www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Unity only on EO terms

Dear Friends,

As JoeS has said, there is NO disagreement among the Orthodox when it comes to the Apostolic faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

If both sides WANT to achieve unity, this unity WILL be achieved when they agree to have an Ecumenical Council.

That may take some doing for the Orthodox to agree to this, but it will also take some doing for Rome to agree to meet with the Orthodox in such a conciliar context as an equal, rather than as a "presider over" such a council.

Rome would not wish to have the Orthodox vote down the issues that have, since 1054 AD, set Rome apart from the Orthodox East.

This is why I had earlier recommended that Rome revisit the earlier union councils that failed, such as Florence.

If Roman Catholics feel that Florence failed because the "Greeks" refused to submit to papal authority - then unity will never be achieved.

Roman Catholics are the ones who have to compare what they believe today with what the once united Church of Christ prior to 1054 believed.

And unity will be a pipe dream for as long as Rome believes it must have immediate and direct jurisdiction over the Churches of the East.

One would assume that the best formula for union would be the way that union was practiced in the first millennium of the Church's life.

That is the most traditional way of looking at it, I believe.

When Rome is prepared to see as the ultimate authority in the Church the Ecumenical Council (with the participation of the Patriarchs of the Church, of course) then we can hope for unity.

Florence failed because Rome insisted on imposing later Latin theology on the Byzantines.

The Byzantines and their Emperor needed military help from the West against the Turks - and they were really willing to agree to anything (on orders from the Emperor) to procure that aid.

It was only St Mark of Ephesus who refused to compromise on the original Apostolic faith and Creed of the first two Councils who held fast.

This is why Pope Eugene at the time was said to have remarked, when Mark left the Council, that, "We have accomplished nothing."

And that was a papal pronouncement that both sides today can agree was infallibly correct!

Alex

I wonder what the status of several national eastern churches would be if both sides reverted back to the concepts of the Church prior to 1054, for the sake of restoring full communion, etc.

The EP claims to have sole authority to approve autocephaly, but that is rejected by Moscow and the OCA as far as I know.

In any event, it does not appear likely that such a reconciliation could occur, because there are too many obstacles that are protected by tradition, big T or little t, depending on who speaks.

Dear Jim,

And since Rome defers to Orthodoxy when it comes to setting up Eastern CATHOLIC patriarchates, then there is even greater tension thrown into the mix . . .

Alex

Hi,

Because you've been careful to agree with the things settled back when you were in communion with the central authority.

Is there any voice that all Orthodox Churches recognize as "The voice of the Church", on any issue debated after 1054?

Shalom,
Memo.

Yes! To cite one example, the resolutions surrounding the Palamite controversy of the 14th century is received by all Orthodox Churches.

T

Dear Memo,

Sorry, but you've expressed the classic ultramontanist view of the Ecumenical Councils that is simply not shared by Roman Catholic theologians today.

The Ecumenical Councils did not look to the pope of Rome alone to settle matters of doctrinal controversy.

It was when a Pope, such as Pope Leo, expressed the orthodox view that was shared by all others that he was touted as the true successor of Peter.

There was even one Ecumenical Council that summarily censured the Church of Rome for enacting a fast on Saturdays - something that contradicted earlier regulation established by Conciliar decree.

The fact is the way papal authority is set up today - the only real role for a council is to discuss things before the authority enacts it anyway.

This was not so in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

And besides, where is that all-powerful papal authority today? Where is the unity it is supposed to bring about?

Alex

Alex's last post reminded me of a statement I once heard an Orthodox priest make: "The Roman Catholic Church says that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; the Orthodox Churches say that the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit." It sort of ties in to what Alex was saying, I think.

Dear Jim,

I was perhaps a bit harsh with our brother, Memo, above and I'm sorry . . .

It was a late night and I was negotiating with a potential employer on salary . . .

The point is also that there are Roman Catholic theologians who are experts on the Eastern Churches, especially at the Oriental Institute, as we know.

They are VERY sensitive to traditional Orthodox concerns about Western theology and their knowledge base about the Eastern Churches is IMMENSE.

These theologians are the ones who will ease the path to Catholic-Orthodox unity which will occur according to God's way, and not our way.

When we all understand that we, as Catholics and Orthodox, are incomplete without each other, then the path to unity will shine more brightly!

Alex

Do most of us agree that the Pope should maintain an ecumenical position, not of jurisdiction but simply sole responsibility for maintaining unity in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That's not to say that each Patriarch, each Bishop has their part to do but Ecumenically (is that even a word) speaking, it would be the Bishop of Rome's responsibility.

Brad

Dear Brad,

In fact, the Orthodox Churches have ALWAYS asserted this from way back when.

It is in the "how" this is to be exercised by the Petrine Minister that the difficulties ensued.

But originally what divided the Churches was not papal authority - as this issue arose much later.

What divided them was the issue of the change to the Creed in the West.

Please see my note to you on St Emma of Gurk.

Alex

"Is there any voice that all Orthodox Churches recognize as "The voice of the Church", on any issue debated after 1054?"

Dear Jim,

You are correct, the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit. As such, I would be remiss not to mention that there have been Latin councils that the Orthodox do not agree with having concluded that Truth can't say or teach anything that is not the Truth.

John 16:13
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

It is not nor can it be the Orthodox teaching that the Holy Spirit is limited to pontifications, for we know that at Pentecost Peter did not stand up and mention infallibility, he stood up and spoke the Truth. The Spirit of Truth did not rest upon Peter alone for Holy writ tells us quite clearly that "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit"...

Acts 2 1:5

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Now in more recent times we have seen that adherence to the teachings of the Latin Church are secondary or worse to being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Nestorian or Assyrian Church of the east stand out foremost in my mind, for I know full well what they believe is not the same and quite different from what the Orthodox Church believes. To them Nestorian is honored greatly to the Orthodox Nestorian was deemed to be teaching heresy which remains the Orthodox position on the matter. Today the Nestorians are in communion with the Bishop of Rome for political strength and reasons in spite of severe differences in doctrine that nevertheless Rome has accepted or at best overlooked for the sake of unity with the Bishop of Rome. This would be an example of a compromise of teachings or a distortion which is accepted by Rome for the sake of that which is not the truth. As such we can concluded that the see of Rome can participate or share and accept understandings in accordance with heresy. If they claim otherwise then it is obvious that they are collectively easily deceived. Even the less learned are capable of understanding the Truth.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Actually, the Assyrian Church is NOT in communion with Rome, but HAS reached an agreement on the Person of Christ.

That agreement expresses orthodox Christology.

It says nothing about what the Assyrian synods and theologians have taught previously about the two "prosopa" etc.

There are Assyrians who have come into full communion with Rome and are the Catholic Chaldeans who firmly proclaim the Most Holy Virgin Mary as Mother of God.

There are likewise Assyrians who have come into full communion with Orthodoxy and who likewise proclaim the Divine Maternity.

But what transpired between Rome and the Assyrians is simply a theological document that has NO bearing on the current state of separation between Rome and the Assyrians Church of the East.

It would be like saying that because Orthodox theologians have come to written agreements with the Oriental Churches that there is now full communion between them.

And that is simply not the case.

The only one who is being misled here is yourself, I'm afraid, in making a wrong assumption.

God bless,

Alex

Brad,

Actually, I do not think the Eastern Orthodox Churches will have the final say as to what the terms and conditions of reunion are. The Catholic Church has gone a little ecumenically crazy in the past 30-40 years, but I believe that will eventually fade away so the two Churches can pursue more realistic approaches to unity.

In the end, the Catholic Church simply will now cow-tow to every whim of the Eastern Orthodox, and neither will the reverse occur.

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox mysteries/sacraments is not a concession, per se. The Catholic Church has always taught that if an ecclesial community retains Apostolic Succession (like the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polish National Catholic Church, Society of St. Pius X, etc.), then they are truly "Churches" with a capital "C" and have valid and efficacious sacraments. This is not a concession, but just a theological reality in Catholic teaching.

Most of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have ditched the epiclisis/consecration controversy and acknowledged the validity of the Catholic way. The two Churches are merging closer to a recognization of each other's respective understandings of the procession of Persons in the Trinity (i.e., Filioque), etc.

The movements are not only on the Catholic side; it just seems that way in the past 30-40 years. The Catholic Church will not and cannot pursue false ecumenism to reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox. This is impossible for God's Church.

About feeling inferior to the Eastern Orthodox...to me, that's expected. In my opinion (and I think in the deeprooted beliefs of many others), post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism is sorely lacking in mystery, otherworldliness, etc. that are quite possible in Roman Catholicism and that were previously much more widespread. Eastern Catholicism has experienced a reawakening as a result of the efforts of the Council, and this is, of course, to be commended and to give us hope in the Roman Church.

All I can say is, don't feel inferior. From the Catholic perspective, you are residing and living out your life in the fullness of the Faith in God's Most Holy Church. Nothing else is better than this, so don't feel inferior to anyone.

That doesn't mean God's Most Holy Church (or at least, one of the sui iuris Churches in his Holy Church) is going through what many would call a major "dry spell."

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

How now kow-tow?

How would removing the Filioque be kow-towing to the Orthodox?

It would be returning to the most ancient traditions of the Roman Church itself, Big Guy!

And no one would require Rome to deny the Filioque - only to stop trying to impose it on the East as a necessary Trinitarian dogma - which it isn't.

As for the Epiclesis, Rome put one into the Novus Ordo Canon, and there is one other canon that has the Epiclesis BEFORE the Words of Institution - and this is entirely acceptable to the East as well. Liturgical research has truly put this matter to rest.

And are you saying that the RC Church is God's Church but that the Orthodox is not? When has Rome EVER said, I mean EVER, that the Eastern Churches are not also part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ?

Please do tell us all here how else Rome would be kow-towing to the Orthodox.

If anything, Rome has been kow-towing to the Protestants . . .

Alex

My dear friend Alex,

I am reluctant to post this and found myself debating over whether a private message would be more appropriate. Once again you have baffled me with your statements rendered and articulated with a different understanding in a matter of fact sort of way that is inaccurate to say the least.

I'm sure you would agree that your understandings and conclusions are expressed from your perspective. Your Quote "Actually, the Assyrian Church is NOT in communion with Rome, but HAS reached an agreement on the Person of Christ."

If I may be so bold, I have a different understanding for the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East in North America lives in Morton Grove Illinois and had been known to stop into my place of business a few blocks away with the Chancellor whom I have known for around 15 years now, I see and speak with him often. With other matters of disagreement with the Orthodox Church they do not proclaim the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Theotokas and Mother of God.

It seems that a bit of a definition is in order regarding much, nevertheless and in short a definition of communion or "not in full communion with the Catholic Church" requires some attention. I think it is reasonable to conclude from the below that the Assyrian Church of the East is in communion with the Catholic Church but not fully at this time. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East since they hold onto beliefs that are not accepted by the Orthodox Church. As such I think when you state that they are NOT in communion with Rome your conclusion is different than others on the matter.

Since you have stated and concluded that I'm being mislead, would you be kind enough to help me to understand the matter correctly. It seems to me that the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is in communion with Rome.


GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN
THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

Given the great distress of many Chaldean and Assyrian faithful, in their motherland and in the diaspora, impeding for many of them a normal sacramental life according to their own tradition, and in the ecumenical context of the bilateral dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the request has been made to provide for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. This request has first been studied by the Joint Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The present guidelines subsequently have been elaborated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

1. Pastoral necessity

The request for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is connected with the particular geographical and social situation in which their faithful are actually living. Due to various and sometimes dramatic circumstances, many Assyrian and Chaldean faithful left their motherlands and moved to the Middle East, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Australia and Northern America. As there cannot be a priest for every local community in such a widespread diaspora, numerous Chaldean and Assyrian faithful are confronted with a situation of pastoral necessity with regard to the administration of sacraments. Official documents of the Catholic Church provide special regulations for such situations, namely the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 671, �2-�3 and the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, n. 123.

2. Ecumenical rapprochement

The request is also connected with the ongoing process of ecumenical rapprochement between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. With the �Common Christological Declaration�, signed in 1994 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, the main dogmatic problem between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church has been resolved. As a consequence, the ecumenical rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East also entered a further phase of development.

On 29 November 1996 Patriarch Mar Rapha�l Bidawid and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV signed a list of common proposals with a view to the re-establishment of full ecclesial unity among both historical heirs of the ancient Church of the East. On 15 August 1997 this program was approved by their respective Synods and confirmed in a �Joint Synodal Decree�. Supported by their respective Synods, both Patriarchs approved a further series of initiatives to foster the progressive restoration of their ecclesial unity. Both the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity support this process.

3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

4. Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist

Considering the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, the doctrinal clarification regarding the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the contemporary context in which both Assyrian and Chaldean faithful are living, the appropriate regulations which are foreseen in official documents of the Catholic Church, and the process of rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the following provision is made:

1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

2. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.

3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.

4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.

Rome, July 20th, 2001

[Original text: English; distributed by Vatican Press Office]