www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Returning to Orthodoxy

But Orthodoxy views the papal jurisdictional and infallible milk as being largely... soya substitute.

First of all, I could say that because you make your claim, it falls upon you, or both of us, to provide official Catholic documents to clear this up. I believe Brendan has done this.

I get the feeling you're trying to twist and misconstrue my motives here. I'm not trying to bear ill will against anyone, simply trying to follow the Church teaches regarding this.

Logos Teen

I believe that you are wrong here. Can you supply the document and all references where the Catholic Church says that True Church subsists in the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church.

I am of the belief that the Catholic Church is the True Church, so is the Orthodox Church. That the schism happened both ways, the Orthodox leaving communion with Rome and Rome leaving communion with the Orthodox.

I believe that the Holy Father recognizes this. Are not the Orthodox Churches called sister churches to the Catholic Church?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,sans-serif">Please, y'all, stop calling me a "hard-liner" because I believe Vatican II, for goodness sakes. This poisons the well like crazy. Pklease stop it. Thanks!!

The relevant documents are Lumen Gentium and The Decree on Ecumenism. Both are available on-line.

You might also want to check out Dominus Iesus, also available on-line. This recent official Vatican document says the EO Churches are very close to us and "lack little" that would be required for full union. But they still do lack something -- communion with the successor of Peter. And that's a fairly crucial thing. :p

For the record, this is waaaaaaaaaaaay more ecumenical than the typical Orthodox attitude toward us. Many Orthodox, as you know, deny that we even have valid Orders and Sacraments...and some deny that we even have Grace. I know no Catholic who would say the same about the Orthodox. So, if you're looking for "hard-liners," look at ROCOR or even at the MP...not at little ole me, a follower of Vatican II!

ZT

ZT --

I think that last bit is a little harsh on Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism have different views of each other because they each view sacramentality differently. Catholicism uses external criteria like apostolic succession to determine whether one's sacramental life is "valid" -- so, of course they don't doubt the "validity" of Orthodox sacramental life because they recognize the continued apostolic succession in Orthodox bishops despite the lack of communion with Rome.

Orthodoxy doesn't look to the same external criteria, and doesn't see, for example, how sacramental life and apostolic succession can be said to *definitively* exist outside the boundaries of the communion of the Church -- but we don't KNOW that, and we do know that the Holy Spirit can be active where He pleases, so we can't exclude the possibility of it, either. That's the real Orthodox position -- meaning that individuals, including individual clerics -- are free to believe either way, while the Church doesn't make a definitive conclusion about what is taking place outside of what she sees as the limits of her own communion.

This simply arises from two different conceptions of what it means to be "Church", and I don't think its proper to characterize one as less ecumenical than the other (while there are some very anti-ecumenical Orthhodox, there are anti-ecumenical Catholics, too, like Steve Ray and James Likoudis, to name a few, who have some pretty harsh things to say about Orthodoxy).

Brendan

Dear Zoe Theodora,

Since the Latin Church has done away with the Office of Devil's Advocate, let me play one here for your edification .

WHY is communion with the Successor of Peter important to being "the Church?"

Tell me from the heart - I do read a lot of theological stuff, believe me!

In other words, what does such communion give a Church that it would otherwise not have?

If we can show, and we can, that doctrinally there is nothing the Roman Church teaches that the East doesn't already believe, what do the Eastern Churches really gain from communion with Rome?

So if Rome is to be a "teacher," what can it teach the East? (I'm going to hear from Fr. Kimel, I just know it!)

As you are pondering an answer to that one, do you think it is fair for the Eastern Churches to accept a Primacy of Rome that is radically different from the one they were "in communion with" for the first millennium of Christianity?

In other words, is it fair to expect the Eastern Churches to be in some sort of jurisdictional relationship with Rome when such was completely absent in the first millennium when the Church was one and when the Pope was "First among Equals?"

Do take your time and, remember, no throwing out of bibliographies!

Alex

Question: Are folks really surprised to find that Catholicism understands that the Catholic Church subsists within the Roman Communion? In fact, the use of the word "subsists" with the Vatican II documents was really quite notable and revolutionary at the time, as it made possible the subsequent ecumenical dialogues with Orthodoxy and the Protestant "ecclesial communities."

I certainly do not understand why Orthodox should be offended by this, as Orthodox eucharistic ecclesiology and practice decisively restricts the Church catholic to the Orthodox communion. Even Pope John Paul II's "two lungs" metaphor of East and West needing each other for wholeness--a truly remarkable ecumenical overture!--has been rejected as just another form of the branch theory.

Regarding Dominus Iesus [vatican.va] , as Father Brendan has noted, this document is thoroughly consistent with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, despite the howls of Protestant ecumenists. But Fr Brendan is, I think, incorrect when he says that Catholicism only regards Orthodoxy as church in lower-case. See the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio [vatican.va] , where the Orthodox Churches are referred to as "particular Churches." Indeed, Catholicism has even gone so far as to speak of the Orthodox churches as sister churches [petersnet.net] . And can anyone produce an Orthodox document that speaks as highly of the Latin Churches as Orientale Lumen [vatican.va] speaks of the Eastern Churches?

Be happy! Anglicanism, along with the rest of Protestantism, is just an "ecclesial community."

Fr. Kimel --

I think that's where the inherent tension comes from Dominus Iesus. It seems to be saying that there is a sliding scale of some sort such that some are "ecclesiastical communities", some are "particular Churches" and others are "fully the Church", or, perhaps more precisely, "particular Churches in which the Catholic Church fully subsists". So it may be that we Orthodox are "true particular Churches", but per Dominus Iesus we are not "full", or at least, we are "true particular Churches in which the Catholic Church nevertheless does not subsist". That raises the question of what it means to be such a "true particular Church" and how one can be "Church" fully without the Catholic Church subsisting in it. It is a bit of a thorny issue from the perspective of Catholic ecclesiology, and I think that I tried to express this by using lower case (as I think was the case in Dominus Iesus, but I could be misremembering on that) as opposed to upper case ... but in any case there is this strange distinction whereby one can be a true particular Church without having the Catholic Church fully subsist.

I think that the Orthodox reacted negatively -- at least some of them did -- because it kind of demoted the idea of sister churches. Sister churches could have been taken to mean that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are sister churches (and I think that this was often the way it was interpreted). DI makes it clear that this isn't the case, and that only the particular Churches are sisters, and, further, that some of these sisters are less full than others. In a way, it felt like a "demotion". I do agree that we got off easier than the Protestants did (who were told basically that they were non-churches!), but it still felt like it went against the grain -- in tone if not in theory, of earlier ecumenical documents during the 90s.

Brendan

Well, I certainly do not want to disappoint you, Alex!

Methodist Stanley Hauerwas once quipped, the Pope is the only person that could have kept the Italians and Irish in the same Church!

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

And I'm really serious about the "sinner" thing this time . . .

I referred to Brendan as "father" only in the biological sense - which is why I spelled it with the lower case "f."

Who says Easterners don't have a sense of humour?

On the one hand, and as someone who had a precious opportunity to speak with the Pope himself about some ecumenical issues, I couldn't agree with you more about RC ecumenical theology.

I think this Pope is not only a saint, but a leader who was taken many far-reaching steps, the impact of which we have yet to fully feel.

I think, though, that Rome itself isn't ready to actually implement the full extent of what it has said about the Orthodox "sister Churches."

But I've raised those issues on another thread and I won't get into it here - I hope you will contribute to that thread, Reverend and Esteemed Father in Christ!

As for the Anglican ecclesial community , I think that RC ecumenical theologians engaging in dialogue with both Anglicans and Lutherans have called both "true Christian Churches" in their deliberations and conclusions.

There was the suggestion made, by way of historical reflection, that Canterbury acted very much like a Patriarchate. The Lutheran-Catholic commission also raised the notion of a Patriarchate for "Lutherans in communion with Rome."

Even though the "Churchy" status of both may be an issue strictly speaking for Rome, there is no doubt but that once any "deficiencies" with respect to your ecclesial/sacramental status is dealt with to Rome's satisfaction, the acknowledgement of Particular Anglican and Lutheran Churches "in communion with Rome" replete with their own patriarchates - would be a matter of course.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

You are more than correct, but I think the Pope and Rome felt they needed to avoid the impression, given by earlier ecumenical RC theology, that both RC and Orthodoxy were "equals."

Something had to be done to quell the flow of more Catholic Brendans over to Orthodoxy!

Alex

I can see where your comming from here, but I still would submit that the burden of proof lies in your court by the very fact of your negative (and borderline uncharitable) comment of "Then he denies Truth"


Zoe,
I have seen Brendan's reply and am going to look at Dominus Iesus tonight, the footnote Brendan coments about does seem to support your stand.

And please, let me apologize about my hard-liner comment.....

Can you please point me to the parts of Lumen Gentium and The Decree on Ecumenism that say what you are saying they say? Only when one looks to Dominus Iesus does one see what you are saying.

Granted that Dominus Iesus may be clairfing this point from Vatican II but it is not a document of that council and does Dominus Iesus qualify as a dogma (a de fide) of the Church?


David

This gets m-o-o-o-r-e interesting all the time!

The metaphor that I like is that Christianity has been divorced. The two "parents" (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) have started speaking to each other again!!!!!! :p

The Eastern Catholics are among the "children" who are trying to bring the parents back together again: one canonical Christian "family."

Of course, like all metaphors this one only goes so far. I, for one, love both "parents." Both are canonical and both have the fullness of Christianity. Period. No if's, and's, or but's!!!

:p

I feel odd being the one to defend the Catholic position; but Fr Brendan, I do not believe that you are being fair and just here either to Catholic ecclesiology or to Dominus Iesus.

How in the world could the Catholic Church declare the Orthodox Churches to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in the way that you want without at the same time embracing the kind of branch theory of the Church that Orthodox theologians have always firmly rejected? From my Anglican perspective, it looks like you have them coming and going. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. You really can't have it both ways, you know. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

So tell me, which ecclesiology is more ecumenical? The Catholic view that recognizes that the Church catholic actually exists beyond the visible boundaries of the Roman communion, or the Orthodox view that restricts the Church catholic to the visible Orthodox communion?

BTW, Alex, here is one argument in favor of the Papacy. It makes possible a eucharistic ecclesiology that transcends the either/or eucharistic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. Thus Tillard's Church of Churches.

One thing for sure: We Protestants come off a lot better under a Catholic ecclesiology, which at least recognizes that we exist "in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church," than under an Orthodox ecclesiology, which cannot even recognize us as Christian. A Catholic priest can accept an invitation to preach in my pulpit. Can an Orthodox priest? Nope.

David --

I don't think that DI qualifies as a "dogma", but it seems unlikely that much of the decrees adopted at Vatican II qualify for that either. Still, conciliar decrees are higher on the hierarchy of norms for Catholic church documents than documents produced by the CDF, so that is something to consider.

The Catholic Church, IIRC, however, also teaches that all aspects of the ordinary magisterium -- and I believe this would include a document like Dominus Iesus -- must be firmly assented to and accepted by all Catholics spiritually and intellectually. As a side note, the latter seems somewhat strange, as it appears to set up -- or at least potentially to set up -- a kind of creeping infallibility whereby for the regular Catholic believer as a practical matter it doesn't matter whether something has been infallibly proclaimed or not.

Brendan

Brendan,

Quite true. Orthodoxy does not really use those juridical concepts of "validity" "licit" etc that the Western Church can sometimes get bogged down in. The Orthodox Church does not see beyond itself and does not judge beyond itself on other Churches. It seems to allow more for the Freedom of the Holy Spirit and does not deny that the Spirit can work in other communities.