www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Cardinal Kasper's Question.

From Steve:

geo wrote:
"And I just do not see any way that the western Church will confess Her sins of being headstrong and authoritarian and wrong, and then repent of them ..."

>>>the vocabulary that you use in your first paragraph might be a place to begin... If those words portray the conception among our eastern brothers of the nature of the Western Church and its teachings;

They are in part why we are no longer in communion...

>>>it must be difficult for any Easterner to deal with her.

The people are wonderful, yet we are not in communion, for many reasons...

>>>On the other hand, dealing with those who see the Western Chruch alone in such terms might be difficult for some of your western brothers, don't you think?

Of course. The issue is one of communion. The west recognizes the validity of the eastern sacraments. The east does not recognize the validity of the western sacraments. Therefore the east will not enter into communion with the west, even though the west is eager to enter into communion with the east.

From the eastern perspective, the west needs to repent from a thousand years of being one Church autocephalously out of communion with the whole rest of the Church, and claiming to be THE Church... That is a tough matter... And from the eastern perspective, an apology for the crusades is not the point, nor would be the rescinding of the Filioque from the creed. From the Eastern point of view, nothing less than the full submission of the Roman Church to the unanimous ecumenical council of the Church as a Whole will be adequate. If Rome were to do that, She would be giving up a huge amount of Her dogma, and her Pope would be just another fallible bishop, like all the rest of our bishops. As well, if Rome were to do that, Her place of honor, Her Primacy among equals, would be tearfully and warmly embraced by the whole Church of the east.

That, indeed, would sum up the condition of reconciliation from the eastern perspective.

>>>I think that the Pope has confessed her sins out loud in front of God and everyone.

He sure did make a good beginning, yet while at the same time retaining the basis for them, papal authoritarianism over all the bishops and cardinals of the Church.

>>>Is it really useful to healing to lift the first stone even when your prodigal sister confesses her faults?

I hope I have not done so... If I have, please forgive me. I am but trying to bring clarity to what is needed from an eastern perspective.

From the Papal perspective, I would imagine that submission of all the eastern Patriarchs to Roman Papal authority would as equally well resolve the matter, bringing the whole Church under one authoritarian Bishop who has the power to install and to remove any and all bishops he might see fit to remove or install...

This would seem, to me at least, to be the big stumbler: The differing views of Papal authority.

The west wants ultimate authority to devolve from the Pope as the one on earth who acts as if he is Christ's agent, whereas the east wants all bishops to be subordinate to their unanimous consent established over a period of time, and constantly reaffirmed at each convening...

I don't see much middle ground - Giving up the Filioque would be a good first gesture, as was the apology for the crusades, and the blanket apology for sins and wrongs committed - But that is not the issue - The east could doubtless 'boast' of much greater sins in Her bishops than the west - If for no other reason than she has had many more primates. The matter is one of ekklesiology and theology, and not one of sins committed.

If any of the Orthodox Churches held to the doctrines held by Rome, they would doubtless be out of communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, Which has not changed its dogmatics since the 7th Council. So the idea of regaining communion by "doctrinal tolerance" of sister churches differing in doctrine will fail, even if done out of 'respect of the one for the other, and the other for the one." It is one Church, one faith, one dogma, one creed, one Christ, and one God. Orthodox do not complain about and mourn the loss of a lung, even though we can see how deeply this expresses Pope John Paul's sense of what the west has lost... Our lungs are fine, for we have kept the faith unchanged - It is the loss of communion with our western bretheren that we mourn...

geo

Dear George,
I appreciate your careful and thoughtful response.

However, it seems to address issues far beyond what I was talking about.

Here is the part of your earlier posting that I was responding to:

"It would be illuminating to me to hear from our western brothers what they see the Orthodox as capable of doing that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church..."

I merely wanted to suggest one thing that might be a beginning among us, Orthodox and Catholic, here in our forum and in our larger churches.

We could begin by acknowledging that repentance and change are possible on the part of all of the Churches to which we belong. Unless we can accept the idea that change is possible in the others, we run the risk of missing the change when it happens.

Your comments led me to believe that you did not think that the Catholic Communion could repent.

I am glad to read in your posting that the Pope's confession had some value. He has also invited the Orthodox Communion of Churches to examine the Charism of Peter among the Churches and to find ways to make it work for the whole Church.

Perhaps that discussion, when it happens, will address the concerns that you raise in your posting. In fact, those discussions might even lead to the truly Ecumenical Council that you suggest.

Inherent in this process, it seems to me, is the need for an act of repentance on the part of all of us. If one doesn't believe that the other can repent and change, why are we talking about working toward unity at all?

Steve

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve writes:

>>>We could begin by acknowledging that repentance and change are possible on the part of all of the Churches to which we belong.

I am not all that sure that change on the part of the Orthodox is possible. It is demonstrably possible on the part of the Roman Catholics. It is the Orthodox that have not moved [changed] following the schism, nor do they believe that they have changed prior to it. The faith given once for all to the apostles is seen in the east as unchanging - It can find differing expressions according to cultural exigencies, but the faith, the theology, while it can be elaborated to address various cultural phronemas, itself suffers no change whatsoever. We do not believe in the progressive development of doctrine.

>>>Unless we can accept the idea that change is possible in the others, we run the risk of missing the change when it happens.

Orthodoxy lives in the faith that repentance is possible on the part of the Roman See...

>>>Your comments led me to believe that you did not think that the Catholic Communion could repent.

More to the point, perhaps, is that I see that ONLY the Catholic Communion can repent. The east has not changed from the 7 councils... It's doctrines are those of the whole pre-chism thousand year undivided Church, which had no dogma of Papal infallibility, no dogma of Papal rulership of the various churches, no immaculate conception dogma, and no Filioque dogma - And because of the vastness of these issues of dogma from which the western Church needs to repent [all this from the eastern perspective, of course], the repentance of the western Church is not seen as likely any time soon. These are HUGE matters for the Roman Church to sort out and take care of. The east is but the same Church of the first and undivided thousand years, you see...

>>>I am glad to read in your posting that the Pope's confession had some value. He has also invited the Orthodox Communion of Churches to examine the Charism of Peter among the Churches and to find ways to make it work for the whole Church.

There are Orthodox who believe in this and will address it, and there are others who do not believe in the specialness of the charism of Peter, and of its ekklesiological inheritability... Rome has always enjoyed the primacy of honor - It is when She tried to impose Her view of the dogma of the Filioque upon the eastern Church that it all came to such an alarming head.

>>>Inherent in this process, it seems to me, is the need for an act of repentance on the part of all of us.

I am not so sure, on this mastter of dogma, that the Orthodox see themselves in the dialogue for the purpose of their own repentance. They see themselves as the keepers of and the guardians of the faith of the first thousand years of Christianity. [Not that they don't have plenty to repent about otherwise! We all do!]]

>>>If one doesn't believe that the other can repent and change, why are we talking about working toward unity at all?

Do you mean that RCs do not believe that the EOs can repent and change on the matter of dogma and ekklesiology? Because the EOs sure believe that the RCs are fully capable of such change - They simply do not see themselves in need of such change, as the see the RC Church to be in such profound need...

I do not speak for the Church, of course - I am not yet baptized into Her yet, but this is how the matter seems to stand for me from the EO perspective...

geo

Dear George,

Thank you for your clarification of your understanding of the Orthodox position on the issues.

Let me state what I understand. You posted: "It would be illuminating to me to hear from our western brothers what they see the Orthodox as capable of doing that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church..."

If I understand, your answer is that the Orthodox are not capable of doing anything that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church. It is only the Catholic Communion that can do something to resolve the schism. It can repent and submit.

If that is correct, why did you post a request that appears to be impossible to respond to other than to state your understanding back to you?

Perhaps I missed something?

Steve

From Steve:

>>>Let me state what I understand. You posted: "It would be illuminating to me to hear from our western brothers what they see the Orthodox as capable of doing that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church..."

>>>If I understand, your answer is that the Orthodox are not capable of doing anything that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church. It is only the Catholic Communion that can do something to resolve the schism. It can repent and submit.

>>>If that is correct, why did you post a request that appears to be impossible to respond to other than to state your understanding back to you?

I asked for an illuminating answer simply because I was and still am in darkness on the matter. It truely is a tough nut, obviously, for the Churches to resolve, and this is, as I understand it, the nub of the rub. From the Orthodox point of view, the path to wholeness in the Church is the submission of the Roman Church to the Whole Church, and apparently from the Roman Church's point of view, it is the submission of the Whole Church to the Roman Church.

>>>Perhaps I missed something?

No, I think you got it all, and my brother, I am at least as unilluminated on this one as you are... There just does not seem to be light at the end of the tunnel from the point of view of our human wisdom.

Had the Roman Church gone ahead, as did the Eastern Churches, and created in the west autocephalous Churches, in Spain, in England, in the various countries in South America, and Mexico, and on and on, then She would not be in this position of having the appearance of desiring to subordinate the whole Church under Her Bishop. Yet until such time that She subordinates Herself to the Rule of the Whole Church, the Roman See would seem to be stuck... And She is the most powerful Church on Earth...

I do not think that the piecemeal agreements of understandings regarding particular theological wordings and stances is going to do anything other than create the illusion of coming closer together, and invite the Orthodox to work out worldly compromises on matters of the Faith, thus establishing the appearance of validity to this form or type of ecumenical consolidation - eg compromise and dialogue that seeks to see real differences as matters of but misunderstandings.

The really important issue has always been, and continues to be, the subordination of bishops to the dogmatic forms of the Creed of Christianity, which in turn requires unanimous consent of all ecumenical bishops, to which every Bishop must submit, or face loss of communion with Christianity.

These are really huge matters, far beyond my competence to suggest any resolutionary courses...
So I have to but step back and pray for the reunification of our Roman sister Church with the rest of the Christian Churches...

geo

Dear George,

Thank you for your response. It further clarifies your thought in this thread and I appreciate that.

I'd like to close my part of this discussion with a couple of thoughts, if I might.

I see the task before the Churches as working together to help humankind in the modern world to know Christ and to help all of us to a live a life of love. In this we can make visible the internal love of the Trinity.

My personal oppinion is that reconciliation will happen as our Churches clarify among themselves, the structures needed in the Church in the world of today to get this work done. The focus on the work to be done may make it easier for us to get beyond what appear to be insurmountable obstacles to you and me.

I, like you, have not a clue how the Spirit will work it out. It is not important that we do.

I must believe, though, that He will do so.

It seems to me that when we dictate that one condition or another is the only way that God can bring about unity we make an unwaranted leap that has harmful implications. In our minds it sets up limits on what God can do.

Where, for example, has God said that the only way for reconciliation and reunion to take place is for Rome, alone, to submit to the whole Church. Is it not possible that the other particular Churches might be guided by the Spirit to see the need to do the same thing?

Piecemeal discovery of common understanding is a beginning it seems to me. God can use discussions to clarify what He wants us to know and do.

George, I do not see the huge body of differences that you appear to. Differences do exist, but not many are of dogma.

But no matter what the differences are, the things we share are infinitely greater. At least that is, as you note, the view of the Churches of the Catholic Communion.

There is hope in that, I think!

I, too, pray for the day that we see that hope realized in the resumption of communion, and thus unity, among all of the Churches, no matter how the Spirit brings it about. As Jesus tells us and the Pope reminds us of this generation, "Do not be afraid!"

Good night, George.

Steve

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Being reminded by Steve that it is the Catholic view what is shared among the Sister Churches is more than what separates us, I also recalled George stating:
"Of course. The issue is one of communion. The west recognizes the validity of the eastern sacraments. The east does not recognize the validity of the western sacraments."
I was under the assumption that in dire circumstance an Orthodox may request confession, Communion, etc., from a Catholic priest.
Am I mistaken?

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Depends on what is meant by " the east", I guess.
Here is a quote taken from the official Web server of the Moscow Patriarchate ROC

(emphasis added)

djs

Dear djs,

This has not always been the case, as you know.

There were times in history when the Russian Orthodox insisted on the rebaptism of not only Eastern Catholics, but also of Orthodox coming from Churches where baptism by pouring was practiced (e.g. Ukrainian Orthodox).

Alex

Alex:

I know that there have been various practices and various explanations of the various practices. I think that it is extremely interesting, however, to see the MP flatly stating:


djs

Dear djs,

Yes, and that is in fact a change of historical policy.

It shows there is good in everyone!

Alex

Durak writes:

>>>Being reminded by Steve that it is the Catholic view what is shared among the Sister Churches is more than what separates us, I also recalled George stating:
"Of course. The issue is one of communion. The west recognizes the validity of the eastern sacraments. The east does not recognize the validity of the western sacraments."
I was under the assumption that in dire circumstance an Orthodox may request confession, Communion, etc., from a Catholic priest.
Am I mistaken?

For my part, which suffers from the 'too broad a brush' syndrome, I have heard, regarding the events in Bosnia, that Orthodox and Muslim churches, living peacefully alongside one another, could even go to each other's place of worship when clerical exigencies required.

And perhaps I mis-stated, or over-stated, the matter - The bottom line being that the two Churches are not in communion, and they used to be... Which is what makes it such a poignantly painful matter. I am coming to love the very word, communion, for it means union together, in one mind, one faith, one God, and one confession. This whole matter of getting 'all the different confessions' together and figuring out that "Hey, we all worship the same God, except differently worded," is to my limited vision error, and will lose those who do so the communion with God that they seek. Yet please remember that I do not yet have this communion, for I am not even yet baptized, and I am speaking as but one who is profoundly ignorant of the mysteries of my Church. I remember Paul writing "We hold the Mystery of the Faith in a purified conscience." And I cannot construe his meaning to be that multiple and differing confessions of the same faith is what he had in view, for he wrote "We hold the Mystery..."

And I cannot in any way account for the MP's statement - In emergencies, absent our Church, we would hopefully have enough faith to know that any one could bless us into death and bury us as needed, that God is everywhere. But he went on to say that Orthodoxy has always recognized the validity of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I am mis-understanding the meaning of the "validity of Sacraments"... And perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps I am wrong...

The Russian Church is in a condition of recovery from almost a century of incredible persecution, with most of its clergy decimated, and with rumors that the MP used to be the persecutor, and with the peaceful overthrow of Communism, the same old people are now running things with the same old level of incompetence that was the hallmark of the Communist regime, with the MP being no exception, having been at minimum the co-opted bishop of the Church of Russia under Communism. So that he needs our prayers and an economia of our understanding as he struggles to bring Orthodoxy back to the people of Russia. He will make lots of mistakes, and we should not be too hard on him for that. He also seems a little heavy handed in dealing with Churches not under his jurisdiction, etc, and there will be difficult times ahead, as the Church in Russia struggles to regain Her feet.

Perhaps there is a gradient of the sacraments, whereby anyone may do, say, annointing of the sick and prayers for their healing, but not everyone can do other sacraments, or some such. I know that Orthodox here in the US take in RC converts simply by chrismation, and not by re-baptism... And the two Churches have much more in common than should be ignored - They USED to be in communion, after all. But one of them never moved beyond the first 7 councils that established the faith; and the other did indeed move beyond those councils, on Her own, without the rest of the Church from Whom She was in schism, and it is this movement, and the doctrinal place where it has so far come to rest, that separates the two, and all differences can be traced to one source, which is the different understanding of the episcopal status of the Roman Bishop. The cure would seem to be for the ones who did not move to move, or the one who did move to retrace Her steps, or for the two to beth move, one forward and one backward, each in a gesture of compromise regarding the faith.

It's a tough nut...

geo