www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Re-envisioning the Papacy

Fr Thomas Hopko - Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time
Paper prepared for the 30th Anniversary Woodstock Forum: "Re-envisioning
the Papacy" held at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, September
26,2005.

Read here:
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Thomas-Hopko/Articles/Roman-Presidency-and-Christian-Unity.html/

Fr. Thomas Hopko's article is not only unrealistic in its presentation of Early Church history, it also blatantly misrepresents Latin teachings.

For example, never was there a time when indulgences paid for "days" in Purgatory. Indulgences were charitable contributions that counted for days of penance, according to the canons for such things during that time. I might as well say that the Greeks teach that Grace is an electrical pulse from God's body, for all that would relate to the teaching of Divine Energies; this is the same level of nonsense.

He also fails to recognize the fact that the See of Rome was used by the East to recognize the authority of its own Patriarchs who were of questionable position, such as the case of Anatolius and Maximus just prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

I agree with him that there were unhealthy developments on the Papacy over time, such as taking universal jurisdiction to mean universal authority to meddle in each and every affair of local churches without their invitation to do so, but that's completely seperate from the doctrines espoused by, say, Vatican I. By lumping those developments in with the "Papal Infallibility" doctrines, he's showing a complete lack of perspective and understanding, IMO.

When Fr. Thomas Hopko actually learns about Latin doctrines, rather than expounding on non-existant teachings and erroneously making connections between later developments and the authority that his own Church insisted on utilizing the Bishop of Rome for in the years preceeding Chalcedon, and numerous times afterwards, I'll take him seriously.

*sigh*

The only thing I can conclude from about what the Pope should do is that he needs to send Fr. Hopko a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and possibly pay for him to study some Latin theology. Heck, I'll chip in myself at the next "Peter's Pence" :p

Thanks for the link, though, even if it was frustrating in showing how far we Catholics and Orthodox really have to go in educating eachother about our teachings.

Peace and God's Grace!

Sounds like a nice topic to develope, but for now will have to bow out as it is getting late.
Stephanos I

I have one thing to say about Fr. Thomas' article: leavened vs. unleavened bread?! Are you serious?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but I am truly shocked to see such issues raised as seriously pertinent -- even prior to other, seemingly much more important issues -- when it comes to Christian unity. And I say this as someone with very strong Orthodox-leaning sympathies.

Lord, have mercy.

Jason

Thank you, Ecce Jason, for demonstrating that these concerns aren't completely unfounded. The presentation of Catholic teaching and practice in that article are troubling, whether intended to be or not.

I also caught the leavened vs. unleavened bread thing, but I didn't mention it in my post. You, as an Eastern Catholic, know that this has never been a problem in our Communion. Statements like that almost feel in the vein of "have you stopped beating your wife?" :p

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

While you and I do disagree over certain things -- as is clear from some of the other threads we've participated in -- indeed we do not disagree over the fact that there are elements to be concerned about in that article. What is perhaps most troubling about it is the fact that its intentions are Christian unity, and yet there seems to be a certain lack of the charity which unity would seem to require. Of course, this is not to say that the whole article is useless, and I'm sure you would agree; some of Fr. Thomas' comments are well-supported and well-said. Even so, when there are mischaracterizations, it is good to point them out, and I will agree with you that the statements about Purgatory are a case in point. Generally, of course, Fr. Thomas is a well-read man, which makes it even stranger and somewhat difficult to account for.

Oh well, let us all simply continue on in prayer and dialogue.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Indeed! The truly Christian solution

Perhaps I should have been more charitable in my original post, but when one reads the theological equivalent of "There can be union when the Pope stops beating his wife", espescially in such an academic well-studied setting, I find that it gets the mind doing somersaults.

If it had been Jack Chick, I would have chuckled, but from a man like Fr. Hopke it is a much different kind of troubling. Like I said, it only shows how far we really have left to go

Peace and God's Graces!

I would agree that some of the points Fr. Hopko raises are either little consequence (azymes), or not really issues at all (I don�t see why the RCC should change its process or confirmation for instance). I think he has a mistaken view of partial indulgences (although a view that before Vatican II that was not always discouraged), but still I would again lump the whole indulgences thing in to the non issue pile.

His view of early church history I would not characterize as �unrealistic� however. It�s of course a summary, but I think hits many of the pertinent points. When I read

The only thing I can conclude from about what the Pope should do is that he needs to send Fr. Hopko a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and possibly pay for him to study some Latin theology. Heck, I'll chip in myself at the next "Peter's Pence"

I understood this to be intended to be read in a good natured manner. What it represents however would a reinforcement of a perception of a patronizing attitude held by the Roman Catholic Church that the Orthodox simply don�t understand the Latin Church. That given enough time, and if explained to them correctly, the Orthodox would simply come around to the position held by the Western Church. I would also be willing to wager Fr. Hopko has read the CCC.

it was frustrating in showing how far we Catholics and Orthodox really have to go in educating eachother about our teachings.

I believe the theologians on both sides understand the respective positions quite well actually. It is also probably worth noting that Fr. Hopko is generally seen as being among the more liberal and ecumenically oriented of the Orthodox.

Andrew

Rillian: My point about the CCC is not that if Fr. Hopko "simply read it" he would "see the light" and embrace the Catholic Church. I think I made it quite clear that the problem is not just that he's raising non-issues, but that he's falsely attributing beliefs and practices to the Catholic Church that it has never held.

The azymes statement, for example, doesn't just reflect an issue that should be dead and buried, IMO, but implies that the Pope has somehow inhibited the use of leavened bread in the Catholic Church. This couldn't be further from the truth! The Catholic Church has not only upheld the right of non-Latin Churches to use leavened bread in their liturgies if that's their tradition, but has defended it on penalty of excommunication. Such has been the case since at least the 1400s. To see it listed as a "condition" for re-union is frankly insulting.

If he understands the Catholic Church's practices in this matter, then he didn't do a good job of showing it at all.

The indulgences issue is another example, and even more frustrating. The Catholic Church has always taught that one received equivalent "days" of canonical penance through certain charitable acts and dispensation (oikonomia). Far from doing nothing to dispell this myth, the Canons of the Church on the matter have always been quite clear on this matter, and don't require a load of digging to find out. It was one of the first things I studied when interested in the Catholic Church, as I found the mythical understanding rather blasphemous, and much to my relief I found that it was just a myth. In his article, Fr. Hopko presents it as a matter of fact.

There are a number of other theological misrepresentation and errors that are troubling, but these two should suffice to show just how appalling this article can be for a Catholic to read. You say that my saying he should read the CCC is insensitive, but remember that this is in response to him reviving the "azymite" accusations against my particular Church, and implying that we somehow prohibited the use of leavened bread, a false accusation that led to the mutual excommunications of 1054! He also revives Protestant myths and mischaracterization about the Catholic Church with regards to indulgences and purgatory, myths that have led to death, bloodshed, and persecution for centuries in Western Europe.

Suggesting that Fr. Hopko better aquaint himself with Catholic teaching and practice hardly seems undue given such considerations. If his words had been said by a layman with no contact with the Catholic Church, I wouldn't be upset at all, but would politely correct and explain. This is an educated man speaking on the very serious issue of possible reunion and what the Catholic Church must do to pursue it. When he utilizes such mischaracterizations and myths to represent the Catholic Church, without explaination or clarification, he only furthers disunity and mistrust, whether intentionally or not.

As evinced by some responses to this thread and others on the subject, people take his words seriously because he's a man of respect and learning. That's all the more reason for him to be a LOT more careful with what he presents as truth about the Catholic Church, liberal or no.

Peace and God's graces!

Ghosty,

I�m not sure that you are being fair to Father Thomas Hopko or to the Orthodox position on these issues. Your posts on the Forum come across as if you are saying: �If the Orthodox would just put aside their ignorance and learn about Roman Catholic theology they would immediately accept it and embrace Roman Catholicism.� It seems to me that, while it is certainly possible that Father Hopko might have generalized too much regarding the historical issues, these issues were (and, in some cases, still are) very legitimate.

One must be very careful not to compare the best and most gentle interpretations of Roman Catholic theology against the worst interpretations of Orthodox theology.

Admin

Thank you for your post, Administrator

Agreed, and I said as much in my own post. His points about the inappropriate growths of the papacy were dead on. Never did I challenge that. In fact, I've been pretty explicit about such things on other threads in this forum

In all fairness, I was responding only to the misrepresentations in this article, and I was not alone in doing so. Neither of us brought up Catholic, or Roman Catholic, interpretations of theology in contrast to Orthodox interpretations, only blatant errors in the presentation of Roman Catholic and Catholic theology in that article.

As our Eastern Catholic brother pointed out, where does the leavened/unleavened bread issue even become a problem in Catholic theology? That isn't a matter of "gentle" versus "worst" interpretations, but simply bringing up an issue that does not exist in our Catholic Church. To imply that it does, or has ever has in any official way, is misleading at best. Such errors absolutely must be cleared up in any kind of dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, and have led to bad blood between our Communions for centuries.

It's not as easy as simply explaining everything the right way and everyone is happy and one, and I've never implied that it was (I don't know where anyone got that idea, espescially given my discussions on the inherent difficulties of such a process in other threads). I just think it's imperitive that if we are to dialogue, we can't allow blatant misunderstandings to be perpetuated without comment and correction. This holds for both sides, and is critical in healthy communication of any kind.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty

More precisely I think in some instances he�s criticizing popular understanding and not policy, but his arguments I think are more historical than of contemporary relevance (in the case of indulgences for instance). I would accuse him more of bringing up non essentials in this regard.

Regardless, you started out by saying his understanding of early church history is unrealistic. You don�t accept the Orthodox view, which of course I would not expect you to. You have also said elsewhere that infallibility is �off the table�. The simple fact is that doesn�t leave much but explaining things to the Orthodox so that they will �see the light�.

Andrew

I'm a trifle amused by the suggestions that Father Thomas Hopko is unfamiliar with the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. He's a graduate of Fordham University. He knows a very great deal more about Roman Catholicism than most Latin clergy know about Eastern Orthodoxy (or about Greek-Catholicism, for that matter).

Incognitus

I feel Incognitus' general concern, which is: Having read some of Fr. Thomas' other work, I agree -- as I noted in one of my earlier responses -- that he is generally well-read and is quite an educated man. For me, that only makes some of his points in the aforementioned paper all the more perplexing. While we can agree that he is spot-on in some of his historical analysis, the fact remains that there are some errors there that have long been dispelled (such as the one about Purgatory, for instance). In any case, my feeling as I read the article was this: I went through the first bit of it and thought, "Yes, this is right, well said," and then as I went on I began to become more and more let down. I hope it's not offensive to say that; all I mean is that it eventually seemed as if Fr. Thomas might have let down a bit of his scholarly objectivity. And, ultimately, it seemed to me almost as if he was saying, "The churches can unite when all of the Catholic churches abandon their distinctive theological and liturgical practices and accept Orthodoxy wholesale." This is of course not "union," but "conversion" -- and this is precisely why I found myself so startled by the issue of leavened vs. unleavened bread.

God bless,
Jason

Jason

I think that is a bit of an overstatement given that he is focusing on a limited number of practices; although I will restate my earlier thoughts that his comments on things such as azymes and confirmation are misguided and/or tangential IMO. He also later said

The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely.

Fr. Hopko readily admits that in any scenario the Orthodox are not simply standing pat or not undergoing a conversion of their own.

My feeling is that when avenues are closed off, such as with infallibility, then you are not talking about dialogue. Same with discounting a different understanding of shared history. You are at that point simply engaging in a clarification of the terms of conversion by talking. I think the Orthodox understand that quite readily.

Andrew