Hi Stuart --

"Quite the contrary, in fact, since the current Bishop of Rome himself noted in Ut Unum Sint the very fact that the papacy is a ministry of service, and calls upon all the faithful, inside and outside the Catholic Church to help him discover a new definition and new modality for the exercise of a primacy that, while preserving the essential nature of the Petrine Ministry, no longer represents an impediment to true communion in the Holy Spirit."

But the focus is really on mode of exercise. Ratzinger points out in "The Primacy of Peter" that much about the Papacy is non-negotiable Catholic doctrine. Modes of exercise of Supremacy may be discussable, for instance, but actual Supremacy is nevertheless doctrinally absolute, and can be used at any time, per the doctrinal aspects of the Papacy as explained by Cardinal Raztinger, the official theologian of the Catholic Church at this time.

"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUES ON WHICH IT DIFFERS FROM THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HERESY, and therefore, THOSE "DOGMAS" WHICH THE ORTHODOX CHURCH DOES NOT ACCEPT ARE NOT IN FACT REALLY DOGMAS AT ALL."

Well, they certainly are NOT dogmas, IMO, but that doesn't alter the fact that Rome said they were dogmas, excommunicated people who denied such, and today treats them as non-negotiable aspects of the Papacy. If they are not dogmas, Rome erred in claiming that they were -- and that's a serious charge, particularly coming from a Catholic.

Brendan

Stuart,

We are truly blessed to have you in our Church. Although I don't always agree with you, you certainly bring a valuable perspective to things. I really hope to meet you in person in the future.

Anthony

Hi Dustin --

"Of course, they never will be asked to, and at the future 8th ecumenical council, that definition will go in the trash."

I'm all up for that, but it doesn't jibe with what CDF says is non-negotiable at THIS time.

"Brendan, three cardinals are three cardinals. Period. They are old men and things will have to move gradually. The way they responded, and the way that Archbishop Zoghby was NOT condemned, like Hans Kung was for saying the same kinds of things, shows that Rome knows where things are headed."

I appreciate the effort to construe the letter as innocuously as possible, but it speaks pretty plainly, even as it is remarkably diplomatic. Anything stronger would have been an ecumenical disaster, but IN ANY CASE the letter was needed, and requested by the Pope, lest people get the impression that the views expressed by the good Archbishop were in accord with Rome's position regarding present Catholic teaching. That understanding may change in the future, but the present understanding is pretty clear.

"I think that the difference between our points of view, Brendan, is that I am willing to wait around and you weren't"

A slightly different version is that I was not willing to formally subscribe to a teaching I don't believe to be true, in the hopes that it will someday change, whereas you may be. Not to be pointed, but it's not strictly a matter of timing. There is a present teaching that is known and must be adhered to, and there are discussions about what the contours of a future teaching might look like, which is unknown. We can really only deal with the known, living as we do at a particular point in time. The Church is eschatological, to be sure, but it lives in the present age and expresses itself in that age, and so the present expression is normative for the Church at any given time, even as we hope to find a greater expression of our unity as we reach toward the eschaton. We cannot deny the firmness of our hope for the fulfillment of the future, but we can't do that at the expense of the teachings of the Church in the present, IMO.

Brendan

Dear Stuart,

Yes, these all were. But would you not agree that these Fathers had a different view of theoria and of "mind" than in the West (putting spiritual accountancy in abeyance).

My point is that modern intellectualism/rationalism is indeed in conflict with that of the Fathers.

It has a different focus and a different object for its end.

Also, if we are to be as Orthodox as possible, then why would we want to be given the problems experienced by them?

If the Orthodox have such problems, what is at their source, Orthodox theology, ecclesiology or what? And if so, why would we want to be like them?

Again, I think you've skirted around the issue of what it means to be a committed Catholic, as opposed to a kind of "cafeteria Catholic" or taking the train that says Catholicism or even Orthodoxy, and then getting off where it says, "Stuart's stymies."

Deciding what is necessary for faith or not with respect to the papacy et al. is something that the Jesuits were famous for.

These questions are directed toward myself as much as toward you, Stuart!

Alex

>>From the Byzantine perspective, WE ARE ALL IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED, since we do not inherit any stain of sin from our ancestors. Therefore, immaculate conception is IRRELEVANT to Byzantne spirituality.<<

I was under the impression that the East also says there are consequences of original sin, not just the stain of original sin. Our Lady was also conceived without the consequences of original sin, wasn’t she? (i.e., no physical death, no pain in child bearing, etc.)

The Immaculate Conception doesn’t just deal with the stain of original sin. It also deals with its consequences. If you are really saying that we’re all immaculately conceived then I think you might be overlooking this aspect of things.

Stuart,
Let me clear something: I am the last person to put the reality of the Real Presence and the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception on par with Papal Infallibility. My point was that they are all Catholic dogma which must be believed by the faithful. Sacraments first, jurisdiction last. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I used to be Roman Catholic: I guess I have not been completely purified from my old Roman way of speaking

Dustin,
What is a Byzantine Christian? Come on, man, you are a Catholic who participates in the Byzantine Rite. You say I have a "Catholic First" mentality. Yes, I do. Being Catholic goes beyond the Rite which a person participates in. We have Latin brothers, Syriac brothers, etc. We hold common beliefs that are universally shared, yet expressed differently within each Rite.

Power trip? Geez, I am just being honest and letting you know my thoughts.

Vatican I was not very "Byzantine friendly" to say the least. And yes, the political situation at that time did serve as a backdrop for the dogmatic formulation of papal infallibility. However, Catholicism teaches that it was not simply a political statement and band-aid, but the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Dustin, BTW, if you don't "accept" anything after the first millennium, just join the Orthodox. There are plenty of Orthodox who love and respect the primacy of the papacy, while rejecting universal jurisdiction.

One more thing, Dustin. You are a great guy. Keep rockin, man!

Greg

>>>Maybe they will, but the current state of things is a dogma, and hence must be believed by all Catholics. Supremacy of jurisdiction is not
a matter of Church organization per Vatican I, but a dogma of God.<<<

You keep saying that, Brendan, but you know that it isn't really true. The Catholic Church maintains a "hierarchy of truths", precisely because not all dogmas are dogmas. The sloppy taxonomy of Latin theological pronouncements should not be an impediment to Church unity. The problem is far more apparent down at the grass roots level, where the faithful have not been taught in such a way as to distinguish between what is essential and what is merely the ideosyncratic expression of the Latin Church. But, within the theological dialogue, those distinctions are very much to the forefront, and the main problem confronting the Catholic Church is how to deal with its own mythology of infallibility in such as way as not to disillusion the faithful.

>>>I was under the impression that the East also says there are consequences of original sin, not just the stain of original sin. Our Lady was
also conceived without the consequences of original sin, wasn’t she? (i.e., no physical death, no pain in child bearing, etc.)<<<

The Byzantine Feast of the Dormition makes it very clear that Mary died in the body, and was immediately resurrected and assumed in a glorified body. Thus, she was subject to the effects of Adam's sin, without being born into sin. Pius XII's declaration on the Assumption is agnostic on whether she died. As to giving birth without pain, the liturgical texts basically say Mary gave birth while remaining a virgin throughout. Take that however you will. The most important thing, from the Byzantine perspective, is that Mary is ontologically very much a run of the mill human being. Precisely because of this, she is for us the Great Example, not the Great Exception; her likeness to us makes her all the more accessible to us, and demonstrates to us that resurrection in the flesh is available to all.

Thus, from the Byzantine perspective, Mary's conception was the same as that of any other person: we are born without any inherited stain of sin, but we are all subject to death and corruption. Death and corruption, and consciousness of our own vulnerability and mortality, makes us prone to sin. Mary was preserved from actual sin through the anticipatory grace of her Son, with which she had to coorperate fully. Despite that she died in the flesh, but being free from sin, and in recognition of her exceptional merit AS THE THEOTOKOS, she was immediately resurrected and her glorified body assumed into heaven.

Dear Ignatius,

I think the use of the phrase "we are all immaculately conceived" was unfortunate to say the least!

The question really is, as you have said (out of the mouths of babes ) how we understand Original Sin.

Orthodox believe (and so may Catholics) that Original Sin has to do with the consequences of Adam's Sin which remains Adam's personal sin (we don't inherit someone else's sin).

Those consequences are death, suffering etc.

The East truly does believe that Our Lady died as the liturgical services state emphatically. For someone like St Andrew of Crete, for example, if the Mother of God died, then she had Original Sin.

But this sin is not a "stain" of actual sin and the Nativity of the Mother of God is celebrated in the East.

This means she was conceived and born in all holiness since only the feast of Saints may be celebrated.

A similar tradition holds for St John the Baptist.

Good for you, hitting on that point so quickly and resolutely.

Are you sure you don't want to become a Byzantine Catholic?

We can always use some new, young blood!

Alex

Ignatius --

"Our Lady was also conceived without the consequences of original sin, wasn’t she? (i.e., no physical death, no pain in child bearing, etc.)"

Well, now you've stumbled across the Orthodox difficulty with the Immaculate Conception dogma. The Theotokos *did* indeed die -- we commemorate her death every August 15 -- our Church hymns and iconography for this feast make it clear that she did in fact die. So she was subject to the effects of original sin as much as we all are -- but was without actual personal sin - she was perfectly holy, while being perfectly human and therefore born into a state of physical death. One of the reasons why Orthodoxy hesitates when it reads this dogma is that it implies that Mary was born immortal and not subject to death -- which makes her a superhuman, or as Fr. Alexander Schmemann once said, the great exception to humanity instead of the great example to humanity.

Brendan

>>>Dustin,
What is a Byzantine Christian? Come on, man, you are a Catholic who participates in the Byzantine Rite. You say I have a "Catholic First"
mentality. Yes, I do. Being Catholic goes beyond the Rite which a person participates in. We have Latin brothers, Syriac brothers, etc.
We hold common beliefs that are universally shared, yet expressed differently within each Rite. <<<

A "Catholic First" mentality is one which assumes, as a matter of course, that when there is a difference between the doctrinal or theological expressions of the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church, that the Roman expression has priority. One cannot be a vanilla Catholic. One must belong to a particular Church, and a particular Church in turn belongs to a Tradition, which includes not only its liturgical rites, but also its unique spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline. These are, according to Concilliar documents, the unique patrimony of each Church, and each Church is equal in dignity and rights to any other Church. Thus, if we Byzantines express the sinlessness of the Theotokos in one way, and the Romans in a different way, BOTH are equally valid, and NEITHER is obligated to accept the doctrinal formulations of the other. The same thing for the underlying assumptions of those doctrines: Byzantine Catholics have one particular way of viewing human nature, Roman Catholics have a different way. These two have, can, and will continue to coexist side by side, because each reflects the mystery of creation and Salvation History in a different, but equally valid way. Finally, with the primacy: Romans, as a result of their history, have one way of expressing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome; Eastern Christians have another way. Obviously, these two have been in conflict for almost 1000 years, but there is nothing on earth that says, a priori, that the current Latin expression has priority over other modes of expression.

>>>I think the use of the phrase "we are all immaculately conceived" was unfortunate to say the least!<<<

Why? Immaculate means precisely "without stain". With what stain are we born? Are we born in a "state of sin", as per Tertullian and Augustine? Are we really then, as the Bishop of Hippo called us, "massa damnata"? Or are we just conceived subject to death and corruption due to the fall of man, and that actual sin is a consequence, not a cause of mortality? Thus, we are indeed, "immaculately conceived"--we are blank slates, we have no stain of sin upon us, and theoretically, we have the potential to live up to the image and likeness within us through the grace of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. That we invariably fail is a demonstration of the exceptional grace bestowed upon the Theotokos, and the reason why she is the example of the perfect disciple.

Stuart --

"You keep saying that, Brendan, but you know that it isn't really true."

But it's what they said and what they continue to say. They were very clear at the time as to what they were doing -- it was not sloppy, but to the contrary the decrees of Vatican I are remarkably precise, canonical statements under penalty of anathema.

Vatican I may be accused of being "dated" (although, honestly, I don't think anyone views the Ecumenical Councils this way), but Ratzinger's document is not dated, and it affirms in substance the non-negotiables. These are matters of faith that must be believed by all Catholics. Are they on the same level as the Blessed Trinity? No, of course not, but they still are not "optional", but must be believed.

"The sloppy taxonomy of Latin theological pronouncements should not be an impediment to Church unity."

The issue is one of substance. Are Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, as defined by Vatican I and affirmed by Vatican II (and which continue to be cited in extremely recent Vatican texts regarding the Papacy) universal teaching or not? Catholicism says "yes" and Orthodoxy says "no".

"the ideosyncratic expression of the Latin Church."

Where does Rome refer to Vatican I and Vatican II this way?

"But, within the theological dialogue, those distinctions are very much to the forefront,"

Precisely because we think it matters as to whether one calls something a universal dogma or not. Everyone knows that the Popes sometimes made great claims to their authority, going right back to the mid-point of the first millenium. The issue is whether these must be universally accepted, are "de fide" in a binding way -- that's what's at issue here. By defining these points as points of dogma (or if you prefer universal doctrine), Rome has staked its position very clearly that these are not indiosyncrasies that can be ignored by the rest of the Church but are revelations of the divine will for the Church. That makes a world of difference to us Orthodox.

Brendan

Dear Stuart,

I agree with your intellectual statement!!

But there are certain conclusions to the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception which Orthodoxy would not subscribe to (i.e. the question if Our Lady actually did die which Pope Piux XII, in declaring the dogma of the Assumption, left an open question).

In addition, we are not "immaculately conceived" since we do inherit Original Sin. It is just that the Orthodox Original Sin does not involved the Augustinian "stain of sin."

We are born with a nature weakened by Adam's sin, even though we don't inherit Adam's actual sin.

To be truly "immaculately conceived" from the RC position (irrespective of what the grammatical meaning of those words are) would mean that we are also exempt from the consequences of Original Sin which we are most certainly not.

As one Athonite Saint said, we must, to our dying breath, pray Jesus to have mercy on me a sinner or as one whose will is weakened and whose mind is darkened by sin and needing enlightenment and Grace.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Exactly which is why the Orthodox POV on this makes so much theological sense.

The Augustinian "original sin" in all this is to have given rise to the notion that someone's personal sin can be inherited, rather than the effects of that sin on the human nature we have in common with him.

This is also why I disagreed with our learned friend, Stuart, on this matter.

Immaculate Conception implies that one is prevented from contracting a sin that was coming one's way. Orthodoxy rejects that.

God bless,

Alex