www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West short interview 2/5 in NY with Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev

Archbishop Hilarion on Christian Unity

John Burger Monday, February 07, 2011 in the National Catholic Register writes:

Extremely impressive man.

I have to say that he sees things in a realistic, non-rose colored glasses view and sums up the way I view ultimate unity. A true gift from the Holy Spirit to Russia, Orthodoxy and the entire Apostolic Church. We shall see however if he becomes a prophet without honor in his own land.

I think this quote is the center of the article:

"We still discuss the role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium, and even on this issue we see clear differences between the Orthodox and the Catholics. "

If there was already a clear difference in the first millenium between East and West in regards to the Bishop of Rome, I really don't see how both sides can move forward.

If a call to return to the Church of the 1st millenium doesn't offer any clarity since East and West already had divergent ecclesiologies, then where do we go from there???

They weren't that divergent, because there was sufficient commonality to allow for full ecclesial communion. Here, two Meyendorff books are extremely useful: first, Imperial Unity, which examines interecclesial relations down to the tenth century; second, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, which covers the situation from the tenth to fifteenth centuries.

i do not have the book you mention, so what I say may be addressed there.
However, I really wonder if their truly was "sufficient commonality" as you say. The East and West were diverging on this view, even while they retained communion. It took quite a long while for the estrangement between East and West to emerge, even while keeping communion.

If you remember this article from several months ago:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345026?eng=y

in which Metropolitan Hilarion states:

"For the Orthodox participants, it is clear that in the first millennium the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was exercised only in the West, while in the East, the territories were divided between four patriarchs – those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole universal Church. It is hoped that at the next meetings of the commission, the Catholic side will agree with this position which is confirmed by numerous historical evidence."

While I understand this is the Eastern perspective, it is not the Western perspective.

It seems to me that two parallel understandings of the Protos legitimately developed.
I see no way to get around that fact.

It's not the perspective of rank-and-file Roman Catholics and the lower clergy, but most historically informed bishops, as well as specialists in Church history, recognize that it is the objective, historical truth. At the end of the day, pious myths will have to give way to the truth--otherwise Christianity could not lay claim to being the truth. So, give it a while. It will be messy, and some of the mental contortions of the Western Church will be painful to watch (more painful to do, I imagine), in the end, truth will out. And make us free.

i'm not so sure that there are all of these "historically informed Bishops" (whatever that means), and specialists in Church history, who are western, are all lining up against Rome and the Curia and siding with the Orthodox position.

I'm content to let the authorities hash it all out, but i don't share the same certitude about it that you do, Stuart.

You have to understand the schizoid approach of the Catholic Church to Church history and theology. There are differing levels of discussion at which different levels of truth are admitted. At the very top, within the Curia and its staff, almost anything goes. They understand the meaning of objective historical analysis and letting the chips fall where they may. A step down, and you are dealing with diocesan bishops and Catholic academics, who may receive a nuanced version of what is being discussed, with the necessary caveats about what it all means, etc. Then there is the bottom rung, which includes the parish clergy and the laity, who get might well be called the "Classics Illustrated" version. The Catholic Church has to walk a fine line between honesty and solidarity, and as a rule reveals no more to the rank-and-file than they think it can assimilate at any one time.

I would argue that while organized in a different manner, Orthodoxy has to deal with a similar strata of rungs as well. Both rungs end at the 'Classics Illustrated' level or at least that of the so-called 'History Channel.'

You mean "Baba Theology".

We should have an ecumenical cable show patterned after the Discovery Channel's show 'Mythbusters.' I can think of plenty of topics to blow up for the first season! lol

Sounds more like an episode of Dirty Jobs to me.

Sort of a hybrid, I suppose.....

I'd compare the view the laity gets of Church history as being more like Fox news, and the version the clergy get as being more like Generation Kill.