www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Father Alexander Schmemann on papacy

ChristTeen,

My whole point in mentioning Paul's "hypocrisy' comment toward Peter was intended to show that 1) Peter was actually part of the problem of the Jewish Christians and the Christian Pharisees that were part of the Church of Antioch 2) that as such the Jerusalem synods decision was directed toward him as it was others and 3) he submitted to the authority of the synod that had James on it. 4) Not only did he not counter the decision with any ex cathedra, it does not even appear that such a concept existed at all.

The issue at hand at the Jerusalem council was not “lapses of duty, cowardly behavior, etc.” it was over dietary doctrine, Jewish custom and matters of the Faith.

Being recognized as the leader of Christianity did not mean that he was in charge of everything as in the way modern people understand power and responsibility. He may have been a first among equals (and I am ok with that) but he was still an equal; he had to submit to the decision of the Jerusalem council. Just imagine modern Priest and Bishops holding a council and issuing a decision against the Pope. It is just not going to happen. So if Peter was the Pope (in the sense that YOU understand the concept of Papacy) then how is it that he had to submit to the Jerusalem council? Either he was not the Pope or Pope was understood differently than the Vatican understands it today. I favor the latter position as I see no reason to deny that Peter was given indeed given the Keys (as the Ethiopian Liturgy says numerous times as well as mentions the other gifts that other Apostles and Prophets were given which the RC seems to forget about).

So again my intention is not to deny the position of Peter it is just to say that having the Keys does not necessarily justify all the additions and "powers' that the Vatican adds to this fact.

Don't forget the context of the Roman Empire and the possibility of imperial concepts being infused into Church theology. The imperial papacy can not be understood otherwise or outside of this context.

God Bless

Sez you. But this is mere assertion. I hope you will excuse me for not accepting it simply on your say-so...?

How is it paternalistic? I guess I'm missing something here.

Obviously, I would not be Catholic if I did not firmly believe my position whilst rejecting yours. :p So, if I point out what I see as pitfalls of your ecclesiology, I am not doing so to offend but simply to make my case. You certainly show no hesitation whatsoever to take swipes at my Church and my position. So where's the problem?

If "lack of a pope" really causes no jurisdictional conflicts or confusion, why not demonstrate this? Prove me wrong, OK? (I think I can adduce counter-evidence...but I'd like to see your evidence first. Evidence is always nice, doncha think?)

Eastern Orthodoxy led to Catholicism? And finally reached the absolute nadir, Pentecostalism? That's a grim view of history indeed!

This is all fascinating. I'm not sure I see its relevance, though.

Hidden agenda? My agenda's right out in the open, my brother. I'm Catholic, and I think everyone else should be, too. How's that for bluntness?

It's about Christ working through His human instruments...and especially through His Vicar, the successor of Peter. That involves authority, yes. All leadership does. But it's "servant-authority." The pope is not some sort of universal dictator. No Catholic cowers in craven fear before the Big Bad Bogeyman John Paul II. Trust me.

Are you saying the Catholic Church was responsible for these atrocities? I guess I'm not quite understanding...sorry! This is the first time I've seen this charge made.

Of course he is a human being. Who said he wasn't? Of course he makes mistakes. Who said he didn't? It is only when he speaks solemnly and formally "ex cathedra" on faith and/or morals that he is specially protected from uttering error by the Holy Spirit. It is a purely negative protection, and a relatively rare occurrence. No one says the pope is infallible every time he blows his nose.

It's NOT "imperial." That's a loaded term, a polemical term, and a completely inaccurate one.

LOL! What does that come to in US currency?

Blessings,

ZT

How is it paternalistic? I guess I'm missing something here.

Dear Zoe,

I will not attempt to address all of your points, as Aklie can more than handle himself. But I will address this and a few other points.

If a thirty year old man were standing on a curb waiting to cross the street, and then his father came up to him and said "Hey, what are you doing? Don't you know the streets are dangerous? Here, let me hold your hand and we'll cross together", what do you think that thirty year old son would think? "What's wrong with this guy? I'm thirty!"

I take that to be paternalism.

Perhaps it does not seem so to you, but the attitudes, statements, etc. that come out of Rome regarding the East, be it Catholic or Orthodox, seem to have this attitude that we cannot truly take care of ourselves unless we are under Rome.

Tell that to Churches that have stayed together and united in the true faith for over a thousand years in spite of being separated from Rome over the proclamations of Chalcedon.

If "lack of a pope" really causes no jurisdictional conflicts or confusion, why not demonstrate this? Prove me wrong, OK?

Well, the lack of a Pope in the current RC sense would necessarily involve no jurisdictional conflicts or confusion, but that is because the current RC sense says that the Pope is in charge of the whole Church...doesn't matter if you're an auxiliary bishop of New York and Vicar for Northern Westchester and Putnam Counties or if you're (Patriarch or Major Archbishop) Lubomyr Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. He still gets the ultimate say. If he tolerates more local control and doesn't become an autocrat, that can be good (as with the Eastern Catholic Churches, who can take care of themselves) or bad (the majority of the Catholic Bishops of the United States), depending on the situation.

Eastern Orthodoxy led to Catholicism? And finally reached the absolute nadir, Pentecostalism? That's a grim view of history indeed!

I wouldn't necessarily agree with Aklie here, because I believe that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox believe the same thing, albeit using different language, and also believe that Catholics and Orthodox believe in the same stuff, for the vast majority of the time, but I can see where an Oriental Orthodox could believe this (and I think maybe Aklie himself might agree with me).

After all, Chalcedonian theology looks kinda Nestorian. And it was Rome who added the Filioque (which is bound, as Bishop Kallistos writes in _The Orthodox Church_, with the issue of papal authority). And it was from Rome that that wonderful gift to humanity, Protestantism, sprung. We haven't given birth to anything other than future generations of Orthodox Christians. Maybe Eastern Orthodoxy can say the same thing. But Rome can't, no offence.

This is all fascinating. I'm not sure I see its relevance, though.

You asked for evidence, and now you don't see its relevance? In summary, we have gotten along very well without a Pope of Rome long reigning over us; in fact, many of the problems we face now are due to Catholic and Protestant activities which are less than honourable.

And Rome, even with its infallible papacy and magisterium, has to contend with Protestants on the one side and the traditionalist schismatics on the other side, and groups from within the Church, be they CTA, VOTF, or the liberal bishops that populate the United States (and being from New York, I'm glad to say that the Archbishops of New York have generally been very orthodox men running what I think are fine seminaries, but visit the diocese of Albany, and you'll see a very different picture).

There may be jurisdictional unity in the Roman Catholic Church, but where is the unity of the faith which is even more important? If only thirty percent of American Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as some polls say, that means that seventy percent of American Catholics are technically not in communion with the Catholic Church, but because they acknowledge the Pope (and even here, how much of this is sincere and how much is admitted nominally?) they are OK. What kind of unity is that?

It's about Christ working through His human instruments...and especially through His Vicar, the successor of Peter. That involves authority, yes. All leadership does. But it's "servant-authority." The pope is not some sort of universal dictator. No Catholic cowers in craven fear before the Big Bad Bogeyman John Paul II. Trust me.

The problem with this (and with many RC's I know) is that they base all their impressions of the papacy on the present saintly Holy Father, and not on what their Church defines the institution to be. Pope John Paul II is a saint, a living saint. But not all Popes have been like that. And we know.

Second, the Oriental Orthodox are in communion with the successor of Saint Peter...in Antioch.

Third, as far as I know, the only apostle who has a "Successor" in the Catholic Communion is the Pope. Where is Andrew? Where is James? Where is Mark? Thomas? The others? They're not in communion with Rome. And that is the point here. Rome emphasises Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and that's not apostolic.

Are you saying the Catholic Church was responsible for these atrocities? I guess I'm not quite understanding...sorry! This is the first time I've seen this charge made.

Even if the Catholic Church is not directly responsible for these atrocities, it certainly did nothing at all to stand in the way. Aklie has demonstrated this from the Ethiopian experience. And I can tell you that the Catholic Church offered no cautions to the Portuguese, but rather approval, implicitly and/or explicitly, to a programme of ecclesiacide in India. They destroyed our liturgical books so that we have no idea of what our original rites looked like, other than to say they were Chaldean in origin and had some inculturated elements. They killed our bishops, and when we asked our leaders in Persia to send more bishops, they killed those. Now we have a few major jurisdictions in India, splinter groups from those, and the Protestant horde to worry about. If the Portuguese and Rome had left us alone, we would be a strong witness to apostolic Christianity in the world right now, and we would be a vibrant Church. But even now, we are still reeling from what our "Roman brothers" have done to us, and yet they insist that to be in union with them is to be free of any of these troubles that we now suffer because of them?

Sorry if this sounds emotional to you, but if you were Indian, you'd understand. You really would. I guarantee it.

Of course he is a human being. Who said he wasn't? Of course he makes mistakes. Who said he didn't? It is only when he speaks solemnly and formally "ex cathedra" on faith and/or morals that he is specially protected from uttering error by the Holy Spirit. It is a purely negative protection, and a relatively rare occurrence. No one says the pope is infallible every time he blows his nose.

Perhaps you can answer this for me. No one else has been able to answer it yet.

Before anything like the Immaculate Conception is formally defined as dogma by an ecumenical council or a Pope, one can disagree with it and still be a Catholic in good standing. I know I'm right about this because I've heard enough RC's say it, even in the past fortnight. In years past, SS. Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas and the Dominican Order preached against the Immaculate Conception while Bl. John Duns Scotus and the Franciscans preached in favour of it. But because it was just an idea, and not a defined dogma, both could agree or disagree, and were both in good standing.

But after the papal definition of the IC in 1854, there were no two ways about it. Under pain of sin, you had to believe it.

Papal infallibility wasn't defined by an "ecumenical council" until 1870, at Vatican I. Prior to that, you could refuse to believe it, and still be a Catholic in good standing. After 1870, it became a dogma of the faith.

"So what?" one might ask.

If the IC was defined in 1854, then you have to believe it based on the papal infallibility behind it, since it wasn't any council that defined it. But what if you didn't believe in papal infallibility in 1860 (which was your right)? What would Ineffabilis Deus mean to someone like that until after 1870 when papal infallibility was actually defined? How can you make an infallible proclamation based on papal infallibility in 1854 when at the time papal infallibility itself could be called into question?

There's a difference of sixteen years there.

They couldn't even get the math or the logical sequence of dogmas right. And the Popes are infallible in matters of faith and morals? Come on now.

It's NOT "imperial." That's a loaded term, a polemical term, and a completely inaccurate one.

If it's not imperial, then why is there an Oriental Congregation in Rome? The Eastern Catholic Churches can take care of themselves, given the chance by Rome. Why an Oriental Congregation? It makes it sound like an office for dealing with a conquered people and helping them stay afloat in the vast Latin sea. How is it that the Pope of Rome has jurisdiction everywhere, but the Eastern Catholic Churches have to deal with "canonical territories" or "traditional lands"? Are they Churches or tribes? That's just one example.

And now I fear I've spoken more than I intended originally. I apologise to you and Aklie for having gone on so long.

Hello all:

A few thoughts.

The same line of reasoning that says that "if the need of Universal Organic Unity for the Church is accepted, then the Pope becomes as necessary as the Bishop and the Pastor. But since no Universal Organic Unity is needed, only Eucharistic Unity, then the Pope is not necessary", can be used backwards.

If only Eucharistic Unity is necessary for the Universal Church, then why is Organic Unity required for the Diocese? Why do we need Bishops? Then, why is Organic Unity required for the Parish? Why do we need Pastors?

If we accept that the reality of the Universal Church subsists in the Diocese, then if follows that the Organic Unity of the Diocese derives from the Organic Unity of the Church as a whole.

As a side note, if the Diocese is the highest level of Organic Unity in the Church, then why do we have Metropolitans, Archbishops and Patriarchs?

I do subscribe to the idea that lack of Universal jurisdictional authority leads to jurisdictional chaos. The Eastern Orthodox are a totally clear example of that. I don't even want to go to Protestantism, because they have even more serious issues than the jurisdictional.

With all due respect, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have no say in this matter. They are really, actually monolithic. They don't have jurisdictional chaos because they have no jurisdictional segmentation.

For all intents and purposes, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Armenians have authority over their Communions that is comparable only to the authority of the Pope of Rome over the Catholic Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

There is no problem at all. In this Eucharistic theology of unity, the BIshop is the main "celebrator" of the LIturgy and the priests in his care are his deputies. The BIshop is needed, since he is the great celebrant and the people of his diocese are gathered around him.

Peace,
Brian

With all due respect, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have no say in this matter. They are really, actually monolithic. They don't have jurisdictional chaos because they have no jurisdictional segmentation.

I don't know what you mean here, but it doesn't sound accurate. The Oriental Orthodox communion is a communion of six or seven separate Churches. Hence, there are jurisdictions, and they are separate.

For all intents and purposes, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Armenians have authority over their Communions that is comparable only to the authority of the Pope of Rome over the Catholic Church.

Inaccurate again.

First of all, the authority of the Coptic Pope, the Syrian Patriarch, and the Armenian Catholicos is over their own proper Churches, and not over the communion.

Second, and related to the first point, none of these hierarchs or the others exercises any authority over the communion as a whole. That is to say, the Coptic Pope cannot mandate that all the Oriental Orthodox Churches do this or that. He has no administrative authority over the communion, nor over any other Church than his own. The same goes for the Patriarch of Antioch, the Catholicos of Holy Etchmiadzin, or any of the other hierarchs. Their authority, again, is only over their Church.

This is NOT COMPARABLE to the authority of the Pope of Rome over the "Catholic Church". Maybe it is comparable to the authority of the Pope of Rome over the "Latin Church", but it is definitely not comparable to the power the Pope of Rome has over the "Communion" of the Catholic Churches under him.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Can I get in on your conversation here?

While I wouldn't use the term "monolithic," the Catholicosates of the Oriental Orthodox East are SIMILAR to papal jurisdiction only insofar as the Catholicos has universal jurisdiction anywhere in the world over members of his flock (am I correct?).

A Patriarch has historically had his jurisdiction tied to a geographical area, even though it is a large one (e.g. Moscow Patriarchate).

Historically as well, the Oriental Orthodox Pope of Alexandria was the first primate ever to assert "immediate jurisdiction" over every single church and priest throughout the length and breadth of Africa. And he did that at a time when the Bishop of Rome didn't have jurisdiction over all of Italy, much less the "West" and was addressed as "Your Beatitude."

The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria called himself the "Ecumenical Archbishop" with a notion of more universal authority thrown in for good measure.

The Syriac OO Patriarch of Antioch could not have helped but see himself in a similar light, given the incredible Christian influence of the Syriac Church throughout the East. The same is true for the Armenians whose Catholicos heads a group of Patriarchs.

I think it is largely the result of the historical excigencies of the OO Churches that the more flexible jurisdictional style and administrative rule of the Catholicos came into being.

One of our own priest/theologians once wrote an article about the wisdom of the Ukrainian Church having its own Catholicos-Patriarch and argued in this same way (well, I've borrowed from him ).

Alex

What Mor? Is that your extreme humility again or did you already drink on that Cali wine that I promised? You know what you had to say was excellent and I almost started crying when it came to an end. I wish it had been book sized.

I don't know what else to add.

OK ZT,

Yes, I probably got caught up in rhetorical argumentation and overstated my case of Christian lineage. I surely do not think that we and the Eastern Orthodox think that differently on most questions, they have maintained the original faith and have only added Ecumenical councils as difficult issues relevant to them arose. They have made good decisions that we agree with (even if we don't see the need to "ratify' their councils).

However, I based my argument in part on the lineage tree that Fr Peter E. Gillquist reproduces on pgs. 48-49 in his useful book Becoming Orthodox. He has a main branch that says “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Around 451 he adds a caption that says "Council of Chalcedon.' He does not break the resulting Oriental Church into a separate branch so I presume he implies that we are Orthodox just not in communion. Then we get to 1054 and the caption reads “Great schism” and DOES lead into a separate branch called “The Roman Catholic Church.” After this the Roman Catholic branch it self breaks again in 1517 to a very splintered branch called “Luther's Reformation.” In 1529 the Roman branch breaks again and leads to the “Church of England.” So now the branches stop there but we can move further. We can show how the Luther Reformation and the Anglican Church eventually branched off into the Baptist, the Methodists (and Methodists are way cool, I hope that we see some type of communion in my life time) and eventually by 1888 the Holiness Movement right here in the United States, which last time I checked produced the Pentecostals.

My only point was to say that these crazy tendencies broke off from your branch and are the result of internal happenings in your Church. Our branch is way at the bottom and continued doing the same things as done in the time of the Apostles.

We need not catch historical amnesia either. All things have their predecessors, prototypes, precedents. The Protestants did not just pull all of their stuff out of their noses and rebel. Some things, like their insistence on logic and rationalism in matters of faith, had its origin in Latin Scholasticism, etc. Sola Scriptrua seems like a form of legalism. Protestants just took these incipient Latin Catholic themes to the extreme.

So you ask me what my point in mentioning this is. Simply that with a record like yours you are in no position to be suggesting that being under YOUR Church's leadership will prevent us from falling into chaos. While we have remained united you have not only failed to maintain unity with yourselves but you have also been in many cases the sources of our own internal schisms and divisions. Get it now?

If "lack of a pope" really causes no jurisdictional conflicts or confusion, why not demonstrate this? Prove me wrong, OK?

I already did, that was my point in briefly hinting the history of our heresies and schisms, to demonstrate that we have remained united, unlike your Church. Our Proto-Protestant movement, called the Stephanites, were convinced they were wrong and they are still a part of our Church. No reformation and no home grown Ethiopian Protestant menace. Can you claim the same?

Anyway Mor Ephrem, in his usual talented ability, gave you more examples.

Are you saying the Catholic Church was responsible for these atrocities? I guess I'm not quite understanding...sorry! This is the first time I've seen this charge made.

Off course not! I have too much respect and admiration for Catholicism to claim that it is responsible for that. Fascism can not be the fault of the Catholic Church so much as it is a by-product of capitalism in crisis trying preserve itself. The Germans after all promoted their own historical (fabricated) German pagan religions and scoffed at Christianity. The Italians did not. All I am saying is that this behavior of blessing a fascist army on a colonial campaign is not becoming of a Christian Holy Father. Without even going into the Vatican's complicity in African slavery and Native American genocide (where the current Holy Father has apologized for) many Africans take this single blessing alone as all the reason why not to be a Catholic. It is a stain that will take a long time to heal. Don't be so zealous and self-righteous in places where you have a background like that.

Hidden agenda? My agenda's right out in the open, my brother. I'm Catholic, and I think everyone else should be, too. How's that for bluntness?

Well many Roman Catholics have thought that way before and many have tried to destroy our Church and convert our people. If you get a chance to come to Ethiopia we can search for the unmarked graves of Jesuit usurpers and provokers buried around the ancient city of Gondar who tried to do this……tried and died (died after they had converted the king, killed thousands and persecuted the living Orthodox faithful)! Besides all Orthodox (both Oriental and Eastern) are already catholic so no need to get all worked up. Since we are already Orthodox Catholics why don't you just become a Catholic Orthodox and we can end this split

Oriental Orthodoxy is a model "Eucharistic unity!' Our unity is one of communion. Indeed we have completely (and I mean COMPLTETLEY) diverse traditions and practices. Our history is very divergent and complex. Different Apostles contributed to our various Churches; we have several Liturgical languages. But we are united! We are united by no medium of a paternalistic Roman Pope. We would like to be united with this Pope, don't get me wrong, but any claim that suggests our existence and unity is contingent on having a Pope to keep us in order ignores history, to say the least.

What does that come to in US currency?

Less than 1/16 of an American penny and exactly how much I think unity under these imperial circumstances is worth. Even an Ethiopian beggar would not accept that amount.

With all due respect, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have no say in this matter. They are really, actually monolithic.

Oh yes my dear Memo, I am afraid if we are talking reunion we do indeed have a say in this matter as our Church will be affected by being under a Vatican Pope. Not all Oriental Churches are monolithic. Ours was very de-centralized through out the centuries (owing to the mountainous terrain of Ethiopia which even made the monarchy mobile and less centralized). Yes, the Abun was sent from Alexandria but all power did not reside with him.

Also, during the decades of the military dictatorship the EOTC Synod, terrified by the military government's "roll back" policy towards the Church, adopted an approach to decentralize the Synod. The decentralization policy was intended to preserve the Church by strengthening the local churches just in case the regime went after the Synod. The idea was that even if the military "cut the head' or Synod, the local parishes, numbering close to 15,000, would be able to preserve the EOTC since it's difficult for the military government to crush all of them.

We are only now starting to centralize things again hence some recent problems.

Dear Mor Ephrem and Aklile,

Yes, I'm not happy with these RC assertions and they do show that some RC's really don't take their own ecumenical rhetoric seriously at all!

This thread also relates to the Administrator's thread on Russia's perception of the agenda of the West etc.

There was an agenda before, and I believe there is still that same agenda today, in Russia and whenever the Eastern Churches are concerned.

Until the RC's can get their act together and find out what they really believe about the East without proselytism, showing RC missionaries the door will become more prevalent in those countries where the government supports the church.

Alex

Exactly Alex,

This over-reaching arrogance of the RC, as most currently demonstrated in Russia, is not doing anything to bring Apostolic Unity into being.

My question is that if the RC does not completely treat its Orthodox in Communion with Rome members well then how less will they treat a National Church if it was to be in Communion with them. Like always, I am willing to be convinced but what exists does not look promising.

Mor Ephrem,

Since everyone is caught up in proselytism I say we do our own in self defense. Why not start off in Ukraine? We can give the KP Canonical status as Oriental Orthodox and incorporate them as members. We should go straight to the Patriarch and suggest it to him, what do you think?

Deleted

Dear Aklile,

Actually, Eastern Catholics are miffed at the Vatican for maintaining that the Eastern CAtholic Churches are somehow more "offensive" to the Orthodox than Russians who join the Latin Church.

In fact, this is another instance of a "Vatican Vacuum" when it comes to knowledge about the East.

Even an intractable enemy of Rome that was Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky praised the Eastern Catholics as "brothers" and for maintaining their Eastern traditions.

Certainly, "Uniatism" has never been acceptable to the Orthodox.

But I've come across Orthodox who have had kinder things to say about Eastern Catholics than about Latin Catholics.

As I've told you, Big Guy, I've no problem having our Church join the Oriental Orthodox!

I'm already armed and ready with my liturgical umbrella!

Alex

While I wouldn't use the term "monolithic," the Catholicosates of the Oriental Orthodox East are SIMILAR to papal jurisdiction only insofar as the Catholicos has universal jurisdiction anywhere in the world over members of his flock (am I correct?).

Dear Alex,

You are right on this. But once again, not all of these Churches are Catholicosates. And none of the hierarchs exercises any authority over other Churches. That is what I protested in response to Memo.

A Patriarch has historically had his jurisdiction tied to a geographical area, even though it is a large one (e.g. Moscow Patriarchate).

Right again, and this is a part of the reason for the problems in India. The Patriarch of Antioch is trying to assume a role that is not his, and that role is based on a lot of "Peterspeak".

Dear Aklie,

"Let's roll!"

Hello:

Then, if we are going to have a Universal Eucharistic Unity, we would need a "main celebrator" at the Universal level, wouldn't we?

Shalom,
Memo.