From the blog The Divine Life by Eric Sammons:
Last night I attended a talk by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware entitled “An Insider’s View: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Today”. Metropolitan Kallistos is a member of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which is the official committee charged with ecumenical talks between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches at the highest levels.
Kallistos gave a very informative and engaging talk. After reviewing a brief history of the Joint Committee, he then focused on its work over the past few years. He noted that the last official dialogue about reunion – the Council of Florence in the 15th century – spent months discussing the filioque and purgatory, but only 10 days on the role of the pope in the Church. Now there is a recognition by all parties that the papacy is in fact the most significant obstacle to unity, so the Committee has decided to focus on that.
The most significant document that the Committee has produced is the Ravenna Document (2007), in which the Orthodox participants, for the first time, acknowledge the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome. As the Metropolitan emphasized last night, this was incredibly significant. Of course, what “universal primacy” means is still hotly debated.
(In fact, one of the most telling moments of the night was the final question. Someone ask Kallistos what the Orthodox mean, in practical terms, by “universal primacy”. How would it actually be practiced in the real world? The Metropolitan responded by noting that the Orthodox are very clear on what universal primacy is NOT, but have not really decided on what it IS.)
Another topic the Metropolitan discussed was the three levels of authority in the Church, as emphasized by the Ravenna Document: local, regional, and universal. He lamented the fact that the Western Church has practically ignored the regional level, and stated that a reclamation of that understanding in the West was necessary for a true understanding of universal authority within the Church. As a Western Christian, I admit that I have never had much appreciation for regional authority within the Church, so I’ll have to consider that more in-depth myself.
An important aspect of how authority is practiced in the Church, both in the East and the West, is the concept of “protos”, which means “first”. The Church is hierarchical, and therefore in every grouping in the Church, there must be a “protos”. For example, the bishop is the “protos” of his diocese. The Patriarch is “protos” among the bishops in his patriarchy. The pope is “protos” among all the bishops in the universal Church. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this structure. But what does it mean to be “protos”? How is that role exercised? Metropolitan Kallistos pointed out Apostolic Canon 34 as a model for the role of “protos” in the Church. Apostolic Canon 34 states,
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.
It should be obvious that the problem arises from the second part of that Canon. In fact, this appears to be in direct conflict with Vatican I, which states that “definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable”. But Metropolitan Kallistos is hopeful that this Canon will be a way in which the Church can find a mutually agreeable means for the pope to practice universal primacy.
Metropolitan Kallistos also mentioned the recently leaked draft from the Committee about the papacy in the first millennium, which I analyzed here. He was very disappointed that the draft was leaked and felt strongly that the person who leaked it, thus breaking an agreement of confidentiality, should be removed from the Committee, if discovered. While respecting the need to honor a confidentiality agreement, I asked him if the very practice of confidentiality in this situation is healthy. After all, the reason the Council of Florence failed to bring about union was because the common people in the East rejected what was presented to them as a done deal. They had no involvement in the process. Would it not be better to make the Joint Committee more open to the public, thus allowing more people to be invested in it, and therefore making it more acceptable to the members of the various churches?
Kallistos agreed that it is vitally important that the leaders of the churches make these discussions a reality in the pews, and admitted that they had not done a good job of that. He asked how many people in the audience had actually read the Ravenna Document, and only about 10-15% of the audience had (and this was an audience deeply engaged in this issue). He did think it important to keep the discussions confidential during the process of creating a document, for many things in the draft might be eventually rejected and he saw no point in people getting upset about something that might eventually getting discarded. A valid point, but personally I think in today’s interconnected world more openness would be beneficial.
All in all, it was a wonderful talk, and I hope and pray that Metropolitan Kallistos is blessed with many more years of service to the Church.
Eirenikon 
[…] the blog The Divine Life by Eric Sammons (h/t: Eirenikon): Last night I attended a talk by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware entitled “An Insider’s […]
An interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft S.J. I offer this because it is a Byzantine Catholic’s view on the issue addressed above. It comes from The National Catholic Reporter Feb. 6, 2004.
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy (i.e. in re-communion with the Orthodox)?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’
Subdeacon Joseph —
With all due respect to the Archimandrite, only someone with no familiarity with the USCCB and how it operates could possibly propose with a straight face that they should control the election of Catholic bishops in the United States. Many American bishops — the most orthodox ones, in fact — have little use for USCCB and would prefer that it be abolished.
His insouciance about being stuck with a bad bishop is very amusing, I’m sure, except to those Christians who are actually stuck with one. Does he know what life is like in Rochester? Pre-Dolan Milwaukee? Los Angeles?
No thanks.
Jack,
Fr. Robert Taft is the leading liturgiologist in the world today and a Jesuit. I personally found the comment controversial and “over the top.” I do not no for sure but I would gather he is bi-ritual as a Jesuit. While he was probably speaking of the cuff the man knows what he speaks about. Here is his bio:
Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J. was Professor of Oriental Liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (1970-2002), where he also served as Prefect of the Library (1981-85), and Vice-Rector of the Institute (1995-2001). In addition, he has been Visiting Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame since 1974, and was Director of the Graduate Program in Liturgical Studies there in 1977-79. He served as Editor-in-Chief of Orientalia Christian Periodica and is presently Director of Publications at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. He has published hundreds of articles and, at last count, he has written and edited thirty-five books.
In addition to serving as board member and/or consultant of several academic and ecclisiastical bodies, Father Taft is a founding member of both the North American Academy of Liturgy and of the Association of Jesuit Liturgists, and a member of the U.S. National Committee for Byzantine Studies, of the Society for Armenian Studies (retired 1999), and of the International Societas Liturgica. He was a member of the Governing Council of the latter society for ten years (1979 – 89), and its President from 1985 – 87.
Father Taft is a native of Providence, Rhode Island. He was ordained a priest in the Byzantine Slavonic (Russian) Rite in 1963. After receiving his M.A. in philosophy from Boston College, he spent three years as a missionary, teaching at Baghdad College, Baghdad, Iraq. He also holds degrees from Fordham University and Weston College (Mass.), the doctorate in Eastern Christian Studies from the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome and postdoctoral studies at the University of Louvain, Belgium. (read less)
Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J. was Professor of Oriental Liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (1970-2002), where he also served as Prefect of the Library (1981-85), and Vice-Rector of the Institute (1995-2001). In addition, he has been Visiting Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame since 1974, and was Director of the Graduate Program in Liturgical Studies there in 1977-79. He served as Editor-in-Chief of Orientalia Christian Periodica and is… (read more)
…I hope you get the point.
Subdeacon Joseph,
I will try to compose a comment on +Ware’s observations later, but first just a few observations on Archimandrate Taft’s extraordinary remarks (btw, can an S.J. really be an archimandrate?).
“… there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.”
Setting aside this jaw-dropping ascription of arbitrariness and the incongruity and irony of a Byzantine Catholic presuming to lecture the Latin Church on its ecclesiological praxis, here are a few historical reasons why the Pope *should* be appointing the bishop of “Peoria”:
1. It avoids disputed elections.
2. It helps ensure the designation of orthodox bishops.
3. It helps reduce local ecclesiastical politicking.
4. It minimizes the chances of schism and phyletism.
5. It precludes simoniac selection.
6. It reduces the possibility of state/secular interference in the selection process,
7. Perhaps most importantly, this is the way Latin bishops and faithful have decided they want the episcopal selection process to work (largely for the reasons 1 through 6 above).
Perhaps Archimandrate Taft might pause and consider where the post-Vatican II Church would be with universal free episcopal election (TEC3?).
“The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodical structure in the West the same way you have in the East.”
In practice, it has one: it’s called the College of Cardinals.
Archimandrate Taft also seems to be inexplicably unaware of how the Episcopal selection process actually works. When there is a vacancy, the nuncio canvasses the local clergy for nominations, passes on the top three candidates to the Congregation for Bishops essentially a synod of bishops that has played this role for over 400 years) for vetting, before the list is submitted to the Pope for his final selection.
All the elements Archimandrate Taft is so keen on come into play in a balanced way (local nomination, synodical review, and Papal veto). The Pope is free to ignore the list, of course, but only does so in rare circumstances.
“… there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.”
>Setting aside this jaw-dropping ascription of arbitrariness
Quite obviously Fr. Taft’s meaning is that there is no *good* (i.e. scriptural, patristic, ecclesial, pastoral, etc.) reason for this practice, not that there is no reason at all. We all know the reason: the notion of the Bishop of Rome as an overarching monarch over the Church which prevailed for 900 years in the west, reached its zenith of influence at Vatican I, and has been in a slow, fitful retreat since Vatican II. Thus, the ascription is one of over-centralization and papolatry,, not of arbitrariness.
>the incongruity and irony of a Byzantine Catholic presuming to lecture the Latin Church on its ecclesiological praxis
Ah, yes, “Who is this fellow to teach us?” I oppose to this attitude the attitude, “The Truth, whatever the source.”
Joe,
If it is inappropriate for Latin rite Catholics to criticize legitimate and ancient Byzantine practices, the inverse should also be true. When Byzantines (Catholic or Orthodox) return to the primitive practice of lay local election of non-monastic bishops and make it work, then perhaps they can start waving the “scriptural and patristic” banner. As for “ecclesial” and “pastoral,” I don’t see the Eastern model as any more normative on these grounds than the Latin. (Your “papolatry” insult, btw, speaks more to your prejudices and contempt than to any “Truth.”)
Michael,
I meant by “papolatry” nothing more than what Fr. Taft meant by his comments, i.e. that there has been an overemphasis and a fixation on the powers and prestige of the papacy in the Roman church. I will admit that “papolatry” was probably too inflammatory and didn’t reflect my meaning sufficiently. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which overemphasis on *anything* in the Faith, even if it is good and necessary in itself, becomes a subtle form of idolatry. That is what I meant.
Michael,
He is a Jesuit. Also, he is probably the most formidable, controversial, and many would argue the greatest liturgiologist today. Any scholar of liturgical theology will know him.
So Byzantine Catholics can be Jesuits? I thought there were Basilians for that sort of thing. Well, I guess you learn something new every day. :-)
A quick look at Taft’s bibliography doesn’t seem to suggest particular expertise with respect to the Latin rite. That said, it is difficult to believe that someone in his position would have been ignorant of the points I made above. Perhaps these were just off the cuff remarks on his part, generously seasoned with rhetorical fluff and hyperbole.
So long as theological norms are respected, I think Byzantine Catholics should leave it to the Latin Church to decide how much authority the Pope should exercise within it. For my part, I would not presume to express personal preferences as to how Byzantines Catholics should choose their bishops.
Michaël
The most significant document that the Committee has produced is the Ravenna Document (2007), in which the Orthodox participants, for the first time, acknowledge the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome. As the Metropolitan emphasized last night, this was incredibly significant. Of course, what “universal primacy” means is still hotly debated.
Indeed. One wonders, whither the Eucharistic ecclesiology advocated so strongly by Orthodox writers such as Alexander Schmemann and Nicholas Afanssieff, and ably defended as Apostolic? As Afanssieff points out in his, “The Church Which Presides in Love,” asserting a theory of a “universal church,” inevitably leads to, not only universal primacy, but a universal primacy on the modern (post Vatican I) Roman model.
That Apostolic Canon 34 is viewed as a “problem” by the Catholic author is telling.
My feeling is that Afanassieff’s contribution has been widely misunderstood.
He doesn’t contest the “universal Church” so much (is not the Church “catholic”?) as what he sees as the emergence of a “universal ecclesiology” rather than a “eucharistic ecclesiology” as the organizing principle in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
The intent of this distinction (and its bilateral application) appears to have been lost to those intent on merely using Afanassieff as a stick with which to beat the concept of Papal primacy.
If I may summarize his argument, all authority in the Church is at its root sacramental rather than canonical. In theory the canons should rest on this sacramental character, but the historical practice in both East and West has been to treat the sacraments in effect as if they were the product of canon law. The transformation of this habit into a guiding ecclesiological principle is what Afanassieff describes as “universal ecclesiology,” which in his view can only lead to the idea that the canonical head must have legal authority over the Church and it bishops rather than in the Church and among its bishops.
Afanassieff finds the fullest expression of the Church’s sacramental character within the local eucharistic community (understood as the bishop and his flock). Because the Church is catholic, however, part of this sacramental authority involves the necessary exercise of self-recognition of the sacramental reality of each eucharistic community in each other eucharistic community.
In this exercise, Afanassieff recognizes that not all eucharistic communities are equal: i.e. as a service to the universal Church, the witness of some has always carried a greater priority and enjoyed a wider respect than that of others. This, Afanassieff argues, is the sacramental basis for the exercise of primacy, both regional and universal. It rests on this priority of witness enjoyed (for whatever reason) by some eucharistic communities (and so, by extension, their presidents). When this priority becomes primarily articulated in legal terms through canon law, rather than in charismatic terms, it becomes transformed into power over, rather than authority in support of, other eucharistic communities, and thus becomes universalist rather than eucharistic.
Afanassieff sees this distortion in both Catholic AND Orthodox traditional ecclesiology. His point has been taken on board by Catholic theologians, but some Orthodox polemicists seem to have taken Afanassieff’s argument to ridiculous extremes, even denying the existence of the universal Church beyond its local eucharistic expression. This would leave the Church with an operating principle reduced essentially to a completely a-historical and un-patristic form of episcopal presbyterianism and self-sufficiency. It is specifically in these terms that some Catholic theologians take issue with his work. Otherwise you will find Afanassieff to be one of the most frequently and favourably quoted authorities in recent Catholic works on ecclesiology.
Michaël,
I agree with almost everything you wrote, but we should be clearer, perhaps, on terms. In some sense, “universal Church” as we both might understand it is in harmony with Affanasieff’s views (as I read them, which, of course, could be different than your interpretation). He seems to be clear, though, that what he means by the term is an organism in which each local church is thought of as a part of the whole – a view he assigns to Western Catholicism – rather than a full expression of the Church itself. It is primacy considered in the former model that he concludes must lead to something like a universal primate as ruler over, rather than presider among and with consent. And so, I see nothing wrong with introducing his approach over against a Vatican I-style view of the papacy, should one disagree (or, to use your words, “[use] a stick with which to beat the concept”) with such a view.
Of course, as you point out, his critique, and Schmemann’s, was bilateral, as both argued that the monarchical structure of Patriarch ruling over Synod – specifically, in the Russian Church, but in much of Byzantine practice, as well – was not something easily found in the early Church or the Apostolic Tradition. I didn’t consider the bilateral nature of their criticism particularly germane to my first comment, which was simply to ask whether an argument I would consider well-known in the Orthodox theological world was being soft-pedaled by that side in an acknowledgement of “universal primacy.” As the missing definition alluded to by Metropolitan Kallistos is crystallized, I hope much attention will be paid to precision, such that the distinction I posit in my first paragraph is maintained in any ecumenical discussion. Orthodoxy not having yet purged the (in Schmemann’s words) “poison” in its own de facto ecclesiology, it should be careful of, if not necessarily dead set against, aligning itself with its de jure mirror image in the West.
Fair enough, but Catholics have also appropriated for themselves Afanassieff’s theology and are prepared to understand and discuss the Pope’s universal primacy in these terms. So there is little need to suspect the Orthodox participants of downplaying it so as to facilitate agreement.
As the Latin bishops made quite clear at Vatican I, they *wish* to be governed through a monarchical primacy, as this is the form of primacy that is best supportive to them given the pastoral and historical circumstances in which they find themselves. As this submission is both voluntary and conformant with the expectations of the Latin laity, it is entirely compatible with the charismatic eucharistic primacy advocated by Afanassieff.
This expression of primacy in strictly canonical terms is proper to the Latin Church alone, however, and is one which the Pope exercises in his Western, and not universal, primatial capacity. It is not on the table as a model for how the Pope’s universal primacy should be exercised.
(n.b. papal doctrinal infallibility as defined at Vatican I is a different kettle of fish, as I hope to draw out in a later comment.)
While some Eastern Catholic Churches (notably the Maronites) would perhaps be comfortable with such a privileged intimate canonical relationship with the universal primate, many would not. I think it is safe to assume that currently Orthodox Byzantines in a reunited Church would almost universally fall in the latter category.
So this brings us back to a historical analysis of how papal primacy was exercised *outside* the West (i.e. in the East or in a strictly ecumencial context) in the first millennium. The draft document does not draw this distinction clearly enough, in my view. My reading is that prior to the conciliar period, the universal primacy was exercised very much on the model Afanassieff lays out. The conciliar period, however, ushers in a new paradigm structured around canonical legal norms *enforced (at least until relatively recently) essentially by the civil power*, and that ultimately proved problematic with respect to the traditional exercise of universal primacy.
Let’s not forget that outside its vigorous defence of theological orthodoxy, Roman primatial involvement in the East was remarkably modest in the first millennium. Off the top of my head, it involved protection of the integrity of Christian baptism, an insistence on a common date for Easter, a dispensation for an imperial “third” marriage, a defence of Alexandria’s rank within the pentarchy, the vindication of St Ignatius of Constantinople, and an ongoing resistance to Byzantine usurpation of Rome’s strictly Western historical primacy in Sicily and Bulgaria. This hardly amounts to the tyranny Orthodox anti-ecumenists would have us believe. Of course, if you happen to be a closet Montanist, Arian, Nestorian, monophysite, monothelite or iconoclast, Rome’s interventions in the East might have seemed a tad more extensive, substantive and imperious. But is this really the perspective modern Orthodox wish to share?
I commend to interested readers the very judicious (and slightly critical) study *Theology in the Russian Diaspora: Church, Fathers and Eucharist in Nikolai Afanas’ev (1893-1966)* by Aidan Nichols, OP. Published by Cambridge University Press in 1989, it was republished by the same publisher in paperback format a year or two ago.
“The Patriarch is “protos” among the bishops in his patriarchy. The pope is “protos” among all the bishops in the universal Church. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this structure.”
Well, the only problem with this is its historical inaccuracy. The Bishops of the See of Alexandria, both Greek and Coptic, hold the title ‘Pope’ and have long before the Bishop of Rome claimed it for himself and forbid others to use it and was told to ‘stick it where the sun don’t shine’. To this day both hold the title, the Greek ‘Pope’ defers to the Coptic Pope as a gesture of good will. Another case of Roman revisionist history like the Pope of Rome being ‘the Vicar of Christ’ when for over the first millennium he was ‘the Vicar of Saint Peter’. Self elevation is unbecoming of ‘the Servants of the Servants of God’ don’t you think?
Matthew,
This is a site dedicated to Catholic and Orthodox mutual understanding and reconciliation. Are we to assume that you feel that your post is contributing to this end?
If you are somehow under the impression that Catholics don’t have a far more impressive litany of substantive charges and grievances they could recite if they wanted to get Orthodox backs up, please let me disabuse you.
Pope just means “father”, as any Greek priest can tell you, and every priest or bishop who presides over the eucharist is the “vicar of Christ.”
Now compare these modest titles to “Ecumenical Patriarch.”
Yes, as long as we’re just comparing titles, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria claims the following:
(The Greek Patriarch’s list is much smaller but does include “Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Bishop (Archpriest) of Bishops (Archpriests), The Thirteenth Apostle, Judge (Arbitrator) of the Universe (the Oecumene)”!)
While the Pope of Old Rome claims the following:
As indicated earlier, I would like to address one particular point from this otherwise interesting blog entry:
“Metropolitan Kallistos pointed out Apostolic Canon 34 as a model for the role of “protos” in the Church. Apostolic Canon 34 states,
‘The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.’
It should be obvious that the problem arises from the second part of that Canon. In fact, this appears to be in direct conflict with Vatican I, which states that “definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable”. But Metropolitan Kallistos is hopeful that this Canon will be a way in which the Church can find a mutually agreeable means for the pope to practice universal primacy.”
I don’t know whether Metropolitan Ware explicitly drew this contrast between Pastor Aeternus and the Apostolic Canon. I suspect it may be Sammons who inferred the comparison. In either case Sammons does not appear to see that the comparison is essentially a non sequitur which is surprising for a self-described Catholic.
Pastor Aeternus simply states that infallible papal definitions are “irreformable” (i.e. not in objective need of correction) because they are *true*, and not because they are subsequently approved by the Church. Their truth is assured by the intervention of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ, not by virtue of episcopal vetting.
Now an Orthodox can of course contest whether any such assurance pertains to papal definitions. But surely no Orthodox would claim that acceptance of a definition by the Church (subsequent or otherwise) is what makes such a definition true. It must logically be true or not true independently of who defines or approves it.
Pastor Aeternus merely spells out one of the ways in which the infallibility promised to Peter by Christ for His Church is articulated.
The Apostolic Canon deals with a completely different matter. In fact, if one were to insist on interpreting the former specifically in light of Sammons’ apparent reading o the latter, one would have to conclude that the protos (in this case the Pope) can issue no definitions of any kind unless reading from a prepared statement signed by ALL the bishops, whereas any other bishop can spew out whatever heresy he chooses so long as the protos has signed off on it.
This would obviously not only be absurd, but runs against the plain meaning of the canon. Nowhere does it suggest that the acts of the protos derive *post facto* validity from the approval of his brother bishops. Instead it insists that the protos act with the *prior* consent of his brothers (without, we should note, specifying the form such consent should take). And this is the key to understanding any relevance the canon might have with respect to Pastor Aeternus.
It is obviously incumbent on the Pope to consult as widely as practicable before proclaiming a definition, and I cannot imagine that it would ever have occurred to the bulk of the council fathers that it might be otherwise. No Pope has ever expressly taught as binding on the whole Church anything at odds with the considered beliefs of the majority of bishops in communion with him — not once in the almost 2,000 years of the Church’s existence. Those who would maintain that Pastor Aeternus declares explicitly that that he need not consult are reading something into the text that simply is not there.
The problem that Ware (or possibly Sammons instead of Ware) claims to perceive thus clearly *does not* arise from any real conflict between the Pastor Aeternus and the Canon.
The whole subject of the protos, in relation to this ecumenical dialogue has been made marvelously and superbly clear, leaving no doubt whatever, by St. Nektarios of Pentapolis in his God-enlightened book, “A Historical Study Concerning the Causes of the Schism… Concerning the Impossibility or Possibility of Union.” It would be most beneficial and to the enlightenment of the faithful if we quote the text verbatim. The Saint says on page 9: “The terms of union are such that they render the sought-for union impossible, because they have no point of contact.
Each seeks from the other nothing more nor less than the denial of itself and the basic principles upon which the whole structure of the church is founded. For on the one hand, the Papal church is based on the primacy of the Pope according to their understanding of this point; and on the other, the Eastern Church is founded upon the Ecumenical Councils. Because of this, the terms of union brought forward by either side are impossible of acceptance since they overturn the churches from their very foundations.
Hence the ineffectiveness of any concessions either side can make. The primacy of honor which is given by the Eastern Church to the Pope is a useless concession because it lacks the power to hold the fabric of the Western Church together. The concessions given by the Pope to the Eastern Church — that is, her remaining in her own dogmas, customs and disciplines — are not in the least considered as ‘concessions’ by her but as legitimate in themselves, since they are founded on the Canons of the Church, for which reason alone she abides in them. But she demands also that the Pope himself with all the Western Church return to her bosom, renouncing their former life, and come in repentance to her. Therefore the apparent concessions have no meaning whatever, since they are not actually concessions.
For union to come about, it is necessary that the concessions remove the main causes of separation. The concessions will truly be such when the Pope gives up his own ways, and not when he simply tolerates those things that have been well-established in the Church. Since the main causes of the separation remain as such, die churches persist in their own ways, and union is impossible. For union to be established, it must be made secure upon the same principle. Otherwise every labor is vain.”
Drake,
A common difficulty in discussing reunion with anti-ecumenists, in my view, is this habit they have of making claims about the “other” Church which it does not make for itself, and then of proceeding to draw tendentious conclusions from these ascriptions.
“For on the one hand, the Papal church is based on the primacy of the Pope according to their understanding of this point;”
Where is Nektarios getting this from? Has he consulted Latin sources before coming to this conclusion? Is there even a footnote on page 9 supporting this observation?
“and on the other, the Eastern Church is founded upon the Ecumenical Councils.”
Far be it for me to quarrel with an Orthodox saint as to his understanding of the origins of his own communion, but surely the “Eastern Church” existed prior to the councils and so any claim to rest its foundation on them smacks of “novelty.”
“Because of this, the terms of union brought forward by either side are impossible of acceptance since they overturn the churches from their very foundations.”
What is it about the Councils canons that is incompatible with the Papal claims? What is it that Latins expect of Easterners that is precluded by the conciliar canons? Much appears to lie unstated here.
“The primacy of honor which is given by the Eastern Church to the Pope…”
I assume he means “acknowledged” or “recognized” as it is not clear to me on what ecclesiological basis the East might claim to “give” primacy to the Pope. Perhaps this is a problem of translation.
“…is a useless concession because it lacks the power to hold the fabric of the Western Church together.”
It woiuld appear that Nektarios is talking about the Pope’s universal primacy here, and not the Pope’s strictly Western primacy since the latter has nothing to do with the East. But if this is the case, on what basis is he claiming that it is the Pope’s non-Western universal primacy (rarely used in practice in any constraining sense) is what holds the Western Church together?
As is common with Orthodox anti-ecumenists, Nektarios seems unable to make the essential distinction between the primacy that the Pope enjoys in the West (in his own patriarchate, as it were) which has been positively willed to him by the Western bishops, and the higher level but less hands-on universal primacy the Pope claims to have received by divine mandate. The conflation is not helpful, as the former has never been offered as a model for the exercise of Papal primacy in the East.
“The concessions given by the Pope to the Eastern Church — that is, her remaining in her own dogmas, customs and disciplines — are not in the least considered as ‘concessions’ by her but as legitimate in themselves, since they are founded on the Canons of the Church, for which reason alone she abides in them.”
When has the West ever portrayed this recognition as “concessions” on its part, or suggested that Orthodoxy remain “in” them on any other grounds than those stated here? This is to fundamentally misunderstand what the Pope’s universal primacy involves. Which typically Eastern legitimate dogmas, customs or disciplines has Rome ever contested?
“The concessions will truly be such when the Pope gives up his own ways, and not when he simply tolerates those things that have been well-established in the Church. Since the main causes of the separation remain as such, die [sic] churches persist in their own ways, and union is impossible. For union to be established, it must be made secure upon the same principle. Otherwise every labor is vain.”
Rather than unhelpful implying that all the fault lies in the Pope not giving “up his own ways,” Nektarios could have devoted a bit more consideration to the historical background to the schism. When communion was first broken universally between East and West (as opposed to the purely local on-off schism between Rome and Constantinople), it was not over the filioque or the exercise of papal primacy, but the result of a dispute concerning the rightful occupancy of the see of Antioch after 1099.
Granted, the ecclesiological issue was a substantial one: can two rites coexist in the same geographic see under different bishops? But given current overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in North America and Western Europe, it is difficult to conclude on a historical basis that such an “abuse” necessarily precludes communion.
What Orthodox anti-ecumenists have to grapple with (Catholic anti-ecumenists have different problems) is the actuality of historical communion for centuries despite known disagreements over the filioque and the practical import of the papal claims. If the Church is to be assumed to having been true to itself, this demonstrates historically that schism is not a necessity, but a conscious choice conditioned by pride, and fed by historical animosities and resentments.
If you cannot get past these, and choose instead to nurture whatever differences you can somehow raise to the level of essentials, you become part of the problem instead of the solution, and strive to make Christ’s prayer vain.
Even though the interruption of sacramental intercommunion is attributed to the Roman Catholics’ diversifications from the common Faith of the first centuries, nevertheless, in the Ravenna Document it is mutually confessed by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic members of the Joint Commission that their faith is common. In this way, the discussion and settlement of organizational and administrative issues have been set forth, as, for example, the matter of the Pope’s primacy, while the theological issues have been bypassed and left pending.
Is this true?
If it is true then the projection of the position that “…unity in variety was positively accepted at the Synod of Constantinople, which took place in 879-880″, reveals the ulterior motives of the Roman Catholics…
The only prerequisite for a discussion of the Primacy to take place is the return of the Roman Catholics to the Orthodox Church, and not the “unity in diversity” of dogmas.
“…the interruption of sacramental intercommunion is attributed to the Roman Catholics’ diversifications from the common Faith of the first centuries…”
Attributed by whom? I trust that you consider this proposition self-obvious. Have you researched the Latin Fathers to find amongst them the discontinuity in faith you assume must exist?
“…in the Ravenna Document it is mutually confessed by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic members of the Joint Commission that their faith is common.”
To hold a faith in common does not preclude persistent differences on particular points. Or do you assume that Catholics share no beliefs in common with the Orthodox, or that such beliefs as might be shared are too insignificant to matter?
“In this way, the discussion and settlement of organizational and administrative issues have been set forth, as, for example, the matter of the Pope’s primacy, while the theological issues have been bypassed and left pending.
Is this true?”
Well, the Pope’s primacy IS a theological issue. But yes, the dialogue necessarily focuses on one issue at one time, attempting to exhaust it before passing to the next. The Ravenna document is part of an ongoing conversation, not a negotiation, and is hardly intended as a manifesto for reunion. Ultimately all the apparent or perceived points of divergence will have to be addressed before the dialogue runs its course. After that we will have a better idea of what degree of communion or common witness or praxis is possible.
“If it is true then the projection of the position that “…unity in variety was positively accepted at the Synod of Constantinople, which took place in 879-880″, reveals the ulterior motives of the Roman Catholics…”
And these revealed ulterior motives are…? Forgive me for being apparently dense. I would have naturally assumed that they might be the same as for the Orthodox participants, i.e. to identify apparent points of divergence, and determine whether these are artifacts of language or terminology, or whether they might be genuine but theologoumena, or whether they actually amount, upon explication and unpackaging, to irreconcilable dogmatic differences.
Instead, Orthodox anti-ecumenists seem to believe that their coreligionists participating in the dialogue (to the extent they are still willing to recognize them as such) are merely naive tools prepared to sell the theological store by virtue of being merely open to questioning Catholics as to what patristic or scriptural basis they can adduce for distinctive Western beliefs or formulations.
Catholic anti-ecumenists, ironically, are equally dismissive, but for different reasons. seeing the whole exercise as a waste of time. It might shock some Orthodox, but to some Catholics modern Orthodoxy is but the “nearer” end of a continuum of liturgical and theological obscurantism and ethnic particularism extending to and not radically differing from Old Believers. While it may not be charitable to so observe, it is nonetheless undeniable that since the 16th century Orthodoxy has held an inexorably shrinking share of professed Christianity. To Catholic anti-ecumenists, the Orthodox (like the Jews) will either come to their senses on their own or continue sinking into progressive historical oblivion and irrelevance as Samaritan equivalents
If all Orthodoxy has to offer in any dialogue is a sterile and demonstrably unconvincing triumphalism, then yes Orthodoxy should have much to fear from the exchange as Catholic triumphalism, while equally sterile, at least has numbers and the march of history to back it up.
Fortunately, the current leadership in both communions see matters differently.
Michael you said,”While it may not be charitable to so observe, it is nonetheless undeniable that since the 16th century Orthodoxy has held an inexorably shrinking share of professed Christianity. To Catholic anti-ecumenists, the Orthodox (like the Jews) will either come to their senses on their own or continue sinking into progressive historical oblivion and irrelevance as Samaritan equivalents”
Our Christianity shrank because it was professed by the blood of the martyrs. First under Islam, and then under communism. While Latin-Rite Christians did suffer under communism and remotely from Islam, their numbers pale in comparison to what Orthodoxy suffered. Also, in the great ecumenical blunder of the unia we also lost many of our people. Thus today we Orthodox still have many of our own suffering from the “symptom” of the disease known as “dis-unity.”
I am certainly not an anti-ecumenist, and I cited these views not because I think numbers are a test of truth, but to demonstrate the futility of thinking that telling Catholics that acknowledging that they are simply wrong on all conceivably points of divergence from Orthodoxy is a prerequisite to discussion. This is just empty triumphalism. I happen to find triumphalism intellectually bankrupt, but if one is going to reduce any “discussion” of our differences to that level, one should really be prepared to confront the evidence that Catholic anti-ecumenists have more to be triumphalist about.
Michael,
You speak sir of an “actuality of historical communion for centuries despite known disagreements over the filioque and the practical import of the papal claims”. Alas ecumenists bypass the fact that the communion of the ecclesiastic Sees of both the East and the West during the first millennium was securely based on the un-innovated Apostolic Faith – in spite of the heretical teaching of the Filioque that was brewing in the West – AND NOT ON A unity in the diversity of the dogmas, NOR an ecclesiology of communion and similar nonsense! The dogmas cannot be understood as differing theological approaches of the same truths of the faith.
Orthodoxy is not afraid of the dialogue. However Orthodoxy cannot sacrifice anything for the shake of any noble endeavour. We may be threatened by oblivion, we may be outnumbered but this is God’s concern not ours. Our duty as Orhtodox Christians is to safeguard our faith and repent for our sins. We also have the duty to care about others, but only to the extent that this does not compromise our faith.
Ecumenists want us to think that we are one and the same. This causes dangerous confusion. Confusion to us since we forget, that we are orthodox; and confusion to roman catholics since they deceive themselves to believe that they are not heretics… And if that was not enough roman catholics invite us in their “church”, and they pray for Christianity to start breathing again with two lungs…
Roman catholics want a dialogue with the Orthodox Church because they realised that there is a rift amongst us orthodox. They do not want a discussion about dogmatic or faith issues. They know about all these issues. Neither they seek for us to hear their views, because they know that we are also aware of them.
A shaken papacy always has one ulterior motive: to use the fragmented orthodox East, in order to legitimise itself. The papacy’s aims are always secular, worldly, dare we say political. This has happened before indeed. See the Council of Florence for example where the Pope used the desperate Greeks to strengthen his position within the Western Christianity… That “ecumenical council” failed. Why did it fail? because the Orthodox participants compromised on matters of faith for the shake of “Union”.
Christians of differing backgrounds will need to agree on the fundamentals of the Faith. If we attempt to by-pass this, to compromise ourselves, then unity is false.
Drake,
Their is far more dogmatic agreement between the Orthodox and Romans then their are dogmatic disagreements. The Roman Catholic concept of the dogma of purgatory, the dogma of the immaculate conception, and the dogma of papal infallibility present problems. Concerning the filioque, there is nothing heretical about it per se. The problem, for the Orthodox, is that no bishop, or even college of bishops, can change the Creed of the Church out of self-well. What was defined by an ecumenical council can only be amended by an ecumenical council.
As your fellow brother of the chalice I kindly ask you to tone down your rhetoric. Disagreement is fine, but please disagree with love and charity.
Drake,
“Alas ecumenists…”
It would be really helpful, actually, if you could explain what you mean by “ecumenists.” You will have to forgive me, as English is not my mother tongue and I am a rather old-fashioned sort who prefers to stick by the dictionary definitions of words. Now my trusty Oxford defines “ecumenism” as “the search for world-wide Christian unity.” It would then seem to follow that an “ecumenist” would be “one who seeks world-wide Christian unity.”
It strikes me that you appear to be using the term in a far narrower sense as meaning something like “one who unscrupulously seeks absorption of other Christian bodies under false pretenses or in reckless disregard of revealed truth.”
Now I have never met an example of the former, and my suspicion is that the latter class would pretty well be limited to some Unitarians or perhaps a few very, very, latitudinarian Anglicans, but my suspicion is that the animal described is a largely fictional construct. Such people would only care about Christian unity in the abstract. But, back to your observation….
“…bypass the fact that the communion of the ecclesiastic Sees of both the East and the West during the first millennium was securely based on the un-innovated Apostolic Faith – in spite of the heretical teaching of the Filioque that was brewing in the West…”
What is it about the filioque that you assume to be heretical? I ask this because, to my knowledge no Pan-Orthodox synod has ever anathemized the teaching the Catholic Church intends by the filioque. Now, if you could point me to some authoritative Eastern canon that anathemized one of either two propositions, that would be a different matter: 1) that the Son plays some role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and 2) that this role (such as it is) is proper to the very nature of the Holy Spirit, then I would have to accept that you had some grounds for affirming objectively that Catholic teaching is heretical (at least from an Orthodox perspective). Good luck on that one! The best you will find are anathemas cast at inferences ascribed to the filioque that are not actually part of Catholic teaching.
I will grant that Photius was pretty free with the “h” word in relation to the use of the filioque, but that didn’t stop him from staying or entering into communion with indubitable filioquists when it suited his purposes. So either he only intended to condemn as heresy some particular beliefs he felt could find cover under the interpolation, or perhaps he used the “h” word in this case in a polemic rather than objective sense, or he kept faith with heretics. I will let you take your pick. I suspect it was mainly the first, with a smidgen of the second.
“– AND NOT ON A unity in the diversity of the dogmas,”
One can certainly have a diversity in the expression of dogmas, but I would have to agree that unity in a diversity in the actual content of dogma would be problematic, assuming that one understands “dogmas” as “revealed doctrines defined as binding on the faithful.” Can you actually point to anyone who is advocating ecumenism on such a basis?
“NOR an ecclesiology of communion and similar nonsense!”
I am not sure what you mean by this. Is this some sort of backhanded slap at Afanassieff’s “eucharistic ecclesiology?”
“The dogmas cannot be understood as differing theological approaches of the same truths of the faith.”
Again, we may not be speaking the same language. “Dogmas” may be expressed via differing theological approaches, but can’t normally be “understood” as theological approaches in themselves. You dogmatize truths, not theological methodology.
“Orthodoxy is not afraid of the dialogue. However Orthodoxy cannot sacrifice anything for the shake of any noble endeavour.”
I assume you mean anything “essential.”
“We may be threatened by oblivion, we may be outnumbered but this is God’s concern not ours. Our duty as Orhtodox Christians is to safeguard our faith and repent for our sins. We also have the duty to care about others, but only to the extent that this does not compromise our faith.”
And Catholic ecumenists expect their Orthodox counterparts to fully respect these duties just as you have described them.
“Ecumenists want us to think that we are one and the same.”
Well, I can’t speak for Orthodox ecumenists, but I am prepared to state upfront that I see significant differences in what the two Churches teach in some areas.
Where I suspect I differ from you is in allowing for the possibility either that I may have misunderstood Orthodox teaching in these areas, or that the substantive differences might fall within the realm of theologoumena. I won’t be able to tell for sure until the dialogue has advanced substantially farther than it has to date.
I need to hear from Orthodox what they mean by their formulations, and on what basis they object to the genuine content of Catholic formulations. I need to know how Orthodox justify their practices, and on what basis they object to Catholics ones.
My experience, however, is that anti-ecumenists feel they know better than Catholics what Catholics formulations or practices really mean. Indeed, you effectively state as much later in your post.
“This causes dangerous confusion. Confusion to us since we forget, that we are orthodox; and confusion to roman catholics since they deceive themselves to believe that they are not heretics.”
Ah, back to the “h” word again.
“And if that was not enough roman catholics invite us in their “church”, and they pray for Christianity to start breathing again with two lungs…”
And why exactly should Catholics NOT want you to share communion with them? Do you think Catholics actually understand themselves to be heretics and that they should therefore actively deny you the communion cup in the certain knowledge that they would otherwise be polluting you? Do you think that they should pray for your extinction so as to preclude the possibility that the Church might somehow breathe fully with both lungs?
Catholics do not see Orthodox as heretics (at least not in the formal sense), so all that is required of Orthodox wishing to commune with Catholics is be so properly disposed and to accept the existing differences as legitimate or inessential.
“Roman catholics want a dialogue with the Orthodox Church because they realised that there is a rift amongst us orthodox.”
And you know this how? Is this written somewhere in some revelatory text that you keep next to your Protocols of the Elders of Zion? This sort of tendentious ascription of motives, of which there are quite a few in your post, is an insult even if not necessarily an intentional one.
“They do not want a discussion about dogmatic or faith issues. They know about all these issues. Neither they seek for us to hear their views, because they know that we are also aware of them.”
That is just breathtakingly arrogant.
“A shaken papacy always has one ulterior motive: to use the fragmented orthodox East, in order to legitimise itself. The papacy’s aims are always secular, worldly, dare we say political. This has happened before indeed. See the Council of Florence for example where the Pope used the desperate Greeks to strengthen his position within the Western Christianity…”
More insults!
“That “ecumenical council” failed. Why did it fail? because the Orthodox participants compromised on matters of faith for the shake of “Union”.”
That’s certainly one interpretation. I think it’s more a matter of the Catholic side not having taken Orthodox theological sensitivities sufficiently seriously. But I will agree that the Greeks were also perhaps too desperate to just walk away. More time was needed than was available.
“Christians of differing backgrounds will need to agree on the fundamentals of the Faith. If we attempt to by-pass this, to compromise ourselves, then unity is false.”
I think everyone can agree on this point at least, though you seem to assume otherwise for some reason. I will go one further: there is no point in holding an ecumenical council until we already know that we are in agreement. So what exactly is your programme for achieving the unity Christ wished for. Do you think Catholic hearts are going to be softened by abusive rants and accusations of perfidious intent?
My nagging suspicion is that you have no programme of any kind for actual cooperation with the divine will. Perhaps you don’t see any basis for reunion other than absorption.
There is of course always the possibility that I am being too generous with respect to your motives. Perhaps you are just here trolling with the intent of shaking the self confidence of any hapless Orthodox idiot who might have stumbled here foolishly thinking that Catholics might be better at interpreting Catholic beliefs than Orthodox polemicists, or who might have thought that Catholics might be sincerely interested in hearing an Orthodox view of things.
But please, say it ain’t so and prove me wrong. Put the empty triumphalism and insults aside and engage in constructive discussion.
I am sorry this is what I believe and here I stand.
The mere fact that you are trying to defend the addition of the Filioque to the Creed proves everything I wrote above, and far more…
I don’t defend adding the filioque to the creed. I am prepared to defend the theology behind the interpolation, if you are really interested (which I doubt), but I believe its addition to the Creed was inexpedient. But even if I were to defend the addition, how would it establish even one thing you wrote? In my long response to your post I asked you a number of questions and invited you to engage.
Instead of seizing this opportunity to substantiate or clarify the views you claim to still stand by, you choose instead not to answer even one.
I quote from myself above “Roman catholics want a dialogue with the Orthodox Church because they realised that there is a rift amongst us orthodox. They do not want a discussion about dogmatic or faith issues. They know about all these issues. Neither they seek for us to hear their views, because they know that we are also aware of them.”
what is there to say? how can I further engage?
just for the record allow me to introduce you to my terminology;
Ecumenism = is both a movement and an ecclesiological heresy. It poses a grave threat to the very “pillar and foundation of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) itself—the Church.
Ecumenist = the person who adheres to the belief that roman catholicism and orthodoxy are “sister churches”, and that “we are all the same”.
Christian Church = Orthodox Church. Forms of Christianity, such as Roman Catholicism, are only partial expressions of the Christian Truth and not “Churches”. This statement does not imply hostility towards heterodox Christians – the Gospel requires peaceful co-existence with all mankind.
Finally as an orthodox bishop puts it:
“…There are some things about which we must be clear. And this clarity of thought is not bigotry. This idea of dialogue between Churches…A! It is. . . I will say it, ok. . . forgive me for the phrase. . .I will say it. I shouldn’t say it? I’ll say it. It is a satanic idea. You know that. . . these supposed dialogues will come to nothing; they are, in other words, a sham, fraud. What to say?: they gather together, talk, go to hotels, eat, drink. Nothing [of meaning], essentially nothing. They are a sham, heresy, that is, [the idea] that we are all the same. If we were all the same, then where is the truth….?” (Recorded talk of Metropolitan Lemesou, Cyprus no. 1028: “The importance of self-knowledge”)
If you feel that way Drake, why are you on this blog? Are you a closeted ecumenist (someone who wants Eucharistic union in truth with the heterodox) ? If so you can come out here. Its safe buddy.
ah ! no thanks mate. I am not a heretic.
But please do not let me stop you! By all means discuss here as much as you like. When you achieve your “union” inform the rest of the world… you imbeciles!
I just wanted to poke you (theological term!) and see your reactions… As an orthodox elder once said “ a heretic is full of words of love and understanding and peace… but all this is a masquerade. Once you tell him what is wrong with him he looses it lol
Good luck.
P.S. what about the scandals of sexual abuse within roman catholicism in the news these days? I thought that catholics should be hiding…
Am I the only one who gets the impression that all Orthodox anti-ecumenists appear to have gone to the same charm school?
I don’t know what charm school they went to but their logic is simply flawed. To think dialogue or joint prayer services are heresies is simply wrong. Neither Roman Catholics or Orthodox Catholics are denying revealed truth in dialogue. Simply ridiculous.
Even if I think they are objectively unfounded in this case, their concerns are understandable.
The fact that the majority of the most ancient Eastern Patriarchate should have gone over (even without Polish or Austrian muskets at their backs), must still be an undigested shock.
They probably still can’t understand why the former “uniates” reconciled under Stalin’s gentle guidance ran out the door at the first opportunity in 1968 and 1991.
And the pain of the Eastern bishops at Lyons and Florence being willing to be satisfied with so little also helps explain their distrust of their own hierarchy.
Demonstrably they are not winning the argument on the ground.
All this I can understand, even if they seem blind to how much the failed or current efforts at dialogue have sharpened the level of patristic scholarships in both communions, and helped “Easternize” Latin theology.
What I can’t understand is the abuse and the insults.
I considered deleting this abusive post, but I think I will let it remain. It speaks volumes, much more eloquently than any criticism I could offer.
So you accuse me of being a heretic, even though I’ve denied no dogma of the Church. Ecumenism expressed in dialogue is not a heresy according to canon law. The vast right wing Orthodox conspiracy has construed this modern take on dialogue with the Roman Catholics to be something it is not. When you accuse your fellow Orthodox Christians of heresy you have falsely judged them. Take good care of your soul brother.
forgive me! I am not accusing you of being a heretic, I do not know you!
But likewise accept my advise to you: take care of your soul brother, you may find yourself in a very dangerous place with ecumenism…
The Church has never seen dialogue as heresy. Joint prayer services are forbidden by canon law, but the breaking of a canon is not a heretical denial of the faith either. I make distinction according to the Rudder of the Church.
Nothing like a Drake to make me appreciate Subdeacon Joseph all the more!! ;)