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

"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?"

Actually, what I said was that I thought Dominus Iesus was consistent with Catholic ecclesiology and was helpful from the perspective of clearing up any confusion that may have been the case (and seems to have been the case, based on the reactions to Domninus Iesus) regarding the Catholic view of Orthodoxy. Catholicism is free to have its own ecclesiology, of course, which I disagree with.

"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?"

To me it's about whose ecclesiology is right. I believe in the Orthodox view on this, if I didn't I would not have joined the Orthodox Church. But is the Catholic view really that the "Church catholic" exists outside the boundaries of the Roman communion? Is that what DI says? I thought it said that the Catholic Church subsists only in the churches of the Roman communion. Or are you saying that for those "true particular Churches in which the Catholic Church nevertheless does not subsist" are nevertheless part of the "Church catholic", and if so, what does that "Church catholic" mean, really?

And does the Orthodox view really restrict the Church to the visible communion? I think that the Orthodox view is that we don't know about what is happening outside of the visible communion -- it could be graced, and it might not be. We can't control the Holy Spirit, obviously! But at the same time we can't say something that is clearly separated from the visible communion is *definitively* Church either .. how can we say that? The RCs get there by using external criteria, but to us the ecclesial context is what is critical, and so it's really not possible for the Church to affirm that any more than it for it to deny it with any degree of definitiveness. I'd say that's the Orthodox view.

Brendan

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

I'm in the middle of a political battle at work, but had to respond to your challenging post .

Brendan didn't make his comments within the context of a "Catholicism vs Orthodoxy" comparison, but within the context of the very ecumenical issue that you yourself raised.

Brendan simply showed that the Catholic Church too has its standards about what is the "Church" as does Orthodoxy.

And whether Protestantism comes off "better" with Catholicism than with Orthodoxy is a moot point - neither Apostolic Church would consider membership in Protestantism as a "good thing" to borrow from Martha Stewart.

Orthodox Fathers have never denied that Protestants can be saved etc. And Orthodox theologians have had fruitful discussions with Anglicans and Lutherans, the "highest" of the Protestant Churches. Jaroslav Pelikan is one Lutheran scholar who has written widely on the Eastern Church - and who is today an Orthodox Christian.

Brendan was, I believe, simply saying that Catholicism is like Orthodoxy in the final analysis - both believe themselves to be the true Church.

And if Catholicism believes other Churches and communities to have some of its own "milk" of Divine Grace - that is nice but it still means "missing the (fullness of the) mark."

And, FYI, I don't deny the value of the papacy. I am an Eastern Catholic with relatives who have either been beatified or who are on the roster to be for their martyrdom for communion with Rome. FYI . . .

If you mean that the Papacy allows for a more universal outreach of and respect for traditions in both East and West - that is debatable and it is only recently that Rome has raised the issue of the return of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their patrimony.

The Vatican document of January 6, 1996 is brilliant in pointing out Latinizations and how things should be with the East.

But it also admits that the reason why things are not the way they should be is because of Latinization.

The papacy is ultimately an ideal that has yet to be fully realized.

Anglican theologians have sometimes called Rome up on the carpet for overtures to the Anglican communion for union with Rome.

"Yes, we know what happened with the Eastern Churches" some of them said.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Sorry for the earlier confusion when I quipped that you were "father Brendan."

You are right and I wanted to say that the way in which Orthodoxy sees the "validity" of other churches et al. is intrinsically linked up with "Communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in this case, Orthodoxy.

So, while the Orthodox Catholic Church would have refused to comment on the validity of Assyrian ("Nestorian") sacraments et al., it does not do so when Assyrian Churches and individual Assyrians came into communion with it.

We know that Orthodoxy simply required that Assyrians coming into communion with it repudiate the notion of "Two Persons" in Christ - and that was the only requirement before they were received into Orthodoxy.

People coming to Orthodoxy from various communions et al. are assessed individually and as communities AT THAT TIME and we know that Orthodoxy WILL recognize sacramental validity in numerous cases IN CONNECTION with this.

Orthodoxy takes very seriously the idea that the Church is all about "Communion." (Frankly, I was a bit put-off by Fr. Kimel's somewhat disparaging comment on the limitations of Orthodoxy's "Eucharistic" model of the Church. Is that just me?)

There is only One Church. And communion with it means full Eucharistic, doctrinal and sacramental union with it.

Anything less is simply not the Will of Christ for His Body which is the Church.

Alex

My apologies to (formerly "Father") Brendan. Upon re-reading his posts, I do find that I misinterpreted them, as Alex has suggested. Sorry about that. I got caught up in the thread and thought he was bemoaning the failure of Catholic ecclesiology to acknowledge Orthodoxy as Church in the fullest sense of the word.

Not a problem, it is a limitation of the medium. :p

I think Alex describes it well in that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism considers itself to be the Church, but reaches different conclusions (or, chooses not to reach a conclusion) about what is going on outside themselves.

Brendan

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel and father Brendan!

What would you people do without me?

Alex

Can Brendan and I get back to you on that?

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

Take all the time you need!

Alex

But, conversely, Alex, do you think it is fair for the Catholic Church to accept a Primacy of Rome that is radically different from the one that it is now and has been for centuries past?

In other words, is it fair to not expect the Catholic Church to be in some sort of jurisdictional relationship with Orthodoxy when this is the way the Church ha operated in the past few hundred years of Catholicism (and many argue even in the First Millenium)?

Logos Teen

I'm sorry if you found my remark uncharitable, it was not meant to be. I still think that Brendan, ironically an Eastern Orthodox, shows this to be a case of quad est demonstratum.

Logos Teen

Fr Kimel,

Why do refer to the Catholic Communion as the "Roman Communion?" Just curious, please don't take it the wrong way.

By the way, I don't think that the "Lung Theory" refers to the actual communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but rather simply the respective traditions and theologies of each. The Catholic Church has both Lungs, though it is primarily the Western Lung. Orthodoxy is almost totally devoid of the Western Lung, except if one includes the controversial Western Rite of Antiochian Orthodoxy. I think the Holy Father was simply saying that the Church needs both Eastern and Western theologies (regardless of communion lines) to "breathe" properly.

Logos Teen

Logos Teen, I think it is probably best to let the Pope explain what he means by his two lungs metaphor. Consider, for example, the following: This sure sounds to me that the Pope sees the schism between East and West as rendering the Catholic Church as "incomplete" or impoverished in some real sense. Perhaps you might do some research on this for us.

I'll look into it, Father. In the mean time, all I can say is that without all of humanity embracing the Faith, the Church is indeed incomplete in some sense of the word, and is definitely impoverished by other Christians who place themselves outside of her boundaries.

Logos Teen

"the Church is indeed incomplete in some sense of the word, and is definitely impoverished by other Christians who place themselves outside of her boundaries."

Like yourself? Moe

Man, this is vicious. It confirms me in my increasing conviction that there's something seriously wrong with this board.



ZT