatican I eirenically and positively, and interpret it specifically in light of the Eastern tradition, it should not be problematic for Orthodox. Only if you insist on reading it in maximalist ultramontane terms (that are not even binding on Catholics), and a priori as contrary to the Eastern tradition does it involve any necessary difficulties.
Michael: Thank you! Joe has a penchant for misrepresenting my posts (yes, it goes back a long way). I very clearly wrote, in nice big black letters, that there ARE EXCEPTIONS to the rule I cited. Joe chose to overlook / ignore this. Color me not surprised.
Of course I am aware of Clement and Meyendorff. (Of others, as well.) As I observed, and as you said also, they are exceptions that prove the rule.
Diane
This what Diane said
“ISTM that part of our ecumenical conundrum is *Orthodox refusal or inability to really engage the first-millennium witness to papal primacy*.” That is a balnket statement about Orthodoxy, and I showed that it is an errroneous one, so, no, I don’t think I was being unfair to Diane at all. And I have brought works such as Clement’s to her attention in the past, yet she writes as if they didn’t exist, until the matter is pressed.
I am tired of Catholic apologists who accuse the Orthodox as being generally intransigent, yet *refuse to engage* the more moderate and ecumenically-minded Orthodox authors that are out there. Diane says she is “aware” of Clement; at this point, to my mind, that isn’t good enough. To my mind, someone who aspires to engage in dialogue aimed at reunion should at least be armed with a knowledge of the other party’s current thinking, rather than continue to flail at straw men from the 19th century. I’m sorry, but to me, that seems more about posturing than constructive dialogue.
>I humbly suggest that it is precisely because the Orthodox are not of one mind on the subject that no such statement has been forthcoming. The substantive “primacy of honour” YOU may be willing to acknowledge may not be an empty shell, but I can assure you that I have encountered Orthodox clergy who have mockingly dismissed it in just such terms. I am sure Diane has as well.
Well, with all due respect, so what? I have encountered (recently) western Catholic clergy who are vehemently anti-Orthodox. I can cite a bestselling western Catholic author who wrote that the Sack of Constantinople should be a feast day. Of what use is it to focus on the extreme elements of either side? There are reasonable Orthodox voices you can have a dialogue with.
>As for the definitions of Vatican I, did not Sardica vest final appellate authority with the bishop of Rome (with only Arianizing bishops dissenting)?
I don’t know about the last clause, and Sardica was of course a local (and I believe predominantly, if not exclusively, a western) council, certainly not an ecumenical one, so I’m not sure why you believe it has such an overriding precedential value, but leaving all that aside, I think the key word is “appellate”. That is not at all what Vatican I dealt with. It (and Vatican II) gave universal *ordinary* jurisidiction to the Bishop of Rome, with “ordinary jurisidiction” being much, much broader than “appellate”. “Universal ordinary jurisidiction” means, for example, that the Pope, if he doesn’t like the pastor of St. Mary’s in Kalamazoo, can remove him. Period. Bishop of the diocese need not be consulted. It is not a valid response that this would never happen; it *could* canoncially, happen. This, besides reflecting a terribly flawed ecclesiology, is a far cry from any power given to the Pope in the first millenium.
And, of course, none of this touches VI’s teaching of papal infallibility, under which the Pope can, entirely on his own authority, under certain circumstances, bind the entire Church to a dogmatic statement. I do not see anything in the first millenium that approaches a recognition of such a charism.
>If one makes an effort to read Vatican I eirenically and positively, and interpret it specifically in light of the Eastern tradition, it should not be problematic for Orthodox.
Here is how I, (and, I think, most Orthodox) read the decree of Vatican I: when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on a matter of faith and morals with the intent to bind the entire Church, his declaration is irreformeable of itself and not from the consent of the Church. Please tell me how this reading is in error. Joe
by the time of the death of the last apostle.
By the time of the death of the last apostle, my dear Diane, we already had three consecutive Roman Popes succede eachother in office. — that’s something to ponder about, don’t You agree?
Joe writes: ” if the “Church of the East” is recognized as “orthodox in the form she always had” then the Catholic Church cannot be accepted “as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of… devlopment”, and vice-versa, since the two believe different things post-schism.
There is a non sequitur here. Yes, the two Churches
“believe different things post-schism”. The question is whether the differences do in fact concern matters intrinsic to the deposit of the Faith, or whether they concern things which are secondary and need not be Church dividing.
There are also many instances of people who “believe different things” remaining in communion today inside the boundaries of both RC and EO Churches. Please note that I am not talking about thephenomenon of “cafeteria Catholics (or Orthodox)”, but about people – often with a following, be they theologians or hierarchs – who follow different interpretations of officially taught doctrine. The existence of differing theological schools within post-schism Catholicism is just one example of such divergences.
The task of those engaged in ecumenical discussions is to attempt to disentangle the essential, eternal truths of the Faith from its inevitably imperfect and limited human expression. Anybody who has seriously studied the history of dogma soon discovers how separating the content of the Church’s faith from its particular expression, coloured as the latter is by historical and cultural factors that are extrinsic to a revelation made for people of everey tibe and tongue and people, is both very necessary and much more difficult than it appears a priori.
So yes, both Churches “believe different things post-schism”. The point is that they believed different things pre-schism too, to a certain extent, but that nobody thought that this was necessarily an obstacle to communion until cultural estrangement and political rivalry poisoned the atmosphere. Concretely, on the origins of the Holy Spirit and the nature of primacy within the Church, it is beyond doubt that there were differences between Eastern and Western Fathers who not only remained in communion, but influenced each other’s theology. Later on, those real differences were hardened into oppositions.
There seems to be – and please correct me if I am wrong – a naive assumption in what you write that since the schism the Catholic church has changed what it believed, while the Orthodox Church has remained unchanged. This is in any case what many Orthodox polemist assert. It is fantasy. The Orthodox Church has evolved since the schism in the expression of its belief, in its liturgy, theology, iconography, homiletics, and every other domain of its earthly existence. Throughout those evolutions, it has not changed its fundamental faith, and I as a Catholic thank God for that. Is it not at least worthy of consideration that perhaps, in spite of changes in all of those areas which are admittedly much more striking within Catholicism, the fundamentals may have renmained the same as they were in the West before the schism?
There is of course an extremist fringe which would agree that the West HAS fundamentally remained the same, and which consequently anathematizes everything Western ab initio, denying even the possibility of a Western rite Orthodoxy. Such people apparently have no difficulty in believing that the salvific will of God does not extend beyond the borders of the byzantine cultural space. I think most readers here will agree that this is problematic.
The myth that there was a primitive uniformity to which one side or both must return is more dangerous. Orthodox readers must often be irritated to hear Catholics plead for them to “return” to Roman obedience. So am I. Such well-intentioned apologists do not understand that such language seems absurd to Orthodox, since the Eastern Churches never conceived of themselves as being “obedient” to Rome. The way in which the Roman Church functioned as a court of appeal was never considered by them as erecting it into an authority over and above the other Churches to which they must be “obedient”. RC theologians now generally recognise that categories of submission and subservience are not the most appropriate ways to express the episcopé of the bishop of Rome, which is rather a service within and on behalf of the episcopal college, not over and above it. Many of them would say that the juridical language preserved the substance of the pre-schism understanding, while involving infelicitous consequences which the Catholic Church is now seeking to redress.
In the same way, Orthodox apologists should beware of inviting the Catholic church to “return to Orthodoxy” and face up to various analogous questions, including that of whether what they mean by Orthodoxy is not unduly broadened to include elements which have entered into Orthodox thought after the schism and in the context of a desire to justify polemically a separation in which non-doctrinal factors have played an insufficiently acknowledged role.
…the Eastern Churches never conceived of themselves as being “obedient” to Rome…
Father Paul, I think that might come as a surprise to Maximos the Confessor. ;)
I am no Byzantinist, and I freely admit my profound ignorance, but I do think that statement is debatable…if it is intended as a flat absolute (never, ever, anywhere in the East??).
I would agree with you that it is unhelpful to urge the Orthodox to “return to the Roman obedience,” but I think this is more because such language is impolitic than that it is theologically incorrect. Did not Ignatius urge the local churches to obey their bishops? Why should the pope alone be excepted from the laity’s obligation of obedience? Is he not the supreme pastor?
The language, however, is indeed impolitic and unhelpful nowadays. Which may be why I seldom see Catholics use it. :)
Diane
Diana
I thought you might react…but I welcome your doing so, since it permits me to clarify.
Indeed it is a brave soul, a temerarious one indeed, who writes “never” in a historical context. You will find many byzantines using very deferential language to the Roman see, maybe even that of “obedience” – especially when they are trying to convince him to intervene on their side in a dispute – but it needs to be read in context. Hyperbolic expressions of veneration are a feature of byzantine rhetorical style and are not only common in dealing with the Roman Church, but are often used between bishops and patriarchs on an unquestionably equal footing. My point is that we should not appropriate such language anachronically as if it suggests that its author subscribed to post-Tridentine theologies of primacy.
As for Maximus, I suppose you are referring to the following, or suchlike passages:
“…the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”.
Difficult it is, indeed, to explain this as referring to an empty “primacy of honour”, but my point stands. I could satisfy myself by pointing out that the words “obey” and “obedience” are not used, but that might seem mere cavilling. The saint is teaching that the bishops of Rome have an authoritative role within the episcopate, not that he is over and above it. The reference to canons, synods etc. implies that the primacy, which in itself is of divine origin – “from the incarnate Son of God Himself” – is subject to positive determination by the Church as regards the means of its exercise.
Finally, I would not accept that only diplomacy militates against the language of obedience and domination being used today. I think that language has undesirable results inside the Church as well as in ecumenical discussions. The Orthodox will rightly suspect our ecumenical statements to be just Trojan horses if we do not let the insights which guide it illumine our whole ecclesiology and catechesis, including ad intra. The pope is not the boss-man of the whole Church. Christ is the head of the Church. The pope is the servant of ecclesial communion, being entrusted at the highest level with guardianship of the deposit of faith.
Thank you for posting.
I think that Dr. Barstad has confused several issues in his paper, “Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby, etc.” I will try to explain how I believe he has misunderstood the fundamental nature of the proposal.
With two notable exceptions, each of the Eastern Catholic Churches has Eastern or Oriental Orthodox origins. To claim that only now after Vatican II these Churches can begin to think of themselves as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” instead of mere “Eastern rites within the Roman Catholic Church” has it backwards. One of the chief complaints of Eastern Catholics over time and today is that they have felt like outsiders within the Catholic Church. Eastern Catholics have felt like the foster children living in a foster home rather than feeling like brothers and sisters. Being perceived as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” reinforces the fact that Eastern Catholics are somehow outsiders and perhaps not to be trusted. This is certainly not the goal of the Second Vatican Council.
Moreover, to claim that this identity as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” is an enticing one to Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is also false. Many Eastern Christians distrust the motives of present Eastern Catholic ecumenism because of the historical circumstances that surrounded many Eastern reunions with Rome. Catholic missionaries, political intrigues and war were some of the heavy-handed tactics used in the past to accomplish corporate reunion. These hard tactics of the past have created harsh memories that cause some Eastern Christians to mistrust the soft diplomatic tactics of the modern age. Furthermore, Eastern Christians can see that their Eastern Catholic counterparts are different. They are not just the same as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome.” Eastern law, customs, liturgy, doctrine, theology and history have all changed with Roman communion. Some changed to a greater, others to a lesser extent. The merits and reasons for change weren’t always good. However, to claim that no change shall be required seems duplicitous and causes more mistrust.
At the heart of the matter, Barstad appears to fundamentally misunderstand the Ratzinger proposal, in my opinion. The proposal is not an attempt to recreate the doctrinal landscape of the 1st millennium. Barstad rightly laments that this is an impossibility. Rather, the proposal is an attempt to strip away the practical requirements of modern communion and recreate the orthopraxy of the 1st age of the Church. The proposal seeks to eliminate the law and structures of the modern era and return to a form of communion based upon the episcopal fraternal embrace. This is precisely why, in my opinion, Pope Benedict XVI eliminated the title “Patriarch of the West” from Roman usage. Not only was the title only used in Rome in recent times but also its usage creates an entirely new and imperial structure from which to manage Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Christian Churches. Rather, Benedict was deliberately choosing to return to the simple episcopal structure of his role as Bishop of Rome that is decidedly more biblical and historical.
Such a return to simple structures is difficult for Rome. Modern and liberal notions of the “efficiency” of bureaucracy have transformed the Vatican into a labyrinthine maze of often competing structures that constrict progress to the slowest crawl. The eradication of structure in favor of persons is perhaps Benedicts greatest challenge. Nobody knows the measure of the task better, however.
If find it interesting that the Melkite response to the proposal was what the proposal imagined. Orthopraxy requires orthodoxy, however. Antiochian response to the Melkite proposal was decidedly cool. A slow approach was prescribed. As interesting to me was the manner in which the response was crafted by both Antiochian and Roman institutions. Modern bone crushing bureaucracies began to come alive in order to bring “context and balance” to the bold Melkite proposal. Pontifical and Patriarchal Congregations Commissions, Consulters and Boards sprang into action to halt the “hasty” Melkite action.
Dependency on bureaucracy for fraternal communion between Eastern and Roman Churches is exactly what the Ratzinger and Melkite proposals wish to avoid. Only when these modern bureaucratic structures are eliminated will, in my opinion, real progress toward reunion be made.
“Furthermore, Eastern Christians can see that their Eastern Catholic counterparts are different. They are not just the same as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome.” Eastern law, customs, liturgy, doctrine, theology and history have all changed with Roman communion. Some changed to a greater, others to a lesser extent. The merits and reasons for change weren’t always good. However, to claim that no change shall be required seems duplicitous and causes more mistrust.”
Gil,
I’m seeking clarification. Are you saying that Eastern Catholics should not seek to return to their authentic traditions and follow their own theological understandings? There has been a huge shift from the pre-Vatican II days to now. The Melkite Church has been in the vanguard of restoring the fullness of Eastern tradition in this regard. Vatican II and John Paul II called for this as well. However, this has also caused an identity crisis for many Eastern Catholics and perhaps can be connected to the reason for Archbishop Zoghby’s proposal.
orthocath,
Thank you for the question.
Eastern Catholics should seek to return to their authentic traditions, customs, law, liturgy and theological methods within the hermeneutic of continuity.
The Antiochene tradition to which you refer has suffered from aggressive Latinization from Rome as well as Hellenization from Constantinople. Examining and testing traditions for authenticity while remaining within the stream of continuity for one’s tradition is no easy task. My hat is off to those that endeavor the enterprise.
My point is that Roman communion has an impact on one’s trajectory. Constanitopolitan communion has had an impact as well. To pretend otherwise is folly.
For some reason I was unable to reply to your latest post, so I’m doing it here.
“My point is that Roman communion has an impact on one’s trajectory.”
Yes, the Antiochian tradition was Hellenized, but the Melkite Greek Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox share the Byzantine tradition now. As for restoration of authentic Byzantine tradition, the direction that Rome urges is for Eastern Catholics to ‘distance themselves as little as possible from Orthodox practice’ (section 21 of the Liturgical Instruction). Text here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/Istruzione/pdf/istruzione_inglese.pdf
The idea that Roman communion would affect how one would restore one’s authentic tradition is not reflected in this curial document. In fact, it was this document that helped many of the Eastern Catholic Churches begin Infant Communion, something most of them had lost when they entered Roman communion.
Diane,
in Maxim Martyr’s time, ALL of the five ancient patriarchies (including Rome) succumbed to the errors of monoenergism and monothellism.
I wouldn’t qualify “bureaucratic efficiency” as “liberal”.
After all, it’s the “conservatives” at the moment who have a stranglehold on the bureacracy.
But the argument is correct.
What’s needed is not the elimination of the Pope or bishops but the Vatican as centralized bureaucracy.
I don’t think the present Pope has any interest in doing so.
Evagrius
I am sure the present pope would love to eliminate the centralized bureaucracy. His statements show – for those who can read between the lines – that he realizes the deleterrious effects of its dead weight. That is why he is detested and derided by many of those who are supposed to be his adjutants (believe me – I know). However, the question is wether he can. Pius IX was the first “prisoner of the Vatican”, but not the last. The walls holding him in are made of paper.
Gil Garza, you make excellent, thought-provoking points. Thank you.
evagrius, I’m not sure it’s helpful to characterize Vatican bureaucracy as either liberal or conservative. (I just felt a strange compulsion to characterize it as “Byzantine,” but…nahhh. ;-))
No Catholic I know, either liberal or conservative, is thrilled with the snail’s pace at which the Vatican bureaucracy makes decisions. I’ve heard of people who have appealed annulment cases to the Roman Rota…they could have been widowed twice over before the final decision came through. Such inefficiency does not sit well with anyone, and I’m not sure political leanings have anything to do with it.
Entrenched bureaucracies are indeed difficult to dislodge or even reform / streamline. But I think you’re right, Gil — such a streamlining (in the interests of “fraternal embrace”) is perhaps one of Pope Benedict’s key aims. And why not? Could even the most over-the-top ultramontanist object? Anyone who has experienced bureaucracy up close and personal — and, as a corporate slave, I’ve had plenty of exposure to it — knows how suffocating it is. It strangles the Church’s witness. It squelches imagination and creativity. In short, it stinks.
Re the fraternal embrace: At another forum, a former Orthodox (now Catholic) made this observation, which I found quite eye-opening:
“The thing that really amazes me is that the Papacy and the Pope are far gentler and more Orthodox in their Bishop approach than Orthodox Bishops. Orthodox Bishops try to appear nice and loving, but often their tempers flare and that is not a sign of the Holy Spirit. … Haven’t found a more Orthodox in mind Bishop than Pope Benedict – his writings are absolutely sublime.”
This struck me all the more because it’s not the first time I’ve heard it. Other converts from Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have made similar statements. Years ago I read a testimony by a convert from Anglicanism who recounted the first time he’d ever seen a pope, which was during a trip to Rome. The pope in question was Pius X. This Anglican gentleman expected to see an Overbearing Dishpot, an arrogant puffed-up absolute monarch. As the pope passed by, this guy looked right into his face. “It was the face of a saint,” he recounted. This experience so shook him that he started to question everything he’d been taught during his formative years — all that “No Popery,” Great Papal Bogeyman stuff.
I wonder whether our current pope may not be a far better example of first-millennium orthopraxis — i.e., of the fraternal embrace — than his critics who loathe and fear him as the Great Papal Bogeyman? ;)
Diane
My point is that we should not appropriate such language anachronically as if it suggests that its author subscribed to post-Tridentine theologies of primacy.
With all due respect, Father Paul, this is a straw-man. How often do you find Catholics (at least in fora such as this) claiming that the ECFs subscribed to ‘post-Tridentine theologies of primacy’? IMHO, and I say this with fear and trembling, that’s a bit of a cheap shot.
I’ve often heard the argument that the Byzantines were given to rhetorical flourish and excess. Again, with all due respect, I think this can be taken only so far. If taken too far, it effectively neutralizes everything the Eastern Fathers ever wrote or uttered. Sure, they were given to rhetorical flourish — but not to such a degree of rhetorical flourish that their statements mean absolutely nothing. The patristic witness is not all empty rhetoric. It has content and meaning, too. If it didn’t, how could historians say anything at all about it — how could they draw any inferences or conclusions? Such reductionism renders the historian’s craft flat impossible.
Moreover, in my experience, the “rhetorical excess” argument is a prime example of the Orthodox penchant for trying desperately to explain away the patristic testimony. One Orthodox cyber-chum (then quite ecumenical but now a hard-liner) once confided to me, “It begins to look like a pattern.” (This was during his ecumenical period, natch.) He was referring to Orthodox inventiveness in coming up with ever-fresh excuses and pretexts for disqualifying the patristic witness to papal primacy. Age cannot wither nor custom dim their infinite variety! ;)
Again, with fear and trembling, I remain….
yr humble servant,
Diane the Untutored and Ignorant :D
Diane,
Have you read Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck’s book His Broken Body? He’s an OCA priest living in Northern California. He gives a different take than many Orthodox polemicists. There were claims made by Roman popes (such as Pope St. Leo and Popes St. Gregory) and these are Orthodox saints. Did the claims made and the praise of many Eastern Fathers equate to the way the papacy evolved in the second millennium? That the Pope would appoint all Bishops and that the Eastern Churches would be governed through an Eastern Congregation? Certainly that was not part of what the Eastern Fathers had in mind when they sang the praises of Pope St. Leo and Pope St. Gregory (and other saintly popes).
Anyway, if you can, pick up Fr. Cleenewerck’s book. My blog has a link to it on Google Books. Most of it is available there.
Everyone recognizes that the current relationship between Rome and the Eastern Churches is provisional, and not a model for broader reunion.
I would simply point to Barstad’s take on the Initiative as demonstrating why this provisional state continues to exist.
Some of the Eastern Catholic rites are minuscule, some have suffered from internal conflict, and some have not demonstrated a fully consistent fidelity to the rest of the communion. The crisis of confidence cuts both ways.
The varying levels of tutelage the Eastern Churches are under may be irksome, but the solution does not lie in dissent from Catholic teaching, but in faithfully witnessing to Catholic teaching in such a form or way that it can be received and accepted by the separated Churches.
Diane
no need for the fear or the trembling – if we had met in the real world, you would know that I am just a big, gentle pussycat despite my sometimes acerbic writtten style. Nor did I mean to suggest that you were either untutored or ignorant.
I am sure you will concede that I was not suggesting that byzantine rhetorical flourishes empty their texts of meaning – I was simply saying that it is not necessarily the meaning we today would attach to the same phrases. I would certainly not say that insisting on this caution involves ruling them out as witnesses to the papal primacy.
As for straw men, well what I meant was not that RC apologists commit the anachronism of explicitly attributing post-Tridentine concepts of primacy to earlier, byzantine writers. I meant that they often unconsciously imply such an identification, sometimes perhaps because this is the only concept of primacy they can conceive of. Please note that I am not saying this is so in your case; nor are those who do so necessarily untutored or ignorant.
However, and more importantly, isn’t it time we stopped having a private, intra-Catholic conversation in front of our Orthodox friends, instead of trying to encourage them to discuss these points with us? They might conclude from our good-natured disagreements that Catholicism isn’t as monolithic as it’s cracked up to be…On second thoughts…
I jump into this discussion with a bit of anxiety, or perhaps I should say timidity. But, I have to note that the Latins here are less comfortable with the Zoghby Initiative than the Byzantine Catholics. I think that illustrates how many Roman Rite Catholics really don’t understand how many Byzantine Catholics feel about themselves and their Church. (I am a Byzantine Catholic now making plans to return to Orthodoxy.)
If you’re a Byzantine Catholic and you really seek the full return of Eastern tradition and the removal of latinizations in the Byzantine Catholic Church (as was called for in Vatican II and in various Church documents), you’re more than likely to support the Zoghby Initiative. Why is that? I ask that more rhetorically as I’m not sure if I have an answer to share yet.
As for myself, I remain fairly ecumenical at heart. I find I like much of what Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck (an OCA priest) has written in the book His Broken Body. I daily pray for the reconciliation of the two Churches. Still, it isn’t going to be on the Vatican I model. Of that I am sure.
The are two difficulties with the Zoghby Initiative:
1. The propensity of the the likes of Barstad (and apparently yourself) to misrepresent it as an instrumentation of doctrinal dissent; and
2. The ecclesiological difficulties involved in asymmetrical communion. If Melkites are in communion with Orthodox Antiochans while remaining in communion with Rome, does this not necessitate that Orthodox Antiochans should be as well? And if they are, what then of communion between Antiochan and non-Antiochan Orthodox?
Vatican I does not present a “model” ecclesiology. It merely spells out the doctrinal basis for the Pope’s ancient universal appellate authority and for his mandate to speak authoritatively for the episcopate as its president. Before abandoning communion with Rome, I strongly suggest that you sit down with your (Melkite) bishop to see if he can make this clear to you.
orthcath
If it’s agreeable to you, I’d like to correspond with you privately. Please email me at jconder45@comcast.net. Joe
Michael writes:
The are two difficulties with the Zoghby Initiative:
1. The propensity of the the likes of Barstad (and apparently yourself) to misrepresent it as an instrumentation of doctrinal dissent
I take exception to your characterization of “Barstad”‘s (actually you might refer to him as “Dr. Barstad”, since he has a doctorate) “misrepresent[ation]”. I am personally acquainted with Dr. Barstad, and he is not the type to misrepresent anything. He is a man of genuine spirituality, erudition, and integrity. He is genuinely committed to the idea of being “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. Now I happen to disagree with him on the workability of that project at this present time, but I see no good reason for anyone to cast aspersions on his intellectual honesty.
>Vatican I does not present a “model” ecclesiology. It merely spells out the doctrinal basis for the Pope’s ancient universal appellate authority and for his mandate to speak authoritatively for the episcopate as its president.
As I posted above, Vatican I (and Vatican II) go far beyond outlining a “universal appellate authority” for the Pope. It (and Vatican II) instead spell out a universal *ordinary* authority, which is quite different. Furthermore, as to VI spelling out a “doctrinal basis” for an “ancient” authority, how credible is it that this would only take place in 1870? It isn’t as if the nature of the pope’s authority hadn’t been a pressing issue since, say, 1000 AD. I know you and others believe the authority itself is explicit from the beginning of the Church (I question that), but, if so, how is it consistent with the teaching mission of the Magisterium that it took until 1870 to define the “doctrinal basis”? That is one of the many things that don’t make sense to me about the Roman teaching on the papacy. Joe
I am sure Dr. Barstad (strange, I can refer to the Pope as “Benedict”, but apparently cannot be forgiven for omitting a secular honorific for a scholar), is a nice man who loves puppies. He is, however, also advocating formal religious dissent as a right and recklessly ascribing the same intent to the majority of the Melkite episcopate. If he wants to leave the Catholic communion, he is free to do so. But If he claims a right to repudiate Catholic teaching each and every living Melkite has subscribed to via his or her baptismal oath AND remain a Catholic in good standing, then he deserves no more consideration than his liberal Catholic counterparts.
As for Vatican I, here is how the word “ordinary” in relation to the Papal office was explained to the Council Fathers by Mgr Zinelli on 5 July 1870 who spoke on behalf of the DF responsible for drafting Pastor Aeternus:
“All (jurists and doctors in canon law) describe as “ordinary” that power which comes to someone by virtue of his office, and as delegated that which comes to him not from his own office but which he exercises in the name of another to whom it is ordinary. The Deputation of the Faith believes that with this explanation the difference is narrow. For does not the sovereign pontiff possess by virtue of his office that power which is attributed to him? If it is by virtue of his office, it is an ordinary power.”
Now, of course, you are free to interpret “ordinary” in the document as meaning something else, but when the author himself provides the interpretive gloss…
In answer to your second point, the definition of papal authority was needed in 1870 because of the challenge to this authority posed by the liberal revolutions in Europe and by the effort to use Gallicanism as a trojan horse to impose an Erastian understanding of ecclesiology in the West. The use of ultramontane terminology was perhaps unfortunate, but all the necessary safeguards can be discerned in the text itself, in the glosses offered by the DF, and by the complementary ecclesiology offered by Vatican II.
Prospects of imminent reunion might provide the context for a dogmatic definition at a reunion council of the limits proper to the exercise of papal authority, but we are hardly there yet. My preference would, in any case, be to see such a definition articulated with ecumenically minded Orthodox than to them.
>I am sure Dr. Barstad (strange, I can refer to the Pope as “Benedict”, but apparently cannot be forgiven for omitting a secular honorific for a scholar)
I don’t believe “Benedict” is the pope’s last name, therefore I don’t see your comparison.
>As for Vatican I, here is how the word “ordinary” in relation to the Papal office was explained to the Council Fathers by Mgr Zinelli on 5 July 1870 who spoke on behalf of the DF responsible for drafting Pastor Aeternus:
Of course, the passage that follows is concerned with explaining the difference between ordinary and “delegated” authority, but does not delineate what the Pope’s “ordinary” authority is. But that ordinary authority has been delineated elsewhere, and it means exactly what I stated: the Pope has the same authority vis-avis any diocese in the world that the local bishop does, except he can overrule the bishop, of course. As I said, the Pope has the authority to replace the choir director in St. Mary’s of Kalamazoo, if he wishes. That far surpasses any “appellate authority”. Or do you dispute that?
>In answer to your second point, the definition of papal authority was needed in 1870 because of the challenge to this authority posed by the liberal revolutions in Europe and by the effort to use Gallicanism as a trojan horse to impose an Erastian understanding of ecclesiology in the West.
*As if* the delimitation of papal authority hadn’t been in dispute in many other matters prior to 1870. Gallicanism itself was *at least* as much of a challenge in the late 1700s as i was in 1870. The Council of Constance in 1439 might have been a particularly appropriate point for the proclamation of papal supremacy, had it truly been a part of the Depositum Fidei.
It took 1830 years after Pentecost to define the nature of the supreme authority in the Church? Please.
>The use of ultramontane terminology was perhaps unfortunate, but all the necessary safeguards can be discerned in the text itself, in the glosses offered by the DF, and by the complementary ecclesiology offered by Vatican II.
When we’re speaking about what authority is given, it is the text itself that governs: any “glosses” would be fallible, and subject to error. Further, I don’t see that Vatican II did anything to modify the authority given by VI, and I’d be surprised if you wanted to say that it did.
>Prospects of imminent reunion might provide the context for a dogmatic definition at a reunion council of the limits proper to the exercise of papal authority, but we are hardly there yet.
Agreed. And unless and until Rome is prepared to open its post-schism dogmatic declarations to a de novo examination and consideration by the entire Church (which does *not* mean everything would necessarily be discarded), we will never get “there”.Joe
Still, it isn’t going to be on the Vatican I model. Of that I am sure.
Orthocath, elsewhere here you have argued that Pope St. Leo and other early fathers would not recognize the Catholic Church of the second millennium. As Michael and others have rightly pointed out, they would not recognize the Orthodox Church of the second millennium, either. So, where does that leave us?
I think you are envisioning a state of stasis — an absolute point-by-point conformity of the modern Church with the primitive Church — that is neither possible nor desirable. It is not possible — indeed, as Michael or Fr. Paul said elsewhere, it is fantasy — because there’s no such thing as absolute stasis. The modern Orthodox Church bears no more resemblance to the Church of Pope St. Leo’s time than does the modern Catholic Church. Indeed, as I think I can show, the contemporary Orthodox Church actually bears LESS resemblance to Pope St. Leo’s Church than does the contemporary Catholic Church. That is because Pope St. Leo’s Church had, well, a pope — a supreme pastor who (as Pope St. Leo himself clearly attested) wielded far more than a mere, empty “primacy of honor.” Contemporary Orthodoxy does not have this; she has specifically rejected the Christ-instituted office of the jurisdictional papacy.
Years ago, our genial Eirenikon host operated another blog, Cathedra Unitatis. At this other blog, our host posited a very provocative question which IMHO retains its full force today.
As our host observed then, Orthodox critics are fond of asking, “How does the second-millennium Catholic Church — and specifically the Church of Trent, VCI, and VCII — square with the first-millennium Church?” But, our host suggested (although not in these exact words :-): Does this question not pose the problem bass-ackwardly? There is another question, which seldom gets asked and never answered, but which is just as germane: How does contemporary Orthodoxy square with the first-millennium witness to papal jurisdictional primacy? How can today’s Orthodoxy — which has NO pope, no universal pastor — account for the fact that the united first-millennium Church DID have a pope, a universal pastor, who most manifestly and assuredly exercised real authority? (The Tome of Leo is but one example of such real authority. The examples, as you well know, can be multiplied many times over.)
To boil this down to the short-short: How can contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology, with its insistence on NO visible earthly head for the Church Universal, square with first-millennium ecclesiology? How can contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology square with the overwhelming witness of the first millennium — with the witness of Pope Saint Leo and those other early popes you mentioned? I do not see how it can. And, to put it bluntly, I think this puts Orthodox ecclesiology at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Catholic ecclesiology. IOW: I cannot see how Orthodoxy can claim MORE right to the title “True Church” than Catholicism can. Rather, I think Orthodoxy can claim LESS right to said title — precisely because she has left the pope (the great big elephant in the first-millennium living room) out of the picture.
How can a Church claim to be the most faithful of all to the primitive witness if it has jettisoned the papacy, which most definitely WAS an essential, integral part of the first-millennium Church? That’s the question in a nutshell.
I hope I have been clear enough here. When our Eireikon host posed this question back on his previous blog, he did so much more clearly and succinctly than I have. Perhaps he could re-pose the question for us, in his own words, and even in a separate thread…? (If he feels so inclined.)
OK, now back to the whole question of second (and third!) millennium vs. first millennium: Again, I think that people who pursue some frozen-in-time ideal of the primitive Church are pursuing a chimera. (Is this not the perennial Protestant quest, BTW? The quest for some mythically “pure” Primitive Church? Should either Catholics or Orthodox be scurrying down this essentially Protestant-Sectarian-Purist rabbit-trail? How many countless denominations and splinter groups have resulted from the Eternal Quest for Some Impossibly Pure Primitive Church?)
But be that as it may: What does Scripture say about the Church? Does Scripture say that the Primitive Church will remain frozen in a state of stasis, like Keats’ Grecian urn or Yeats’ Byzantium? No. Scripture says quite the contrary. Our Lord Himself, speaking of the Kingdom (which, in realized eschatology, is the Church) states that the Kingdom is “like a mustard seed, which grew into a great bush, and the birds of the air sheltered in its branches.”
Does the mustard bush even remotely resemble the tiny mustard seed? No. Not even close. Yet they are the same organism, with the same DNA. In the same way, you do not particularly resemble the zygote you once were — yet you are the same organism, with the same DNA. It’s no accident that Saint Paul calls the Church “the Body of Christ.” A body is an organism — and organisms develop. They do not remain in bare-seed form forever. They grow, they develop, they change in appearance while remaining the same in essence.
Catholics believe that we can no more jettison Vatican I than we can jettison I Nicaea. At the same time, we argue that there is NOTHING in Vatican I that either contradicts or adds to the primitive Deposit of the Faith which was closed with the death of the last apostle. Post-apostolic development (including I Nicaea, BTW) adumbrates, articulates, and elucidates the primitive Deposit. But it does not alter OR add to said Depositum.
Michael has provided excellent insights into the proper way to understand VCI and papal infallibility. If you read what he has written, you will get a better sense of how the contemporary Catholic Church is continuous (NOT discontinuous) with the first-millennium Church.
I think Catholics can make a rock-solid (pun intended) case for this essential organic continuity. (Obviously the full argument cannot fit in a combox…but it has certainly been made elsewhere!)
With all due respect, I think Orthodox have a much harder time making the case for 100% continuity between contemporary Orthodoxy and the first-millennium Church. That’s precisely because Orthodoxy has shucked the papacy. As I noted before, the papacy is the elephant in the first-millennium living room; it CANNOT be excluded from the picture without doing essential violence to the consistent and cumulative witness of the first-millennium Church.
Therefore, I think the burden is on the Orthodox to show how their non-papal (and even anti-papal) ecclesiology squares with — and continues with — the considerable first-millennium witness to papal **jurisdictional** primacy.
Diane
P.S. Please note: No one is saying that “accidents” of praxis (e.g., the fact that the pope appoints Western bishops) are part of the Depositum Fidei or part of the Church’s esse, in any millennium. As always, please try to separate de fide dogma (which cannot change) from praxis and pious opinion (which can).
Clarification: In the sixth paragraph of my lengthy post above, the phrase “True Church” should be better rendered “One True Church.” For Catholics, the question is NOT whether the Orthodox churches = “true particular churches.” (We state unequivocally that they are.) But we claim that the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church subsists in its fullness only in the Catholic Church in communion with Peter’s Successor, the Roman Pontiff. That is the sense in which I meant “True Church.” (Just want to forestall misunderstanding here.)
The weakness of your argument is quite simple. The papal “supremacy” as enunciated and practiced in the first millenium is vastly different to the papal supremacy enunciated and practiced in the second millenium and even currently.
I think this is really the gist of the problem. As others have pointed out, get rid of the Vatican, ( i.e; centralized micro-management of every diocese, appointments of bishops without real regard to local, diocesan views, micro-management of liturgical practices disregarding cultural traditions and needs, abuse of clerical powers, transfers of bishops that really should be put on trial for perjury, support, explicit and implicit, of tyrannies etc;etc;).
Sorry…but that’s what is seen of papal power/ supremacy by many people both within and outside the Roman Catholic Church and most of it boils down to monopoly of power.
For the sake of clarity when I referred to the modern and liberal notion of the “efficiency” of bureaucracy I was making reference to the classically liberal idea that governance at the most remote, most universal level possible is the most effective and efficient form of government. This coupled with the liberal idea of representative governance drives the multiplication of bureaucracies like tribbles at the highest level.
LOL, Father Paul, sorry for overreacting so testily. :)
One thing I’ve observed when Orthodox anti-Catholics make use of that “rhetorical excess” argument is that they NEVER apply this argument to patristic statements which accord with their own ecclesiology. Odd, inn’t it? ;)
I don’t think many educated Catholics — even the most ultramontane — would suggest that a statement made more than a thousand years ago in a very alien cultural context has precisely the same import as one made by a 21st-century American or European Catholic.
But isn’t that true of any statement in any primary source, especially when you go back far enough? The historian’s task is to get inside the heads of the people making these statements. But can you ever really get inside their heads? Never completely, I would suggest. That is why (IMHO) you have to respect their written words — put those words in context, for sure, but respect them nonetheless. In my experience as the mere spouse of an historian, I would suggest that this is one key difference between working-stiff historians and hyper-critical Scripture scholars: Historians cannot afford to disrespect, dismiss, or explain away their primary sources, because then they wouldn’t be able to say anything about anything. Scripture scholars, OTOH, specialize in disrespecting and dismissing their own sources…and yet seem to find plenty to say nonetheless. :)
In any case, ISTM that the sheer volume of patristic statements attesting papal primacy makes a very strong cumulative case for the Catholic understanding of the papacy. As my erstwhile cyber-chum pointed out (the one who noted the “pattern” among the explainers-away), it’s pretty hard to explain all those passages away, as rhetorical exaggeration or as what have you. It does start to look a tad desperate. (Here, of course, Father Paul, I am not referring to you but to certain Orthodox polemicists…)
Thanks again for your very gracious response!
Diane (who really is untutored and ignorant, actually)
Did the claims made and the praise of many Eastern Fathers equate to the way the papacy evolved in the second millennium? That the Pope would appoint all Bishops and that the Eastern Churches would be governed through an Eastern Congregation?
But that’s just it…you are speaking here of praxis, not of dogmatic definitions or understandings of the papacy. I think we need to separate the papacy in se, the papacy’s esse, from the particular historically conditioned ways in which papal primacy has been exercised at any given time. Obviously, papal appointment of bishops is not part of the papacy’s esse. It’s a matter of praxis…it has nothing to do with our Catholic understanding of what the papacy is. I personally think papal appointment of bishops is a pretty sound idea for the WEST, but I think it would be a bad idea WRT the East in a reunited Church. In any event, it could be jettisoned even in the West without in any way affecting Catholicism’s papal claims.
The ways in which the popes have exercised their primacy have changed over the centuries. Heck, they changed within the first millennium…it’s not as if the first millennium was this static, unchanging period, frozen in time like Yeats’s Byzantium. It’s not as if there was this radical rupture, this sudden utter discontinuity between the first-millennium papacy and the second-millennium papacy. Praxis was always changing, adapting to changing circumstances.
Praxis is (to some extent) negotiable. Formal dogmatic definitions are not. But papal appointment of bishops does not fall within the purview of formal dogmatic definitions. It is a matter of praxis, and a negotiable one at that.
Both the former pope and the current one have signaled that they are willing to re-envision the precise ways in which the popes would exercise their jurisdictional primacy, esp. WRT the East in the event of reunion. IOW: No one is trying to shove the post-Tridentine Western model down Easterners’ throats. Really and truly. ;)
If you look at how the West relates to the Eastern Catholic Churches (such as in the new Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches), it’s pretty much business as usual. What if Rome actually lived with the Eastern Catholic Churches as it would with the East in a reunited Church? A radical step, but it would show, far more concretely, that Rome is not just seeking to “envision” what it’d be like but live it.
Regarding Diane’s last comment on one of Fr. Paul’s previous comments: lex orandi, lex credendi: changes in (ecclesiological) dogma will in turn give birth to chnages in (ecclesiological) praxis.
I found elsewhere on this blog a link to this statement by the current Melkite Catholic Patriarch on how his Church views the Zoghby propoal:
Click to access patholyapostles.pdf
I don’t see anything to object to in this carefully phrased address. Nowhere does it allude to a claimed freedom to repudiate Catholic doctrine implied in Barstad’s article. The key phrase in my view is the allusion to “theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts (Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Theotokos, infallibility of the Pope of Rome)” that are problematic in terms of reunion.
An appropriate mandate for Byzantine Catholics would be to recast the substance of these definitions into Eastern “vocabulary and concepts,” and then seek the reception of these reformulations by their Orthodox brethren. Obviously, this would have to be done in consultation with Rome, and would presumably involve some back and forth exchanges between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox.
Given the proven eccumenical predisposition of both Melkites and the Antiochan patriarchate, there is no reason they should not pursue their own advanced dialogue on these issues while the broader and more cautious official Orthodox-Catholic International Theological Dialogue lumbers on.
“Local election of bishops, rite specific canon law, and freedom to ordain married men into Eastern Catholic Orders can all be envisaged.”
Why envisioned? Why do Eastern Catholics in this country still struggle with the right to ordain married men? In 1998, when the Ruthenian Church in the USA thought it had finally obtained the permission to enshrine in their particular law the phrase “marriage is not an impediment to holy orders,” there was such a reaction from the American Catholic establishment against it that the permission was withdrawn. See this discussion from the time:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/35577/1
This after what had happened in the 20s and 30s by the imposition of priestly celibacy on the Ruthenian Church which led to the defection of thousands to Orthodoxy.
To this day, Eastern Catholics must seek permission from Rome to ordain married men to the priesthood.
Is this what the primacy of the Bishop of Rome meant in the first millennium? Or, is the primacy as now exercised different than that model?
As I understand the Catholic position the Pope has the right to do these things, even if it’s a mistake. Personally, I don’t think that is what Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Gregory or any of the Eastern Fathers meant when they referred to the primacy of the Pope.
What is needed is for a definition of primacy that takes into account the problem of a papacy that oversteps its bounds. Can that be done and be reconciled to the idea that the decisions of a pope are irreformable?
“Is this what the primacy of the Bishop of Rome meant in the first millennium?”
Yes and no. In some sense the existence of Eastern rites in the West is an anomaly for which there were few precedents in the first millennium. The Church universal found itself incapable of resolving the problems caused by the in situ coexistence of multiple rites as the phenomenon became more common at the start of the second millennium. This was one of the underlying causes for the schism. I refer you to my article on Michael Cerelerius. You might also ask yourself what happened to the Syriac and Coptic rites within Orthodoxy, and why. Their disappearance is merely another manifestation of the same problem, yet I don’t hear you whining at the lack of respect for the legitimate rights of Antioch and Alexandria in the face of Byzantine ritual homogenization. Have you ever applied a careful microscope to the ethnically chauvinistic structure of the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem? Is this your model for the proper exercise of “local” patriarchal autonomy?
It is not my purpose to draw invidious comparisons. But the historical and canonical picture you and other Melkite dissidents paint tends to be both simplistic and tendentious. I don’t propose to deny the existence of legitimate grievances, but there IS a bigger picture.
In addition to his universal primacy, the bishop of Rome also effectively acts as patriarch for the Latin rite, and has to remain sensitive to the difficulties experienced by his Latin brothers in imposing the discipline proper to the Latin rite when other rites in their midst follow different practices that may be more lax on one or more points of discipline (while perhaps being more rigorous in others).
You have argued in earlier posts that Latins should be more sensitive to the difficulties experienced by their Eastern brethren. You should perhaps recognize in turn the stresses the praxis of Eastern rites can sometimes pose for Latins. It is the Pope’s responsibility to try to resolve these difficulties. The compromise Rome has decided on is to impose restraint in the matter of clerical marriage on Eastern rites IN THE WEST, while still allowing for case-by-case exceptions. In the East, the Eastern rites can continue the practice without reference to Rome.
“Or, is the primacy as now exercised different than that model?”
As a number of Latin posters here have pointed out, the current model is provisional. It is a response to the extraordinary situation created by schism WITHIN the Eastern rites. These schisms undermine the stability of the unity of the Catholic Church which is the Pope’s special concern. The long term vocation of the Eastern rites is to be folded into (or in the case of the Melkite and Chaldean rites, to fold into themselves) their Orthodox, Oriental or Assyrian counterparts in reunion with the wider Church, at which point they are to assume all the autonomy that is proper to them. Rome has repeatedly stressed this point, both to the Orthodox and to Eastern Catholics.
Let’s take a concrete example: the Bulgarian Catholic rite covers perhaps 10,000 communicants. What would you have Rome do? Recognize a Bulgarian Catholic Patriarchate, entrust it with sole responsibility for maintaining its canon law, training its own canon lawyers, and compell it to support four bishops so that three survivors can ordain a replacement in the event of the demise of one of their number?
Granted, the situation for Melkites is not quite so dire, but you make light of the far greater autonomy Melkites already actually enjoy; certainly far greater than that enjoyed by their Latin counterparts. And who exactly do you think staffs the Congregation for the Oriental Churches? Are you somehow under the misapprehension that it is unsympathetic blinkered ham-fisted Latins who draft its decrees for the Pope’s approval?
“As I understand the Catholic position the Pope has the right to do these things, even if it’s a mistake.”
It is certainly his right. Its exercise may or may not be a mistake in given circumstances. There is certainly no hunger on Rome’s part to micromanage the Eastern rites. If anything, it is viewed as a painful and expensive embarrassment, corrosive of relations with our separated brethren. Ultimately, its exercise is up to the Holy Father’s prudential judgment. It doesn’t follow that he is mistaken simply because you disagree with his decisions. We all want, Benedict included, a return to the normal ecclesiological practice of the first millennium (minus the chaos and rampant heresy). Unfortunately, we live in the third millennium and have to work with the situation in which we find ourselves.
“Personally, I don’t think that is what Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Gregory or any of the Eastern Fathers meant when they referred to the primacy of the Pope.”
I don’t think any of them would have considered the ecclesiological form currently assumed by Orthodoxy to be normative either. They were simply not faced with our circumstances.
“What is needed is for a definition of primacy that takes into account the problem of a papacy that oversteps its bounds. Can that be done and be reconciled to the idea that the decisions of a pope are irreformable?”
Oh please, is this seriously how you understand Vatican I? Since when are canonical decisions irreformable?
Thank you, Michael, for your comments. I will try to respond to some of them. I don’t appreciate “I don’t hear you wining” type of remarks and may decide not to continue replying to comments of that nature. I do not claim Orthodoxy is perfect. We have our own problems, of that I’ll readily agree.
“You have argued in earlier posts that Latins should be more sensitive to the difficulties experienced by their Eastern brethren. You should perhaps recognize in turn the stresses the praxis of Eastern rites can sometimes pose for Latins. It is the Pope’s responsibility to try to resolve these difficulties. The compromise Rome has decided on is to impose restraint in the matter of clerical marriage on Eastern rites IN THE WEST, while still allowing for case-by-case exceptions. In the East, the Eastern rites can continue the practice without reference to Rome.”
Why? Was this not a great injustice? Is not the current “compromise” (only accepted by Eastern Catholics because they have no choice) an indication that Rome is not ready to live with Orthodox who ordain married men to the priesthood?
“Let’s take a concrete example: the Bulgarian Catholic rite covers perhaps 10,000 communicants. What would you have Rome do? Recognize a Bulgarian Catholic Patriarchate, entrust it with sole responsibility for maintaining its canon law, training its own canon lawyers, and compell it to support four bishops so that three survivors can ordain a replacement in the event of the demise of one of their number?”
Good question. Perhaps such a situation could be entrusted to an Eastern Catholic Patriarch until they could become autonomous.
“And who exactly do you think staffs the Congregation for the Oriental Churches? Are you somehow under the misapprehension that it is unsympathetic blinkered ham-fisted Latins who draft its decrees for the Pope’s approval?”
Until recently, it was staffed by Westerners. If interested, read some of the correspondence from the Eastern Congregation in the 30s from this book:
http://www.archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963
“As I understand the Catholic position the Pope has the right to do these things, even if it’s a mistake.”
“It doesn’t follow that he is mistaken simply because you disagree with his decisions.”
Are there any Roman Rite Catholics here who can say it was a mistake? I hope that there are.
“We all want, Benedict included, a return to the normal ecclesiological practice of the first millennium (minus the chaos and rampant heresy). Unfortunately, we live in the third millennium and have to work with the situation in which we find ourselves.”
That’s good. But, I think more could be done to let the Eastern Catholics demonstrate what the relationship between the West and East could be like.
“Personally, I don’t think that is what Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Gregory or any of the Eastern Fathers meant when they referred to the primacy of the Pope.”
“I don’t think any of them would have considered the ecclesiological form currently assumed by Orthodoxy to be normative either. They were simply not faced with our circumstances.”
I agree the current Orthodox form is missing something. Metropolitan Philip (Antiochian Orthodox) gave a speech back in 1996 on this entitled: “Right Faith…Wrong System.” I tried to find a text online but could not. Our system has its problems. That doesn’t mean we need the current model of primacy, however.
I disagree with your second sentence. How do our current circumstances require something different?
“What is needed is for a definition of primacy that takes into account the problem of a papacy that oversteps its bounds. Can that be done and be reconciled to the idea that the decisions of a pope are irreformable?”
“Oh please, is this seriously how you understand Vatican I? Since when are canonical decisions irreformable?
So, there was a recourse for the Ruthenian Catholics in the 30s when priestly celibacy was imposed by the Pope?
As I understand the current Catholic position, a decision by the Pope must be accepted. Unless, a future Pope changes things. This is problematic when a Pope oversteps his bounds with regards to decisions outside his Patriarchate.
“I don’t appreciate “I don’t hear you wining” type of remarks and may decide not to continue replying to comments of that nature. I do not claim Orthodoxy is perfect. We have our own problems, of that I’ll readily agree.”
I will grant that the “whining” observation was unnecessarily sharp.
In relation to your remarks relating to restrictions on clerical marriage in Eastern rites in the West:
“Why? Was this not a great injustice?”
I would not go so far as describing it as an injustice (no one has a “right” to ordination, married or otherwise), but it is not the course I myself would have followed. On the other hand, I have perhaps a greater appreciation for the importance of the Eastern rites than most Latins (who in all probability are not even aware of their existence). That said, I am not a Latin bishop either, let alone the Pope, and do not feel in a position to second guess them on a question of balancing what is best for the universal Church.
“Is not the current “compromise” (only accepted by Eastern Catholics because they have no choice) an indication that Rome is not ready to live with Orthodox who ordain married men to the priesthood?”
It most certainly is not. Exceptions for Eastern rite postulants are now relatively freely granted in the West (unlike previously), no effort was ever made to impose clerical celibacy on Eastern rites in their ancestral areas, and, in the last few weeks, the Pope has issued an apostolic constitution providing for married clergy in an ordinariate for former Anglicans. All this strongly demonstrates that Rome is prepared to live with married Eastern clergy in the context of reunion.
Re canon law for minor Byzantine rites:
“Good question. Perhaps such a situation could be entrusted to an Eastern Catholic Patriarch until they could become autonomous.”
That would be one solution, but think carefully: which Eastern Catholic Patriarch? For Byzantines, there is only Catholic Patriarch, and in some cases this has already been done. Melkites in Palestine and Egypt have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Melkite Patriarch, for example, and not set up in separate jurisdictions shadowing the Orthodox patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria. But is Melkite legal praxis really the same as for the Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarchate. And what of the implications for reunion? What would Moscow think if Ukrainian Catholics were put under the jurisdiction of the Melkite Patriarch. What about the wishes of Ukrainian Catholics, none of whom to my knowledge have expressed such a wish?
With respect to the staffing of the COC:
“Until recently, it was staffed by Westerners. If interested, read some of the correspondence from the Eastern Congregation in the 30s from this book…”
Yes, well, we aren’t in the 1930s anymore, and since the collapse of communism there are a lot more Eastern rite Catholics with whom to staff the Congregation. At least acknowledge that efforts have been made to address the problem. I am all in favour of pushing on Eastern rite Catholics as much self-regulation as they can bear, and I strongly suspect Rome feels the same way. I draw the line, however, at turning the Catholic Church into a super-sized Anglicanism where every man and his dog can set their own doctrinal standard. We are either united in faith or not united at all.
“Are there any Roman Rite Catholics here who can say it was a mistake? I hope that there are.”
I assume you mean with regards to married clergy. The old rule absolutely forbidding married Eastern clergy in the West was objectively a mistake as it provoked 100,000 Eastern Catholics in North America to leave their communion. The current dispensation is more flexible, and appears to be more viable. If we could get liberal Catholics to can their demands for married Latin clergy we wouldn’t have a problem anymore. As these are (literally) a dying breed, the current dispensation might not even be needed a generation from now.
“That’s good. But, I think more could be done to let the Eastern Catholics demonstrate what the relationship between the West and East could be like.”
I agree entirely. I would like to see the Pope penning more encyclicals conjointly with the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, for example (though keep in mind that most Catholic rites do not have a major archbishop of patriarchal rank). One big problem, however, is that not all Orthodox are that keen on Eastern Catholics assuming a higher profile. I honestly believe that all (are almost all) the problems (and I do see them as REAL problems) you allude to would disappear in the context of reunion.
Re 1st millennium praxis in the exercise of papal primacy:
“How do our current circumstances require something different?”
We have schism, for one. Our rites are no longer more or less geographically exclusive. Communication and transportation are easier…. I could go on. Granted, none of these necessitate any particular model, but the model in 200 was different from the model in 500 which was different from the model in 800 which was different from the model in 1000. The Church’s practical ecclesiology has always been in a state of change, and the exercise of papal primacy has changed with it. Our task is twofold: to properly understand the Traditional theological basis, scope and limits of papal primacy, and to develop an appropriate model for its exercise in this our own time. Harkenning back to a mythical (not to mention largely splenetic) first millennial Golden Age can be just empty antiquarianism.
“So, there was a recourse for the Ruthenian Catholics in the 30s when priestly celibacy was imposed by the Pope?”
It all depends on how important communion with Rome is to you. The Pope will always be free to determine the conditions under which he will or will not extend communion. If you cannot conform to his requirements, schism is always a possible response. This was the case in the first century as much as in the 21st.
“As I understand the current Catholic position, a decision by the Pope must be accepted. Unless, a future Pope changes things. This is problematic when a Pope oversteps his bounds with regards to decisions outside his Patriarchate.”
There are several different types of papal decisions (legal, pastoral, doctrinal, dogmatic, etc…) and it is important to differentiate between them. There are also different types of acceptance. I have to accept and confirm to decisions made legally by my government, for example. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, nor does it rule out appealing against them if I think them illegal, or seeking to have them changed if I think them unwise or abusive.
The only papal decisions that are “irreformable” per se are dogmatic definitions intended to binding on the whole Church, and these can always be refined, qualified, or reformulated. “Irreformable” in the theological sense merely means “not inherently in need of substantive correction.”
Michaël
not all of those who favour the ordination of married men “demand” it. Nor does their favouring of it mean necessarily that they are “liberals”. Usually I admire the rigour of your argument and more often than not I agree with you. However, the use of generic labelling of people who do not agree with us (“Melkite dissidents” is another one), often in order to dispenseourselves from the trouble of dealing with their arguments, is a tendancy whose prevalence today is deeply corrosive of serene ecclesial communion, and I think it is unworthy of you. Sorry to be so blunt.
Fr. Paul,
I fully and humbly accept your correction. My tone and exasperation were both sadly inappropriate to this forum. I would simply beg your indulgence (and that of Orthocath, as well, of course) in allowing me shortly to expand on what I meant by “Melkite dissent” (by which I did not mean to tar all or even most Melkites) as I think this an identifiable recent phenomenon that has great bearing on Barstad’s article. I can’t do so right now as I pressed by other duties, but will try to set my hand to it tonight and promise to cast it in what I am sure will be seen as a genuinely charitable light. I will be particularly anxious to read Orthocath’s response insofar as it might address his own experience.
“If we could get liberal Catholics to can their demands for married Latin clergy we wouldn’t have a problem anymore. As these are (literally) a dying breed, the current dispensation might not even be needed a generation from now.”
I think the “dying breed” desscribes more the lack of vocations to the priesthood in Western Catholic countries though the importation of “foreign” priest covers this up.
Most Catholics have no problems with a married priesthood.
Given the recent report from Ireland, you might want to reflect a little deeper on this.
evagrius — what do you mean by “lack of vocations”? In solidly orthodox dioceses (like mine), the seminaries are bursting at the seams. :)
I do not know where you are writing from (geographically), but perspective is everything.
There seems to be – and please correct me if I am wrong – a naive assumption in what you write that since the schism the Catholic church has changed what it believed, while the Orthodox Church has remained unchanged. This is in any case what many Orthodox polemists assert. It is fantasy. The Orthodox Church has evolved since the schism in the expression of its belief, in its liturgy, theology, iconography, homiletics, and every other domain of its earthly existence.
Hear hear. AMEN! PREACH IT, BROTHER.
Some people simply seem unable to grasp this point. But anyone with even the most minimal training in historiography knows how very, very true it is, and how amply it can be demonstrated from the evidence.
“Throughout those evolutions, it has not changed its fundamental faith, and I as a Catholic thank God for that. Is it not at least worthy of consideration that perhaps, in spite of changes in all of those areas which are admittedly much more striking within Catholicism, the fundamentals may have renmained the same as they were in the West before the schism?”
I’m not sure who said it (Lossky?): “Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.” The life of the Church grows (evolves) over the years. No question about it.
Michael,
My time is limited today so I only responded to part of your post.
“I will grant that the “whining” observation was unnecessarily sharp.”
I understand how these sort of discussions can get the emotions going.
“Is not the current “compromise” (only accepted by Eastern Catholics because they have no choice) an indication that Rome is not ready to live with Orthodox who ordain married men to the priesthood?”
“It most certainly is not. Exceptions for Eastern rite postulants are now relatively freely granted in the West (unlike previously), no effort was ever made to impose clerical celibacy on Eastern rites in their ancestral areas, and, in the last few weeks, the Pope has issued an apostolic constitution providing for married clergy in an ordinariate for former Anglicans. All this strongly demonstrates that Rome is prepared to live with married Eastern clergy in the context of reunion.”
These are steps forward. However, if someone from the Latin Church transfers to an Eastern Catholic Church and then seeks ordination, he may not be approved. So, the approvals are not always freely given. If there is a reunion between our two Churches would there still be this barrier? And, to be honest, can we even think of maintaining this difference in practice in a reunited Church? Would not that become unmanageable?
As to celibacy outside of the US. Celibacy has become the norm in Maronite, Armenian & Coptic Catholic Churches. If not by decree, by the latinization tendencies that these Churches faced. Hopefully, this might change if there ever is reunion.
With respect to the staffing of the COC:
“Until recently, it was staffed by Westerners. If interested, read some of the correspondence from the Eastern Congregation in the 30s from this book…”
“Yes, well, we aren’t in the 1930s anymore, and since the collapse of communism there are a lot more Eastern rite Catholics with whom to staff the Congregation. At least acknowledge that efforts have been made to address the problem.”
Yes, it’s improving. I’ll agree to that. I’m not sure if there’s still a real need for the Eastern Congregation, however.
“Are there any Roman Rite Catholics here who can say it was a mistake? I hope that there are.”
“I assume you mean with regards to married clergy. The old rule absolutely forbidding married Eastern clergy in the West was objectively a mistake as it provoked 100,000 Eastern Catholics in North America to leave their communion. The current dispensation is more flexible, and appears to be more viable. If we could get liberal Catholics to can their demands for married Latin clergy we wouldn’t have a problem anymore. As these are (literally) a dying breed, the current dispensation might not even be needed a generation from now.”
I’m glad to hear you say it was a mistake. I don’t think the problems of the Latin Church should affect the Eastern Catholics, however. As it is, most Latin Catholics really don’t know much about them and the existence of a married clergy amongst them is not really going to affect the Latin Church much at all. As it is, there are probably more married Latin priests (via Anglicanism, etc.) than there are married Byzantine Catholic priests in the US.
“So, there was a recourse for the Ruthenian Catholics in the 30s when priestly celibacy was imposed by the Pope?”
“It all depends on how important communion with Rome is to you. The Pope will always be free to determine the conditions under which he will or will not extend communion. If you cannot conform to his requirements, schism is always a possible response. This was the case in the first century as much as in the 21st.”
Again, this highlights the problem. If a Pope oversteps his authority with regards to Churches outside his patriarchate, the response is schism? From the Eastern point of view, this is not acceptable. We’ve seen that it can be a real problem. There are other examples I can think of, but the issue of married clergy and Rome’s response to it in the past demonstrates the problem.
Yes…vocations do “seem bursting at the seams” in certain places.
But, to be honest, there’s something to be desired in the candidates if you take a very serious look at the candidates themselves. The basic problem is a real lack of psychological maturity.
Oh, for a while everything will be fine….until another “Irish scandal” will crop up.
Celibacy is a peculiar vocation and it should not be linked to a vocation as a priest.
Sorry, but I think confusing monastic celibacy with priesthood is a basic fundamental mistake.
I think it will be a fine day when the “uniates” in the Orthodox Church go to Rome and the “uniates” in the Roman Church go to the Orthodox. I don’t mean this in a tongue in cheek way either. I find the “unia” problematic in that it allows neither “unia” to be who they are naturally. What I mean by this is that the Orthodox and Romans both take away and add to the tradition of the other group they are proselytizing. It would be easier to have discussions if everyone went home first.
I would like to add that both groups have experienced misunderstandings and injustices from their respective proselytizers. East and West need to put their own houses in order first, before, they attempt to put the whole house in order.
But, to be honest, there’s something to be desired in the candidates if you take a very serious look at the candidates themselves. The basic problem is a real lack of psychological maturity.
evagrius, my poppet…on what do you base this assertion?
I have a friend who works very closely with our young priests and seminarians. She has been doing this for years, largey through http://www.tedeumfoundation.org
I think she would challenge your claim, at least WRT the seminarians in our diocese. :)
Diane,
Getting off-topic, ( but this is a topic that should be explored as it does affect ecumenism) but you really need to look at this subject seriously.
http://www.richardsipe.com/ is a site exploring the full complexity of the celibate priesthood.
I’m reading right now “Demythologizing Celibacy; Practical Wisdom from Christian and Buddhist Monasticism” by William Skudlarek OSB that explores both monastic traditions experience with monastic celibacy.
My experience with seminarians was many moons ago when studying at the GTU ( Graduate Theological Union) in Berkeley, an educational consortium that includes Jesuit, Dominican and Franciscan seminaries. They struck me as being a little naive, to say the least. I was a layperson interested in studying religion but clearly aware of not wanting to be a priest so that may have colored my impressions.
evagrius–we had one of those consortia in Boston, too. I was at HDS but also studied at Episcopal Divinity School (part of the consortium), which shared its campus with Weston School of Theology, which was Jesuit (and also part of the consortium).
I think your observations may have applied way back then, but I’m not sure they’d apply now. We have a lot of late vocations these days. A surprising number of our seminarians have held jobs “in the world” before entering seminary. Many have even had successful careers. I don’t think they can be credibly accused of naivete’.
Moreover, I don’t think our celibate priests are any likelier (these days) to be bad apples than anyone else’s clergy. What about all the barely prepared candidates rushed through the Antiochian ordination process? — Protestant one day, Orthodox priests the next? (Slight hyperbole, but you get my drift.) Things are tough all over. If celibacy were the issue, we would not have so many messed-up married clergy in other communions. (Like, for instance, the Methodist pastor who molested a friend of mine when she was 11 years old, at the orphanage where she lived and which he helped run, and who got away with it scot-free. There are so many stories like that, and not just dealing with sexual abuse…people are simply messed up; it’s the human condition; and married clergy are as prrone to it as the next person.)
I for one believe that celibacy should remain the norm for Latin Catholicism. I think we would create more of a mess by jettisoning it than we have now. Married clergy may be fine for teeny little congregations. But, even if the priest shortage went away tomorrow, we would till have plenty of humongous Catholic parishes. IMHO married clergy and their families would have a hard time coping with the pressure cooker of a large congregation. Just my two cents’ worth. Let’s just say that I would hate to be the priest’s wife in such a situation, much less his kid!
Please pardon mangled syntax and typos in comment above. I am at work, and I shouldn’t be doing this anyway!
I used the expression “Dissident Melkites” to the annoyance of some in an earlier post. I would like to explain what I meant by the term, and offer a tentative and speculative explanation for what I see as a problematic phenomenon.
Barstad is not the first Byzantine Catholic I have encountered with the extraordinary notion that Byzantine Catholics are somehow dispensed from believing all the Catholic Church teaches simply by virtue of being “Easterners”. I have never encountered a Byzantine Catholic bishop making such a claim, either in person or in writing on either his own behalf or that of others. And yet here is Barstad blandly associating “a majority” of Melkite bishops with this mythical right to dissent, supposedly by virtue of their association with the Zoghby initiative which makes no such claim.
Barstad argues that if Melkites are “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and believe all that Orthodox believe, than it is entirely proper for them not to be bound by Catholic doctrinal definitions to which Orthodox have not subscribed. This is what I mean by “dissident Melkites.”
Here is where I have some speculative questions. Is this a product of studying Orthodox theology as Orthodox currently teach it, as opposed to orthodox (lower-case) theology as the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves are supposed to be teaching it? Have these dissident Melkites inherited what other Catholics might see as an unfortunate Byzantine predisposition to study only the Byzantine tradition wholly in isolation from that of other traditions in the broader Church? As a result, have they come to reject Catholic teaching as our separated Orthodox brethren understand (or rather “misunderstand”) it, instead of attempting to interpret it in positive terms in light of the Byzantine Fathers?
In case You deleted my previous comment on this post for apparent lack of relevance, let me make myself clear: the number of people in any given country who deliberately chose a celibate life (monasticism) never exceeds a few thousand at best. Romania, for instance, has 2,000 monks in 20,000,000 inhabitants: and it’s not like it’s any “better” in other countries either. So, this would mean 1 celibate priest to shephard 10,000 believers — hence the current problem with lack of priests and crisis of vocation for the priesthood in Catholicism. If the natural, or normal, or un-coerced ratio is one in ten thousand, what else would you expect?
Lucian
I assume you are Orthodox as I am. I would argue that the Romans should maintain priestly celibacy because at least since the 2nd Lateran Council this has been an expression of Roman Orthodoxy. Their priest are celibate for the same reason our Orthodox Bishops are. Our priests are not celibate because they do not possess the fullness of the priesthood as the bishop does. Rome extends this requirement of the bishop to the priest which is okay and to be honored. Celibacy is the highest calling. Yes are bishops are monks but this requirement came far later in history.
Michael, I think you ask excellent questions! I, too, have encountered Eastern Catholics online who out-Orthodox the Orthodox, who seem to bear surprising animus toward their Latin brethren, and who appear willing to shuck any Catholic doctrine or distinctive that does not strike them as sufficiently Eastern.
At the same time, I wonder whether this is essentially an Internet phenomenon. The Internet sometimes seems like a giant megaphone which so magnifies the voices of “the fringe” that it gives the impression that the fringe is the mainstream. The Internet also seems to attract a lot of zealous convert types, who may not be at all representative of the average baba in the pew. (Nothing against converts, mind you!)
In any case, whether or not “the dissidents” are representative, they certainly sow a lot of confusion and create a lot of disturbance.
And now, I’d better duck out of here before the brickbrats start flying again, LOL!
Diane
Priestly celibacy was the local custom or norm in the Church of Rome, but not in the West as a whole (Gaul and Spain had married clergy, for instance). And if this rule was sustainable in the ancient glorious past, during the golden age of Christianity, when monasticism was booming, and even very many married couples chose freely and of their own consensual accord to live out their matrimony in chastity and purity, I’m afraid this is no longer the case today. If one could allow oneself have such high and elevated expectations in the past, given the circumstances as they were then, one cannot continue to entertain them today (again: given the circumstances as they are *now*).
A country needs no more than a few dozen bishops, whose numbers are easily covered by those of several thousand monks (not all of which are elligible for the priesthood!); … but priests, on the other hand, are needed -quite literally- by the myriads, … and a few thousand monks won’t cover it, I’m afraid…
I’m not gonna “tell” you how to run your own religion: but I can offer you this free and friendly warning or advise: what you choose to do with it, however, is your business, not mine: I did my part; the rest is up to you.
[…] discussion of this issue can be found here and here and here […]
I’m sorry to intrude on this conversation but I do want to set one matter straight.
It is true that I am a nice man (one of my many flaws) and that I love puppies (though I prefer to acquire them already house broken), but I must object to the following characterization by Michael:
“He is, however, also advocating formal religious dissent as a right and recklessly ascribing the same intent to the majority of the Melkite episcopate.”
In earlier posts Michael seems to attribute to me statements regarding the rights of eastern churches which are in fact direct quotations from Patriarch Gregory III. He seems reluctant to acknowledge the radical positions taken by men like the Patriarch and Archbishop Zoghby (the references are in the footnotes of my essay), preferring to attributing them to my own dissident distortion of their positions.
Further, as I recall, all but 2 members of the Melkite Synod endorsed the proposal for reunification. That proposal (like at least one plausible reading of Ratzinger’s proposal) seems to reduce the second millennium doctrinal developments to orthodox, but not binding, theolegoumena. Is that dissent? I think my paper shows that Rome, both in the curial response to the Synod and in Ad Tuendam Fidem, regards it as such, or at least as an unacceptable equivocation of that faith which must be held by all Catholics, eastern and western.
Nonetheless, to my knowledge Rome has not yet broken communion with the Synod and the Patriarch. In fact, I have a very clear memory of the Patriarch’s address to the 2002 Orientale Lumen conference (the published text of which I quote in my paper), made in the presence of the Papal Nuncio and Cardinal Keeler. At the end of it, one of the Orthodox bishops present took the mic and said, “You are a true Orthodox!” and then intoned “Axios! Axios!” which was taken up by the assembly. I have a photograph of that moment, the Patriarch flanked by two Orthodox bishops, each raising one of the Patriarch’s hands in the air, with Cardinal Keeler looking on. If Rome refuses to ignore such moments, fine; but they risk sending a mixed message.
It is with that uneasy mixture that I conclude my essay:
“In answer to my original question, then, whether Rome was content with Eastern Catholic communion on the basis of the Zogby profession of faith, there seems little doubt that Rome asks the same profession of faith from Eastern Catholics as it does from its own Latin rite faithful. Ad tuendam fidem adds norms to the code of canons for the Eastern churches, as well as to the Latin code. No accommodation is made for the meaning attributed by Patriarch Gregory III to his communion with Rome. Nonetheless, as far as I know, Rome has not yet repudiated that communion. As long as Rome tolerates those who use the Ratzinger Proposal and the Zogby Initiative to define their own loyalty, perhaps they are not completely dead.”
For my own part, I admire Patriarch Gregory III, but I cannot imitate him. Because of the conclusions I reached in this essay, I no longer describe myself as Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome and for myself the Zoghby Initiative and Ratzinger Proposal are dead.
I am a professor in a Roman Catholic seminary, and whatever Greek Catholic identity means in that context, it remains within the bounds set by the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity which I took when I joined that faculty.
–JB
PS “Call no man ‘Doctor’ for you have one Doctor, the Christ” (Matt. 23:10, loosely rendered).
Dr. Barstad,
Thank you for your intervention. I will try to answer it tomorrow.
Michael,
You wrote “Did not St Cyril come to Ephesus with a papal deposition of Nestorius in his pocket (conditional on Nestorius’ refusal to recant within 10 days)? Did not St Cyril and the Council Fathers conclude from this that Nestorius could not attend the Council except as a penitent? How would this make any sense unless Papal authority were superior to that of Constantinople (or for that matter, any other Church)?”
It is also true that Cyril set aside the Pope’s judgment against Nestorius so that the council could render a judgment. And Cyril did so as president of the council. This is because Alexandria was also a Petrine See.
At Chalcedon, it was Cyril who was the touchstone of orthodoxy, not Leo. Leo’s works had to be compared to make sure they were in line with Leo and why Leo had to profess subsequently that he believed everything Cyril taught.
Perry,
Celestine’s condemnation explicitly gave Cyril full discretion in the matter. Cyril did not set aside the Pope’s judgment; he merely suspended it so Nestorius would answer the charges, as Nestorius had refused to appear otherwise. Finally, Cyril presided until the Papal legates arrived (they were late), as was proper since Cyril was the next highest ranking prelate.
Your point re Chalcedon seems to be a garbled non sequitur. Would you care to amplify?
Michael,
Cyril presided throughout the whole council and not just till the legates arrived. This is because Cyril took himself to be representing both Rome and Alexandria as his correspondence with Celestine indicates. Cyril set aside the Pope’s judgment UNTIL the council made a decision. If you wish to call that a suspension, then fine, but a rose by any other name…But the pope had already condemned Nestorius and Cyril didn’t think that sufficient since a council was necessary. See McGuckin’s work on Cyril.
My latter point was garbled due to mistyping. What I meant to write was that Leo’s Tome was not the touchstone at Chalcedon, but rather Cyril’s teaching was. This is whyLeo’s Tome had to be examined to make sure it was in line with Cyril’s teaching which seems not a bit odd if it was official teaching from Rome that could not be judged by anyone.
Fr. Paul,
“Orthodox readers must often be irritated to hear Catholics plead for them to “return” to Roman obedience. So am I. Such well-intentioned apologists do not understand that such language seems absurd to Orthodox, since the Eastern Churches never conceived of themselves as being “obedient” to Rome. The way in which the Roman Church functioned as a court of appeal was never considered by them as erecting it into an authority over and above the other Churches to which they must be “obedient”. RC theologians now generally recognise that categories of submission and subservience are not the most appropriate ways to express the episcopé of the bishop of Rome, which is rather a service within and on behalf of the episcopal college, not over and above it. Many of them would say that the juridical language preserved the substance of the pre-schism understanding, while involving infelicitous consequences which the Catholic Church is now seeking to redress.”
This doesn’t seem like the right question if I might suggest as much. The question is not whether it is approrpiate or not, but normative.
Diane,
“Father Paul, I think that might come as a surprise to Maximos the Confessor. ;)”
Actually it wouldn’t. Eventually Maximus conceded that Rome fell victim to monothelitism such that at his trial when he was confronted by the imperial officer that Rome had now disagreed with him, Maximus replied that he would only commune with Rome IF Rome held the right faith. It didn’t, so he wouldn’t.
See Claude Larchet, “The Question of ROman Primacy in the Thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor” in Cardinal Walter Kasper, ed. The Petrine Ministry, pp. 189-209.
Eventually Maximus conceded that Rome fell victim to monothelitism such that at his trial when he was confronted by the imperial officer that Rome had now disagreed with him, Maximus replied that he would only commune with Rome IF Rome held the right faith. It didn’t, so he wouldn’t.
Please provide citations — and no, I don’t mean references to secondary sources. I mean the quote itself, in context, please. (No spoof-texts. ;))
Also provide proof that Rome had abandoned “the right faith.”
Thank you.
Diane
Diane,
I figured I’d address this before I go to liturgy today. I have actually done so in the past. You could just go read the source I provided since the citations are provided there. And plenty of other scholars note the same in their treatments of Maximus so it is not as if this is something new.
But here ya go.
PG 91:168A
91:143A
90:128C
91:137c-140b
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/25_20_30-_Volumina.html
You can read them in the Greek context for yourself. If you can’t read Greek, well, I suppose you could ask your husband to read them to you by translating them himself.
Perry: This is your typical, predictable m.o. Thanks, but no thanks. We own the 38-volume Fathers; I will read every word of Maximos’s recorded there, as a homework project, let us say. I seriously doubt that I will find a single syllable that corresponds to the fantasy you’ve described above.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If Catholic claims were this easy to overthrow, the Catholic Church would never have survived two years, let alone 2,000; and she wouldn’t be growing (1.4 billion and counting) while worldwide Orthodoxy is shrinking.
Also, Perry: If you had the tiniest fraction of patristic quotations supporting your ecclesiology that Catholics have supporting theirs, you’d be all over ’em like a bedspread. We would never hear the end of it — and we certainly wouldn’t hear the usual sour-grapes derision of “spoof-texts” or the elaborate attempts to explain away or minimize the evidence. :)
Blessed Feast Day of Saint Nicholas of Myra! ;) (St. Nicholas was very good to us, BTW — he just brought us news that #1 son did really well on the PSAT. KA-CHING!!)
Diane
>Perry: This is your typical, predictable m.o.
Providing primary-source citations seems like a good m.o. Would that it were yours.
Diane,
Saying this is my typical MO is not only false, but insulting. Again, attack the argument, not the person. I referred to primary texts. Your husband is a scholar and so can translate them for you himself.
Moreover, Maximus says that he will not commune with Rome and he gives the reason, not unless they profess the right faith. the implication is clear. He thinks they don’t.
The term “spoof texts is not sour grapes, another personal remark and ad hominem on your part, but rather noting that texts have to be interpreted and demonstrations have to be provided. What do terms like chief, priacy, etc. mean in those historical contexts? As Fr. Paul and plenty of Catholic scholars have noted, these terms change over time, much like other terms like say “merit” change over time. We simply cannot assume that they mean what we take them to mean now and based on English translations. You have to prove that the texts you cite prove what you claim them to.
Moreover, Protestants cite texts too, which Catholics are right to challenge them on the very same basis as I do, namely that no analysis is given. This is just what is required in order to prove a point, a legitimate demonstration.
“the Catholic Church would never have survived two years, let alone 2,000; and she wouldn’t be growing (1.4 billion and counting) while worldwide Orthodoxy is shrinking.”
Diane,
I find your comments disturbing and offensive. The issue is not whether such a statement is true. (I have my doubts that Orthodoxy is in such a suffering status as you claim.) But, rather: Is this the sort of ecumenism the Catholic Church embodies? I think not. Instead of reading St. Maximos as a homework project, I suggest you read Orientale Lumen instead:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
BTW, congratulations on your son’s PSAT score.
Perry,
can you please show me here where the excerpts from St. Maxim can be found? Thanks.
Diane,
the passage in question refers to Saint Maxim Martyr being confronted by his debate-adversary with the fact that all five ancient patriarchies were joined together in their support of the monothellite/monoenergist opinion; to which the saint replied: “Even if the whole world enters into communion with the heretical patriarch [Pyrrhus I of Constantinople], I will never do so”.
Diane,
Well if you’ve read every word of Maximus in the Schaff and Wace 38 volume set, it’d be a neat trick if you’ve read every word of Maximus in that set and for a very simple reason.
NONE of Maximus’ works are in it. I know, I read through every single volume of that in under four years cover to cover. The entire Schaff set is on line if you wish to check.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
You asked for the primary texts and I gave them. If you aren’t willing to read the text, there’s not much more I can do.
There are a good number of Maximus’ works in English translation but the Patralogia Graeca has just about everything that I know of.
I could respond with your appeal to numbers by noting that Islam grows too and other things, but what would be the point? Even the Pope thinks a smaller church would be better. If you were a Postmillenialist with respect to eschatology I could understand why numbers could be important, but I don’t think you are. It seems you are happy that Orthodox is supposedly shrinking and that being bigger and having power is more important. Concupiscience or Libido (in Augustine’s senses, not Freud’s) comes to mind. And I think that says it all.
Just read the texts first before you make a judgment. There’s a word for people who reverse that order.
Dr. Barstad,
The dread of every writer is to be ignored, to have his offering fall like a damp squib eliciting no substantive response or engagement on the part of hoped-for listeners. To this extent, hostile, even vituperative, criticism is to be preferred to no comment at all. This is why I want to assure you of my unalloyed joy at your coming forward; this not so much so that I may berate you and bludgeon your piece further, but because your gloss presents the argument in a new light and gives me an opportunity to offer suggestions on how it could be both deepened and sharpened.
So please treat the following observations as a modest effort at dialectic engagement. Despite your confirmed love of puppies, I still think you have misconstrued the intent of the Melkite bishops on two points:
1. Believing all that the Orthodox Church teaches, rationally only extends to the positive expression of the faith and to the negative exclusion of heresy, as this represents the whole scope of the Church’s teaching authority. One must presume then that this profession extends no further, such as to factual ascription of beliefs and understandings to others. This distinction is critical. The Church can bindingly anathemize Nestorianism, for example, but Catholics (and Orthodox) are free to deny that he held the beliefs ascribed to him (as he did himself in his apology). The Catholic Church as a whole can stand with the Melkite bishops and make the same (conceptually qualified) profession they have. The essential point for Catholics is not that Orthodoxy is wrong in the faith it articulates, but that its teaching is unnecessarily narrow and thus fails to express the whole of the Apostolic tradition; and is wrong in its portrayal of what the Catholic Church teaches. The Melkite bishops, so far as I can tell, have not distinguished themselves from this official understanding/critique of Orthodoxy.
2. Recognition of the ecumenical status of a council is moot so long as one accepts its doctrinal definitions. Hence the Melkites can happily argue that Constantinople IV through Vatican II were not ecumenical so long as they do not disassociate themselves from their dogmatic content. Because they have not done the latter, there is no reason for Rome to consider them unfaithful or disloyal. You have not made the case that the Melkite bishops have repudiated any Catholic beliefs.
>2. Recognition of the ecumenical status of a council is moot so long as one accepts its doctrinal definitions. Hence the Melkites can happily argue that Constantinople IV through Vatican II were not ecumenical so long as they do not disassociate themselves from their dogmatic content.
If the councils need not be recongized as ecumenical, on what basis are their doctrinal definitions to be imposed as de fide?
Michael,
Thank you for your modulated response. I think you are still underestimating the challenge the Melkite proposal for reunification presents to both Orthodox Antioch and Catholic Rome.
To the Orthodox they say, “We hold the same faith you do, and you should not construe our communion with Rome as in any way compromising that unity because we share the same limited conception of Roman authority as one finds in the fathers and councils (pace Diane) of the first millennium. We know that the dogmatic nature of second millennium papal claims prevents you from entering into communion with Rome, but that should not prevent you from entering into communion with us now while you continue to work out your differences with Rome.”
To the Romans they say, “We know that the Orthodox have thrown the baby out with the bath water, because they don’t recognize the authority granted Rome in the first millennium because of the excessive claims made for it in the second. But we are happy to remain in communion based on those first millennium limits, until you and the Orthodox can work out your differences. By accepting our communion on these terms you will be showing your willingness to enter into real dialogue with the Orthodox as to the possible deficiencies of Roman ecclesiology that produced its excessive second millennium claims using the first millennium consensus (such as it was) as starting point and norm.”
The Orthodox response to the initiative suggests that they feared that the proposal was susceptible of a maximalist reading, such as you defend when you say that “The Catholic Church as a whole can stand with the Melkite bishops and make the same (conceptually qualified) profession they have.” Therefore, they wanted guarantees that communion with Rome did not commit the Melkites to more of the Roman dogmatic tradition than is expressed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
The curial response to the Melkite initiative, both because of the independence with which it was offered to the Orthodox Antiochians and because of the actual content of the profession afraid, makes clear that Rome feared that the proposal implied a repudiation of essential second millennium dogmatic content necessary for full communion in faith, at least to the degree of calling into question the binding, ie, dogmatic, character of that content.
My reading of both Patriarch Gregory’s published statements and Archbishop Zoghby’s is that both Rome and Orthodox Antioch were right. The Orthodox were right as to Rome’s expectations of those in full communion with it. And Rome was right in suspecting that the Melkites were proposing something that does not meet those expectations.
For your part, you have articulated a hermeneutic for arguing that Rome’s tentative, concerned reading, which is the same as my less tentative reading, does the Melkites an injustice. You may be right, but you have yet to engage the published statements of Patriarch Gregory and Archbishop Zoghby. Do they represent all the Melkite bishops? No, after all, 2 of the 26 members of the Synod did not sign the 1996 proposal, and there may be others who subjectively hold precisely the position you suggest. Nonetheless, given the references to Zoghby in the Synod’s statement itself and the Patriarch’s patriarchal relation to the Synod, I do not think it unreasonable to look to their statements to interpret the objective meaning of the proposal.
As to your second point, I read it as perhaps confusing the formal and material aspects of holding a truth by faith. The material is the truth affirmed, the formal the motive by which the truth is affirmed. Many a faithful Catholic may be a material heretic insofar as they believe a truth because it is proposed to them for belief by the Church, but misunderstand that proposed truth to be something it isn’t. On the other hand, one may affirm the Assumption of Mary as true while denying that it is revealed by God.
I think, like Joe, that that is the issue at stake in the recognition/non-recognition of ecumenical status. The Profession of Faith and its Commentary lay great stress on the motive by which a truth is to be held (de fide credenda versus de fide tenenda, for example). Material agreement that something is true is insufficient; there must also be agreement as to the motive by which it his held to be true.
The difficulty with the Zoghby initiative, based as it is on a profession of faith, is that it implicitly (on your reading), perhaps explicitly (on mine), relativizes the formal aspect. Even if the Melkites hold all Catholic dogmas de fide does not their willingness to enter full communion with those who dispute those truths imply a relativizing of the de-fide-ness of those truths? Can one separate orthodoxy and orthopraxy in that way?
I am glad that someone stumbled on my article and that it provided the occasion for this discussion, but I am afraid that I am confirmed in my judgment that the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative, as I and others interpreted them (that is, as demarcating a tertium quid between second millennium Roman Catholicisim and second millennium Orthodoxy), are dead, except perhaps in those very specific places (like the Melkite Synod) where those who espouse them are still tolerated by Rome. For those of us subject to the full force (and enforcement) of Roman Canon Law, both Eastern and Western, Ad Tuendam Fidem closes that ecumenical chapter of the Church’s history.
BTW, has anyone looked at my piece on the question of mandatory clerical celibacy posted on The Augustana Greek Catholic?
Well, I’m a little confused.
The Classics of Western Spirituality St. Maximus Confessor volume has his Trial (section 7 p. 23);
The said to him, ” And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarech; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Dountless with you removed, there will then be an easy union.” And he said to them, ‘Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is.” And they said, ” And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?” He replied, “The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything againswhat has been preached.”
Now, on the Orthodox Christian Information Center website on the Holy Canons Related to Ecumenism page we have;
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:T25XbY4LV7QJ:www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx+Even+if+the+whole+world+enters+into+communion+with+the+heretical+patriarch+%5BPyrrhus+I+of+Constantinople%5D,+I+will+never+do+so%E2%80%9D.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. ”
The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”
Which version is correct? Or is there a concatenation of different versions in the latter quote?
To add to the confusion or clarify perhaps;
Birchall, Christopher. The Life of Our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor. Boston: Holy Transfiguration
Monastery, 1982. This Life was translated from Russian and checked against the texts collected in
PG 90 and 91.33 I think actually it uses volume 90 only. The texts flow into one another with little
indication of their source. The early part is a very brief paraphrase. Later parts, taken from Relatio
Motionis and Diputatio Bizyae, seem more exact, although they too include sections not found in the
Greek. But as far as I know, this is the closest thing in English to a translation of the Vita.
From
Life of St. Maximus
Paul Jungwirth
13th March 2006
Notice the note about Greek sources.
For those interested in the works of Maximus the Confessor:
The ONLY place on the internet that his works are available is here http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/30_20_0580-0662-_Maximus_Confessor.html . Only 7 works are available. Greek and Latin text is presented in pdf non-searchable scans of the pages.
The link given above by Perry is an index only. Neither are the works of Maximus to be found in the Post Nicean Fathers series.
Here are some selected quotes for discussion:
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …..even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus {Patriarch of Constantinople} to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
We agree with Saint Maximus, but we understand those words to be spoken de facto, not de jure. (Rome indeed did not fall into heresy during the first millennium, with two exceptions: one of them happening exactly during Saint Maxim’s time, hence also why he was forced to detail his views more clearly when faced with the later’s temporal apostasy).
Thank you, Gil Garza! And thanks for the online reference…I didn’t realize that Maximos was not in the 38-volume series, which we own; I was planning to look him up there, but if he’s missing in action, I won’t.
Yes, that is exactly what I object to about Perry’s m.o. You ask for citations, and he tells you to go read a book. Hmmm. It would be that hard to provide the actual citations? Good grief.
OrthoCath, I apologize for any offense I have given. I rather gratuitously added that bit about the Catholic Church’s numbers (and continuing growth and vitality). It wasn’t necessary. I apologize. However, my main point still stands, and IMHO it’s perfectly inoffensive, especially given that it’s a response to Perry’s VERY offensive attack on Catholicism: If Catholic claims were that easy to overthrow, the Catholic Church would not have lasted two years, let alone 2,000, and she would not still be going strong, despite all the vicissitudes she’s been through.
Moreover, it is also true that, if Perry could cite one-tenth the patristic sources buttressing his anti-papal ecclesiology that Catholics can cite for their pro-papal ecclesiology, we would never hear the end of it. I guarantee! I stand by this.
Now both joe and Perry have entered this thread. In my experience, that always spells trouble — and NOT because their arguments hold any water, believe me. This tells me it’s time to play on Facebook for a few minutes and then go to bed. Ta-ta, y’all, and have a blessed Advent! :)
Yes Diane, I say to go read a book and see for youself. I don’t generally like posting citations since they involve a whole lot more work. I was suggesting implicitly that you go do the work for yourself rather than just look at a cited text without its context.
As for my “offensive” attack on Catholicism, I will refrain from appeal to Freud at this moment, but if simply saying Rome is wrong and giving reasons why is offensive then I’d suggest not participating in these kinds of venues.
As for the number of citations, as I noted, they aren’t legion as you seem to think, at least not any uncontroversial ones. Takes the line tha the see of Rome is to be judged by no one, which influened later generations of Popes and various fathers. We now know that this is a forgery I believe from Symmachus. So that not only were his claims in that respect false, but so is every other opinion that was grounded on them.
As for the longevity of Catholicism, Islam is easy to overthrow and yet its growing and has been around for 1400 years. Longevity doesn’t imply truth.
evagrius — I agree that the two versions are confusing, but frankly I do not think that either one poses the slightest threat to Catholic claims. Maximos is right: Even if an angel from Heaven preaches another Gospel, we must not accept it. However, there is no hint that he expects the Roman legates to be bearers of “another Gospel”; moreover, even if they had been, this would prove only that they were misrepresenting the Holy See. It wouldn’t be the first time…or the last!
Both of the versions of the quote you provide differ rather markedly from the “spin” provided by Perry. No wonder he was reluctant to provide the actual citation! ;) It scarcely made the point he claimed it did, and it certainly was not the slam-dunk he implied it was.
For the record, Catholics do not believe that a pope can never believe or utter heresy. We believe, rather, that he is protected from uttering heresy under certain carefully defined conditions (the whole ex cathedra thang). We certainly expect that the pope will never privately believe or informally utter heresy. But our faith does not hinge on this, nor is it part of our doctrine of the papacy.
Thanks again, most estimable e.!
And so to bed….
Diane
P.S. OrthoCath, you seem like a noble fellow indeed. Please feel free to e-mail me at diane_kamer@yahoo.com (no, I am not going to proselytize!!…I just wanted to explain why I lost my temper, for which, again, I apologize)
If your gloss were right, why then didn’t Maximus agree to commune with Rome?
He will only commune with Rome (since that is the question put before him )or anyone else unless they profess the right faith. His implicit answer is “no” to the imperial officers, he will not commune with Rome. Why? because they don’t fulfill the condition he gives, they do not profess the right faith. Implication-they profess the WRONG faith.
Second, the citations do not discuss the Pope qua private individual, but the Roman See. If you wish to identify these two, then you cannot logically claim at the same time that the pope can be a private heretic and never publically teach error.
Rome’s primacy is conditional upon it being the bearer of pristine doctrine for St. Maximus; it is not an absolute. (The same in Matthew’s Gospel: Peter is a rock of foundation when he acknowledges Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God; and a few verses later he’s a stumbling rock, when he says something wrong). The patristic praise of Rome is more de facto than de jure: it describes and lauds a blessed fact; but when this ceases to be the case (or when the fathers think that such might no longer be the case), then they adjust their words to reflect the new, sad reality.
Lucian,
It has to be more than just a de facto observation, as the Fathers clearly point to the Roman doctrinal standard as a decisive contemporary (not just historical) reference point. If Rome might or might not be teaching the truth in any given case, there wouldn’t be any particular reason to prefer its standard over another, and its past orthodoxy would be a mere historical curiosity.
I think a better Orthodox argument would be that the citations point to a presumption of ongoing Roman orthodoxy rather than merely historical retrospection. This would place Rome as a faithful standard when the Church seems genuinely divided or confused, but not to the point that Rome alone could stand against the consensus of the rest of the Church. This at least would be an interpretation consistent with a surface reading of their remarks, though obviously a few Fathers appear to go substantially further.
Yes, Michael, it was more than a mere de facto historical curiosity: there were certain historical conditions which made their orthodoxy possible: the West was for the most part of the first millennium an empire of villages and small towns, not of metropolises and universities (rural societies are by default traditional, as opposed to urban populations; smart educated people think for themselves, sometimes apart from the mind of the Church, and they also have egoes to go along with that; peasants, on the other hand, are meeker and choose conformance or adapting to society, as well as respect for the faith of their predecessors, over individuality). All of this changed when the West began to boom economically, socially, and intellectually under Charlemagne (the first universities; the foundation of a great empire, etc). And the East, when it “rode the wave”, so to say, was a breading-nest for heresy; but when the empire began to decline and the Turks took over, they became the safe-guarders of Orthodoxy (as Rome did in the first millennium). When the surrounding “environment” changed, their roles inversed, pure and simple.
though obviously a few Fathers appear to go substantially further
More than a few, I’d say!
Isn’t today the FD of Saint Ambrose, BTW? “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia!”
Rome’s primacy is conditional upon it being the bearer of pristine doctrine for St. Maximus
You keep asserting this, yet you never support it. Assertion is not proof. It is not even argument.
Peter is a rock of foundation when he acknowledges Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God; and a few verses later he’s a stumbling rock, when he says something wrong).
This is a prime example of the sort of argument which seems to assume Catholics are stupid. Again, if Catholic claims were this easy to overthrow, would Catholicism have lasted two years, let alone 2,000?
Lucian, do you think these passages are not in our Catholic Bibles, too? Do you think we’ve never angaged this argument before?
Jesus very solemnly conferred the Keys themselves upon Peter and just as solemnly named Him the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Is there the slightest indication anywhere in Scripture that He revoked Peter’s Keys and retracted Peter’s Rock-ness? Au contraire.
Does Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me, satan! You have just lost the Keys, and you are no longer the Rock?” NO. Does He even remotely imply this? NO. Is there the slightest scintilla of textual evidence for such a reading? NO, absolutely not.
In fact, when Jesus foretells a much greater fall on Peter’s part — Peter’s three-fold denial — He says, at the same moment, “But I have prayed that thy faith may not fail; and, when thou hast converted, strengthen thy brethren.” This is one of the key Scriptural bases for the Catholic doctrine of the papacy!
Our Lord’s choice of Peter as Rock and Key-Bearer and Confirmer of the Brethren does NOT mean that Peter can never fall, sin, or make mistakes. No Catholic claims that the pope is infallible every time he blows his nose. Good grief! Popes have done some amazingly bad things. Most have been holy men, but some have been quite the opposite. This does not invalidate the papacy, any more than the sins of Christians invalidate the Church or the Gospel.
But no pope (including Peter) has ever uttered error when formally and solemnly teaching the Church Universal, ex cathedra, on a matter of faith or morals. Peter’s “fall” at Phillipi and his far greater fall at the time of Christ’s trial do not qualify as solemn formal teachings on matters of faith and morals. Not even close.
Here is another case where it helps to know what Catholics actually believe before one tries refuting it. Otherwise, one is refuting a straw-man. :)
Diane
You keep asserting this, yet you never support it.
I thought St. Maximus did that for me. (When faced with Rome’s possible apostasy, he says he still won’t enter into communion with the Patriarch of C-tinople, not even if the entire Christian world, including Rome, would do so: I thought his words were clear on that matter).
While its true that some writers take Matt 16 in the way you, some do not. Augustine in his Retractions says it can go either way.
An imperitive to strengthen his brothers seems like a far cry from universal immediate jurisdiction and ex cathedra infallibility due to a special chrism that isn’t of the essence of the office of the apostle. Its insufficient to secure that conclusion. You simply can’t get from there from here.
To condense the comment above into the short-short: Lucian, you are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Catholicism does NOT claim that Peter and his successors are impeccable — incapable of sin. She doesn’t even claim that Peter and his successors are infallible every time they open their mouths. She claims only that Peter and his successors are graced with the charism of infallibility — as a protection for the faithful — on certain rare occasions, under certain carefully restricted conditions. That’s all.
Therefore, your argument is a non-starter. Or, as our friend the Ochlophobist would say, that dog don’t hunt.
;)
Happy FD of Saint Ambrose!
Diane
The monothellite/monoenergist pope of Rome who lived during St. Maxim’s time was condemned along with other heretical patriarchs at the sixth ecumenical synod, whose champion of orthodoxy was Maxim Martyr. (He did officially teach heresy, and was accordingly chastised for this).
Here you are mistaken since your comments don’t map on to Lucian’s. His point is that Maximus’ remarks indicate public teaching of the See of Rome, since it is the public teaching of the other sees along with Rome that is being presented to him, which he rejects. So the issue isn’t impecability, but teaching.
Diane,
Allow me to clarify. I referred you to the original documents so that you could read them for yourself. That way, there could be no issues regarding translations or if I was taking things out of context. That is why I didn’t provide quoted texts. Moreover, these are well known texts so I didn’t think I should have had to.
As to my supposedly “offensive” attack on Catholicism. I fail to see how simply saying that I think it is wrong and providing reasons for that judgment on this or that point is offensive.
As for “spin” I provided no “spin.” I referred you to the texts, which only some have been seen in part here. Maximus makes clear that he will not commune with Rome because by implication Rome holds the wrong faith. This is admitted by Catholic and Orthodox scholars alike.
Further I find your constant imputations of immoral motives to myself and others who simply disagree with you offensive. You need to stop accusing people of being liars and deceivers simply because we disagree with you.
As for the number of citations, Protestants think that they have a good number of biblical passages that support their position, but upon examination, they vanish. When we take the citations that are now known to be interpolations, fabrications and frauds, the number of patristic citations for your position shrinks. When we then remove those citations that were motivated by and based on interpolations and fabricaitons, the list gets smaller. Then when we do some linguistic analysis on what specific terms meant at the time, rather than much much later, it shrinks further. Then when we look at Ecumenical councils such as the fifth council which excommunciates a sitting Pope, rejects his self proclaimed “irreformable” judgment and then says that no apostle needs the help of any other in executing their work qua apostle, that seems to trump much of what is offered to support your position.
Since you want to see texts, here is the text in part,
“And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.
And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood. Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.” So also the Lord himself says: “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html
That is not the judgment of this or that Father. It is the judgment of a whole bunch of them altogether in an infallible council after they collectively excommunicated the Pope until the Pope came to the right judgment, which they had. Moreover, they seem to make clear that none of the apostles were per se superior to any other, which seems to be a stab at papal claims to supremacy. It is not for nothing that this text is routinely ignored in Catholic apologetic works.
Now I’ve read works like those older works by Luke Rivington, Chapman, Journet, etc. I’ve also works by Fisher, Denny, etc. I make a point of reading material on both sides. That way I can make an informed decision. It’d be nice if you’d simply stop accusing people of being dishonest just because they disagree with you. Perhaps if you take the time to read the literature on both sides, things might not seem as if everyone who doesn’t think the way you do is being deliberatively sinful or is congenitively stupid.
Well Mr. Robinson,
I am really curious as to what exactly is the text that you refer to regarding Maximus refusing communion with Rome.
Since you refer to it you should provide the quote.
If it’s in Greek, please provide the translation for us who don’t know Greek. Since you’re objective, I presume the translation will be accurate.
Certainly you can do this,( being such a fine scholar), so that, at least, this point of the argument can be clarified and understood by all.
As to the case of Pope Vigilius, it seems to me that the entire episode smacks of politics, imperial politics, and not theology at all.
I do not find this episode to be of any use with regards to arguments for or against infallibility of either a pope or a council.
I am really curious as to what exactly is the text that you refer to regarding Maximus refusing communion with Rome.
Since you refer to it you should provide the quote.
Thank you!! That is precisely what I have been asking, over and over again. (I said “citation,” but I meant “quote” — sorry for improper usage and any resultant confusion.)
Re Vigilius (not to mention Honorius, and wasn’t there one other example in the shopworn anti-Catholic polemical arsenal?): That has been answered a hillion-gazillion-jabillion times.
Diane,
In the past, if I provide quotes, I get insulting remarks that I am dishonest and am taking it out of context. So now I prefer with you to just give the locations and you can read it for yourself. That way I can’t get accused of being dishonest with the context.
Perry,
“Maximus makes clear that he will not commune with Rome because by implication Rome holds the wrong faith. This is admitted by Catholic and Orthodox scholars alike.”
As Evagrius has pointed out, not all translations support this particular reading. The difficulty with the interpretation you are pushing is that it rests on a factual proposition which, while commonplace in some Orthodox circles, is not historically demonstrable, i.e. that Honorius ever actually taught heresy either “infallibly” or as a private theologian.
“Then when we look at Ecumenical councils such as the fifth council which excommunicates a sitting Pope, rejects his self proclaimed “irreformable” judgment and then says that no apostle needs the help of any other in executing their work qua apostle, that seems to trump much of what is offered to support your position.”
Might I just mention the fact that the Greek canons of the Fifth Council are lost, and the garbled and partial canons that remain in Latin were judged at the sixth council as having been corrupted?
Nevertheless, I would be grateful if you could indicate where in the surviving canons you find any mention of Vigilus having been “excommunicated,” and if you could spell out which condemned papal propositions had been declared by Vigilus to be “irreformable”. Further I don’t see what bearing the references to Apostles not needing each other to do their work, and yet having to consult on doctrinal issues, have with respect to Catholic teaching on papal primacy.
“It is the judgment of a whole bunch of them altogether in an infallible council after they collectively excommunicated the Pope until the Pope came to the right judgment, which they had.”
The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that councils, even ecumenical ones (or Popes, for that matter) are “infallible.” I find your suggestion that Orthodoxy has such a teaching extraordinary. If we were grant, however, that you mean “infallible” in a high qualified sense such as “capable of teaching infallibly in some circumstances on faith and morals,” then the Catholic Church would still flatly deny any such attribute for either councils or Popes in matters of discipline such as this hypothetical and dubious “excommunication”.
The fact still remains that the council-fathers did find him guilty of teaching heresy, and condemned him accordingly (whether you agree with their conlcusion or not does not change this).
One of the countless online rebuttals to the tired old Honorius chestnut:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
Interesting, non, that our friend Perry echoes the arguments of the likes of Lorraine Boettner (whom no one has ever mistaken for a serious scholar)?
More! More! More!
http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/09/enough-about-honorius.html
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/catholic-answers-tract-on-papal-infailability/
The Honorius Myth: So easy to refute that even Some Dude on the Internet can do it.
— Diane, who never fails to marvel at how closely these supposedly scholarly Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics mirror the totally unscholarly polemics of the “Bible Only” fundamentalists ;)
Oops, forgot this one (the Black Cordelias one is not really directly rleevant…sorry!):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-supposedly-fallible-pope.html
ack–that would be “relevant”! Fingers faster than brain today….
Diane,
I provided the relevant textual references. If I provide a quote then I will be accused of taking it out of context. So I leave it to you to translate it or find a translation. If you aren’t familiar with the texts already or can’t find such things, that is not my problem or burden.
Your noting that the relevant cases have been discussed is not an argument that the Catholic (as if there was just one) answer is adequate. Your remarks leave what I posted untouched. Further, the texts you refer to on Honorius ignore relevant data, such as the 7th council which says he was condemned for his teaching, not for merely failing to teach. They also fail to understand the Monothelitism of the Ekthesis in which Honorius’ express statements were in perfect alignment. The pop-Catholic argument regarding Honorius turns on a lack of understanding of what Monothelitism and Monoenergism was, as I have demonstrated in the past. They do so in large part because they do not understand what key concepts such as “energy” amount to or they think that if they merely profess two natural wills that that is sufficient to show that Honorius didn’t teach it, but it isn’t since Imperial Monothelitism also at times advocated two wills in Christ, but they thought one was moved by the other or that it was a mere desire or appetite in the expression not to go to the cross. This heresy was also condemned. For those interested in some of the relevant Greek texts with English translations, see http://www.amazon.com/Sophronius-Jerusalem-Seventh-Century-Heresy-Synodical/dp/0199546932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260212957&sr=1-1
It should also be noted that in the history of discussing those two cases, not all Catholic scholars have agreed with the arguments put forward so it is not as if those proposed answers are uncontroversial in the history of Catholic scholarship.
Calling what I have posted “shopworn anti-Catholic polemical arsenal” isn’t an argument. It is name calling. If you can’t do better than ad hominem’s then there really isn’t anything you’ve written that can be rationally interacted with or discussed.
As for Beottner, this is poisoning the well fallacy. Even if my arguments did so, it doesn’t show that they are wrong. Moreover, they also echo Catholic scholars like Helefe who was long before Boettner. Moreover, I’ve never read Boettner’s book against Catholicism, even when I was a Calvinist, simply because it has such a bad reputation of being inaccuate. Nor have I ever recommended it to anyone else for that purpose.
Michael,
Is it the translation or textual variation? If it is the latter then it isn’t a factual question per se with respect to translation but then a question of which text is more reliable.
As for the Fifth Council it really matters not if the canons are lost, since I didn’t refer to them. I referred to the sentence of the synod, its judgment. So referring to texts that I didn’t cite I think leaves what I did cite untouched.
The Catholic church says that Popes and councils are not infallible? So when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he’s not infallible? You need to clarify what you are claiming because on its face it is obviously mistaken.
Finding my statement that certain councils under certain conditions are infallible in Orthodox teaching extraordinary is biographical, but not an argument. I’v e encountered it enough times for it not to be. Moreover, if we restrict it to doctrine and morals, this still leaves untouched the teaching of the Fifth Council on the nature of the apostolic office as I cited.
“The Catholic church says that Popes and councils are not infallible?”
No, it simply doesn’t state they are. There is a difference between not saying that something is so, and saying that something is not so.
“So when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he’s not infallible?”
No, he merely teaches infallibly and, as a result, then exercises qualified infallibility. No Catholic doctrinal document ever describes the Pope as “infallible”.
Since I have to explain the distinction to you, let me provide you with a hypothetical example that doesn’t involve the Pope:
Let’s say you were to stand up and state that God consists of three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then sat down. Would you or would you not have infallibly summarized the doctrine of the trinity? Assuming the answer was “yes,” would it then follow that you were “infallible?”
“You need to clarify what you are claiming because on its face it is obviously mistaken.”
I was aware that some Orthodox treat every canon and every judgment of every council deemed ecumenical as “infallible.” It would follow then from this premise that, since the totality of the output of these councils consists of their canons and decisions, these councils could be deemed “infallible.” This is not, however, a premise shared by Catholics, and has never, to my knowledge been so defined dogmatically by Orthodoxy.
It is perhaps this premise, however (if you share it), that makes you project the adjective into Catholic doctrine with regard to the Papacy where it does not belong. Catholics can envisage a Pope who is slothful, mendacious, unlearned, illiterate, a heretic and/or an idiot liable to frequent error and foolishness. This is why a sophisticated Catholic would recoil at claiming the Pope is “infallible”, and all the relevant dogmatic documents reflect this scruple. Councils, ecumenical or otherwise, could also consist of similarly deficient individuals, and hence are thus not, from the Catholic point of view, “infallible” either.
What Ecumenical councils share with the Pope is infallibility in teaching the faith when they do so publicly with the intent of binding the whole Church. In other words, Catholics do not see either the Pope or ECs as “infallible” in the sense some Orthodox (but not all, to my knowledge) are willing to ascribe to ECs alone.
The Honorius horse has been beaten to death here, on my old blog, and everywhere else, numerous times. I doubt that a new discussion on the topic here is going to clear it all up once and for all, or convert one side to the other.
Any more comments on Joel Barstad’s article? Or, if he’s still following this thread, any questions for him? Otherwise, I’m going to close comments.
I replied to him. You should perhaps let us butt heads over Honorius for a little longer to give a chance to respond. ;-)
That should be “give him a chance,” of course. Sorry. :-(
There is indeed a sad sameness to the way all these Honorius-based discussions on infallibility grind into the sand. I, for one, simply cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that his case disproves Catholic doctrine regarding papal primacy. Either they don’t understand the historical record or they don’t understand the doctine, or both.
>all these Honorius-based discussions on infallibility grind into the sand. I, for one, simply cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that his case disproves Catholic doctrine regarding papal primacy.
I didn’t see anyone say it was a problem for papal primacy (which most Orthodox believe in), but it is a HUGE problem fro infallibility. It helps if you are clear about what is being disputed.
An ecumenical council anathematized a Pope for TEACHING (no, not just failing to stop) HERESY. And yes, it was an ex cathedra teaching (how else could he be *instructing* Patriarch Sergius on doctrine?) and obviously on a matter of faith or morals. Hello! How can you fail to see the connection?
And what was Diane saying recently about Orthodox apologists “explaining away” first millenium texts? You Roman apologists go overboard on this one. Here is the short list from my memory:
1. Honorius didn’t understand the issue (So it’s not an ex cathedra proclamation if the Pope doesn’t understand the issue? The charism of infallibility doesn’t operate to *help* him understand the issue? Do we know that Pius IX understood all the issues around the Immaculate Conception? Feeble-minded popes can’t issue infallible declarations?);
2. He was only anathematized for not fighting the heresy. (One of the decrees explicitly states he “taught” the heresy. So much for that canard.)
3. It was only a private letter. (So what? Popes didn’t issue encyclicals in those days. He still *instructed* Sergius that monothelitism should be taught in the Church. That’s an ex cathedra statement).
There’s about 50 more, even more frivolous than these.
I, for one, simply cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that his case disproves Catholic doctrine regarding papal primacy. Either they don’t understand the historical record or they don’t understand the doctine, or both.
My sentiments exactly.
Again, you’d think that the fact that the Honorius Case is a favorite with the Jack Chickites should give more intelligent critics of Catholicism pause. But no. Any stick to beat the Catholic Church with, I guess.
Again, though — do they think we’re that stupid? Those who invoke Honorius always act as if we’ve never heard this one before: “Aha! Now here’s a slam-dunk! There goes Catholicism, down the tubes! bwahahahaha!” As if no one in the history of the Catholic Church had ever addressed this issue before. Sheesh.
Sad indeed. Dispiriting, in fact.
“I provided the relevant textual references. If I provide a quote then I will be accused of taking it out of context. So I leave it to you to translate it or find a translation. If you aren’t familiar with the texts already or can’t find such things, that is not my problem or burden.”
Oh, but it is. Giving a reference to unavailable texts is really not the sign of good scholarship. It is certainly not generous.
I think you can provide the quote and place it in its context if you are the scholar you claim to be.
I was able to find at least the relevant quote and its context in the Trial of St. Maximus in the Enhlish translation and also the text as given by the Orthodox Information Network site.
Certainly you can improve on that since you have access to the original Greek texts.
As for Honorius etc; I think it isn’t really all that relevant.
Giving a reference to unavailable texts is really not the sign of good scholarship.
It is quite convenient, however. :)
Actually, he does not have access to the original Greek texts. At best he has partial Greek translations of Latin translations of the Greek “originals” which have long been lost and which were, in any case, deemed deffective and corrupt by the 6th Council. :-)
We have a reasonable idea of what was decided at Constantinople II (the 5th Council), but I would hesitate from trying to extract subtle shades of meaning for purposes of proof texting from the versions that have come down to us.
I was thinking primarily of the “Maximus against the world” quote.
The “anti-ecumenists” are very fond of that quote. If the reference I gave regarding its origin in a Russian “Vita” is correct, the source of the quote is problematic.
Evagrius,
Oh but it isn’t. The texts are not unavailable. You can usually get access to them thru a university portal to Patrologia Graeca or search on line.
As for being generous, given the regular insults thrown at me here with no moderation by the powers that be, there’s no good reason to. Its why I don’t come here often. Constantly accusingpeople of being stupid or liars simply because they disagree with you is a mark of a bigot and isn’t conducive to good dialog.
Evagrius,
It doesn’t matter if the case of Vigilius is a case of politics or not. It is the judgment of an ecumenical council, like it orlump it. If Catholics wish to reject the judgment of a council, then they are inconsistent. So you can’t just chalk it up to politics.
Perry,
Please quote in full from your primary sources establishing that Vigilius was excommunicated.
But even if he was, which I very much doubt, how are Catholics being “inconsistent” in rejecting the council’s supposed judgment in the matter?
I have stated it once at some length, and will state it again. Catholics do not and never have considered the disciplinary decisions of councils (ecumenical or otherwise) to be infallible, and Popes have always felt free to set such decisions aside.
I don’t believe you are either stupid or a liar, but you are apparently unwilling to engage actual Catholic belief and doctrinal positions, preferring instead to hammer away at straw men of your own devising. When you are corrected about Catholic belief, you go silent for weeks, only to reemerge apparently unshaken in your misconceptions.
You can of course interpret texts differently than a Catholic would, but if you do, you have to accept that the text need not prove to a Catholic what you claim it does.
Michael,
I, for one, simply cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that Honorius’ case can be defended and that it doesn’t disprove the Catholic doctrine regarding papal primacy. Either they don’t understand the historical record or they don’t understand the doctine, or they don’t understand the heresy condemned. Oh yeah I can since they read second hand literature and not the actual documents.
As for the distinction you are attempting to draw on infallibility it is certainly not done so in a clear manner. If the Pope teaches infallibly, then he is infallible when doing so. That is all I meant and consequently I didn’t state anything that was false. If he is not infallible when he teaches infallibly, then he isn’t teaching infallibly. You can’t exercise a property you lack. Its just that simple.
If you wish to deny that the pope teaches infallibly, I’d be all to happy to accommodate you. I made no statement that would give you license to infer that I meant some kind of unqualified infallibility or intrinsic autonomous infallibility. Nor did I make a claim regarding councils that they were infallible in all things. Such is to read what I wrote uncharitably. I used such terms in mind with their appropriate scope with respect to faith and morals.
If I were to correctly state the doctrine of the Trinity, no I would not have done so infallibly, perhaps inerrantly, but something can be inerrant and yet not infallible. My child’s math text is inerrant, it gets all the answers to all the problems correct. But it is possible for it to err. Hence it is not infallible. You have not properly distinguished between inerrancy and infalliblity. The modality in infalliblity is far greater with respect to truth and error than inerrancy.
Uttering a proposition that is infallible doesn’t transfer that alethic modality to my utterance of it. Its just that simple.
To my knowledge some of the councils do speak of themselves or others as “Spirit inspired” and “infallible.”
Moreover, nothing I wrote is incompatible with the Catholic idea that the Pope can be personally peccable, sinful, heretical, etc. Every “sophisticated Catholic” I know firmly asserts that the Pope is infallible under the right conditions. They are quite adamant on the point.
Perry,
“I, for one, simply cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that Honorius’ case can be defended and that it doesn’t disprove the Catholic doctrine regarding papal primacy. Either they don’t understand the historical record or they don’t understand the doctine, or they don’t understand the heresy condemned. Oh yeah I can since they read second hand literature and not the actual documents.”
Either Honorius publicly taught heresy or he didn’t?
If he taught heresy (or even orthodoxy) privately, no infallibility was engaged, as the private or speculative theological opinions of Popes are not infallible.
“As for the distinction you are attempting to draw on infallibility it is certainly not done so in a clear manner.”
No Catholic doctrinal document describes the Pope as “infallible.” You apparently seem to treat this factual observation as so inconsequential that you blithely continue to insist that an “infallible” Pope is Catholic doctrine. Are you interested in discussing this issue on common epistemological grounds or are you simply trying to score cheap points?
“If the Pope teaches infallibly, then he is infallible when doing so.”
Agreed, but what is he when he is not teaching infallibly (i.e. most of the time)?
“If he is not infallible when he teaches infallibly, then he isn’t teaching infallibly.”
That’s just nonsensical verbiage. Think about it.
“If you wish to deny that the pope teaches infallibly, I’d be all to happy to accommodate you.”
The Pope CAN teach infallibly. That doesn’t mean he ALWAYS teaches infallibly.
“Nor did I make a claim regarding councils that they were infallible in all things. Such is to read what I wrote uncharitably. I used such terms in mind with their appropriate scope with respect to faith and morals.”
Nevertheless you and the Catholic Church disagree on the nature and extent of this “appropriate scope.” A Pope cannot condemn you “infallibly” for heresy, for example. He may, however, infallibly condemn as heresy a particular defined belief which you may (or may not) happen to hold. For Catholics, the same applies to an ecumenical council. Its doctrinal definitions are infallible, its disciplinary judgments, canons and personal condemnations are not.
“If I were to correctly state the doctrine of the Trinity, no I would not have done so infallibly, perhaps inerrantly, but something can be inerrant and yet not infallible. My child’s math text is inerrant, it gets all the answers to all the problems correct. But it is possible for it to err. Hence it is not infallible. You have not properly distinguished between inerrancy and infalliblity.”
Fine, your correction still serves my purposes. The Church admits that Pope’s can err in their private capacity, ergo they are not “infallible.”
“To my knowledge some of the councils do speak of themselves or others as “Spirit inspired” and “infallible.””
They might, but as you admit that does not mean their every action or decision is therefore inspired or infallible.
“Every “sophisticated Catholic” I know firmly asserts that the Pope is infallible under the right conditions. They are quite adamant on the point.”
Perhaps, but that’s hardly the same as just stating that he is “infallible” without also seriously qualifying the observation, which is what you routinely do.
I will grant that you do acknowledge that the Pope’s infallibility (as far as Catholics understand it) extends only to matter of faith and morals.
But there ARE further qualifications, and these seem to be the ones you routinely ignore. Not every utterance on the Pope on faith and morals in infallible, only those taught publicly with the stated intent of making them binding on the whole Church.
A private letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn’t qualify. It would have to be at least an encyclical, a letter to a council, a public declaration in consistory or to the faithful in general. There is nothing in the Honorius case that even remotely approaches this necessary context. Most of the Fathers at Constantinople hadn’t even been aware that Honorius had written to Sergius until the letter was tabled some 40 years after the Pope’s death.
I’m always amazed at the condemnations that were uttered by councils of individuals unable, because they are dead, of explaining themselves.
Michael,
It seems to me that at the least, he privately taught heresy. Second, it seems a tad anachronistic to read back later conditions which weren’t necessarily in play at that time like those of distinguishing what a bishop might think privately and what he might teach qua bishop. That presupposes a certain understanding of sacerdotalism that may consequently border on question begging. Moreover, much hay is made about Rome’s supreme appellate powers and yet when we have an example of when a Patriarch of the East asks for Rome’s teaching and in put it is suddenly and in a rather ad hoc manner automatically an instance of “private teaching.” That is not what the people writing to him were asking and there is nothing in Honorius’ replies that indicate that he took himself to be teaching “privately.”
As for your claim regarding no Catholic document claims that the Pope is infallible. Nothing I wrote again would imply that I was making a straw man by imputing to the Catholic position the idea that the Pope is infallible on any and all occasions and apart from any qualifying conditions. I simply referred to the Pope as infallible as to be understood in the usual Catholic sense.
You ask how the Pope is teaching when he is not teaching infallibly. It is quite obvious that he is not teaching infallibly. As for my second line, it is not nonsensical, it is a demonstration of a contradiction. Your statements seemed to imply that the Catholic church doesn’t think the Pope is infallible in any sense and under no conditions, which is not only factually false, but results in a contradiction. However one wishes to gloss the possessing of the property of infallibility the Pope is still claimed to have that property either in potency or act under certain conditions.
I am well aware that the Pope can teach infallibly but doesn’t always do so. That is pretty much par for the course when it comes to reading Satis Cognitum or Pastor Aeternus, along with other Papal encyclicals and Catholic documents. I figured in a context of well informed individuals, I didn’t think I needed to qualify the application since people already knew what I meant. Here I think you jumped the gun.
As for the Fathers not knowing that Honorius writing to Sergius until forty years later, even if true, it is irrelevant, since that council, Trullo and 2nd Nicea condemn him for *teaching* that there is only one will. (Trullo-Mansi 11, 937, 2nd Nicea-Mansi 13, 377) So also does the council of 869 which Catholics take to be Fourth Constantinople for *teaching* that there is only one will and one energy. (Mansi 16, 180-181)
Michael,
You need to please track my claims. I didn’t claim that the excommunication qua disciplinary act was infallible. I claimed the synodal horos in terms of what it taught about the apostolic office was infallible. So even if we can’t know (we can and do) that he was excommunicated, we know what the council taught in the Synodal decree.
If you think the synodal decree exists only in a Latin and corrupted text, please provide some references, either primary or secondary literature. To my knowledge the question of textual corruption doesn’t extend to the synodal decree.
I don’t come here often for a simple reason. I simply can’t stand the open and unrebuked bigotry of Diane. Its just that simple. There are at least ten other people I know who avoid this venue for that reason. Its name that fallacy time when she starts her cheer leading. Such conversations are not profitable for anyone. This is why I do not participate here often. So while at times I may concede the discussion, I do not concede various counter points. Consequently, you may think that you have “corrected” my claims simply because on this or that occasion I did not return, but I simply either didn’t have the time or the inclination to go another ten rounds. So while I think you are a worthwhile dialog partner and well informed, as long as Diane is here spewing bigotry, insults, casting aspersions on people’s character, and claiming to be informed when she’s read really hardly nothing at all, don’t expect me to be here on a regular basis or to return to every counter point you deploy.
Ok, let’s keep it simple and avoid the personal attacks.
“I claimed the synodal horos in terms of what it taught about the apostolic office was infallible.”
I read your quote and found it unremarkable. What does it contain that you think conflicts with Catholic teaching? I am serious. Spell it out for me as I seem to be too dense to have grasped the decisive element you seem to find conclusive. Are we speaking about the same quote? Was it the one about Apostles discussing things?
Mr. Robinson,
I believe that what I requested was really quite something simple.
I do not read Greek. That is a lack which I regret but, given the fact that my theological education has been limited due to working full time in social work for many years, it is something that I try to work around as best as possible reading the best available works in French, ( which I can read), and English.
I enjoy participating in these discussions to be able to obtain a clearer grasp of the issues, historical, theological, and cultural which have resulted in the rather tragic divisions we are all aware of.
I have often read some illuminating posts on various blogs, including your own, and some rather ridiculous posts and comments.
When reading the ridiculous or even offensive posts, I try to see behind, as it were, the post itself to understand the actual point the author is trying to make. Oftentimes, there is some validity to what is being written even if the valid point has little bearing on the discussion. One can obtain a great deal of insight into the atmosphere surrounding current debates and discussions from such posts.
A true discussion does not have a pre-set agenda or conclusion. The discussion will meander, get off-topic, become heated with some resulting insults, but, if led correctly, not necessarily by a moderator, but by the participants themselves, the discussion will resume its course, the insults being overlooked as the distractions that they are.
Getting back to my request, why don’t you provide the quote you refer to in translation?
I certainly will be grateful for it. As I wrote, it is a rather curious thing that the quote I found seems to have two versions.
Which is the true one?
With regards to Diane, yes, she does get carried away but no more than some “Orthodox” posters I’ve read here and elsewhere.
I simply can’t stand the open and unrebuked bigotry of Diane.
LOL! I must say I enjoy the delicious irony of this double standard. Here is a gentleman who comes here in order to tell Catholics that they are completely off the rails. Yet he accuses little ole moi of bigotry.
Nothing I have ever said re Orthodoxy comes even remotely close to what you have said about Catholicism, Perry. Why is the Catholic Church fair game for any outrageous accusation…and somehow that’s NOT bigotry?
I do not know who these other ten people are who avoid this venue because they’re afraid of a girl ;-) … but, if their arguments are as aggressively and relentlessly anti-Catholic as yours, then I must say I for one do not regret their absence. Our genial host’s mileage may vary, but frankly I do tire of anti-Catholic tirades on a putatively ecumenical board.
Diane,
I thought Perry’s “bigotry” charge was a tad severe, but I wouldn’t turn the charge against him. I suspect Perry’s reading of the Fathers and criticisms of the Catholic Church are quite sincere and not uncharitable. At the risk of appearing condescending, I am convinced that he labours under severe misconceptions and that his understanding of specifically Catholic doctrine has been shaped more by his study of Orthodoxy than his study of Catholicism. This is only what one might expect from someone whose Christian education was not Catholic.
I might contrast this with Dr. Gilbert’s effort to understand Catholicism on its own terms, possibly a by-product of his detailed study of Bekkos who ultimately made this his life’s work. Sadly, Dr. Gilbert doesn’t post here, possibly because his efforts draw the ire of Orthodox anti-ecumenists.
Catholics are also in large part to blame for some of these misconceptions (which, to be fair to Perry, are widely shared by Orthodox of good will). Alongside and virtually encrusting the carefully qualified doctrinal definitions binding on all Catholics, there are the veritable barnacle swarms of non-binding Catholic opinion and popular piety that Orthodox often have to scrape away before reaching the very narrow doctrinal nuggets that actually hold theologically sophisticated (i.e. not “cultural”) Catholics together. It is often very difficult for an outsider to distinguish between Catholic dogma and theologoumena. And of the latter, none are quite so corrosive to the ecumenical effort as those stemming from the ultramontane temper. It stands out by its sensationalism and can colour an untutored understanding of the technical theological jargon in which Vatican I was cast, for example.
This is why I always like to point to the CCC, and invite Orthodox posters to draw their understanding of Catholic theology from this excellent (though obviously not infallible) compendium. It really limits itself to the binding essentials, though of course there is still the risk of reading into it what isn’t there.
Nevertheless, to know Catholicism is not necessarily to love it. We have to accept that the unvarnished Catholic “truth” might still not conform to Orthodox sensibilities. This is why the witness of Eastern Catholics is so important and why Dr. Barstad’s article pinched a nerve for me. (blatant aside aimed at swinging the thread back on topic)
Michael — blessed are the peacemakers! I must confess that I was responding not to much to Perry’s arguments in this thread as to his arguments elsewhere to the effect that Rome and the West went completely off the rails at the time of Origen or Augustine or thereabouts, and that we are no longer even Christian (because of our allegedly defective triadology). If Perry has revised these views — or if I am misrepresenting them — I will gladly eat crow. Heck, I will gladly eat crow anyway. (Perhaps with a nice bearnaise sauce.) :) But it does strike me that arguments aimed at telling Catholics how essentially wrong they are do not come under the heading of ecumenical bonhomie. If you know what I mean!
However, I certainly will refrain from throwing the bigotry charge back at Perry. (Or at anyone for that matter.) I’m not sure that’s what I was doing, but, if it came across that way, then mea culpa.
Speaking of which, though — could we perhaps also jettison the U-Word (ultramontane)? Like “triumphalist,” this very loaded word is often used to shut down discussion and freeze people in their tracks. It’s what someone (forget who) once described as a “demon-word,” in that it instantly caricatures people and also unfairly caricatures their arguments (ignoring any nuances or qualifications). I know you do not mean it this way, but…is such a word really useful? Is it not all too liable to lead to caricature and misrepresentation of other people’s views?
I do not personally know of too many Catholics who go out of their way to present Catholic culture as though it were dogma. No one is trying to shove Rosaries or statues down Eastern throats; I’m certainly not. And every Catholic in this discussion has been at pains to distinguish the “accidents” of the papacy, say, from its substance. If there has been rampant ultramontanism hereabouts, perhaps I’ve missed it.
Please pardon my prickliness. I guess the U-Word is a pet peeve of mine. :)
And please forgive me any offense I have given to anyone. Thank you!
Ultramontanism is a legitimate stream of Catholicism. I once had a continuing Anglican claim it was a heresy, but I don’t agree. That said, ultramontane theology is particularly unhelpful in an ecumenical context. It scares the bejeezus out of our dialogue partners, and is all too willing to portray itself as the real garden-variety Catholicism. Ironically, ultramontanism is not limited to the Latin rite. It seems quite common amongst Maronites and I have actually encountered some Ruthenian clergy I could safely characterize as ultramontane (though I am not sure they would want to claim the label).
For our Orthodox friends, let me try to spell out what an ultramontane is. The Catholic encyclopedia is rather unhelpful in this regard as it happily assumes that ultramontanism is normative (albeit not mandatory) for Catholics. Here are a few attributes I associate with the temper:
1. suspicion of institutional and ecclesiological mediation between the Pope and the laity.
2. a tendency to treat only papal pronouncements as having normative value.
3. a strong antipathy to locally specific canonical practices.
4. the treatment of Roman praxis as normative (while grudgingly tolerating such exceptions as Rome specifically allows).
5. a truly expansive understanding of papal primacy and an expectation of papal micromanagement.
6. a projection of de facto infallibility to all papal decisions.
7. a general indifference to the historical liturgical and devotional features of the Eastern rites (except possibly as curiosities).
8. a tendency to see councils (ecumenical or otherwise) as vehicles for the articulation and exercise of decisions already made in Rome.
As I mentioned, I don’t see such attitudes as heretical. They are broadly conformant with plausible understandings of past conciliar or papal teaching. They are, however, quite problematic for the current exercise, and part of my self-appointed task of disparagement is to reassure our separated brethren that such attitudes are not required of Catholics, and are not at any risk of being dogmatized. We have to recognize, however, that such views have considerable resonance in the simple faith of many orthodox Catholics, many of whom, while communing regularly, might have trouble remembering the name of their local bishop, for example.
Diane,
There is no special pleading here since I read the actual documents before I make a judgment. Nor do I root other people on as if this were a football game.Nor do I find myself routinely having to apologize to people for being rude. And the claims I have made are well known, aren’t put in inflamatory language, etc. I don’t refer to my opponents regularly as “Anti-Orthodox Catholics” or as “Frankish Quiestists.” Perhaps I should take up the practice and label Catholics as “Frankish Eunomians” since you seem to think such behavior is acceptable. If I did so then you might have a case for the special pleading charge, but things as they are, the claim is baseless.
I am not afraid of a girl. I choose not to expose myself to unprofitable discussions where people show clear signs of prejudice and can’t treat others with respect as Scripture dictates. Fear has nothing to do with it.
Constantly accusingpeople of being stupid or liars simply because they disagree with you is a mark of a bigot and isn’t conducive to good dialog.
When have I or anyone else accused you of stupidity or lying?
You repeatedly accuse me of ignorance. Be my guest. I am ignorant. Woefully so. Like evagrius, I work full time in a completely unrelated field, and my opportunities for reading obscure documents apparently available only through special portals are rather limited. : ) (Sounds like Myst…I have to solve the puzzle and find the Linking Book….)
But that does not mean I cannot hazard an opinion now and then. And it certainly does not mean I cannot ask you to supply the exact quote on which you apparently base your slam-dunk proof that Catholic claims are utterly false.
And, for the record, I apologize for any excessively strong, impolitic, or uncharitable thing I have said in this or any other thread.
There! ;)
Diane
Michael,
Before I write this I know it is in the wrong forum, but, I don’t have Michael’s email address.
I did some research and Dr. Alexander Mikita in 1901 at Uzorod published the “Mikita Typicon” in Slavonic for Ruthenian and Ukranian Catholics. It is currently out of print and and it appears to have possibly been republished sometime in the 1940’s according to the Metroplitan’s Cantor Institute with the removal of many of the identifiable Latininizations, however, this is somewhat ambiguous on their website. More than likely I would say it was not republished because I have never seen or heard of a 1940’s version. I believe the website is referring to the excellent book Ordo Celebrationis which was originally published in Latin at Rome in 1944 and gives the pure Ruthenian recension purged of all identifiable Latinizations. At any rate in the Slavonic “Mikita Typicon” of 1901 St. Gregory Palamas is referred to as a “schismatic and heretic.” There is also an explanation in it as to why he cannot be celebrated by Ruthenian and Ukranian Catholics. I hopes this helps.
Joseph,
Thanks, I think this is a useful contribution, though I don’t see why you think this might be the wrong forum in which to cite the work. It strikes me as very à propos.
To me, at any rate, it suggests that the decision not to commemorate Palamas (along with virtually all latinization of the rite) was a local one, and not one imposed by Rome. While it does not seem to have been part of your own experience, there is a history of ill-blood between Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics on one side and their Orthodox counterparts (qua critics and “oppressors”) on the other that motivated efforts on the part of Byzantine Catholics to distinguish themselves by whatever orthodox means available.
Finally, the use of “heretic” in relation to Palamas in 1901 should probably be understood in the milder general sense in which it was applied to all Orthodox at the time, i.e. to all Christians who contested elements of the Catholic faith. Both recent Popes have made it clear that Palamas was not a heretic in the narrower modern sense of the term, i.e. one teaching heterodoxy. You will note that the decision by the Melkite Patriarchate in 1970 to reinstate Palamas on the calendar was received by Rome without comment.
You might note that the worst the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia has to say about Palamas is found in the following entry:
“Gregory Palamas, the defender of the Hesychast theories and the bitter enemy of the Catholics in the fourteenth century, who is still regarded as one of the greatest doctors of the Schismatic Church.” (no mention of heresy)
“I was aware that some Orthodox treat every canon and every judgment of every council deemed ecumenical as “infallible.” It would follow then from this premise that, since the totality of the output of these councils consists of their canons and decisions, these councils could be deemed “infallible.” This is not, however, a premise shared by Catholics, and has never, to my knowledge been so defined dogmatically by Orthodoxy.”
Timothy Ware says in The Orthodox Church, “The doctrinal definitions of an Ecumenical Council are infallible. Thus in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, the statements of faith put out by the seven councils possess, along with the Bible, an abiding and irrevocable authority.
It is doctrines formulated in the canons is what is infallible. The canons in the Orthodox Church are not ends in themselves though. “The man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man.” The canons are met to be a source of theraputic healing and not punitive judgment. Therefore besides doctrinal formulations canons address spiritual counsel, guidance, direction, and formation whose goal is to bring forth fruits of repentance in Church members.
In the Orthodox application of Canon Law the canons, outside of doctrinal formula, can either be applied by a Synod, Bishop, or Priest with exactness/akreveia or economy/oikonomia. Those canons outside of doctrinal formula and how they are applied are left up yo Synods and Pastors.
The canons are the guides, rules, norms, ethics, ecclesiastical discipline, administration, worship, and devotion codified by the collegial, and not monolithical voice of the Church. Doctrine is only one area of Canon Law.
And this roughly corresponds to the Catholic understanding as well. I have, however, encountered Orthodox who argue otherwise. Efforts at Eastern and Oriental Orthodox rapprochement have foundered for example, on the insistence by some that the Oriental side subscribe to all the personal anathemas issued at Chalcedon. This has never been a issue between Catholics and Oriental Orthodox.
Michael,
Many Orthodox think the acceptance of all seven ecumenical councils by the Oriental Orthodox is the great “hurdle” which must be overcome. However, the greater hurdle will be, and I argued this in a paper, will be the acceptance of men they consider saints and we consider heretics, and men we consider saints and they consider heretics. Yes anathemas can be lifted but memories never forget. If only St. Cyril were alive today to set both sides strait. We really need his intercession here.
Some Orthodox theologians have been suggesting the that ecumenical councils are not the “locus of highest authority” in the Church. Therefore, the complete acceptance and unquestioning acceptance of the declarations of all ecumenical councils need not be made sine qua non on a local church in order for re-communion to occur. They look to modern eucharistic ecclesiology. In this theological understanding of Church, the local church is the locus of catholicity, fullness, and therefore the locus of highest authority because they have a valid Bishop and Eucharist. If both Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox recognize these external qualifications to be real then re-communion becomes morally imperative.
Today a type of “half-communion” exists in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria in that the laity may marry, be baptized, or commune in either Church without penalty of excommunication. However, the clergy are prohibited from celebrating the Eucharist together! In my mind this “half-communion” is no communion at all, and it mocks and somewhat mutilates the Eucharist. I don’t get it.
I asked a Coptic Monk and M.D. in an “American” parish how I would be received in the Coptic Church and he replied, “Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion.” Which obviously means I’m also not a subdeacon.
How did Rome and the Orientals reconcile?
Do you mean the Orientals per say or with their Catholic rite equivalents?
If you mean the former, there is no reconciliation yet; just the usual obstacles (filioque, universal primacy). There isn’t the animus or obsession with divergent ritual minutae associated with the Orthodox anti-ecumenical crowd (except possibly with the Ethiopians, for some reason–perhaps a by-product of nasty Italian colonialism). The Coptic Patriarch has intimated that he would like the dialogue to move faster, but his is only one of six Churches. As there is no history of “pan-Oriental” councils or ecclesiological cooperation (other than mutual communion), the process of dialogue can be awkward.
Relations are actually warm and friendly, however, better than with Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole. All the heat at Chalcedon is now understood as the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding over terminology. Not sure how St. Leo feels about that, but he isn’t saying.
I think your Coptic monk might have been expressing an extreme and unrepresentative position, btw.
I meant their Catholic-Rite equivalents. I’m aware their is still two distinct Oriental communions.
Many Orthodox are finally understanding that not all dogmatic formula of the Greek-speaking Churches could be translated adequately into Latin or the national languages of the other Eastern Churches.
I would hope Br. Antonios is in the minority, but nothing shocks me me anymore, really.
I know that the practice of reception of others into communion has varied in what sacraments a local church will accept outside of her ecclesiastical authority for various reasons through out Church history.
Officially the Patriarchate of Constantinople and those under her omophor are to receive the Non-Chalcedonians through a prayer of repentance for having never been a part of the Orthodox Church in the form of Psalm 51, they recite the Nicene Creed, and publicly accept the seven ecumenical councils, and all traditions of the Orthodox Church. This is ecumenically inclined in that we don’t re-christen the candidate for communion. Re-christening is done to give “life to those mysteries which had no life.” This is why I have such difficulty with some of my brethren who baptize everyone from Roman Catholic to Mormon. On Athos if you are a visiting Orthodox deacon or priest, I’m not sure about layman, and were not received into the Church through baptism then you cannot partake of any Holy Mystery. Sad but true. I guess they pleasantly “overlooked” Basil’s canon for the reception of those baptized outside the Church.
They aren’t huge. Here are the figures I have for “Oriental” Catholics:
Copts 162,000
Armenians 376,000
Ethiopeans 223,000
Syriacs 132,000
Syro-Malankarans: 413,000
By and large they don’t make waves (I mean this in a good way). They tend to be quiet and focussed on local concerns. There is a tendency towards dependence on the Holy See. The Syriac Antiochene Patriarch was forced to step down last year as a result of some internal dispute which required Papl mediation. I don’t know the details. You should also keep in mind the shattering persecutions the Armenians and Syriacs suffered from towards the end of WWI. It doesn’t make for much extroversion.
There might be two exceptions to this general tendency:
The Syro-Malankarans who were primarily motivated to come over to Rome in 1929 to escape patriarchal heavy-handedness, and so might show more self-assertion than the others.
Also the Ethiopian rite bishops in Eritrea have the distinction of being the only non-Latin rite ordinaries with default jurisdiction. Latin rite parishes in Eritrea answer to them rather than to an Apostolic vicar. (At least, this is what I remember. I could be wrong.)
Michael — replying to your reply :) — well, all I can say is — things must be different in Canada! Maybe I’ve led a sheltered life, but I don’t really know anyone, personally, who fits your description of ultramontanism. Not in Real Life, at least; the Internet is its own weird world, as we all know. But we Americans are independent cusses; that could explain it.
My only fear is that the term “ultramontane” will be applied, willy-nilly, to any Catholic who does not subscribe to complete religious indifferentism and relativism. I have seen it so applied, and this strikes me as equally unhelpful in ecumenical discourse.
I do not think we are really disagreeing. I just wish terms that are usually used as pejoratives could be dropped from discussions, as far as possible. But thass jes’ me. :)
Since today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception I think this is a very appropriate essay;
Maximus’s Mary
A Minister, Not Just an Icon
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2721
evagrius — for some reason, I’m having problems with the “reply” function, so I’ll have to replay way downhere:
The weakness of your argument is quite simple. The papal “supremacy” as enunciated and practiced in the first millenium is vastly different to the papal supremacy enunciated and practiced in the second millenium and even currently.
evagrius, with all due respect: You have not rebutted my argument; you have simply restated what I said at its outset. What you claim is what our Orthodox critics always claim. But, as I observed before, loosely paraphrasing our genial host in another context, positing the question this way gets it exactly bass-ackward.
Our critics always put the burden of proof on us…IOW, try to put us on the defensive. Perhaps it’s time that our critics played a little defense. Turnabout is fair play! So, for once, instead of attacking Catholic ecclesiology, our Orthodox critics might try defending and justifying their own popeless ecclesiology on the basis of Scripture and first-millennium tradition. That is all I am asking. :-) Put the shoe on the other foot for a change…va bene?
For the sake of argument, let us accept at face value the Orthodox claim that the modern pope is a micromanaging Overbearing Dishpot. I believe this claim is absurd on about a kajillion levels, but let’s accept it, as I say, for the sake of argument.
OK, then, which do you think is more continuous with the first-millennium Church:
** A Church with a papacy that has become too big for its britches; or…
** A Church with no papacy at all
Frankly, I think the answer is a no-brainer. It is far more discontinuous with Scripture, patristic Tradition, and the first-millennium witness to jettison the papacy altogether than to expand the papacy’s powers and prerogatives.
Diane
P. S. As others have pointed out (again and again), the “accidents” of papal praxis are not part of the papacy’s esse, anyway, so variables such as “papal appointment of bishops” shouldn’t pose any problem. I mean, so what? I bet Orthodox hierarchs nowadays do many things that they didn’t do during the first millennium; would you say this invalidates their apostolic succession or the legitimacy of the Orthodox Church? Of course not. Remember the mustard tree…does it look exactly like the tiny mustard seed? Absolutely not. Nor should we expect it to. Again, to expect a point-by-point resemblance between the second-/third-millennium Church and the primitive Church is to pursue a chimera.
If East and West reunite, the pope will almost certainly leave appointment of Eastern bishops in the hands of the Eastern patriarchates; so where’s the problem anyway?
Secondly, re micromanagement: Evagrius, my friend, for the past 10 years I have reported directly to a micromanaging control freak. I know exactly what a micromanager is like — my boss is a textbook case — and believe me, the pope ain’t one. Frankly, I think this micromanagement charge is, well, absurd. There are c. 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide. Ever try micromanaging 1.4 billion people? It makes herding cats look like a walk in the park. The pope could not micromanage if he wanted to — and believe me, he doesn’t want to.
The popes have never been the micromanaging control freaks of lurid anti-Catholic imagination. If they had been, they would not have faced so many huge challenges over the centuries, from within the Church as well as without. But, be that as it may, the contemporary popes cannot in any realistic way be described as micromanagers. Do you really believe the pope micromanages dioceses?? Heck, if he did, would we still have Cardinal Mahony? Seriously! Sometimes I wish he would micromanage a few of our American dioceses…but it ain’t gonna happen, because in fact the pope takes a pretty hands-off approach. The local ordinary runs his diocese; the pope butts in ONLY when there’s a problem too intractable for the local oprdinary to handle, and usually that’s at the local ordinary’s request. How does this differ substantially and materially from the first-millennium model? It seems pretty consistent to me. ;-)
Finally, from various reports I’ve heard, I get the impression that many Orthodox hierarchs nowadays behave far more imperiously, high-handedly, and micromanagerially than the pope ever does. (Met. Philip springs to mind: Demoting his entire episcopacy? When has any pope ever done that?) So, that “too big for britches” stuff works both ways. If the fact that the contemporary papacy does not exactly resemble the first-millennium papacy supposedly invalidates Catholic claims, then the fact that Met. Philips governs far more imperiously than any first-millennium hierarch ever did should invalidate Orthodox claims. ;)
Just take a line through that mustard seed / mustard tree thang, and you’ll be on the right track. :)
And, on that note, I must run. Ta-ta, love yas!
Diane
Diane,
“our Orthodox critics might try defending and justifying their own popeless ecclesiology on the basis of Scripture and first-millennium tradition. That is all I am asking. :-) Put the shoe on the other foot for a change…va bene?”
At the first Church Council in the Book of Acts we see the apostles gathered to settle the controversy of whether Gentiles had to receive circumcision in order to be saved. Note that even though Peter is present, James, being the bishop of Jerusalem, presides at this council.
Joseph,
This example, in the way you have couched it, proves either too much or too little. Either it proves there was no primacy amongst the Apostles (which is inconsistent with other scriptural witness) or that James held the primacy (inconsistent with scriptural witness and unattested in tradition).
There are other problems with the example. You can’t describe this as a Church Council as in Nikea. It is not clear who attended, for example. Was it limited to Apostles? Were all expected to attend? Were there any recognized churches at the time other than Jerusalem that might have been invited, or did it simply involve Peter addressing the primitive Jerusalem church? Did James preside because Peter, while outranking him, had the case to answer?
You also have to consider what actually happened. The “council” of Jerusalem didn’t decide anything. Peter claimed direct revelation, and the “council” accepted that this settled the matter. There was no debate of pros and cons, and no vote. So I don’t think the Orthodox should be that keen on pushing this analogy too far, lest they really demonstrate a desire for an “oracular” Pope.
Subdeacon Joseph: This is another familiar objection that has been answered countless times. :-) I will note in passing that Peter is more than merely present: He is the first to render judgment, and all the attendees “fall silent” when he stands up to speak! I am working against a deadline now, but I will post some links later to articles on this topic.
In the meantime, I do not see how my main question has been answered: How does a popeless Church square with the witness of the first millennium? I think this is the $64,000 question, so to speak. Just my two centimes’ worth! ;-)
Diane,
I hesitate in responding to you because it seems that the “common Orthodox response” to the issue of how Peter’s primacy is expressed, or on other divisive issues, you find no substance to them because like an old shoe they are “worn out”, which thus somehow invalidates them. If I’m wrong in this observation please let me know.
St. James approved the opinion of the Apostle Peter. He showed that it was in agreement with prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) and consequently with divine providence. He proposed, “we should not trouble those of the gentiles, who turn to God, with keeping the rituals of the Law of Moses; but they must refrain from idol worship, from fornication, and from things strangled and blood. They should not do to others what they do not want done to themselves.” What is important is James’ approval. We see two very important facts established…1) Peter as the first among equals gives the address, but James as Bishop of Jerusalem renders the verdict. This is the first instance ever in Church history as to how episcopal polity, in the Orthodox Church, works. The Orthodox freely admit that Peter is the first, but the first among equals. This is not a bad thing either. It is simply how we view the situation. I don’t see this ever changing even if re-communion occurs.
This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council. The verdict was rendered in conciliarity with all. It was made known to all Christians in a Council decree, which began with the words, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” The key word here being us.
To be sure there is only one true head of the Universal Church militant and triumphant, the risen and ascended Christ. But the tangible dimension of the Church, the temporal Church, also has a visible head, the diocesan bishop (1 Tim. 3;1; 3:2; Tit. 1;7 1 Pet. 2:25, and Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:1), without whom there can be no Church, because a body cannot exist without a head. The Bishop in his diocese is the “living image of Christ,” and, therefore, the “high priest” and “president” of the Eucharist, and teacher of the faithful. Peter is this in Rome and in Rome alone as far as jurisdiction is concerned in the Orthodox Church. Yes, he can come to another diocese and speak, as he did in Acts, but, he cannot render the verdict as James did.
Your interpretive interpolations go well beyond what can be objectively determined from a straightforward reading of the scriptural account. They may satisfy you, but they are hardly probative for someone who doesn’t share your presuppositions.
I still think the arguments put forth to defend the present papacy do not really confront the situation.
I don’t think Orthodox argue that there should be no “pope” as symbolic of unity.
I do think, however, that the present fashion or method of exercising that papacy is flawed.
You can argue all you want about the supposed lack of micro-management coming from the Vatican but I think the evidence is quite clear that it does occur.
Of course, there are similar problems in the Orthodox Church but those have been clearly pointed out to reflect a method/ approach imitating said Vatican.
Essentially, the question revolves around the understanding of what authority is and how it interplays with the notion of freedom, the freedom of being a Christian.
I still think that Mar Ostathios’ book, published when he was Paul Verghese, Freedom and Authority, remains the best book exploring that issue. In essence he points out that true authority comes from something other than mere power.
I hesitate in responding to you because it seems that the “common Orthodox response” to the issue of how Peter’s primacy is expressed, or on other divisive issues, you find no substance to them because like an old shoe they are “worn out”, which thus somehow invalidates them. If I’m wrong in this observation please let me know.
Well, it’s not exactly like that. I just feel that our critics typically ask all these leading questions and put us on the defensive; we’re expected to account for this, that, and the other historical anomaly (and sometimes it gets pretty nit-picky, too). Meanwhile, there’s this big fat huge “elephant in the living room” anomaly that our Orthodox critics cannot account for…and no one ever seems to ask about that. So, for once, I would like to ask about that. Hence my $64,000 question. :)
Michael has provided a far better response re Acts 15 than I can. Please see above. :)
Thanks and God bless!
Diane
I don’t think Orthodox argue that there should be no “pope” as symbolic of unity.
Well, I don’t think the first-millennium evidence (let alone the Scriptural evidence!) supports the notion that the pope is merely “symbolic of unity.” Not even close. :)
But, be that as it may: My question has nothing to do with what the Orthodox argue. My question has to do with what the Orthodox have: a popeless church.
How does a popeless church square with the Church of the first millennium? How is a popeless church consistent and continuous with the first-millennium Church?
Das ist die frage. :)
Diane,
I can only answer your “$64,000” question from an Orthodox understanding of episcopal polity, which, might not cut it for you.
The Orthodox Church is catholic or complete, first and foremost because Her Head is God Incarnate. Yet the Orthodox Church is apostolic precisely because Christ is o apostolos-and, indeed, the Holy Spirit is o apostolos-that is “the One sent” from God the Father, even as the Lord sent the Twelve and the Seventy Apostles (Jn. 20:21)
Our Bishops today in their respective diocese possess the fullness and complete catholic faith because we, like Rome, have protected and cherished that “apostolic seed” planted by Christ and nourished through the Holy Spirit.
We reject that we are a “true particular church” and nothing but the very Church founded by Christ and nourished to this day by the Holy Spirit.
To possess the Eucharist and the Bishop is to posses the fullness of catholicity. This is the way it was in the beginning and the way it is today in the Orthodox Church.
Which is more important the Eucharist or Peter. Do we somehow have a little less Jesus then Rome? God forbid.
I think it was Ignatius of Antioch who said, “Wherever you have a Bishop and the Eucharist, there you have the Catholic (Complete) Church.”
Joseph,
You seem to be evading Diane’s question with non sequiturs.
We all recognize that the modern practice of papal primacy differs from that of the first millennium.
What Diane is asking is: where within Orthodoxy is a universal primacy as existed in the first millenium currently exercised?
If there is none, then Orthodox must recognize that their current ecclesiological praxis differs at least in this degree to that of the Church prior to the schism.
This need not be a soul destroying admission, as Orthodox ecclesiological practice differs from that of the primitive Church in a number of other areas.
Diane’s point was not to attack Orthodox praxis, but an attempt to demonstrate that Roman truth claims regarding a universal primacy cannot be disproved simply by virtue changed praxis.
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-109 AD)
This is the quote I was thinking of in my previous post and had to look up. It is from ch. 8 letter to the Smyrnans.
That is a wonderful quote, Subdeacon Joseph, and if it were our only piece of extant evidence from the first-millennium Church, then it would indeed tend to validate a popeless ecclesiology.
But it is not our only piece of extant evidence from the first-millennium Church. Far from it.
And thereby hangs a tale. Or at least a question. :)
Thanks…
Diane
Michael,
I don’t think I’m trying to be illogical, confusing, or humorous by the way.
“How does a popeless Church square with the witness of the first millennium? I think this is the $64,000 question, so to speak. Just my two centimes’ worth! ;-)”
“where within Orthodoxy is a universal primacy as existed in the first millenium currently exercised?”
It doesn’t exist because it never existed in the first millenium of the Eastern Church.
The Orthodox Church has retained the essential character of catholicity of the early Church echoed by St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-109) “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Saint Jerome (340-420) says, “It is not the case that there is one church at Rome, and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britian, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of faith. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or Engubium, whether it be Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.” (Letter CXLVI to Evangelus)
What Sts. Ignatius and Jerome speak of is how the Orthodox Church then and now viewed episcopal primacy. The East can’t provide an answer to what never existed.
The local church with its bishop contains the totality of the Universal Church. I know this ancient model is far removed from the Roman concept whereby the local church is Catholic only because it is a segment of a greater corporate body and where the glory of the Universal Church is spotlighted with glaring intensity on the office of one bishop. Hence, Pope Pius IX could exclaim, “Witness of tradition, there is only one; that’s me.” (The Vatican Council 1869-1870 pg. 355)
Joseph,
“I don’t think I’m trying to be illogical, confusing, or humorous by the way.”
I don’t think you are “trying to be illogical, confusing, or humorous” either. I think you are just trying to evade Diane’s question.
“It doesn’t exist because it never existed in the first millenium of the Eastern Church.”
You can’t at the same time claim that Rome’s exercise of its primacy is inconsistent with the way it was exercised in the first millennium and then claim there was no such primacy then for us to compare it to.
“The Orthodox Church has retained the essential character of catholicity of the early Church echoed by St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-109) “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.””
Yes, so what? What does this have to do with papal primacy?
“Saint Jerome (340-420) says, “It is not the case that there is one church at Rome, and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britian, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of faith. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or Engubium, whether it be Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.” (Letter CXLVI to Evangelus)”
Another non sequitur.
“What Sts. Ignatius and Jerome speak of is how the Orthodox Church then and now viewed episcopal primacy. The East can’t provide an answer to what never existed.”
What is “episcopal primacy”, and where do these quotes from Jerome and Ignatius address it?
“The local church with its bishop contains the totality of the Universal Church. I know this ancient model is far removed from the Roman concept whereby the local church is Catholic only because it is a segment of a greater corporate body and where the glory of the Universal Church is spotlighted with glaring intensity on the office of one bishop. Hence, Pope Pius IX could exclaim, “Witness of tradition, there is only one; that’s me.” (The Vatican Council 1869-1870 pg. 355)
You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and certainly misquoting the Pope who spoke no English and was not given to colloquialisms such as “that’s me.” I think this may be the root of your difficulty. You are simply assuming something false about Catholic ecclesiology.
But let us grant that all these quotes proves what you seem to think they do. How then do you justify regional primacy? How are these supposed critiques of universal primacy not also critiques of regional primacy? Or are you going to claim that this is not a feature of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Subdeacon Joseph, with all due respect: Your citations from the Fathers are extremely selective, to say the least. Our friend Perry Robinson likes to dismiss the copious patristic passages Catholics adduce for papal primacy as mere “spoof-texting.” But it would be far more accurate to apply such an epithet to the highly selective citation of one or two texts, in isolation from the rest of the patristic corpus and even in isolation from the rest of that particular Father’s work.
The same Ignatius who wrote, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” also addressed the Roman See as “the church presiding in love.” There is much dispute over what this means, but it certainly means something. “Presiding” implies authority — a special authority Ignatius ascribes to Rome alone. He addresses no other church this way, and his tone in his epistle to the Romans is noticeably more deferential than his tone in his other epistles.
Jerome, too, most certainly regarded the Roman Church as holding special jurisdictional authority over the other churches. As did Irenaeus of Lyons, Augustine of Hippo, and many others, both Eastern and Western. Gil Garza provided some representative texts in the “Question” thread. Others can readily be supplied.
I would submit that it is dangerous to hang one’s ecclesiology on one isolated text from Ignatius — especially if one is ignoring other texts (e.g., “the Church presiding in love”) from the self-same Father. It is far safer to look for the preponderance of the evidence — Scriptural, patristic, and historical — and gauge where that leads us.
Even some Orthodox scholars today concede that the Bishop of Rome occupied a very special place in the first-millennium Church; some even concede that he exercised more than a mere “primacy of honor.” As Michael notes, there is substantial evidence that the first-millennium popes exercised an appellate primacy — i.e., that they were the court of final appeal when intractable disputes arose among bishops and/or patriarchs. I would go further (based on my admittedly limited reading) and suggest that they could also be pro-active, taking decisive action as arbitrators even before the disputants appealed to them. (Fr. Luke Rivington cites several such instances, IIRC.) Moreover, from at least Pope Saint Damasus on, the Roman popes certainly saw themselves as wielding jurisdictional primacy over the Church Universal explicitly based on Scriptural texts such as Matthew 16: 18-19. I think the more careful, less polemical Orthodox scholars would concede this, also.
Therefore, I think it is pretty hard to maintain — in the face of the evidence — that the first-millennium Church was popeless…that Petrine jurisdictional primacy played no role in it.
As I said before, those Orthodox who do concede this (i.e., who cannot ignore or wish away the evidence ;)) usually turn around and say, “Very well, then! But the second-millennium popes exercised their primacy in a whole different way from the first-millennium popes. They were micromanaging tyrants! They got too big for their britches!” (Or, as one Anglican friend used to put it: Gandalf put on the Ring.)
Well, I think this is all pretty debatable. And, as Michael keeps observing, the precise way in which the primacy is exercised — the praxis rather than the doxis (sp?) of the primacy — is historically conditioned and open to change.
But even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that the second-millennium popes did get too big for their britches, my original question still stands:
Which is more consistent and continuous with the first-millennium Church:
1. a Church with a papacy that has beome too big for its britches; or…
2. a Church with no papacy at all
Again, I would argue, on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, that the answer is #1.
Thanks and God bless!
Diane
I would add, in fact, the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils called for an equilibrium that we find in Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons. These Canons date from the first half of the fourth century and mirror the practices of the pre-Nicean Church where Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor-first among equals (primus inter pares). These Canons were translated into Latin by Dionysius Exxiguus in the late 5th century and were widely accepted in the West. Canon 34 read as follows:
“the bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is fist among them and account him as their head and nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things which concern his own parish and the county places which belong to it. But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all. For so there will be oneness of mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”
The book I took the quote about Pius IX from is The Vatican Council 1869-1870-pg. 355, Dom Cuthbert Butler, Collins and Harvill Press, London 1962. Also, Archbishop Felix Dupanloup of Orleans and Archbishop Georges Darboy of Paris both recorded this famous remark in their diaries a few hours after the Pope uttered it on June 18, 1870. If this translation is not correct it is the fault of Dom Cuthbert Butler.
What I’m demonstrating through St’s Jerome, Ignatius, and Canon 34 of the Apostolic is that the Orthodox Church’s understanding of episcopal primacy is consistent with what we find in Acts, Ignatius, Jerome, and Canon 34 of the Apostles, thus of the early Church.
Episcopal primacy is the jurisdiction of a patriarch or metropolitan over a given district, country, or church. For example the Patriarch of Constantinople has immediate jurisdiction over Mt. Athos, but he has a Primacy of Honor over Athens. The Pope of Rome has always enjoyed this same Primacy of Honor in the East which is a priority of precedence and respect, but with no jurisdiction or legal authority in respect thereof. The only instance in which this would differ would be in the case of a vicar bishop in Moscow for example who assists the Patriarch. The sum total of all bishops in a given jurisdiction is the Synod which is presided over in a Primacy of Honor by either a Patriarch or Metropolitan.
Canon 34 admits to a Primacy of Honor for the Pope of Rome, but not one of Universal Primacy. “But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all. For so there will be oneness of mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.” This hearkens back to Acts where we can read, “it seemed good to us.”
In Ignatius’ quote we find no need for a Universal Primacy because the Church is complete if there is a catholic bishop and his flock.
In Jerome’s quote we find that all bishops are successors of the Apostles and are not dependent upon Rome or any other church in order to be a catholic church because they possess what is necessary to be sui iuris.
The Orthodox see no basis in Scripture or Ecumenical Council to accept Universal Primacy over Collegial Tradition.
I made a mistake above in equating Primacy of Honor with the Vicar Bishop. What I failed to add was that the only instance in the Orthodox Church where a bishop has no jurisdiction is a vicar bishop as in Moscow.
Subdeacon Joseph
“We reject that we are a “true particular church” and nothing but the very Church founded by Christ and nourished to this day by the Holy Spirit”.
I do not think you understand well what the Catholic church means by “a true paticular Church”. The RC Church does not think the OC is “A true paticular Church”, but that ir is a communion of true particular Churches, i.e. of local Churches, each assembled around a true bishop. The RC Church believes that she too is such a communion. Each particular Church, if it be a TRUE particular Church, is what you very aptly said it was: “nothing but the very Church founded by Christ and nourished to this day by the Holy Spirit”.
The RC Church certainly does not believe that your churches have “less Jesus” than those within her communion. She does believe that they lack an important element willed by Christ, which is communion with the Roman Church, to which Christ entrusted a mission of gathering the other churches into unity, and presiding over them in charity. Since this communion is, for us, of the bene esse of every church, and of the esse of the Church in its fullness, this is seen as a lack – although not one which vitiates the being of these Churches as, once again “the very Church founded by Christ and nourished to this day by the Holy Spirit”.
In other words, the local church you belong to is just as much a church as mine, or for that matter as the Roman Church herself. If one such “true particular church” lacks anything, it is to with her relation to the other local churches, and thus to the ecclesial body in its spatio/temporal extension (its catholicity) , rather than her internal constitution. The latter is not destroyed by the lack, although it is hindered, since her catholicity ad intra is impaired by its incomplete catholicity ad extra.
I appreciate that you, as an Orthodox, will not accept this latter part of my argument. What I will ask you to acknowledge is that it is a little more generous a judgment than that pf may Orthodox posters here, who delight in telling us that we are no church at all, and that we have nothing of Jesus whatever. It is natural for those who think the Catholic Church is mistaken to argue their case – it is, however, somewhat ironic when some of them accuse her of arrogance, when she officially concedes far more than any official position of the Orthodox Church as a whole concedes to her.
By the way, please don’t read this as an attack. I am trying to set you right on one point where I think you have misunderstood us, and I am not saying that you are guilty of the behaviour I describe in my previous paragraph. In fact I enjoy reading your posts and I feel we can learn from each other. That, after all, is why we – some of us at least – are here.
Christ is among us.
Father Paul: Again, with fear and trembling ;-), I have a question about one thing you say here. (I certainly subscribe to everything else you say, but one thing sort of bothers me.)
You say re the “lack” Catholics perceive in Orthodoxy that it is not one which vitiates the being of these Churches as, once again “the very Church founded by Christ and nourished to this day by the Holy Spirit”.
I completely agree, of course, that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches nourished by the Holy Spirit and that they have “just as much Jesus” as Catholics do. (For that matter, and at the risk of giving my friend Ochlophobist conniptions, I know some very fine Baptists and Pentecostals here in NC who have “just as much Jesus” as Catholics do. No, not sacramentally, but in their hearts and in their lives, absolutely.)
However, I think there is a problem involved in identifying Orthodoxy as “the very Church founded by Christ.” Christ founded His Church upon Peter the Rock. As you note, this is part of the esse of the Church in its fullness. Therefore, can a Church which rejects the Petrine ministry, rejects Petrine succession, and rejects Petrine jurisdictional primacy (the Rock and the Keys of Matthew 16: 18-19) be accurately described as “the very Church founded by Christ”? If it can, then wouldn’t every communion which was once one with us also qualify as “the very Church founded by Christ”? Right down to the Two Seed in the Spirit Primitive Reformed True Calvinist Baptist Church of Podunk, Arkansas. :-)
This becomes hopelessly entangled, IMHO.
I think the very careful wording of documents like Dominus Iesus and the more recent Vatican clarification of the term “subsistit” is meant to forestall such hopeless confusion. I feel more comfortable sticking with the Vatican’s (actually, Pope Benedict’s) carefully parsed and nuanced wording.
Fr Paul,
Thank you for clarifying what Rome means by a “true particular church” because I obviously now see I was somewhat ignorant of the definition.
I have a question, which is, does Universal Primacy of the Pope of Rome logically conclude in Universal Jurisdiction over every diocese in a re-united Church? This is, in general, what I have always been led to believe. For example, I cooked at St. Peter in Chains Roman Catholic Cathedral for six years in Cincinnati (while being Orthodox…I even lived with the priests in the rectory before I bought my house). I became very close with all the Fathers there. The vocations director at that time, Rev. Mark Watkins said all ordinations to the priesthood had to be approved by the Vatican. That could therefore be understood by an Orthodox Christian that Archbishop Pilarczyk was not an Archbishop sui iuris but in actuality a vicar bishop. I do not think this type of control would happen to the Orthodox Bishops if re-union occurred, but, this example points to an expression of primacy foreign to Orthodoxy.
My jurisdiction is under the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. My metropolitan, when ordaining anyone for the jurisdiction I am in needs no approval from the Patriarch or his representative bishop in America. In a reconciled Church how would these two different forms of episcopal jurisdiction be reconciled?
Fr. Paul I do not think you attacked me but corrected me in an area of knowledge, and in kindness, because you saw that I was deficient in an understanding. I’m still a student involved in the learning process and must humbly accept correction when wrong.
Unlike my brothers I have literally lived and worked directly with Roman Catholics and know them to be Christians deeply committed to saving their own souls and preserving traditional Christianity in a day and age where nihilism is taking over.
He is and ever shall be.
Joseph,
Let me step in and answer for Fr. Paul. If I make any mistake or critical omission, I hope he will correct me.
“I have a question, which is, does Universal Primacy of the Pope of Rome logically conclude in Universal Jurisdiction over every diocese in a re-united Church?”
The jurisdictional form of the Pope’s universal primacy doesn’t have any predetermined shape. In Catholic canon law, it does extend over every diocese, but this reflects the will of the Catholic bishops.
Until the schism, the form of the bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction outside his patriarchate was set according to the canons of the Council of Sardica (C. 343). It was essentially appellate in nature. Catholic canon law sees this as implying direct and superior jurisdiction in implementation of appellate decisions, though in practice this depended on the willingness of the civil power to enforce papal decrees.
How this might work in a re-united Church would, presumably be up for negotiation. Ultimately, the extent of the Pope’s practical authority depends on the degree to which the faithful in any given place value communion with the Holy See.
“This is, in general, what I have always been led to believe. For example, I cooked at St. Peter in Chains Roman Catholic Cathedral for six years in Cincinnati (while being Orthodox…I even lived with the priests in the rectory before I bought my house). I became very close with all the Fathers there. The vocations director at that time, Rev. Mark Watkins said all ordinations to the priesthood had to be approved by the Vatican.”
That would only extraordinarily be the case. I am not sure what the particular circumstances you are referring to might have been. bishops are not normally under any obligation to clear ordination to the presbyterate with Rome.
“That could therefore be understood by an Orthodox Christian that Archbishop Pilarczyk was not an Archbishop sui iuris but in actuality a vicar bishop. I do not think this type of control would happen to the Orthodox Bishops if re-union occurred, but, this example points to an expression of primacy foreign to Orthodoxy.”
If it really was as you describe, the inhibition would relate to the Pope’s patriarchal oversight of the Latin rite, and not his universal primacy.
“My jurisdiction is under the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. My metropolitan, when ordaining anyone for the jurisdiction I am in needs no approval from the Patriarch or his representative bishop in America.”
That’s normally the case within the Latin rite as well. Perhaps you could e-mail Archbishop Pilarczyk at archbishop@catholiccincinnati.org and ask him up front what the rule is for Cincinnati. You need not feel shy about doing so. I’m sure he has a secretary who screens his e-mail and forwards questions to the appropriate chancery official. I would be grateful if you could share with us any answer you receive.
“In a reconciled Church how would these two different forms of episcopal jurisdiction be reconciled?”
As mentioned, I suspect your basic premise is mistaken, and possibly the result of a misunderstanding. Certainly, Archbishop Pilarczyk cannot ordain to the episcopate without Roman sanction, but even that would still relate to the Pope’s patriarchal authority rather than his primacy.
That would only extraordinarily be the case.
Indeed. I, personally, have never heard of such a thing, not even for the Jesuits, who (famously or infamously as the case may be) take a special fourth vow of obedience to the pope. I do not at all doubt Subdeacon Joseph’s testimony…but I would assume that the situation he describes does not hold true for most order priests and still less for diocesan priests.
So, Subdeacon Joseph, you may set your mind at rest: The pope truly does not micromanage at that granular level. Pace our esteemed evagrius, he couldn’t even if he wanted to. :)
Michael,
I took your advice and sent the email. Now we wait.
If our host closes this thread before you get a response, please e-mail it to him, and perhaps he will open a new specifically featuring this issue.
Michael,
I sent two emails out. One to the archbishop and one to the new vocations director. The vocation director’s answer was in most cases the layman petitions the archbishop and that is it. Fr. Kyle then said that there are circumstances including, but not limited to, accepting a former protestant minister as a candidate for holy orders who is now Roman Catholic.
This is still different then what we would experience in the Orthodox Church. For example my metropolitan would not have to seek the archbishop of New York or Constantinople permission to accept any candidate into holy orders. In fairness though celibacy is not an issue for us. However I’m sure there are other instances like a candidate who had an annulment where Rome had to sign off and the archbishop could not. I don’t know here though and I admit I’m freely speculating.
Orthodox bishops still have more autonomy but it appears the situation with Roman bishops is not as controlled as I thought. Still more control then we have though.
We shall wait for the archbishop’s reply.
Yes, cases involving married candidates or those having become “single” following an annulment would almost certainly have to be reviewed by Rome.
Keep in mind however, that this detailed oversight exists only for the Latin rite, which has a “monarchical” patriarchal structure. This has nothing to do with the Pope’s universal primacy.
With respect to the major Eastern rites, the Pope only confirms the election of the Patriarchs (or of major archbishops for rites that have no Patriarch). Otherwise the Eastern rites elect their own bishops. I believe the Pope also reviews the ordination of married Eastern rite presbyters in “the West”, but dispensation is now normally granted so long as there is no evidence of abuse.
I am not sure what Archbishop Pilarczyk might want to add. If he was copied on the vocational director’s e-mail, he may consider your question answered. I am pleased we were able to clear this up so quickly.
On another note, I checked a Coptic website which confirmed that Protestant converts had to be baptized, so I guess your monk friend was not misleading you. From a Catholic point of view, this could be interpreted as a conditional baptism since it is normally accompanied by a profession of faith, and the latter could be understood as the operative part of the ritual for one already baptized. It strikes me as very unlikely that a Copt would accept this interpretation, however.
Diane,
You say, “However, I think there is a problem involved in identifying Orthodoxy as “the very Church founded by Christ.”
I went out and bought a catechism of the catholic church in order to better research certain aspects of Roman teaching, which obviously, would not be covered in seminary.
In 830 of the catechism we read, “First the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her…In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness for the means of salvation” which he has willed:correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.”
The Orthodox Church meets all these requirements. We have the fullness of Christ’s body because we possess valid sacraments through our bishops and priests who possess valid apostolic succession. We confess the same creed minus the optional filioque. As Orthodox Christians we have been catholic since the day of Pentecost and we are still catholic and we will be catholic on the day of the Parousia.
How could we, as Orthodox Christians, be anything less then the very Church founded by Jesus Christ? As Orthodox Christians we possess valid sacraments and valid priesthood because of apostolic succession, and, we affirm they do not exist outside of the Church in Orthodox ecclesiology. Does Rome hold the Church of England has a valid priesthood and Eucharist?
Communion with Rome is desirable because to not be in communion is a sin which both East and West suffer from to this day. I don’t believe the heavens rejoice at our lack of koinonia.
Since Orthodoxy possess the full means of salvation as demonstrated above, I argue we are the very Church founded by Jesus Christ and nourished by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, because, the catholic Church cannot exists outside of the catholic Church. Both history and our valid sacraments and apostolic succession testify to this.
Diane,
I went out and bought a catechism of the catholic church in order to better research certain aspects of Roman teaching, which obviously, would not be covered in seminary.
In 830 of the catechism we read, “First the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her…In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness for the means of salvation” which he has willed:correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.”
The Orthodox Church meets all these requirements. We have the fullness of Christ’s body because we possess valid sacraments through our bishops and priests who possess valid apostolic succession. We confess the same creed minus the optional filioque. As Orthodox Christians we have been catholic since the day of Pentecost and we are still catholic and we will be catholic on the day of the Parousia.
How could we, as Orthodox Christians, be anything less then the very Church founded by Jesus Christ? As Orthodox Christians we possess valid sacraments and valid priesthood because of apostolic succession, and, we affirm they do not exist outside of the Church in Orthodox ecclesiology. Does Rome hold the Church of England has a valid priesthood and Eucharist?
Communion with Rome is desirable because to not be in communion is a sin which both East and West suffer from to this day. I don’t believe the heavens rejoice at our lack of koinonia.
Since Orthodoxy possess the full means of salvation as demonstrated above, I argue we are the very Church founded by Jesus Christ and nourished by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, because, the catholic Church cannot exists outside of the catholic Church. Both history and our valid sacraments and apostolic succession testify to this.
[At the request of Subdeacon Joseph, I have removed the text of a private e-mail he posted, from Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, denying that a Latin ordinary requires permission from the Vatican to ordain a deacon or a priest, or to admit men to seminary. – Irenaeus]
Regarding the involvement of the Bishop of Rome in the order of the Eastern Catholic Churches:
In the Eastern Catholic Churches the patriarchal title is only given to the highest degree of autonomous (sui iuris) Churches. There are six: Alexandria of the Copts, Greek-Melkite of Antioch, Syrian of Antioch, Maronite of Antioch, Cilicia of the Armenians and Chaldean of Babylon. The Patriarchal Catholic Churches are similar to the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches insofar as they elect their own Patriarchs. Eastern Catholic Patriarchs have a more prominent role in their Churches than do the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs with the possible exception of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch.
The authority of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are limited by the following:
1. Those affairs which only the Roman Pontiff can treat regarding the entire Catholic Church.
2. Those affairs which by law he needs the advise or consent of the permanent synod.
3. Those affairs which need the cooperation of the synod of all bishops.
Normally, the Bishop of Rome is not involved in the internal affairs of an Eastern Catholic Patriarchate. Upon election and enthronement new Patriarchs request ecclesiastical communion before which he can’t ordain new bishops or convoke a synod of bishops. Only in cases when the Patriarchal synod of bishops can’t settle an internal matter are such things submitted to the Bishop of Rome. Patriarchs have the prerogative of ordaining and assigning all metropolitans and all bishops under his jurisdiction. Patriarchates may legislate their own particular law.