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

I forgot to mention that "full communion with Rome" would include accepting Papal Supremacy which the Assyrian Church of the East does not accept at this time.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Hehehe...I believe I agree with Alex. I consider it a good thing when Latin Catholics run into Byzantine Catholics like Alex Roman once in their life. It's a real learning experience, although, I'm not inferring this was yours or anyone elses. I know that I've had my wake-up call before.

It may be just me, but from my reading from various and sundry Orthodox theologians and scholars, they pretty much have a pretty healthy gloss on Roman primacy.

I believe Rome's detachment from Eastern thinking from the Caroligians on-ward, resulted in perhaps too strong of a view of divine simplicity that curtailed into her Ecclesiology, hence, an extremely centralized view of the papacy. Every piece of our theology is a model for the other (e.g. Christology and soteriology). We know that the Trinity tells us that our reality is both one and many. Any out-of-balance of this equation is quite dangerous. In the high middle ages, I think it's safe to say that this over emphasis on the "one," thinking that the "many" results in instability, put the equation of "the one" and "the many" out of balance, a very centralized view. Does this strong centrality on "the one" in the high middle ages in Roman Ecclesiology, not look a little bit like modalism or sabellianism?

I'll be blunt. We need the Orthodox. We need more of an Orthodox view of Ecclesiology, which I'm thinking more and more never left the Church of the first millenia on its view of the Roman Bishop.

I believe that we can harmonize Papal infallibility with this as well. But I don't think "the one" can or should ever exercise his universal authority apart from "the many" (in the context of universal jurisdiction, or matters of doctrine in faith and morals; local jurisdiction is a separate issue). The Father does nothing in creation without the Son and the Spirit, since they all have a common essence and will. This Trinitarian model must be our ecclesiastical model. Does not the past two ex cathedra decrees represent this model? Granted, they were not said by an ecumenical council, but did not the Roman Bishop have the bishops of the Church behind him? I think this should tell us something about how we should view the Roman Bishop and present/past decrees.

I can't help but look at the first millenia Church and its witness. The decrees of any Pope were either backed by a Synod or a concensus of the Bishops of the Church. Pope Agatho and the 6th Council of Constantinople is a very good example.

Daniel

Dear Matthew,

If I gave offense with my "misled," I bow to you and ask for your forgiveness.

To explain this from the Catholic point of view is to differentiate between how the Holy Orthodox Church would understand "being in communion."

The Holy Orthodox Church affirms that Eucharistic Communion presupposes unity in faith and that communicants belong, in fact, to the Body of Christ that is the Church and are not separated from it by grave sin, heresy or schism of any kind.

(How am I doing so far?)

The Christological statement that the Assyrian Patriarch signed with Rome affirms the Unity of the Divine Person of Christ in His Two Natures.

It affirms that the term "Christotokos" is EQUAL to that of ``Theotokos and that the same Reality is understood under either term.

The agreement does not go into the issue of the Nestorian affirmations of previous Assyrian synods - that is something else.

And it does NOT somehow make of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Chaldeans One ecclesial body.

That the issue of Eucharistic Inter-Communion between the Assyrians and the Chaldeans is discussed in the above document - from the Catholic POV this does not imply that there is full ecclesial unity as a result.

It only implies that both sides share a theology that would allow for Eucharistic inter-Communion even though they are still formally not united as Churches.

I know a Chaldean priest here who also regularly invites an Assyrian priest to join him in concelebrating the Qurbana.

I know of NO Ukrainian Catholic priest who would concelebrate the liturgy with someone who is not Catholic, but there you have it.

Now IF you are saying that the Assyrian agreement on Christology amounts to nothing but deceit, then you are in FULL agreement with the Oriental Orthodox Churches that some, wrongly, call `Monophysite.`

That does NOT mean that you are somehow in communion with the Monophysites however!

If I said that, I would really be misleading everyone!

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,

It is hard to bow to one who grovels no need to apologize I hear you, as for me that is another matter right now. Allow me to get off my high horse and forgive me for I have said something that may not be clearly accurate. I just got off the phone with an very learned Assyrian Priest and he has agreed to stop by and clarify a few matters in greater detail I will sit him down in front of the computer and ask him to post here shortly. Stay tuned. As often mentioned there are some language problems relative to Aramaic and translations and the Assyrian mindset relative to what can be considered acceptable. Only a few months ago I had a conversation with someone who mentioned that the Assyrian Church of the East found that the term Birth Giver of God is difficult to accept quite vehemently I might add. Apparently it is an area of very fine lines that makes a huge difference. Today it appears I may have been WRONG in my understanding for today I'm told that the Assyrian Church of the East has has no problem with the term Emanuel with us or Mother of God with us or he whom the universe cannot contain is contained in the womb of the Virgin Mother of God. There is a point of great concern with expressions or words that are used to convey the birth of Christ and the understanding of the title Theotokas birth giver of God, Mother of God which remains a sensitive subject in verbal expression for the Assyrian Church of the East.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Alex,

I presume you would agree that the Assyrian Church of the East is not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church which is a clear statement that nevertheless still implies or conveys an understanding of some degree of communion, correct?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Please greet your Assyrian Priest friend in the Name of the Lord for me too, will you?

As you know, they are a very warm people, Assyrians, Chaldeans, however we know them as.

A people without a country, yet very proud of their great heritage!

(You are right on the communion thing . . .).

Their monasteries are gone in their traditional ecclesial territories, but when they WERE around, the monks chanted the entire Psalter daily over the seven daily Hours.

And their lay-people are asked to have seven periods of prayer throughout the day.

I think I"m as excited as you over the visit of your Assyrian friend.

I know that two very intelligent people like yourself and the Rabbi (I believe they do call themselves "Rabbi" rather than "Father" but please do check that out!) will have a very fruitful discussion.

And if you can get him to post here then the Administrator, Fr. Deacon John Montalvo, Diak and I will be positively thrilled, among others!

God bless you, man of God!

Alex

Hello,

I disagree. What I have expressed is a simple historical fact.

99% of the things all Orthodox Churches agree upon, are things debated and settled when they were in communion with Rome.

I am not stating a cause-effect relationship, merely a correlation, which I think is undeniable.

God is never constrained to His ordinary means. He has a "Plan B" for almost everything. But that doesn't mean that "Plan B" is as good as "Plan A", much less that "Plan A" does not exist at all, or is not valid.

Plan A for the means of sanctification is the sacraments/mysteries.

Some Christians decided they didn't want those, but we can still find remarkable examples of holiness in some of our Protestant brethren. God must have accomplished that through some sort of Plan B.

Plan A for assurance of orthodoxy is communion with the See of Rome.

If the Orthodox are still orthodox it is not because the sentence above is not true, it is because God has been using Plan B for some 1000 years now.

Shalom,
Memo.

Good point Memo.
Stephanos I

Dear Alex,

You are correct they are very warm and pious people. Actually, the term that is used is Qasha I think that means Priest, but I'll seek further clarification translations are a usual concern. To be honest with you for the past 15 years or so after many discussions it seems that the conclusion from the Assyrian perspective is that Nestorius was not a Nestorian as understood by the Orthodox Church. This position would imply that the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 which the Latin's accept made a mistake or had a misunderstanding or lacked discernment or something along those lines even with the presence of the Saints like St. Cyril of Alexandria who was the presiding Bishop. My last conversation on the phone with the good Qasha moved around quite a bit and quickly in terms of the meaning of the Mother of God and giving birth to the second person of the Holy Trinity and He who has seen Christ has seen the Father... They have great difficulty with the Latin understanding of the Theotokas and many other matters which I will flat out say they don't seem to be willing to accept. I would further add that it is difficult for them to accept other things like Orthodox iconography, you are correct on the Jewish aspect to a certain degree.

It seems that Assyrian "however" due to a lack of being comfortable with a word is often introduced. I'm still not sure, perhaps "ya all" can figure it out. To be quite honest I'm still not clear on the exact points of great concern for them and yield to the teachings of the much wiser Orthodox Church. The good Qasha said he would stop by in a few days and I'll certainly have him register on this forum, I'm sure he will convey his understandings for your consideration. Well I guess that determining the locations of and degrees of Grace are best addressed by those in position of authority on the subject.


Dear Memo,

Do keep in mind that when the Bishop of Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Church he was considered Orthodox and rightly dividing the word of truth at that time. That is not the case nowadays. I would further add that the Orthodox Church agrees upon things, debated them and settled them including to cease being in communion with the Latins and the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox Church still maintains and believes the same things that that it always has, this we believe will continue.

As you know the Orthodox Church does NOT agree with you that Plan A for assurance of orthodoxy is communion with the See of Rome since Rome is believed to have fallen into error.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

I generally agree with your points, but I think you should wait to speak with the Assyrian priest and see how your conversation will affect your views.

Perhaps it will not, but I know you will be open and hospitable to your upcoming guest - and you will both learn from each other in the exchange, a learning experience I hope you will share with us here.

Alex

Dear Memo,

First of all, there really is no such thing as an "historical fact."

There are historical events that are interpreted variously by people.

I think you simply overemphasize, unnecessarily, the role of the pope of Rome in the first millennium.

His authority was contained within the context of conciliarity. He was also the court of final appeal and even then this was not invoked all that frequently in the first millennium, as Fr. Meyendorff discussed.

But to have the primacy as a final court of appeal is sufficient, one need not use it.

I think, though, that I will defer to Augustini's argument here as I believe it is most balanced, taking into consideration the historical context of authority in such a way so as to make it both meaningful and relevant for all today.

You yourself said that "we will move forward."

And you are right, we will. We must.

And we will move forward with the view to achieving a Petrine Primacy that is both reflective of the praxis of the first millennium of the Church and capable of embracing all styles of church government among the Apostolic Churches.

If we appeal to papal triumphalism for its own sake, then we run the risk of enclosing ourselves in the false security (and glory) of a stultified past that is its own best reason for the continuance of ecclesial alienation.

The Papacy is sufficiently strong to withstand adaptation and transformation in modern times.

It, too, must move forward, as Pope John Paul II has also said.

The "fact" is that collegiality and conciliarity are not "four-letter words"

And we should not treat them as though they are.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Understandably, it appears that you have adjusted your response to my above post from entire agreement to a more general agreement mode.

Allow me to be quite clear and share some information as another chapter unfolds, I have had numerous hospitable conversations several while actually at or in the hospital or visiting the hospital over the past 15 years with my Assyrian Priest friend and I'm still not clear what he is saying exactly. What we have to date is best to term a situation. I have never met a more meek person than his wife of blessed memory, I'm not quite clear on how she understood things as well. This situation seems to be the result of the reception of often understood and misunderstood thinking from time to time and it keeps going, I'm still not sure what to think. By the way my Father used to have the same conversations with him it used to put him to sleep on the couch. Our good Assyrian Priest friend still finds that to be quite humorous and would never take it as an insult. I think it is best to put it as a different mindset, however I'm not sure about that either. I'm quite sure that he is a very good hearted and sincere Priest.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Gentlemen, I'm not even going to pretend I can contribute anything to such a learned and scholarly discussion, but I'm struck by Alex's comment, :


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. amen to that. I agree with Augustini that the East and West need one another.

Even if the Patriarchs and the Pope come to an agreement for full communion, would the opposition of the average parishioner with little or no understanding or concern for the RCC or the OCC have any effect on things? Would the bishops have to take their feelings in mind in rendering a decision?Perhaps this is fodder for another thread, if so forgive the intrusion.

Peace

Dear Matthew,

O.K., NOW I agree with you fully!

It matters not whether I do or not. Perhaps I just don't understand.

It is a privilege to read the comments of one so articulate and learned as yourself.

Even if I don't agree with you here or there, that does not, in the least invalidate what you say.

The faults could, and often does, lie in me.

I'm going to enjoy all that sunshine we have - and I hope you do too!

Alex

Dear Indigo,

Thank you for your heart-felt contribution here!

Again, I don't mean to be mean to our brother, Memo.

I want a papacy that not only Catholics can relate to, but also a Pope that Orthodox can relate to.

It was said that when St Mark of Ephesus left the Council of Florence without signing the instrument of its union, Pope Eugene was said to have sighed, "We have accomplished nothing!"

Unless the papacy, the Petrine Ministry is something that a Matthew Panchishin can embrace and a Bob Orthoman can embrace and an Andrew Rubis can embrace (we may have to work on his Eucharistic theology though ), then we can join with that pope in saying, "We have accomplished nothing."

I see the Orthodox critique of the papacy NOT as a dismissal of it, but as a challenge TO it.

The papacy has adapted itself over the centuries and it is the West's oldest institution.

We must remain open to one another in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters in Him.

Let's go from there.

Alex