www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things the West can do right away

Hi,

I am sorry, but today is a blunt day. here we go:

Agree, provided it is made clear that the doctrine expressed by the Filioque is not heretical.

No. We can distinguish between the first seven "Ecumenical" and the later 14 "General" Councils of the Catholic Church. All of them need to be considered "Universal" and infallible in matters of doctrine and morals. If not, that would mean that the Church of Rome has proclaimed false dogma, that would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the See of Peter. That is unacceptable.

Already done, at the Union of Brest.

Already done in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If so, then what is the problem of the East accepting them as dogma?

No. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council is a dogma of faith. It is not on the table.

No. For the same reason.

The notion of Church as Communion is already mainstream.

Our method to caculate the date of Easter follows exactly the guidelines set forth by the First Ecumenical Council and applied to the Gregorian Calendar.

However, we think that celebrating Pascha together is very important, so important that we'd actually let the Orthodox pick the date, if we'd really celebrate it *together*.

OK.

Totally agree.

Except when the most prominent legacy from those people is a fervent anti-Romanism.

Providing for the pastoral needs of the Latin faithful wherever they might be, should always be a top priority for the Latin Church. Local Orthodox authorities will have to live with that.

Already standard practice.

I don't see the logic of excluding other Christian traditions from the annual week of prayer for Christian unity (which, of course, we already have). Isn't that the WHOLE point of the prayer?

Shalom,
Memo.

Amen Memo. Some of Axel's recommendations would result in the sort of rudderless Church that we are familiar with in the Anglican communion. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the definition of papal authority, and however unwisely it has been exercised in the past, I believe its development was Providential, given the confusion of modern times.

Dear Daniel,

I never ONCE made any suggestion for a model of ecclesial governance - only to open it to discussion.

I'll respond to you when you have something genuinely sincere and intelligent to say, for a change.

Axel

Dear Memo,

Thank you for responding to this post with your usual intelligent gusto and keen insight!

Yes, the issue of the Local Council is an interesting one which is why I also raised the fact that the Orthodox Church also has Local Councils.

The fact of their being "local" does not mean that what they affirm cannot be held universally.

Their designation as "local" only demarcates WHO took part in them and the parameters of their jurisdiction.

They represent a problem for the Orthodox as they did not participate, of course, in the later 14 Latin Councils. This would have to be discussed with the Orthodox - I'm only suggesting that the distinction drawn would parallel that made in Orthodoxy itself, outside of the 7 Councils that is, and could be the basis for further discussion.

As for Purgatory, what was established at Brest affirmed that the Uniate-Greeks HAD to affirm the name of Purgatory but that they did not have to affirm "purgatorial fire." So this has definitely not been settled.

As for Original Sin, there is debate about what the Catechism actually does teach in this respect and officially. I've been to a public lecture in our RC college recently where the lecturer affirmed the Catechism upheld traditional Augustinianism with respect to Original Sin as before.

And this last point begs the question about the Marian doctrines. For the Orthodox, IF there is no inherited guilt via Original Sin, then this makes the definition of the Immaculate Conception a moot point and unnecessary ("She was preserved free from the stain of Original Sin").

The Eastern Church affirms Mary's total Holiness not because God preserved her from any inherited actual sin of Adam, but because she was sanctified by the Spirit from the moment of her Conception. And this was always asserted liturgically as part of the inner Marian faith and devotion of the Eastern Church. There was never a need to define anything in this respect as a result. The same is true of the Assumption.

As for the Papacy, one may always build on what has been dogmatically defined.

If they cannot, and if what you say is true, then Catholicism and Orthodoxy will never reunite.

Alex

Not all decisions of an Oecumenical Council are universal and infallible only some of them.
Stephanos I
PS and probably not my spelling either, greetings brethern from Europe

If these are not suggestions, ones that radically alter the way papal authority is exercised, then I don't know what they are. Here are some suggestions for Alex: never respond to criticism with an insult. You'll feel bad about it later and it makes you look foolish.
-your insincere, unintelligent friend, Dalien

Dear Daniel,

I apologise for any insult given to you, but I took your earlier post to me to be just that.

As for your advice, I will defend myself whenever I feel such is warranted.

And my advice to you is to kindly refrain from messing with people's names. That is perceived to be rather insulting right off the bat, as well as giving the impression of being contemptuous of the person you are addressing. But I apologise for responding to you in a way I perceived you to be reacting to me.

The two points you mention above are hardly "radical" at all, but the way even Eastern Catholic bishops and theologians have, in the past, suggested the papacy be structured.

The point on infallibility within the context of an Ecumenical Council I picked up from a doctoral dissertation by an acquaintance who happens to be a Redemptorist.

In fact, the papal doctrines themselves arose within the context of Vatican I.

The second point has been suggested even by Patriarch Lubomyr of the UGCC and others. It is not only entirely reasonable from the point of view of Orthodoxy, but of Eastern Catholics and the ongoing struggle to defend our own Particular Churches and the right to govern them without undue intrusion by Rome.

This is all quite tame and nothing that many, both Catholics and Orthodox, haven't said before.

These points are meant to try and help reopen fruitful dialogue with the Orthodox - but the points are quite salient with many Eastern Catholics as well.

Alex

Christ is risen!! Indeed He is risen!!!

Alex:

Time and again the discussion comes back to the different ways that the two Churches--Latin and Byzantine--have approached some of the mysteries of the Faith. And time and again you mention that there are things that the East has never seen the need to define.

One the other hand, the Latin West did see a need to define one or the other of the things that have been brought up as obstacles to unity. These theological definitions did not develop in a vacuum. There was no plot hatched somewhere to add definitions just to keep theologians in their paid positions. The two Churches grew (unfortunately apart) in very different cultures for many centuries. It might be a first step for both sides to try to understand the need--or lack thereof--to further define mysteries that each treasures liturgically from our common past. For the Latin Church, that means following Orthodox thought and appreciating how it is so intimately tied to the Liturgy. For the Byzantine Orthodox, that might mean trying to understand the historical and cultural milieu in which the Latin Church found it necessary to go to such great lengths to define these same truths. It is essentially a conflict of mindsets: the West demands that mystery be unraveled and examined; the East is comfortable with leaving mystery as mystery.

Then we've both got to come to terms with Orthodox Christians who view both of us as far-out Westerners and who do not accept all seven of the Councils that we Latins and Byzantines hold in common.

In short, we all have a long learning curve in entering into each other's mind and culture. Unfortunately, the world is leaving all of us behind as irrelevant while we pick each other apart. While we worry about the common canon of Scripture--which is important--the culture in this country is moving toward defining the whole Christian Bible as so much "hate speech"--an epithet I hear more often than I like even here in the hinterlands of Pennsylvania. (Not long ago, I read of a gentleman who wanted to classify the New Testament as "obscene" and something that children should not be exposed to.)

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Bob,

Yes, you make many excellent points, Sir!

No one is suggesting that the West cease living its life of theological reflection etc.

And Orthodoxy has never said so either.

The West feels the need to have the Filioque and dogmatizes where the East liturgically celebrates and bows down before a Mystery.

That is fine and is as it should be.

But the West has, in the past, acted unilaterally, on the Filioque in the Creed and in other ways and then has insisted that the other Churches accept these things.

The RCC needs to see the distinction, thank you for point this out, between its life as a Particular Church, the Latin Catholic Church of the West, and what can be called the truly "universal" theological and spiritual a prioris that it shares with the other Churches.

It cannot and should not impose its own theology on other Churches. It is the Roman Church that needs to see how she dogmatizes suits itself, but not other Churches. And it needs to see that the true faith of the Apostolic Church exists in the Eastern Churches, even though they accept not nor care not for the later Latin definitions.

The Latin definitions are fine for the Latin Church, but they are Particular expressions that do not resonate in other Particular religious/ecclesial cultures.

And yet, there can be unity while paying a fine respect for diversity.

The Filioque can be a Western theologoumenon but it need not be imposed on the East. The East has a different way of looking at the Trinity that doesn't include the Filioque and seeing the Trinity reduced to its internal relations. Fr. John Meyendorff indeed said that the West, given its particular way of doing theology, could do nought otherwise but to affirm the Filioque.

What is the difficulty is the inclusion of it into a universal creed that had, centuries before, been the foundation of unity of Trinitarian faith universally. That is what the West needs to understand, the distinction between itself, the Roman Church, as a Particular Church - and the Universal Church which is a Communion of Churches.

For too long, the Roman Church has seen itself as being THE Universal Church. And it is not.

And this is why Eastern Catholic Churches have had the Filioque and a whole host of other points and practices imposed on them, either through Rome or through Rome-grown bishops and theologs whose Latinized training tainted their spiritual eyes to the point that they wouldn't have known legitimate Eastern spirituality if it had jumped up and bitten them in broad daylight.

Again, this is all a matter for discussion.

But you have raised the important distinction between Particular/Universal that applies to the Latin Church as well.

This discussion is limited here to the "Western Church" or that of "Rome/Byzantium" as the Oriental Christians would see us as being.

And it is true that dialogue with them raises some further issues that need to be dealt with as well.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Greetings all,

I find this topic very interesting, hopefully we will all be able to keep our sense of humor with the discussion. All opinions are important and it is unthinkable that we should automatically agree about anything.

Memo bluntly states:
I emphatically agree! As it stands Vatican I has made it abundantly clear to many people that anyone who denies this is a heretic, so it is not on the table. Therefore I agree 100% with Dr. Alex that on those terms :
It's a pity too, we need to present a unified front to an unbelieving world, our divisions are scandalous and prevent many people from coming to Christ, from approaching Truth.

As Bob says:

I think we will have to wait until Judgement Day to find a unified Christianity, but as they say: there are no schisms in heaven!

Unfortunately, when we see Jesus in the clouds it will be too late.

The old presumptions about an organically unified structure of the church in this world are unworkable, and we will probably acknowledge at some point that it will never happen. However the Catholic Communion has offered communion to any Orthodox who may wish to receive, no strings attached! The only recommendation is that the Orthodox follow the wishes of their own bishop. Imagine that, an Orthodox Christian whom has never acknowledged Papal infallibility, or even primacy, is fully welcome to partake of the Sacred Mysteries in a Catholic church of their choosing.

If the Orthodox churches were to simply reciprocate and allow Catholics to take communion in their churches we would have restored communion to the state of the first millenium. Reciprocal communion between the churches and no outside control exerted by anyone upon anyone else. No transfer of title to property, no Canons imposed from outside, no calling down condemnations upon each other.

However I do not have much hope that it will happen.

What exactly are we praying for anyway?

Michael

Dear Michael,

However, no one need deny Vatican I on jurisdictional papal primacy or infallibility - Vatican II built on those doctrines and there is "development" that is ongoing.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, for example, believed that Rome would move later to limit papal powers, as we can see from some of his letters to his Protestant friends.

EC patriarchs can and do share in that jurisdictional role with the Pope to govern their Churches, do they not?

In fact, what Vatican I said about papal jurisdiction was "old hat" as it was reflected in the style of church governance by the original "pope" - the pope of Alexandria who was the first churchman in history to have immediate jurisdiction over each church and priest in Africa etc.

The issue is again one of interpretation. And here is nothing that EC hierarchs and theologians haven't discussed before - Pat. Lubomyr of the UGCC recently said the same thing in a letter concerning the Communion of Churches (which is where I took that point from).

Intercommunion is something the Orthodox will never agree on - and, unless I'm totally mistaken, the recent letter on the Eucharist from Card. Arinze seems to be dissuading intercommunion with anyone except in the fullness of the Roman Communion.

I agree that both sides have to be prepared to recognize each other's particularities and that these will remain unchanged even should union ever take place.

It is not impossible for such unity to be achieved.

In fact, I think that even on this humble thread there has come to the forefront a number of deep-seated biases/strong beliefs regarding East/West relationships among ourselves alone - let alone churchmen and theologians engaged in dialogue.

We need to discuss not only the Filioque, but also those biases.

For example, as the Orthodox/Oriental dialogue pointed out, so what if Dioscoros can be rehabilitated?

But would he be accepted as a saint by the Orthodox who annually renew the excommunication against him?

How do you change your attitude to churches and people you've grown up believing to be outside the Church or "close enough, but not quite totally?"

There are social/psychological/historical factors to consider and not only about how we, as Catholics, relate to the Orthodox.

If during this endeavour we discover in ourselves certain limitations and inabilities to practically meet what our ecumenical ideals and vision proclaim - then we will have made tremendous progress toward realizing the ideal of unity as a whole.

My final word on the matter, let's get on with our lives . . .

Alex

Alex, I really appreciate your thoughtful look at these issues. I think Memo did a good job in his response, but I want to challenge something he said.

Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction are "on the table", and I think John Paul II has said as much when he asked that we reconsider how the Papacy is practiced. There are certain things we cannot accept, such as the outright denial of these doctrines, but that does not mean we cannot reconsider how they are practiced, and possibly begin to more narrowly define them.

I see this as being comparable to the doctrine of "outside the Church there is no salvation". Centuries ago, most Catholics would interpret this to mean that anyone who was not a visible member of the Roman Catholic Church was automatically going to hell. Today, we still believe that exact same statement, but we interpret what it means to be in the Church more broadly.

Papal Infallibility could be the same, but in reverse: when it was promulgated, most Catholics saw it as having grand powers, but perhaps in the future we will see it in a more limited fashion, one that is acceptable to our Orthodox brothers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB] Dear Friends,

These are some of my thoughts on some things the Roman Catholic Church might consider doing on its own and right away to help the cause of unity with the Orthodox East:

1) Remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed as recited in the West. This has been a symbolic "wall of separation" for centuries. "Dominus Iesus" and other documents have suggested the West isn't married to the Filioque and the RCC of Greece already has permission to use the original Creed without that interpolation. This, of course, does not mean that the Filioque as part of a Western theological perspective could not continue to be used.


Rome isn't necessarily married to it, but has stated it is theologically sound. So even if they remove it, there would be the problem of whether the belief is sound or not. Some early church fathers have supported the filioque, including the east until photius.

Kallistos Ware has been quoted
"The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences"

If we can come to the agreement that the filioque is theologically sound, then each church should be allowed to use it or not, as it sees fit.

The Athanasius Creed states:
The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

All other issues unfortunately need discussing. I believe most are minor and can be worked out, but they shouldn't be swept under the rug or dismissed as only local latin beliefs. That will allow differences to fester into arguments.

In all sincerity I agree with a lot of your ideas as expressed above. My main point of disagreement lies in your suggestion that Rome limit her intervention to when she is invited to intervene. This may not be a radical suggestion to Orthodox or Protestants or even, alas, to some Eastern Catholics, but it is a radical alteration to Rome's self-understanding. The problem is that those who need apostolic intervention seldom request it. To cite one example, in the mid 1980s Rome instigated an Apostolic Visitation of the American seminaries. This was conducted quietly and was little remarked upon. Seminaries hustled around to clean up appearances but the visitors were not fooled. No heads rolled, but resignations were quietly accepted and new rectors and faculty were appointed and within a few short years even the worst seminaries were transformed.Indeed, if any American seminaries rival the moral cesspools that they were in the 70s and 80s I am unaware of it. Even at the old "Pink Palace" [Theological College in DC] one can now receive a good theological, spiritual, and moral development. Now, do you think the American bishops in a thousand years would have requested this intervention? Do you think our Anglican brethren would request it today? The Petrine ministry must have teeth and real authority to function as it should.

Dear Daniel,

I see your point now and I believe that the Pope of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, should be able to continue to exercise immediate jurisdiction over the Latin Catholic Church as he has always done.

The salient point for both Orthodox and EC Churches is whether the Pope will allow the Eastern Churches to govern themselves, appoint their own bishops and the like.

In a reunited Church, the Moscow Patriarchate will be able to manage its own internal affairs as it has always done, without having to ask Rome's permission. If the MP wants to slam a bishop for misbehaviour, it will do so etc.

If there is an insoluble problem with a "management issue" or a theological issue in the MP, the MP would be able to call on neighbouring Orthodox Churches, the EP and even, foreseeably, the Pope of Rome to help it deal with it.

Certainly, in a reunited Church, if an Eastern Church espoused heresy or broke a clear canon, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome would be able to censure that Church.

The EP is the First among Equals in the East, so he would be the first "higher rung" to try and bring an erring Eastern Church or hierarch back into line.

Failing that, the Pope of Rome could act as ultimate arbiter - as he has done in the first Millennium.

But certainly, each individual Eastern CHurch and the universal Latin Church would continue to exercise their own internal jurisdiction as they have always done.

I also think, in all sincerity, that the decision of the U.S. bishops on John Kerry will also indicate whether this part of the Latin Church will be willing to obey a direct order from Rome - and Rome is their Patriarchate and ultimate jurisdictional authority in a way it is not for Eastern Catholic Churches.

God bless and I look forward to exploring the possibility of you doing an icon of St Alexander I Pope of Rome for me in the future.

(Just don't write his name as "St Axel" will you? )

Alex