www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

I can agree to that, but I think the balance isn't satisfactory yet because the doctrine isn't finished being developed in its entirety.

Right. And if Leo wasn't wrong and yet Churches disagreed with him, that makes them wrong.

I don't think the "degree of incorrectness" (for lack of a better term) means much. Of course the Orthodox aren't heretical, but they do deny a dogma of faith that is required of a Catholic. Just because they're not heretical doesn't make their position right.

I agree. I don't mean to give the impression that one development is "better" than the other, at least in the first millenium of Christianity.

But how is this compliment lost in the current practice and definition of Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction?

I agree.

I don't think it has to be any different. But the "differences" (or rather compliments) mentioned above can all be found inside the Catholic Church, and I would argue that an acceptable practice and definition of Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction is found within the Catholic Church as well. You seem to place an acceptable balance outside the Church.

No problem, each to his own.

Why? Because there were more Western bishops? Well that's a reflection of the population of Easterners and Westerners within the Catholic Church. Because the definition of Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction (from here on out the abbreviation is going to be PP&J...dangerously close to the abbreviation of a certain type of sandwich...) was defined by Vatican I more closely to the "traditional Western" view than to the "traditional Eastern" view? Well perhaps the true practice and definition is simply closer to the Western one. Of course both developments are acceptable and one development is not more "legitimate" than the other, but I don't think this means that each one has to share the truth 50/50, if you know what I mean. I think both developents such as Theosis, the Immaculate Conception, etc. are acceptable and legit, but I am inclined to think that sometimes the East got it "more right" (for lack of a better term) than the West, and vice versa. I still don't think this goes against both developments as being legitimate.

Thanks for the site.

Thanks for the prayer. I'll try it!

ChristTeen287

Of course the Orthodox aren't heretical, but they do deny a dogma of faith that is required of a Catholic. Just because they're not heretical doesn't make their position right.

Of course, the dogma of papal infallibility was only defined around 1870; prior to that date, it was completely acceptable for a Catholic to deny this teaching (although not afterwards). So I don't think you can say the Orthodox deny a dogma of faith, since even from Rome's perspective, it wasn't binding until it was formally defined some eight hundred plus years after the schism with the Greeks, and over a thousand after Chalcedon. If one wants to blame them for not believing it after the Churches had split, I guess one could do so, but it smacks of "ex post facto" condemnation.

Furthermore, if papal infallibility is a divinely revealed dogma, then to reject it is heresy, and those who reject it are heretics. So I don't see how one can say the Orthodox aren't heretics, but still deny a dogma of faith; either they are heretics or they are not.

I didn't mean that the Orthodox denying a dogma of faith before it was even defined- - -that defies logic. But after it was defined (and obviously the Orthodox didn't accept it) then they, by definition, deny a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Same with the Immaculate Conception; it's a dogma of faith.

Yeah, that's true. I guess they need to work the kinks out of that. Hmmmm...

ChristTeen287

P.S.- I meant no disrespect to my Orthodox brethren! Pax vobiscum.

Dear ChristTeen287,

I'm starting to think that this is not a topic worth pursuing with a person who holds a typical Roman Catholic view as you do (although I realize you yourself are not RC, yet the view you are expressing is typically RC). The reason I'm beginning to think this is for the following reason:

If I propose a hundred examples of Eastern or Western Fathers who rejected or opposed excessive Papal views, you can still reply, "well that's only because they didn't understand the truth on primacy because it was still in development."

What kind of progress or agreement can East and West come to if this is the attitude of the West? Ultimately in such a dialogue, the East has one choice: submit to the Latin view or remain in "error." With this being the case (if I am understanding you correctly) then there is no reason for dialogue.

But I don't think truth works this way. I don't think some ancient Churches have the perogitive to order other ancient Churches into submission on matters of faith. Such an attitude led to the schisms which remain to this day. I don't think "ordering" or compelling, is way unity is achieved. As Bishop Kallistos Ware once quoted an early father saying (perhaps it was St. Melitos) "God invites, he never compels, for violence is against His nature."

When you have a couple of ancient Churches they both must bring their faith to the table. One can not command the other to abandon its faith in order to have communion. True unity can never be achieved this way. It is only by working together to find a consensus and a way of expressing the faith which all parties find consistent with the Apostolic Tradition they have recieved can there be true unity achieved.

So I think based on the Eastern understanding of Primacy in the Church (some examples of which I forwarded to you in email) and based on what I have just explained, it should be manifest why the East cannot accept such a council as Vatican I unless it is greatly re-defined.

I think old Rome understands this and is backing off on pushing infallibillity on the East anymore.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear ChristTeen287:

May I suggest that�

there is a great wedding reception underway. If you are dressed for it, you were invited. But as you walk from the parking lot to the door - there is standing outside - two men who are arguing the menu. One is insisting that roost beef is being severed inside, and the other is insisting that chicken is being served inside. These two guest were invited - but so far they have not gone inside. In fact - they have spent hours outside the door.

As you walk down the path to the doorway, the doors are open wide, but these two men are standing there arguing very loudly and insistently. In fact, as each of the other guest approach - each of these two men try to get who ever is near by - to agree with them - each thinking that �If more people agree with me - I have won my argument.�

As you get closer - they notice you - and each grabs you by the arm as they continue to argue with each other, �Here, see - this guest looks intelligent �� and putting his face into yours he loudly asks �This is a grand feast - so what do you think the meal is going to be? Roost beef - or - chicken? Come now. Stand still for a minute and speak up. Which meal - roost beef or chicken?�

Now�

You have a choice of what to do.

You may perhaps state your opinion. If you do that, one or the other of the two men will not agree with you and he will double his efforts to �make you see good reason� by asking you questions and stating facts and debating with you until you do agree with him - at which point you have now disagreed with the other man - who will in turn double his own efforts and hold your arm even tighter as he asks you questions and states his fact and reasons - until you finally agree with him - and now you have disagreed with the first - who will then hold onto you and try to �clear your mind� from what the other man said.. Etc..

Or � you may simple say �Excuse me.� and go inside.

Nothing happens by chance or accident or coincidence Whatever comes to be, of things and events, comes to be because God sees that it is the best situation for us . Even evil in this world are tools which God makes use of in order to form us.

Heaven is not reserved for the very intelligent (those who can figure out the riddles that the world seems to be full of). It is not a question of doing the right thing or holding the right opinion (as if, when the right formula is found and applied - the lead would turn into gold).

Heaven is promised to those who have good will. It is �Peace to men of good will - for today a savior has been born to you� it is not �Peace to men of good intelligence for they have figured out correct doctrines.�

May I suggest that you do not fall into �let me go to where the grass is greener� malady. If Providence has made you a Roman Catholic, then remain a Roman Catholic, if Providence has made you an Orthodox, then remain an Orthodox, etc.. because God knows what he is doing. And - each is a child of the same family. Imagine how silly it would be for a family (let us call them the Catholic family, let us call them Bill Catholic, and Sue Catholic, and Bob Catholic and John Catholic) to come together and we hear � �I am a Bill - anyone who wants to be a Catholic - must be a Bill. Who will change their name to Bill and join me?� and then Sue steps forward and says, �Now Bill is being ridiculous - he has given up his right to the Catholic name - anyone who agrees with me should change their name to Sue and agree with me on all matters - even matter which they do not understand.� - when the father of the family finally arrives at the house - what will he think of all his children?
Those who have authority and responsibility for �the papal question� will be held accountable by the father of the house. You - and I - we have neither the authority nor the responsibility of the matter. It make no difference to us - in our day to day life which Providence arranges and sends us each day. It is an �upper management� matter - and we should thank God that he has spared us from it.

Providence is not weak. Nor is it blind. And no one does anything behind its back.

It may be that you are a bishop in one or the other church that belongs to the Catholic family - if so - it may be that you are in a Providential position where you have some responsibility to the �papal matter� . But I would guess that you are not.

I suggest that you keep your attention to the practical matters of day to day life - as God arranges them for you. For it is these seemingly mundane things - that the Will of God that you are to cooperate with - comes to you. It is in this �anvil� that God forms you - and in which you means of sanctification comes to you.

I suggest that you say �Excuse me - I do not know and it is none of my business.� and walk right into the feast. What IS your business is your daily conscience and daily cooperation with God�s Will which comes to you hidden inside daily events. God does not teach us intellectually that we might pass some type of exam - no - he uses the experience of daily events to hammer or sweet talk us - it is not what a man knows that will get him into heaven - it is how well he let God form him through the experiences of daily events that were sent to him.

I would suggest to you, at this time, only one doctrine of the church to fully understand, and that would be the doctrine of Providence. Providence is what forms us into saints by our cooperation with it. Even the simplest person with hardly any intelligence at all may become a saint. It does no good to �run ahead� of it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385468717/inktomi-bkasin-20/002-1145282-4941627
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Providence/Caussade/Default.htm

Thank you, Ghazar, for your opinion. I apologize if I have offended you. The only thing I'd like to say is that I thought the East's understanding was defined in Vatican I as well as the West's; after all, Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome are Catholic. I'm sure that I've overstepped my bounds and caused unneeded division. Apparently my view on this is incorrect, but I'd still like to get to the bottom of this. It's probably best for us to stop dialogueing on this issue, as move on to better things. Christ be with you and I hope this doesn't infringe on our friendship!

RayK,

Nice analogy, thanks. I know that this stuff shouldn't matter as much as I think it does, but sometimes my curiosity and downright need to get to the bottom of it gets in the way of me putting my faith to more practical uses.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen,

Let me assure I have no hard feelings with you over anything. You have done nothing wrong except to be honest about your faith. There is no crime in this.

you said:
reply: I doubt there are many Eastern Catholics who would agree with you that the statement of Vatican I was as much Eastern in perspective as it was Western. As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote, "The Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch, Gregory Youssef, had refused to sign the acts of the council relative to infallibility and to the unlimited powers of the Pope over the whole Church." Even when the Patriarch received tremendous pressure and was compelled to sign the document of Vatican I, he still in conscience had to qualify his assent. Zoghby writes, "he ended up by subscribing to it by adding: 'except the right and privileges of Eastern Patriarchs.'" (Ecumenical Reflections, p.83). For this act of obstinancy, he was humiliated by Pius IX.

Finally, I would ask you one last question. If the Latin Church's development of Papal Primacy is the true one and the Eastern concept of Primacy is so incorrect (rather than they both expressing true realities, as I believe), then how come the Latin Church herself has proposed the return of the Papal office to its function exercised in the first millenia? Why would old Rome suggest such a "return" if its development of Papal Primacy is as balanced, proper and correct as you suggest?

your friend in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear Ghazar,

Yes, and Patriarch Josef Slipyj received similar humiliation from Rome for his "obstinacy" regarding the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate.

Pope John Paul II obviously didn't think much of the Vatican's Ostpolitik either.

When he first became Pope and was being greeted by the Cardinals, His Holiness made it a point to rise to meet the Polish Primate, the Primate of his homeland - nothing wrong with that.

At the same time, he rose again to greet the Confessor, Patriarch Josef as well.

And he personally paid respects to Patriarch Josef after his repose in St Sophia's in Rome, saying that "his cause was just."

But it took a Pope from the Iron Curtain to understand and to set things aright with respect to the Confessor.

Bl. Pius IX was a good Pope, but the idea of collegiality, First among Equals, in communion with etc. were simply beyond his authoritarian absolutism.

Alex

Personally, I see the Patriarch's refusal as a direct act of the Holy Spirit, just another example of how the Gates of Hell simply cannot prevail against the Church. I think this single act very much set into play the East's position on the Papacy. From this, it seems to me it's undeniable to say that the East didn't heavily effect Vatican I.

And certainly I don't approve of the Holy Father humiliating this outright act of the Holy Spirit.

Stop right there! I have never said that I believe the Eastern view of Papal Primacy to be in error. The disagreement lies in the definition and opinions of how, exactly, the East does view Papal Primacy.

I think it's pretty clear that the Church has simply got to take some blows, blows which spring from such a terrible separation as is now in order. I think this is an example of how the Catholic Church is willing to compromise; the Pope has pleaded with the East to help him redefine the role of the Papacy in the third millenium, all for the union of Christ's children. I think this is the only way the Orthodox are going to come to terms with the Catholic Church (through this redefinition) and it's wise to realize that.

ChristTeen287

Dear Alex and ChristTeen,

I can't argue with that.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

I believe that Ray from Connecticut has hit the nail on the head with his allegory of the wedding reception. (Gee, didn't Christ do something similar when teaching?)

Can anyone justify why there must be ONE and only one interpretation of theology or theological truth? Is there ANY justification whatsoever for setting up dichotomies, and Hobbsian choices related to God? Seems to me to be a very apparent witness to our human frailty and our need to "get it right". It's "gotta be one or the other". Why?

Hey! Blessings to all of good will.

His Holiness John Paul II, quotes Pope John XXIII regarding the Orthodox and maybe it applies here with all the different opinions, "What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us".

Peace in Christ,

james

I've been following this thread with great interest and enjoyment, but I become a little upset with the either/or attitude that sometimes seems to come across on both sides of the issue. I was pleased to see Ghazar imply that both sides may not have it correct.

I have read Bishop Zoghby's book "We Are All Schismatics" and I was extremely impressed with his take on the issue. For those interested I was raised Roman Catholic and was a virulent Feeneyite traditionalist for awhile but now I attend a Melkite church and increasingly see things from an eastern viewpoint but supplemented from my western upbringing.

What I came away with after reading Bishop Zoghby's book is that both sides are essentially right, but their viewpoints while not error, are distorted because of their separation from one another. While they were in union with each other, they acted as a balance to one another and kept any distorted views from becoming predominate. I feel that since the splits both sides have become distorted. Balance can only be restored with a restoration of communion.

If only our leaders and theologians would spend as much time praying together as they do jawing at each other, maybe then true communion between East and West would come sooner rather than later.

Hi, ChristTeen!!! I see you are ably defending the Faith as always. Have been away from this board for some days now. I promise I'll come back soon and pitch in -- at least with moral support.

I'm with you, BTW. This attempt to portray basic Catholic Teaching as specifically "Roman" or "Latin" makes no sense, IMHO. As you correctly note, Vatican I and Vatican II were not just for the Latin Church. They were for the Church Universal -- for all Catholics, both East and West. There isn't a "double truth" -- one truth, one reality, for the East and another (contradictory) truth for the West. We may express our beliefs differently, but on the core Catholic beliefs, we believe the same. At least we're supposed to. And that's according to the Catechism.

If someone says, "You're just saying that because you're Latin," or "That's typical RCism," or whatever -- well, that's ad hominem: It's personalizing the argument. And it's simply untrue. There are certain core things we believe because we're Catholic, not because we're Latin or Western. Petrine primacy is one of those things. It's kind of a defining thing for a Catholic -- hey, that's why our critics call us "papists." :p

Diane, dodging the brickbrats