I did a search and haven't found a discussion on this recent book (2008). I just became aware of this book yesterday:

His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent A. Cleenewerck. Published by Lulu. Large portions of it can be read at Google Books.

Fr Laurent is an OCA priest and based what I could read at Google Books has written, I believe, a very intriguing book. I ordered a copy and expect to get it soon. Have others here read it? Thoughts?

I received my copy of the book today. It contains a letter of appreciation from Patriarch Bartholomew and the back cover has a note from Cardinal Kaspar. It's a thick tome, covering many angles of the subject: history, ecclesiology and theology.

I think anytime I visit this subject in the future I'll have to refer to this volume to see what it says on the subject. I think most members of this Forum would enjoy reading the book, regardless of their personal views on the subject. It will challenge people on both sides of the fence. The text is available in a PDF format from the Lulu site at a reduced price.

If others have or do read this in the future, I'd be interested in the varying perspectives on it.

I am not so sure of Fr. Laurent's thesis, but, unlike many ecumenists, he is able to present an honest picture of how Orthodox (not just some Orthodox) view the Catholic Church- as a heresy. Likewise, he says on P. 124, referring to the definition of Papal Infallibility: "It is therefore preferable and more honest to present things as they really are: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema."

This, of course, comes in the section of the book dealing with Vatican I. There are many Catholics who believe (and many Orthodox who hope) that Vatican I is not the final statement on this from the Catholic perspective. How this could all be harmonized is another question.

None of the subsequent presentations of Papal infallibility have altered the definition or lifted the anathema from those who reject it.

That is incorrect.

There are several sources that can be referenced, but the Catholicism Catechism is handy:


In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054. The Catholic Church has understood this since as the lifting of all anathemas against Orthodoxy (whether all of Orthodoxy accepts this or reciprocates does not affect the Catholic understanding). This lifting of anathemas did not restore communion but did open dialogue, and that dialogue led to what is in the Catholic Catechism. Yes, there are outstanding issues keeping the one Church divided. But there are also a lot of issues where the disagreement was not real, but merely a disagreement in either language or understanding.

As a further example from this past year, look at where Pope Benedict XVI recently lifted the anathema against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). He did so purposely. The focus is not on stating who is outside the Church as the Catholic Church has restated its ecclesiology in a more inclusive way. The focus is now on healing.

I am not sure why Embatl'dSeraphim is purposely continuing to misrepresent Catholic Teaching? Can he not present the sweetness of Orthodoxy without misrepresenting what Catholics believe?

Adminstrator John,

I agree with your words regarding Embatl'd Seraphim. Often I have thought of posting a response to one of his postings as I thought it was mis-representative, combative or insulting. This is, after all, the Byzantine Catholic forum where we "discuss the Christian East." It is not the place for Orthodox to attack or disparage Catholics nor is it the place for Catholics to do the reverse. It is a discussion forum, and charity is required. Nothing less should be tolerated.

Thank you.

If any of those "ecumenists" are Orthodox then the statement is self-contradictory. Is it really that this is one thing about which all Orthodox agree? That would be an odd and ironical principle of unity. I would phrase that principle this way (based on many posts on this forum): They don't really know what Catholics believe, but they know it's wrong.

Thanks to the Administrator for the quote from the CCC.

I can understand how Orthodox can be perplexed by this, however. On the one hand, we say we have a 'profound communion' and that there is little lacking to prevent shared communion. We even print statements that we would not object if Orthodox received Communion in our parishes. On the other hand, the anathema of Vatican I has never been officially abrogated.

Again, the Catholic Church considers this to have been accomplished in 1965:

Study what has happened in Orthodox / Catholic relations (the fruit of the dialogue). Study the teachings of Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and etc. The Vatican I anathemas were not specifically directed towards the Orthodox, anyway. All anathemas against the Orthodox have already been committed to "oblivion". I see it as being very legalistic to expect the Church to hold a formal ceremony and read off a list when it has given a far greater gesture in 1965.

The 1965 lifting of excommunications dealt with the 1054 AD event. The Vatican site explains:



True, Vatican I doesn't mention Orthodox specifically. Still, the dogmatic force of Vatican I remains recognized in official documents.

I agree that more modern Catholic documents show a different mentality, one which I have embraced. All I'm saying is there's a difference between Vatican I and the more recent documents. I think this disconnect has to be addressed in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. Vatican I will have to be expressly nuanced before most Orthodox will be comfortable with any sort of reunion, I believe.

The "lifting of the anathemas" referred to the anathemas particularly arising from the East-West schism. It had no effect on the Vatican I anathema which is still in place. The anathema is not aimed particularly at the Orthodox, as you say, so I don't see why the 1965 gesture applies. It is aimed at anyone who has the temerity to reject the dogma. We Orthodox certainly do have that temerity (as do a few Eastern Catholics, apparently), therefore the anathema still applies. It is nonsensical to "lift" anathemas when the underlying causes of the anathemas persist.

In my opinion, the Catholic Church has not simply re-stated its ecclesiology; it has completely revised it.

Those who accuse me here of "mis-representing" Catholic thought have yet to provide a corrective, beyond vague references and out-of-context quotes, and they have yet to account for the fact that many Catholics, including some on this forum, including [i]Eastern[/i] Catholics, believe that Vatican I is a binding ecumenical council and that all Catholics are obliged to assent to Papal infallibility, [i]however[/i] one may choose to interpret that dogma.

Is this accurate or just meant to be inflammatory? Even a conservative, pre-VC II, old style approach has this to say about the "Eastern Schism": Catholic Encyclopedia

"It is not a heresy, but a schism."

Dear Father Deacon,

This quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia is so patronising and quite offensive to the Orthodox! Without even bothering to look it up I would guarantee it is from Adrian Fortescue whose disdain for Orthodoxy shines through all his contributions to the Encyclopedia. One of the really awful examples is his article on Hesychasm.

Quite note, not wanting to take the thread off topic...

Fr George Maloney has written a lot on hesychasm, and I think that his writings have had an effect on Roman Catholic acceptance of the theology underpinning hesychasm and he is a corrective to Adrian Fortescue. Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries and presents an excellent understanding of Orthodox theology.


"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

"Theology of Uncreated Energies of God"
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165

It's a simple application of logic. If those who reject Papal infallibility and other "divinely revealed" doctrines are anathematized, then the Orthodox are under anathema.

If we want to dig up quotes from old Catholic Encyclopedia articles, here you go: [quote=Catholic Encyclopedia article on Apostolic Succession]The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. [/quote] Nowadays though Rome has quite a different tune.

Dearest Father Ambrose,



I agree it is patronizing. However, I think that his statement that the schism is primarily based on misunderstanding has a lot of truth.

Humbly,
Marduk

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I thought I was making it clear that this presented a view and one that could not be construed as a new-fangled, kinder, gentler to the Orthodox ecumenist view. I also thought it would be clearly understood as an appraisal of its time. It is regrettable that you found it offensive; I doubt that you can speak for all of Orthodoxy. And I don't think it should be the springboard here to peruse an unrelated pet-peeve topic.

The point, perhaps missed: "It is not a heresy, but a schism." Say what you will, there it is. This is in a ca. 1915 article in a publication that received a nihil obstat and an imprimatur.

It seems there is no satisfying some unless they are called a heretic; and to not do so is "patronising," "offensive," and "disdain." Also, to avoid repetition, I refer you to the dilemma illustrated in the graphic here.

I might just be the only person here whom everyone wants to call a heretic, which I will therefore take as a token of your very high esteem for me. Thanks to everybody, but I am not worthy!

I am not competent or worthy nor do I wish to call anyone a heretic.


Let us please continue to exchange our opinions and views without calling each other any such names.

So look who thinks he's not worthy. (Remember? That was a good one.)

One of the better two rabbis and the janitor jokes--though on a Baptist web site, someone tried to turn it into two pastors and the janitor. It really only works with rabbis.

One thing to remember about the online editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia: They date to the period 1912-1916, after a 5-10 year collation period. Their copyrights have expired, and that's why they are online.

They have not been updated, because around 1965, a new edition, still protected by copyright, was published in replacement.

The version in English is both a product of its time and contributors; by 1960, it was an embarrassment, for it was clear it didn't teach the faith well in light of Popes Pius IX-XII and their promotion of the Eastern Rites and Churches in the US.

As far as the expression of the near unity from the Catholic point of view...

Bolding mine. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

The same wording exists in the CCEO as well.

[quote=DTBrown]
I can understand how Orthodox can be perplexed by this, however. On the one hand, we say we have a 'profound communion' and that there is little lacking to prevent shared communion. We even print statements that we would not object if Orthodox received Communion in our parishes. On the other hand, the anathema of Vatican I has never been officially abrogated. [/quote]

Thanks DTBrown for understanding. And I would also say that I cannot imagine how the anathema could be abrogated without abrogating the dogma- a given statement cannot be infallible dogma for some people and an optional opinion for others, if these people are to co-exist in the same church.

I always marvel how such sweeping statements can be made and with such omniscience. With an understanding of when it was written, I'd sooner rely on it as a reference for facts rather than the massive re-writing of the faith that occurred in the mid 60's onward by a crowd that acted as though Pentecost had only just taken place.

Sure it's not current; its publication dates are no secret. The point is that this ca. 1915 publication is saying "It [Eastern Orthodoxy] is not a heresy..." Is that correct or not?

It does appear there are differing views on this. Fr. Laurent, in his book, cites the well-known Roman Catholic priest John A. Hardon, of blessed memory:



I post this not to flame anyone, but to show that there exists those who would take a different view than the writer of the earlier Catholic Encyclopedia articles.

I hasten to add that I do not agree with Fr. Hardon's statements. I also didn't get the impression from Fr. Laurent's book that is a major part of his thesis.

I have always liked Fr Hardon and I understand he is being proposed for beatification.

I find his judgements on the Orthodox are a necessry result of his scholarly theological views and so they are quite tolerable. But I find that the views of Adrian Fortescue have a tinge of something personal and cause an emotional reaction. Just my 2 cents...

Heretics are not admitted to Catholic communion. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (including the Armenians), Syrian Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, as well as the PNCC, are admitted to Catholic communion, without having to repudiate their Orthodox Church membership, if they so choose.

They are material schismatics, but (except for individual cases) not heretics.

Canon law is rather clear that they are admitted. Therefore, they can't be, as a class, heretics.

Interesting discussion so far.

I'm wondering if others have read Fr. Laurent's book and have any comments about it?

I don't take issue with that. That there are differences of opinions, yes even among theologians, historians etc., is to be expected. So I do not write to justify the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor do I care to tolerate those who simply dismiss it. And I asked (in different forms) a question:



A clarification for my choice:

And the initial inquiry, where I gave a counterexample:



So my point, my initial question still remains: Is it that the "Roman Catholic Church teaches..." or that there are differing and unclear opinions?

Putting it together, the Orthodox are clear and certain about where they hold Catholics stand:

Are they equally correct about the Catholic view of the Orthodox?

Isn't that basically the same as "It is not a heresy, but a schism"?

I am aware of this fact, and it strikes me as a serious inconsistency. To be in communion with someone says that you share his faith. Does the Catholic Church no longer consider the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils to be binding? Is it okay in the Catholic Church to uphold Nestorius as a saint and defender of the true faith, to consider St. Cyril to be little more than an ecclesiastic gangster, and to call the Virgin Mary "Christotokos" while refusing to call Her Theotokos? Can you honestly say you share the same faith with such a person?

I am baffled by this entire thread.

It looks like people, both Catholic and Orthodox, are *looking* for reasons to be apart, and searching high and low for reasons to maintain the schism, and why what is shared is really different.

Just as an example, there is a clear explanation available that schism occurred, without a split in faith. This is followed centuries later by a councils (whether local or ecumenical, depending upon party asked) which claim additional authority of Rome, and then acts that claim to revoke elements leading to separation, and then Roman canon law acknowledging the possibility of communion by individuals.

Rome rather clearly understands the Orthodox not to be in heresy. Again, a simple explanation is available that a believer in a Church in schism can hardly be expected to repudiate his Church due to the acts of Churches on the other side of the schism, and that to find the person heretical would be an act of violence against both logic and charity.

This seems to be the Catholic position. It argues that an individual Orthodox is *not* a heretic. But we are seeing an Orthodox argument that, "By your standards, which we, not you, will determine, yes we are!"

Again, I'm baffled. I find difficulty distinguishing between this approach and the Missouri Synod of Lutheranism, whose response to the joint Lutheran-Catholic statement on justification a decade or two ago could be summarized as, "There can be no dialog until Catholics acknowledge that they have always been wrong on all issues, that we were always right, and that they're all Damned beyond redemption regardless of their repentance or acceptance of anything we say."

hawk, dismayed

Christotokos: She who gave Birth to the annointed one
Theotokos: She who gave Birth to God
Madre de Dios, Matya Bože: Mother of God

all are valid but incomplete expressions, and both readily subject to misinterpretation by the ill-informed.

Neither the Oriental Orthodox Communion nor the Catholic Communion deny the either as valid. In fact, some catholics use each.

Miaphysitism is different from monophysitism. Monophysitism says Christ has a unique nature. Miaphysitism says that Christ has two natures, but the person of Christ is the individible union of those two. The teaching condemned in the coucil was Monophysitism; the majority of the writings of the time in the so-called-monophysite churches are miaphysite in actual understanding.

The copts I've talked matters of faith with hold the same beliefs, despite not accepting the councils, as those who accept the councils. It's not that they reject the councils, but that they don't accept the council... and that's a difference of import. The difference of the defined faith is less on a corporate level than the difference of expressed faith within each corporate body...

Even if they held monophysitism at the time of the council, they don't, as corporate bodies, teach nor hold monophysitism NOW.

I have said as much on many occasions.

This is a very good summary, explanation and appraisal; I only question the "both Catholic and Orthodox" statement. Sure it's always possible now to find some such "people both Catholic and Orthodox *looking* for reasons to be apart." But I have not found that to be the Catholic position in this thread and in similar threads in which I have participated.

The actual situation and position of the Catholic Church indicates your logic is flawed. Your logic may be too simple.

If that's the way you want to put it, I'd say you've succeeded in digging a hole for yourself. You should know from the rigorous logic of mathematics that if a general proof is given it must be shown to be true for all cases that apply. To show a proof is wrong, however, it is sufficient to give just one example that doesn't work. I provided one example from a Catholic source to question the sweeping and general claim of Fr. Laurent as quoted:

"...The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema." The question is, can this in its entirety be shown to be true? Is it accurate? Note the word teaches which indicates to me that this is not an inference but an explicit statement, present tense. The burden of proof is on you.

Also, the quote from the CE is misleading as taken out of context. As best I can tell, the writer is speaking about the direct founding of churches by Apostles or an unbroken link to such a church. It is a very narrow viewing of the unbroken Apostolic succession of churches, not bishops, as a mark of the True Church. The given CE quote (whether or not the author's view is accepted) must be read in its immediate preceding context beginning at the least at:

[quote=aramis]Christotokos: She who gave Birth to the annointed one
Theotokos: She who gave Birth to God
Madre de Dios, Matya Bože: Mother of God

all are valid but incomplete expressions, and both readily subject to misinterpretation by the ill-informed.

Neither the Oriental Orthodox Communion nor the Catholic Communion deny the either as valid. In fact, some catholics use each.

Miaphysitism is different from monophysitism. Monophysitism says Christ has a unique nature. Miaphysitism says that Christ has two natures, but the person of Christ is the individible union of those two. The teaching condemned in the coucil was Monophysitism; the majority of the writings of the time in the so-called-monophysite churches are miaphysite in actual understanding.

The copts I've talked matters of faith with hold the same beliefs, despite not accepting the councils, as those who accept the councils. It's not that they reject the councils, but that they don't accept the council... and that's a difference of import. The difference of the defined faith is less on a corporate level than the difference of expressed faith within each corporate body...

Even if they held monophysitism at the time of the council, they don't, as corporate bodies, teach nor hold monophysitism NOW.
[/quote]

Aramis- I was referring mainly to the Nestorians, and not the non-Chalcedonians. For my thoughts on those folks, see the "miaphysitism" thread.

[quote=ajk][quote=Embatl'dSeraphim]It's a simple application of logic. If those who reject Papal infallibility and other "divinely revealed" doctrines are anathematized, then the Orthodox are under anathema. [/quote] The actual situation and position of the Catholic Church indicates your logic is flawed. Your logic may be too simple.[/quote]

Or perhaps the position of the Catholic Church is simply illogical. If someone teaches A but also not-A, that doesn't cancel out A, that just indicates incoherence. "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." We have the temerity to reject this definition of yours. So...?

Fr. Deacon,

Can you explain this point in greater detail?

I tend to see people pointing out "reasons to be apart" simply since many seem to dismiss the issues outright. By "pointing out" they are looking to discuss. It is discussion that sheds light on whether or not there are differences.

Yet, it is their propensity to find new bones of contention in areas that never were considered contentious before that causes one to wonder. The goalposts of unity are constantly in motion.

[quote=StuartK]Yet, it is their propensity to find new bones of contention in areas that never were considered contentious before that causes one to wonder.[/quote]

Please do be specific and outline what some of these "new bones of contention are."

Yes.

Let me ask you a question: Must all Catholics properly hold that all Orthodox are under anathema resulting from Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, which among other things, defined Papal infallibility?

It would only logically follow that certain explanations would bring up other issues. That is the hard part, but it is necessary.

Fr. Deacon,

That is a very good question, and here is my poor answer: since I do not accept Vatican I as an ecumenical council; and moreover, since I do not believe that anything related to the papacy is a divinely revealed dogma, I do not believe that the Orthodox are under any anathemas in connection with this particular issue.

Nevertheless, if I did believe that Vatican I was an ecumenical council binding upon all Christians, then I suppose I would have to hold -- as a truth of faith -- that the Orthodox are under anathema for rejecting the supremacy of the pope.

That said, I would like to know your views in connection with this question.

However, since the Council of Florence-Ferrara ruled that a pope is superior to a general council, if the Pope does not act as though those anathemas are in effect, then they are not in effect. This papal supremacy stuff can cut both ways.

[quote=StuartK]However, since the Council of Florence-Ferrara ruled that a pope is superior to a general council...[/quote]

Please produce this ruling.

Thanks for the straightforward response. Though not an answer -- yes/no -- to my question, it illustrates the limitations of the proposed logical inference. Even these few responses demonstrate that just the "simple application of logic" does not yield an unambiguous conclusion.

The Catholic Church presently does not act or speak as though the Orthodox are anathematized. And the word anathema itself has a range of meanings ( e.g. link ); Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's quote using the word needs clarification. In addition, I don't know that a formal anathema applies to a group already many years in schism.

Also, two posts in this thread that address my point and are informative are Post332861 and Post333204.

Well, the simple fact is theology is not rocket science--or any science, for that matter, so to expect mathematical precision and rigid, linear logic is entirely unrealistic. If anything, the logic of Christianity is and has always been, paradoxical in nature. But this makes many people uncomfortable.

[quote=ajk]
Thanks for the straightforward response. Though not an answer -- yes/no -- to my question, it illustrates the limitations of the proposed logical inference. [/quote]

It really doesn't, actually, since neither of the respondents considers Vatican I to be a binding ecumenical council. Let's step back a little, then- what's your opinion on Vatican I and of Catholics who reject Vatican I?

[quote]And the word anathema itself has a range of meanings ( e.g. link );[/quote]

The Catholic Church is [url=http://www.liturgialatina.org/pontificale/101.htm]pretty clear[/url] about where an anathema places someone vis-a-vis the church, Wikipedia articles notwithstanding. It ain't pretty.

[quote]In addition, I don't know that a formal anathema applies to a group already many years in schism.[/quote]

Stuart and Apotheoun are Catholics who are [i]not[/i] in schism. Does it apply to them?

I guess we need to get over the old anathemas so we can re-unite and then fall under the new ones.

I agree. Thankfully, it appears as if more and more Catholics are recognizing the fact that Vatican I really is irrelevant.

I don't see the comment following from the quote. As for the "more and more" -- yes, it does seem the two of you have found each other. And there was a time when Regina Scientiarum wasn't mistaken to mean mathematics.

[quote=StuartK]If anything, the logic of Christianity is and has always been, paradoxical in nature.[/quote]

"Today the virgin gives birth to him who holds creation in his hands." That's a paradox.

Since when is openly contradicting the teachings of the Church an exercise of Christian logic?

Western attempts to treat theology as a scientific discipline would have puzzled the Fathers, for whom the exercise was all about finding the right words with which to pray to God (cf. Evagrius of Pontus).

Or maybe its just that Catholics are beginning to understand it more and more in the way it is supposed to be understood - in a collegial context. It doesn't mean Vatican 1 is irrelevant; it simply means Vatican 1 is properly understood.

Blessings

One way to understand it is as a general council of the Church of Rome, whose decrees, rather than being ecumenically binding, are both specific to one Church and conditioned by the history of a particular time and place. I mean, if we are attempting to understand it properly, and all, then you have to admit the admissibility of this as one potential interpretation. It is up to the entire Church to determine whether it is the correct one.

I don't understand how the teachings and decrees of Vatican I can be simply Rome-specific.

As I have mentioned before this destroys the dogma of Papal Infallibility. If the dogma was not promulgated for the ENTIRE Church and intended to be binding on the ENTIRE Church, then it is missing one vital element necessary for the definition to qualify as infallible.

Were you invited to that party? No, you were not. Was there at the time any other Church in communion with the Church of Rome? No, there was not. Since the Council of Trent, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church saw the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome as co-terminous. There were no true Churches other than the Church of Rome (the 1598 Bull Magnus dominus makes this explicit). There were not other Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. Eastern Christians under the authority of the Pope were deemed to belong to "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, and were allowed to keep their unique liturgical and disciplinary practices by dispensation and not through their inherent ecclesial status.

In short, Vatican I involved the Church of Rome, and only the Church of Rome. It did not consult other Churches; it did not invite comment from Other Churches. Its decisions affected only the Church of Rome and its members. Such a synod cannot make claim to ecumenical status unless, being submitted to the entire Body of Christ, it receives the unanimous acceptance that conveys ecumenical authority.

I doubt John of Damascus would have been puzzled. There are various and I believe complementary ways to the "contemplation of divine things."

link

link

link

[quote=StuartK]Such a synod cannot make claim to ecumenical status unless, being submitted to the entire Body of Christ, it receives the unanimous acceptance that conveys ecumenical authority. [/quote]

You have elsewhere stated that Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians are part of the Church. By your logic, there have been no ecumenical councils since 1st Constantinople. And that's assuming you don't consider Arians and Apollinarians to also have been part of the "entire Body of Christ."

Another guy with an amazingly legalistic approach to ecclesiology. I also said, since the Orientals and Assyrians are in fundamental agreement with the content of those councils, they have ecumenical authority. Everybody believes the important stuff--that Jesus Christ is true God, that Jesus Christ is truly human, and that Jesus Christ is one. And, as one Melkite archbishop put it, "Everything else is philosophy".

We are aware that the Melkite Church was at Vatican I in the person of its Patriarch Gregorios. You will remember the attempt of the Melkite Patriarch to avoid signing the document on Papal Infallibility and the brouhaha which resulted from that.

In a sense you are correct in saying that only the Church of Rome was present. In those days there was indeed only the Roman Catholic Church in existence. Such Eastern groupings as existed were not seen as Churches but as Roman Catholics using a different Rite. Officially they were called "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite," etc.

Hardly surprising that the Orthodox did not take up the invitation. In every sentence of this link we are railed at and termed schismatics again and again. It finishes with the Pope's stated intention of proselytizing us: "Lately, he [the Pope] has devised a plan of establishing Catholic seminaries among those Oriental Schismatics to raise a native priesthood among them, all in order to bring those millions of lost sheep back to the one fold of Jesus Christ, Holy Mother Church."

As a note in the link explains:

Also, quoting from Archbishop Messmer:

So Archbishop Messmer's words (1919) and the plan of Benedict XV (1914-1922) could hardly have influenced the Orthodox declining the invitation to Vatican I (1869-1870).

The noted stress on schismatics goes to a point made in this thread by Catholic posters: the word heretic is not used. But I can still understand the sensitivity of our separated brethern even at that, but would remind them that we Catholics are even now called and considered a whole lot worse by them.

Honesty is much better than a mistaken and polite dissemblance in Christian dialogue. If it is a matter of heresy to deny papal infallibility and papal supremacy, etc., then we Orthodox are certainly heretics, some of us material heretics and some of us formal. It is better to state that openly rather than have to deal with it half way through the dialogue.

in light of the manner in which the Council was conducted, including the treatment of the Eastern Catholic bishops in attendance, there would have been little point to having the "schismatic Orientals" present. Free discussion of the issues was not permitted, and the conditions under which interventions were allowed severely constrained. It was, in short, run pretty much by the rules of the Robber Synod. For details, see Luis M. Bermejo, SJ, Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion, Christian Classics (Wetminster, MD) 1992

Interesting observation.

Wouldn't that preclude it from being an ecumenical counsel, and therefore rome-specific?

And if it isn't such, but purported to be, wouldn't that in turn limit it's application even to the members of the Church of Rome?

hawk

Yes, actually they were. But the EO refused to participate out of pride (the EO responded that the Pope did not invite them as brothers, but as one speaking to children) - granted, I also feel the Pope made the invitation in a haughty manner. That was that. I don't see how that action by the EO would or could prevent the Holy Spirit from guiding the Vatican Council. The OO were also invited, but I am not knowledgeable as to the specific response given.

In any case, the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches were present, and did exercise an influence on the Council, which resulted in the important addition of a paragraph in the Vatican Decree on the Primacy, which I quoted in another thread regarding the authority of the Pope not standing in the way of the authority of the bishops in their local diocese.

Their influence was also felt in the addition of several paragraphs in the apostolic constitution to the Decree on Infallibility, that explicitly brought to light the fact that papal infallibility is limited by Sacred Tradition. In fact, the Decree on Infallibility was greatly changed from its original draft due to the efforts of the Minority Parity.

Blessings,
Marduk
"

I am not a Catholic but I would believe so. If the dogma failed to meet a condition for infallibility, namely that it was intended to bind the WHOLE Church dogmatically, then it simply is not a dogma. It is not de fide and it is not binding on either the members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Churches.

But I don't think this argument has the remotest chance of flying with regard to Vatican I since at that time there was ONLY the Roman Catholic Church and any Eastern Churches were seen as simply Rites included within the Roman Catholic Church. Notions of autonomy and sui juris were completely unknown. So it follows that the dogma *was* proclaimed as binding upon the whole Catholic Church.

It did not sound as though the "honesty" was appreciated:



Speaking of honesty rather than dissemblance: As Greek philosophy put it, gnōthi seauton; in the language of the Gospel, Luke 6:42.

Dear Father Deacon,

I think that we can all appreciate and distinguish between the polemical and adversarial atmosphere of the 1800s which we have thankfully discarded and the more irenic and objective atmosphere which has come into existence over the last 50 years of interchurch relationships.

By the time of Vatican II in the mid 1990s the atmosphere was remarkably changed and both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad responded to the invitation of Pope John XXIII and sent observers to the Council. The Russian Church Abroad (my Church) sent a senior Archbishop and three Archpriests.

In a sense this was and is still true, but it presents an overly-simplistic view of Catholic ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has and still does stress The One Church in its ecclesiology, especially that expressed by its western lung. But the basic elements -- the necessary and sufficient elements that exist -- have always existed, though present terminology better reflects the relationships among those elements. Those elements, I have argued, are only three: (1) The One Church (communion, koinonia); (2) the churches (diocese/eparchy, ekklesia); (3) the Eucharistic gathering (Divine Liturgy / Mass etc., synaxia). That ecclesiology is realized in the Catholic Church. Element (1) is reflected among the Orthodox only at the level of Patriarchal, autocephalous, etc. "churches" -- non-essential, not divinely ordained elements/structures -- and the communion among those elements, a communion, however, where autonomy supersedes unity. Catholic ecclesiology has traditionally stressed (1), the unity of the divinely-ordained One Body of Christ, in its theology and (3) in actual practice; the fundamental role of (2) is now better appreciated and expressed.

Dear Father,

This is basically true and well put. When non-polemical elements are found in the past, even though not at the irenic level of the present, I believe they should still be appreciated, even as we would hope our present feeble attempts would be appreciated and properly evaluated. Those past polemics cut both ways; presently it seems to me only one side of the knife is losing its edge.

Yes and no, and I would shy away from being overly simplistic. Things such as the 2007 meeting in Ravenna show that much has changed on both sides. Against Ravenna we could mention the monks of Mount Athos, perhaps the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Greece, but personally (speaking as a monk myself) I appreciate the ultra conservative balance and restraining influence which the Athonite monks and Jerusalem exhibit.

The next meeting of the "Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" commences in a month's time on Cyprus. It will be very interesting to follow its discussions and whatever statements it publishes. Its topic is the role of the Pope of Rome in the first millennium Church.

That indeed is welcome news.

You share this misunderstanding with Cardinal Kasper so you are in eminent company. :-)

The Cardinal would like the Patriarch of Constantinople to take on the role of global "pope-like" figure. I suppose that if this were accomplished it would make the transition easier to accepting the universal authority of the Pope of Rome.

There was that extraordinary statement from Cardinal Kasper: "The Orthodox Church does not really exist" !!!

His exact words were: "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist"

On the face of it, it's a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. :-)

Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of "church" as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, if we were all moulded in the Roman Catholic mould, if we had a centralised authority in Istanbul to whom the whole Church were obedient. But the fact is that the "structure" of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to the Cardinal's moment of confusion. I don't know if he has ever seen it but it may help towards mutual understanding...

An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper:
'The Orthodox Church does not really exist.'

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

I actual think we (the Cardinal and I) differ (vide infra).

I do not agree with Card. Kasper if this is his view. What I wrote should not be interpreted in this way.

This sounds like some of that desired honesty. I too use the term Orthodox churches rather than (e.g.) The Orthodox Church intending thereby to defer to Orthodox sensibilities.

Could be, or again, just that honesty thing.

"...from Cardinal Kasper: "The Orthodox Church does not really exist" !!!" [see context above]

My point is that the "paradigm," what I call the essential element/structure (1), would not be expected in the Orthodox communion since it is in the Catholic communion and is unique: there are not two One Body of Christ.

I hope to read it. Again, perhaps on the Cardinal's part it was confusion, perhaps honesty. I couldn't say on the basis of what's presented.

I agree that you will not find the concept of a papacy in the Orthodox Church, But the reason is that it is not a part of the Church's apostolic structure but an extraneous element which developed in the West.

In what way has the Orthodox Church suffered without a papacy?

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged that our faith is pristine and unchanged and that we are one with the Church of the Fathers. What more is necessary?

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity."

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

If anything the steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith by the Orthodox since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith. The very existence of the Orthodox and their remarakable maintenance of the Faith and their cohesion in the Faith is evidence that the papacy (or any other global primacy) is NOT an essential element or structure.

ROME, March 7, 2002 (Zenit) -- The ecumenical movement risks losing young people unless it can produce a vision for the future, says the cardinal who oversees the cause.


Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently delivered an address evaluating ecumenism. The address appears in the latest edition of the Italian biweekly Il Regno.


"To a certain degree, the crisis of the ecumenical movement is the consequence of its success," the German cardinal writes.


"The more we come closer to one another, the more painful is the experience of not yet being in full communion among ourselves, which creates a certain dissatisfaction and frustration," he states.


Moreover, "the new generation of faithful and priests has not lived through the council and does not understand how things have changed," Cardinal Kasper observes.


In this context, he mentions three key challenges:


--"In the first place, we must promote ecumenical formation and the reception of ecumenical results. The results of ecumenical progress have yet to penetrate the heart and flesh of our Church and of the other Churches."


--"In the second place, we must clarify and renew the ecumenical vision. We need a new ecumenical language and impulse. We run the risk of losing a whole generation of youths if we are not capable of giving them a vision."


--Third, Cardinal Kasper appealed for the harmonizing of dialogue and identity. In this context, he emphasizes, "One can see what the problem and advantages of ´Dominus Iesus´ are, which highlighted the question of identity."


"Dominus Iesus" was the August 2000 declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the uniqueness and salvific universality of Jesus and the Church. Though criticized for sounding less than ecumenical, it basically reiterated magisterial teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church.


"We must underline clearly that serious ecumenism is something totally different from confessional indifference and relativism; it tends to gravitate around the highest common denominator," Cardinal Kasper states.


The cardinal then reviews the situation of relations between Catholics and other Christian confessions.


"We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist," he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."


He continues: "With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion."


Cardinal Kasper points out the tensions within the Lutheran world on the question of ministries as well as tensions in the realm of the Anglican Communion.


Given the above, he believes that over the next few years, ecumenism must progress "at two, or even more, speeds."


However, he cautions, "we must avoid giving the impression of ´divide et impera.´ We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of ´Uniatism.´"

The latter -- considered a pejorative term in the East -- signifies the Eastern Christians who left the Orthodox Church to join Rome.


"A two-speed ecumenism is something very delicate. However, in the present situation there is no realistic alternative," Cardinal Kasper concludes.

Thanks for providing this. Given my quoted words, after reading it in full, I respond:

I think Kaspar is right to say there is no "Orthodox Church" per se. But then, I don't like to speak of the Catholic Church, either, if by that all we mean is those Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I prefer to use the plural whenever I speak of families of Churches--the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Churches, and so forth. As an alternative, I prefer to use the word communion. There may not be an Eastern Orthodox Church, but there is an Eastern Orthodox communion (even if some of its members are barely on speaking terms with each other). There is a Catholic communion. There is an Oriental Orthodox communion. There is an Assyrian communion.

If we thought in these terms, perhaps we could circumvent the problems that using the word Church in reference to families of particular Churches entail.

We do agree (as stated) but not to anything I wrote. It seems you have terribly miss-read my words; you have read into them what is not there but what you want -- the issue you want -- to make of them. Except for the last phrase, the post, in relation to what I wrote, is a non sequitur: It is an issue but a derivative issue. I said nothing of Papacy or magisterium or primacy let alone "global primacy". What I did say is that there is "an essential element or structure," three actually for the term church, one of the three being the One Body of Christ, unity as communion.

You are more than welcome to your comments but realize they are quite tangential to my quoted words and the concepts I put forth. To illustrate, I add the concluding phrase (not given above) to what I said, giving my remark in full:

[/quote]

The concept of a global institution or tier of hierarchy is unknown in the Orthodox Church because it is simply not part of the Church called into existence by Jesus Christ, not part of the Apostolic Church (considered normative by the Orthodox) and not part of the 1000 years when we were one.

Cardinal Kasper, speaking about Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."


The response of the Orthodox Church of Russia:

Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."

From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

I'm not sure what's your basis or point. Mine is the Creed's "one, holy catholic and apostolic church," St. Paul's RSV Romans 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ...; RSV Ephesians 5:23 ... Christ is the head of the church, his body; and John's NAB John 17:21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you.

I am confident that point is found in Catholic ecclesiology and my quoted words and the ecclesiology I discussed in a previous post from which those words are excerpted. As VC II says, "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church." I accept what you've written about the Orthodox.


This says that Card. Kasper is quite pleased that in the Ravenna document the Orthodox are now willing to discuss what you say they do not have. As I read the same document, I think that is what it says.


This says that Bishop Hilarion, and I presume you, are not pleased with the words of Card. Kasper and, possibly, the Ravenna document itself. Both of you either are oblivious to or deny the first point he makes, which is also my item (1). You both readily focus on the second point, the Papacy, a topic where controversy, dissension and polemics are known to occur.

Much should be revealed when the 11th Plenary Session of the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" opens on Cyprus in less than a month. The Russian Commission studying the role of the Archbishop of Rome in the Church of the first millenium has been at work for three years. Let us hope they have produced something concrete which the Russian delegation can take to Cyprus.

Ut omnes unum sint!

Putting it in those words the rapprochement could not but be understood, acknowledged and appreciated.

There have been many interesting posts in this thread. Most of the posts have focused on the issues involved, which the book covers. Have others obtained the book? Any thoughts on the book's perspective?

I grateful to this thread for introducing me to a new book that sounds very interesting. But has anyone actually read it?

I'm working on reading it, but I'll leave to others any commentary. I did notice that a 20 page reply to the book is available for order at James Likoudis website.

Fr. Laurent has replied to James Likoudis' critique at this webpage and a mp3 of Fr. Laurent's comments can be downloaded from that page.

The only other comments I've seen so far are the review blurbs at Amazon.

Well, I broke down and ordered Fr Laurent's book, though it is outrageously priced.

I looked for his mp3 response to Likoudis, but apparently the file is no longer available or the link is broken.

I have read through this "interesting" thread. Three thoughts immediately jump to mind:

(1) Anathema sit doesn't necessarily mean "you are a heretic." It means: "you are excommunicated." Context is everything. People get excommunicated for all sorts of reasons. One really needs to be a canon lawyer (which I am not!) to understand all the nuances of Catholic conciliar anathemas. This leads to thought #2.

(2) The anathemas of Vatican I cannot be said to directly apply to the Eastern Orthodox Churches precisely because the Eastern Orthodox Churches were not in communion with the Bishop of Rome when Vatican I was convened.

(3) And even if the Vatican I anathemas can be said to apply to the Orthodox Churches--and as many have already pointed out, the Catholic Church does not presently treat and address the Orthodox as "heretics"--so what? Why be offended, my Orthodox brothers? You know as well as I do that you do not consider the Catholic Church to be a true Church, even though the Catholic Church authoritatively acknowledges the Orthodox Church to be a true and authentic Church, or more accurately, a communion of true and authentic Churches, with valid and efficacious sacraments and divinely constituted apostolic ministry. You know as well as I do that if I were to convert to Orthodoxy today, I might well be required to undergo re-baptism, depending on the jurisdiction and bishop.

We need to move beyond polemics and superficial argumentation. The stakes are too high.

For those interested, the mp3 of the reply to the Likoudis review can be downloaded here.

The Eastern Catholic bishops in the USA issued a document some years ago in response to the Latin Church's new catechism that also emphasized (like Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck in his book) the truth that the local Church is the whole Catholic Church.

Here is what they said:




Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism

It is laudable that, in the face of many difficulties and challenges in the modern world, our sister Churches of the West have seen it appropriate to write a summary of Christian faith and life. However the draft text, Catechism for the Universal Church, to which we are asked to respond, presents for us, sister Churches of the East, certain difficulties. We will address two major questions - What is a universal Church? and How universal is the catechism itself? - then look at some specific problems in the text itself.

A - What is a Universal Church?

In His high priestly prayer, the Lord Jesus prayed for a specific type of oneness for His followers, all the dimensions of which we can never fully comprehend or express. "That they may be one, even as we are one," He prayed (Jn 17:11, cf21), finding the deep cause of this unity -- not in human structures, programs or experiences but in the relationship which we have with God in Christ. This unity which He sought for us, then, is basically a mystical and unseen one, transcending our natural capabilities, attempts or preferences and profoundly rooted in the common identity we have been given in Christ as offspring of the Father by adoption.

This prayer has obtained for us a unity on a real, ontological level: one which does not come into being by our designs and which even is not severed when we attempt to withdraw from it (cf 1 Cor 12:15-16, 21). It remains, however shattered or unnoticed, because the source of our unity, God, remains.

This unity we have with God will come to perfection only in the future, in what the ecumenical Creed calls, "the life of the age to come." Nevertheless, this unity truly exists even now, if in an unseen way, a way grasped only by faith.

The Local Church as Universal

Towards the end of the apostolic age, the term Catholic Church was being used to describe the fellowship of believers. A Catholic Church was seen as one which lived in unity with God and the other Churches through sacramental communion, preserving and proclaiming the totality of the Christian life as handed down from the apostles. Catholicity or universality was thus the mark of authenticity: a community which experienced the fulness of what the Church was meant to be.

The heart of an authentic -- and, therefore, universal -- Church was seen to be realized through the Eucharist. It is here, in answer to Christ's prayer, that "the Father in Christ and Christ in us cause us to be one in them" (St Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8:14). The Divine Liturgy was seen as "the celebrated marriage by which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as His Bride. ... [for] by this Mystery alone we become 'flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone'" (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, 7,1).

Since this deep union in Christ, the goal of Christian life, comes about through the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist which makes present the Church, causing it to be as Christ had willed it: a Body united to and in Him. "If we could see the Church of Christ, we would see nothing other than the body of the Lord, insofar as it is united to Him and shares in His sacred body" (Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 36).

Because they saw the Eucharist as that which constitutes the Church, the early Fathers, especially in the East, considered Christ's presence within the local community as complete. They saw the Church as primarily sacramental and therefore as locally integral, rather than as a geographically universal entity of which local communities are only parts. "Wherever Jesus Christ is," writes Ignatius of Antioch, speaking of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the local community, "there is the Catholic (i.e. integral, or universal) Church" (Epistle to the Smymeans).

In the same way, depicting the Church by the figure of a ship, the Clementine Homilies represent Christ as the Pilot of the ship, the bishop as the look-out, the presbyters as the crew, the deacons as the leading oarsmen, the catechists as the stewards. The local Church had Christ for its Head, the local Church was the Body of Christ, who was no less present to it as to any other Church. The local bishop was His vicar, "For Jesus Christ -- the Life which cannot be taken from us -- is the image of the Father, and the bishops appointed over the whole world are in the image of Jesus Christ" (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3).

The Holy Churches of God

While they saw Christ and the Church as fully present in the local Eucharistic community, the early Christians knew that this one reality did not exhaust all the dimensions of Christ's Body. Beyond the local Church was the fellowship of Churches; beyond that the communion of saints, beyond that the Future Age when all would be one in the Lord Come Again. As the mystical Body of Christ was seen to inhere totally and completely in each individual Eucharistic particle, so too each local Church was the complete Catholic Church. Nevertheless, as the ultimate sign of Eucharistic unity in a local Church was the single Loaf and Cup, so too the communion of local Churches realized the fulness of Christ's design for His followers. And so the realities of local Catholic/Universal Churches and the communion of Catholic/Universal Churches were complementary, not conflicting, as both are images and foretastes of the kingdom to come.

The unity between the Churches was envisioned on the level of their common faith, rather than centrality of administration. "The Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain or in Gaul, or in the East or in Egypt or Libya" (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 10,2). Unlike the Jews, whose principle of unity was exterior (racial and national), the unity of the new people of God was of the Spirit.

As Christians sought to express their faith in the various aspects of life in Christ, certain definite trends began to emerge. Local Churches strong in cultural and historical significance began to crystallize their particular ways of expressing the Gospel. Less prestigious communities looked for inspiration to these Churches -- especially to the Apostolic Sees -- and imitated their practices. Thus distinct families of Churches began to form around these principal Churches, a pattern which would be recognized at the first ecumenical council.

Despite the establishment of these families, each local Church continued to direct its own life. This was not simply due to limited communications or restricted travel. Throughout this period the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians had established and maintained powerful and highly centralized networks of authority under the same handicaps of time and space. Rather, the early Christians, especially in the East, saw the Church as fully present in each given community of bishop, presbyters, deacons and people. They found the Church's true nature as body of Christ made present in the Eucharist by which they came together as a local Church.

Even as the local Churches in the East underwent a measure of standardization under the patriarchal system, they retained a strong feel for the integrity of the local Church. Patriarchal government was chiefly synodal, conciliar, relating the Churches to one another fraternally, preserving the completeness of each one. Those further structures (Eg metropolias, patriarchates, ecumenical councils) came into being in the course of history - not to suppress or control the local Church, but to bolster it in the knowledge that it was living in the "sure charism of truth". The inner unity of the new people of God did not lessen the uniqueness of each community. Thus to this day the Byzantine fellowship of Churches continually prays "for the well-being of the holy Churches of God" (Great Ektene, third petition).

At the same time, all the Churches consistently acknowledged the primacy of the Church and Pope of Rome. The same Eastern Churches which upheld the completeness of the local Church often appealed to the chief hierarch of the First Church when the need arose. But as they recognized his position, he too recognized their integrity and completeness.

Imaging the Trinity

This way of relating came to be seen as not only rooted in God, but as taking for its model the relationships within the Holy Trinity after the prayer of Christ: "That they may be one, as You are in me and I in You".

Even more do we find ourselves at a loss to explain all that this might entail. Some qualities do suggest themselves. This relationship would be vital, flowing with life from one to another as divine life pulses between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here is to be, then, a giving and receiving of life and energy, ultimately from God, through believers one to another. Like the divine unity, the oneness of the faithful would be organic -- a true union in the one Lord -- as the persons of the Trinity are ontological one in the Godhead.

But furthermore, a unity modeled on the image of the Trinity was seen to necessarily respect the distinctness of persons. The Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- are one: yet their union does not sacrifice their singularity. "The persons are not confused, nor is the Essence fragmented" (Athanasian Creed, v 7). So, too, the unity of Christians, modelled upon the Trinity according to Christ's prayer, binds together without homogenizing. "Though many, all of us are one body" (1 Cor 10:17), but we are still many as well.

The early Christians knew that the unity which they experienced in Christ was truly in the image of the Trinity. Life flowed back and forth from one Church to another (cf Col 4:16, Rom 15:26) as they looked to build one another up in the Lord. Yet, each community retained its own individuality and distinctness which did not detract from the deep unity they had in God.

Later Developments

Events in the West were different. While there were four patriarchs in the East, the West knew only one who was at the same time the first among them. In addition, as the Roman imperial presence in the West continued to disintegrate -- a process begun with the transfer of the capital to New Rome by Constantine the Great -- the pope and his clergy increasingly began to fill the vacuum left by the absence of an effective political system. By the time of Gregory the Great, the Pope of Rome -- besides being the chief bishop of the West -- was the sole unifying figure in Western Europe. Even after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, it was the papacy which would be the consistently recognized heart of European civilization.

When the Church expanded into central and northern Europe, it went forth from a community which was increasingly identifying universality with Roman centrality. An increasing number of Christian communities were the daughter Churches of a Rome which had developed a more centralized existence than was known in the East. Thus the stage was set for the kind of conflict typified in the clash of Saints Cyril and Methodius with their German counterparts in Moravia, who saw identity with Roman praxis as the essential mark of Catholicity.

Due to historic developments, the general tendency of the Roman Church has been to promote uniformity as the prime witness to unity. Thus it has taken the course of absorbing and curtailing any legitimate autonomous activity in such areas as liturgy or discipline in the local Churches. This process become even more marked in the nineteenth century and has continued with few exceptions to this day so that the concept of Universal Church has come more to mean a uniform, world-wide community than an internally integral local Church.

As noted above, authentic local traditions and practices complement each other. As in the Trinity we see the Father in the Son and through the Holy Spirit, so too the various local Church traditions should be able to recognize authentic dimensions of themselves in one another. Thus the concept of universal Church as meaning the world-wide community is an authentic expression, for what may be said of the local Church can be said of all the Churches together. However associating uniformity with universality has never seemed authentic inasmuch as it is contrary to St. Paul's imagery of the body in 1 Corinthians.

Besides the push toward uniformity, other similar tendencies have appeared from time to time. The first was to identify the various local Churches as "rites," which in fact reduced the universality of their witness to the status of ceremonial variations. Thus the Eastern Catholic communities were seen to be part of the Roman Church, their various traditions identical with the Roman, except for a few procedural points, such as liturgy. Vatican II formally reversed this trend, recognizing that the variety of traditions in the Catholic community includes: a diversity in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, as well as in theological expressions of doctrine (OE 3, 4,6; UR 17). Likewise the draft for the code of Eastern Church canon law speaks of these communities as autonomous Churches rather than rites.

Similar has been the approach of many who, while admitting the liceity of other traditions, perhaps unconsciously have identified the Roman tradition or experience as normative and seen other Catholic traditions as exceptions to the rule. Describing the Roman rite as the Universal Church, as in the Western liturgical calendar, is a noteworthy sign of this approach. Thus, before Vatican II, many equated the "Eastern Rites" with those religious orders which had their own liturgical variations. Today, when such distinctions have largely disappeared, the tendency is often to consider the autonomous ritual Churches in the Catholic family as "multi-cultural groupings" by which is often meant transitional cultural ghettos awaiting absorption into the mainstream.

And so we see that the very concept of Universal Church has differed in East and West. The East has stressed the local Church as Catholic and Universal in itself, within the communion of other local Churches. The West has understood the Universal Church to refer to the world-wide Church, often identifying it with the Roman Church as the preferable, or at least normative expression of Christ's Body.

B - How Universal Is the Catechism Itself!

If there are two differing concepts of Universal Church, this must certainly impact the text in hand. In fact, we submit that the Catechism works from the perspective of the Roman view throughout. Despite the fact that it incorporates an Eastern - -almost exclusively Byzantine -- witness to many points in the text, the CUC puts them in the context of current Roman practice rather than the living context of the Eastern Churches themselves. It is, therefore, still operating from one particular tradition. In doing so, it is in fact reverting to the above-mentioned stance of seeing the Roman tradition as the principle of universality, normative for all the Churches.

This approach is most obvious in the basic premises of the work itself:

a) The Format employed is that of the medieval catechism, popularized by Luther, which employed familiarity with the Lord's Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments as the basis for rational Christianity. The format was subsequently used by many reformers and counter-reformers with variations in both outline and doctrine as an appropriate catechesis in a highly confrontational time in the Western Church. While not polemical in itself, the Roman Catechism of St. Charles Borromeo, whose format is used in the CUC, was certainly written in response to the challenges of the reformation (preface, Roman Catechism).

There were patristic roots in the catechetical synopsis used in these texts, but already a singnificant change had been made. The Fathers had used much more of the Scriptures than the Commandments to teach godly behavior (didache) and the experience of the liturgy rather than an analysis of it to convey the source of Christian life.

The catechism format was introduced into the Byzantine world in the seventeenth century when it encountered the effects of the reformation in both Protestant and Roman Catholic neighbors and missionaries. The format was employed in the famous Orthodox catechism of Peter Moghila, Metropolitan of Kiev which in turn became the model for other texts. These catechisms followed, not the Luther-Borromeo formats, but that of. St. Robert Bellarmine organized around the virtues of faith, hope and charity and including a much more holistic concept of Christian life than the others. Yet, despite this, the judgment of history in the Eastern Churches has been that the format and approach of this method has been counterproductive as a vehicle for catechesis in communities which seek to live from an Eastern Christian perspective.

b) While the format might not at first seem of particularly Western origin, no one can doubt that the Apostles' Creed is and has always been an exclusively Western text. Even St. Ambrose of Milan knew it as "the symbol that is kept by the Roman Church." The CUC itself describes it as "the most ancient Roman catechism" (1014). While every historic Church can find its own tradition reflected in it, the Apostles' Creed has never been employed in any Eastern Church. The Nicene Creed, on the other hand, is universally used, in one form or another in the historic Churches. In fact the CUC cites the Nicene Creed more consistently than it does the Apostles' Creed. It seems, then, that the Apostles' Creed is used only to provide continuity with the Reformation texts in which no Eastern Church had a part.

c) Those who were Council Fathers at Vatican II will remember the witness of Patriarch Maximos IV who refused to speak in Latin, the supposed language of the Universal Church. While much has changed in the years since then, the CUC in many cases employs Latin in citations. This is at best indicative of the above mentioned stance (that the Roman tradition is normative). When it is the Scriptures, Eastern liturgies and the Greek Fathers which are quoted in Latin, it is simply ludicrous. There are also occasional quotations or citations in French.

d) As mentioned above, there are a number of references to Byzantine liturgical practices in the text. They are always identified as such. By and large, Roman liturgical references are not cited as Roman, but as the liturgy, again suggesting that this is the normative tradition for Catholics. In addition, when Byzantine texts appear, they are presented in translations which are not recognizable as the prayer expressions of any actual Byzantine Church.

C - Specific Objections

If this Western "bias" is evident in the basic premises of such a work, it is clearly also discernible in the treatment of specific themes. In some of these themes there are complementary notions which could be considered. In others, it might be difficult to do so as we cannot recognize ourselves in them. These include:

a) The consideration of Scripture and Tradition (0236-0248) - This generally repeats the teaching of Vatican II, which underscored their unity as coming from "the same divine wellspring" (DV 9), transmitted by Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is similar to the Eastern view of Scripture as within Tradition which is the voice of the Holy Spirit. It also speaks of "the deposit of faith" (0249), which comes closer to the Eastern understanding of Holy Tradition. Yet a different impression is given in the text when it states that Church administrators are superior to tradition (0248) which is, after all, merely something of antiquity (1517). We have yet to see a Western treatment of this subject which is as coherent as the Eastern perspective.

b) The consideration of the "Magisterium" (0250-0260) - Here again Vatican II is cited, but selectively. CUC 0251 implies that the episcopate exists more on the level of Scripture and Tradition than does DV 10, which describes the maintenance of Tradition as "a remarkable common effort on the part of the bishops and faithful." It is this latter factor, ignored by many administrators, which is the heart of the Eastern approach to "magisterium."

Related to this is the tendency to see Canon Law and Church authority as absolute. Our experience as Eastern Catholics, however, has been that the situations described in 3498-3500 can apply equally to Church authorities as to civil ones. Patriarch Maximos IV took this same approach when the Melkite Church was "forbidden" by the Oriental Congregation to receive converts in Israel, quoting the words of Peter and the apostles to the high priest ("We must obey God rather than men", Acts 5:29). The Eastern approach would not so isolate Church authorities from either the people or the possibility of error.

As an aside: another misleading use of ellipsis occurs in 2468, where what is not quoted negates the sense in which OE is cited!

c) The consideration of particular and universal Church without any reference to the autonomous ritual Church (1709-10) - The description of a particular Church (diocese) here is close to what we describe at the beginning of this response. It is the omission which betrays a closed ecclesiology: there exists only the "universal Church" (i.e. Rome) and the diocese. A recent issue of Le Lien carried a letter of a curial administrator to Patriarch Maximos V and his "archdiocese". The editor noted, "He meant patriarchate" but the letter writer's intent is surely subject to other interpretations.

We, however, would see the Roman Church as a patriarchate (or "autonomous ritual Church", to use the terminology of the Eastern Code draft) among others. It would seem to be the only position consistent with actual Church discipline and the only one open to any ecumenical encounter with other authentic Churches.

Unfortunately, due to our numbers or a misplaced sense of loyalty to Rome, many Eastern Catholics consider themselves more a part of the local Roman diocese than of their own, not to speak of being an autonomous Church.

d) Related to this is the tendency to equate the Eastern witness with that of the Byzantine tradition. One cannot speak of a universal Eastern Church when in fact there are many autonomous Churches of varying traditions (eg Coptic or Syriac) which often consider the Byzantine tradition as a Western expression of Christianity!

e) The consideration of the makeup of the human person (1188-1193);

f) Equating morality and the Ten Commandments as the basis of Christian living (Part Three) - Any Eastern Church would have great difficulty basing the Christian life on law. The life of faith is based more on the experience of God in the Community through the expressions of its Holy Tradition and on the direction of the Holy Spirit in the individual's life than on legal precepts. Furthermore, even equating the Ten Commandments with the Two Ways of the apostolic age (3241) is misleading. Intended to give the fundamentals of right living for new converts, even the Two Ways involve more than keeping the Decalogue while including these basics.

g) The medieval approach to presenting the Sacraments (Part Two, Section Two) - Some attempt has been made to add more patristic references, but this limiting perspective remains. Seemingly the intention is to return to the scholastic ordering for understanding the sacraments. One example is the treatment of the institution of the sacraments by Christ (2084-88). In 2087 it is stated that the Church does not invent or institute the sacraments; rather they have been instituted by Christ (see also 2095), implying a distinction proper to the earthly life of Jesus. This approach has necessitated locating moments in the Gospel when Christ instituted each sacrament, a major issue at the time of the Reformation.

In 2088 a more patristic approach is enunciated: that the Church is not exterior to Christ. It is His Body, the "whole Christ." It is rather in this sense that the origin of the sacraments should be envisioned, avoiding the fundamentalist snare of the medieval stance.

h) The discussion of the "hell of purgation" (1474, 1848 ff);

i) Use of scholastic concepts and terminology when referring to creation and the divine life in us and stating explicitly that such terminology is universal (1204, 3076, 3089).

j) Equating the Eucharist and sacrifice of Christ with the crucifixion alone (2445) - The Eucharistic oblation certainly corresponds the sacrifice of Christ, but limiting that to the cross ignores the witness of Scripture (cf Heb 8-9) on which Eastern Liturgies are based.

k) The discussion of indulgences (2552ff).

1) Repeating the Florentine insistence on justIfying the filioque in the Nicene Creed (1060a) vitiates the positive treatment of the theology expressed in the text. This stands in sharp contrast to the current Roman practice of actually omitting the filioque in ecumenical contexts.

m) The varying computations of the date of Pascha in the Catholic Church demand a further treatment than the mention in 2071.

Many of these difficulties are evident in those sections of the text which seem to have been written by persons intent on defending actions or statements deriving from the Latin theology of the Middle Ages which are in marked contrast to the sections drawn from biblical and liturgical perspectives in style and content. The latter sections are alive with the spirit of the Gospel and the Fathers. The former passages seem derived from a different spirit completely.

None of what is said above is meant to indicate that we do not recognize ourselves and authentic aspects of Holy Tradition in elements of the work, or acknowledge the care with which the authors of sections of this work have sought to draw from Eastern witnesses, in response to the call of OE

6. However there is a significant difference between learning from other traditions and working together for common action. Thus we would "see" the Byzantine or Syriac liturgies in the Roman Mass, drawn as they are from similar sources, but we would never consider the Western Liturgy as universal. Likewise, as the Roman Lectionary is clearly not the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, for example, and the Father is clearly not the Son, so too the CUC is not an Eastern resource.

Conclusion

The overall message then, is that, while incorporating in a significant way the witness of the Byzantine liturgy and the Greek Fathers, the CUC is still a Western document, written from Western perspectives. If it is envisioned as universal, that by definition indicates that the Western tradition is the standard for all Catholics. It is a long established principle that no Eastern Catholic Church has been required to use even the Western form of the Nicene Creed. How, then, can any Eastern Church be expected to recognize this, or any, text to be a CUC?

There does not seem to be any way in which such a work can be universal in the commonly understood meaning of the term, ie applicable universally to all local Catholic Churches. One perhaps could have made a case at the time of Trent that the Roman tradition was universal in that the Catholic communion was limited to Western Churches. This style of thinking and speaking was retained in the West even when it had ceased to be true, as most Western Christians in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries never saw an Eastern Christian of any kind. This cannot be said today when there are local Catholic Churches of various Eastern traditions on every continent, not to mention the more numerous Orthodox.

The only course of action which would not offend Eastern Catholics and not a few Orthodox would be to identify the text as a catechism) not of the Universal Church) but of the Roman Church.

This is, in fact, the only possible way to proceed as the tradition of each autonomous ritual Church includes the above mentioned diversity in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, as well as in theological expressions of doctrine. It is from this holistic view of tradition that any catechesis must proceed and no one can legitimately expect that any local Church should worship in one tradition and catechize in another.

The Fathers of Vatican II have said that, "the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, fully enjoy the right and are in duty bound to rule themselves. Each should do so according to its proper and individual procedures..." (OE5). We would submit that this principle indicates that each autonomous ritual Church has the right and duty to formulate a catechism for its own Universal Church, were such a vehicle deemed appropriate to any Eastern tradition. Were such a project to be initiated, there is no doubt that sections of the present text would be called upon to provide a valuable Western witness, but would not be considered normative for any Eastern Catholic Church.

This is not meant to be prejudicial to the pope's universal teaching ministry. However it would seem that the pope himself would wish to exercise this ministry within the above parameters as indicated by his predecessor and the Fathers at Vatican II.

Apotheun,

Thanks for this! Is it online anywhere?

Yes.

Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism

Kind of funny when you read that Pope Vigilius - the first Byzantine pope (and onetime anti-pope) - was excommunicated in the east for NOT supporting the condemnation of Three Chapters, yet the Church of Africa excommunicated Pope Vigilius (in another period) for betraying Chalcedon by condemning the Three Chapters. Can't please everybody.

If one is excommunicated, isn't one cut off from the Church's sacraments?



Others have disagreed. Earlier in this thread, a citation was given where Fr. John Hardon so applied Vatican I to Orthodox. Fr. Hardon is still influential to many in the Catholic Church.



This is true. But, I can see why many Orthodox are confused by this. In Catholic theology, does not the highest level of authority go to an ecumenical council confirmed by the Pope? And, isn't Vatican I generally held to be ecumenical by most Catholics? Is not the Catholic Church still governed by the principles of Vatican I?

Personally, I do not believe the Catholic Church presently believes Orthodoxy to be heretical. But, I understand why some Orthodox are concerned since Vatican I has not been explicitly reinterpreted.



Is not the present Catholic position less than 60 years old? My understanding is that up until around the era of Vatican II, Orthodox sacraments and apostolic succession were held to be valid, but illicit and lacked actual jurisdiction. I've been told that conditional baptisms and conditional confirmations were common for converts from Orthodoxy before Vatican II.

The breakthroughs (from the Catholic side) on issues such as the Filioque are less than 20 years old.

60 years is not that long in the life of the Christian Church. Will the attitude of some Orthodox Churches change over the next few decades? I'm sure several Orthodox here would say, "Never!" I think that many Orthodox engaged in ecumenical dialogue do not share that view.

As to your conversion to Orthodoxy. I doubt very many Orthodox jurisdictions would require your baptism, Father. But, you're right. We need to have a unified position on such issues, recognizing that there is only one Baptism.

Father, I really do not think that you would. Catholic priests are usually received by "vesting."

That means that no baptism takes place and nor does any ordination. What happens is that in the course of the Liturgy and prior to the consecration the bishop hands you one by one all the items of eucharistic vestments. You put them on and then you take your place as a priest at the altar with the bishop and any other priests and assist him at the consecration of the Bread and sacred Chalice.

This is the standard practice of the Russian and Greek Churches, of the Church of Antioch, Serbia, Romania, etc., etc.

Of course if you desired to be received by baptism I think that these Churches would be just as happy to oblige your request. I recall the reception of 6 or 7 Trappist monks from France (led by the patristic scholar Fr Placide Deseille.) They travelled to one of the monasteries of Mount Athos for their reception and they were all baptized and then re-ordained by a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. But Athos is a special place.

Ordinarily, unless you stated that you desired baptism, you would be received by vesting.

For the record I am speaking as a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which is probably the one Church which might wish to ordain you. But now that we have united with the Moscow Patriarchate (in 2007) our practice on these matters will begin to conform to that of the Church of Russia, i.e., reception by vesting.

Very true!

If I may, my question would be this:

Is the faith professed in Orthodoxy complete? Is it in error in its teachings?

As I understand the Catholic position, the only real significant issue left from the Catholic perspective is the issue of the papacy. If, since Vatican II, Orthodox are not in heresy over this issue, then is there anything that would make the faith of Orthodoxy lacking from the Catholic perspective?

I don't see any.

To put the shoe on the other foot, is the faith confessed by the Latins complete? Is it in error in its teachings?

My response would be yes, its faith is complete, and its teachings are not in error--in the context of the Latin Church.

No; Yes: This is said on the basis of ecclesiology, one (important) aspect of the teaching, the theology; otherwise, there would be no separation.

It is the issue. Before jumping to this controversial issue, however, there is an essential understanding of ecclesiology that should first be resolved, what I presented as the three necessary and sufficient aspects of what is meant by the term church.

Even well before VC-II I have argued. What is lacking is, as I proposed in a previous post in this thread, element (1):

Yes, it is complete. Orthodoxy lacks nothing that is essential to the faith.


No.

I have been quickly skimming Fr Laurent's book. I thoroughly approve of both the eirenic spirit in which it was written and its ecumenical objective; but I do not think it will persuade many. I discern two critical flaws:

First, while Fr Laurent criticizes a proof-texting approach, so characteristic of both Catholic and Orthodox apologists, when examining the views of the Church Fathers, he appears to fall precisely into the same trap. One does not get the impression that any serious engagement with the primary sources has been done nor is historical scholarship cited, with a couple of exceptions. But if Catholicism and Orthodoxy are to move beyond polemic and caricature, it is absolutely necessary to engage history as honestly and directly as we can.

Fr Laurent is an exponent of the eucharistic ecclesiology of Afanasieff and Zizioulas. He believes that this eucharistic ecclesiology faithfully represents the consensual views of the Fathers, though he acknowledges that one can also find universal ecclesiology in some of the later Fathers. I have read my share of Afanasieff and Zizioulas and find their views persuasive; but I still wonder whether most of the Church Fathers can be accurately described as eucharistic ecclesiologists. Is this sound history, or is this just another case of theologians projecting their theories back into time?

Second, I find it remarkable that Fr Laurent relies so heavily on both popular Catholic apologists and Orthodox theologians for his knowledge of Catholicism. He shows little direct acquaintance with good Catholic theology, either past or present. This is a huge flaw. He does cite a short article on ecclesiology by Ratzinger, but does not mention the important debate between Ratzinger and Kasper on the relations of the universal and local Church, nor does he mention the incredibly important and influential work of Henri de Lubac, which has been ably summarized in Fr Paul McParlan's The Eucharist Makes the Church, in which the views of de Lubac are compared to the views of Zizioulas.

Anyway, these are my initial impressions. The book is a start, but it's not the book I was hoping it would be.

Father Kimel,

I also skimmed it, and agree on both points. Perhaps I will revisit it later, but from what I saw (and I hate to say this) it didn't give me the impression that its review of primary sources added anything beyond common perceptions. (I'd list works Fathers Boris Gudziak, Robert Taft, John Meyendorff and Hermann Pottmeyer as examples of the opposite).

And, just to go on a pet peeve, I don't like the lists of things such and such a Church needs to do, even if some of the ideas are good. I especially don't like the hoary suggestion of adding an epiclesis into the Roman eucharistic prayers. First, are the new ones in the 1970 missal defective? Second, for the Roman Canon, the prayer exists for various reasons, and was accepted in Late Antiquity without complaint. I see no reason for such a "Byzantinization" in the Latin Church. (and I say this as a "Byzantine").

Markos

"But if it happens that the spiritual factor is totally lacking, then the monastic organization [or the Christian eparchy] disintegrates or turns into one that is authoritarian".

- Prof. Gregorios Mantzaridis, Unv. of Thessaloniki, "The Spirit of Monastic Typikon". [my addition in brackets]

The Roman Canon does not have an epiclesis because it never did--it predates the kinds of pneumatological controversies that led to their inclusion in the Byzantine Liturgies (as well as those of the Oriental Orthodox). The Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari lacks not only an explicit epiclesis, but also the institution narrative--because it is older than those developments.

As Father Taft likes to say, a liturgy is like a language, and different languages have different rules. Some languages have articles, others do not--and a language that lacks them is not inferior to one that has them, nor is it improved by trying to add them (and vice versa). In short, it was a mistake to (a) create new Eucharistic Prayers for the Roman Liturgy; and (b) to create several with orientalisms such as an epiclesis.

Does the Roman Canon predate the Anaphora of St. James?
What is the history of these Canons?

The Roman Canon in its mature form dates from the late fourth century, but probably drew on an earlier anaphora in Greek. On the Anaphora of James, it depends on which version you pick. The one currently used by some Byzantine Churches shows the influence of later developments. The Basil and Chrysostom anaphorae are late fourth-early fifth century in origin, but underwent continual development until as late as the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

Father Kimel was received into the Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) in June last year by ordination as deacon and then priest.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/message/19842

Father,

Unfortunately, the link you posted only took me to a login page for yahoo. It is possible that one has to belong to the yahoo group to be able to view it.

Is there any text that you can cut and paste here?