www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

You are absolutely correct in saying this. Here's a quote from Praeclara, an encyclical written in June of 1894 by Pope Leo XII writing of Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.


"First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East."

That's 117 years ago. Hardly a recent change.

Actually, I think this quote demonstrates my point. The Eastern Orthodox were thought to need to return to the "one true church." That this encyclical used the word churches does not mean that Leo thought they were "True" particular churches. Indeed, he states right after using the word churches that they have abandoned the fold (ie true church). If you are clinging to the idea that Rome's attitude toward the Orthodox hasn't changed I am simply staggered. The Balamand agreement calls the "ecclesiology of return" (as expressed by Leo) to be outdated (#30). It is obvious then that what was meant by churches in this encyclical differs in substance from what is meant today.

A mode of Church organization and strategy of reunification in which one Church establishes an ecclesial structure parallel to another and imitating its liturgical rites and hierarchy with the objective of subverting members of the other Church from their original adherence into that of the parallel ecclesial structure, which in turn is considered not so much a "Church" in its own right, but a ritual adjunct of the Church which formed it, following to a greater or lesser degree the underlying theology, spirituality, doctrinal expression and discipline of the Church that formed it.

If words in the documents of our faith do not mean what they signify then, I think, we are all in "limbo" so to speak. Pope Leo used the word churches; I assume he meant true churches, and not fake ones. It is still Catholic belief that the true Church of Christ subsist in her, and that those true churches which are in communion with the church of Rome constitute the Catholic Church, be they sui iuris or not. Those true churches that are not in communion share in that catholicity, but not in its fullness. That is my understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. Yes, the "ecclesiology of return" is outmoded and we must find communion together, but it is a disservice to Catholic and Orthodox alike if we are not forthright about what we believe. The truly Orthodox will accept nothing less.

That's a rather cynical definition that reflects the author's biases, and is rather insulting to millions of uniates. But I think they are used to insult.

I think you are confusing post-Vatican II teaching with what was taught before the council. It is for this reason the Balamand agreement speaks of once again considering each other (Catholic and Orthodox) as sister churches. If they already had recognized each other as such they wouldn't have to "once again consider," that which was already being maintained. I agree that we have to be honest with each other about what we believe. That is why I am a bit confused by Pope Benedict's clarification that is the subject of this thread.
All of the ecumenical efforts to this point agree with his original statement, and are at odds with his clarification. If Rome is unwilling to follow through with recent scholarship on the question of the councils then they will be forced once again to embrace the "ecclesiology of return."

It's not cynical, it's clinical. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. What I provided is the classical definition of uniatism, and my only regret is that so many Eastern Catholics still embrace this mindset.

I'm entitled to both, thank you. I am quite certain that the facts of my life are quite different than the facts of yours, to which you also are entitled. There are quite a few opinions about the facts, as any forum, public or private, will attest. Repeating your mantra will not change that.

This is a common apologetic approach among many modern Roman Catholics, who in order to try and maintain continuity between the pre and post-conciliar Roman Church read pre-Vatican II texts in a post-Vatican II manner, but - no matter how hard one tries - he will not find a single instance when the pre-Vatican II popes spoke of the Eastern Orthodox as "true particular Churches." Oh to be sure one may find places where the pre-conciliar popes speak about "Eastern Churches," or talk about the Orthodox and refer to them as "separated Churches" or "schismatic Churches," but one will never see the popes call the Orthodox communities "true particular Churches," because the ecclesiology of the pre-Vatican II Roman Church did not admit such a novel idea to even be theologically possible. The popes prior to Vatican spoke of there being only one true Church, and that Church - at least for them - was identical with the Roman Catholic Church (see Humani Generis, no. 27).

P.S. - As soon as a person reads back into pre-conciliar texts the novel Vatican II approach of saying that the one Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church, rather than simply saying that the one Church "is" the Roman Catholic Church, it becomes evident that he is reading pre-Vatican II documents in a post-Vatican II manner. This type of anachronistic reading is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Stuart,

To what extent, in your opinion, does this definition apply to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and other such structures still to be formed?

I do not think the Ordinariate is of the same nature as the Unia.

In the first (and most important) place, the Church of England and its subsidiaries are not true Churches after the manner of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but "ecclesial communities", having abandoned various elements of Tradition along the way so as to create real substantive divisions between them and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

In the second place, as a splinter of the Church of Rome, the Anglican communities were never independent of Rome before their separation in the manner of the Eastern Churches. So, while there are liturgical and disciplinary differences between the Latin Church and the communities in the ordinariate, the imposition of changes to the "Anglican rite" to bring it into conformity with Latin theology (from which Cranmer's amendments in the Book of Common Prayer deviated substantially, particularly in regard to the Eucharist), is a true restoration, and not an alien imposition (of which the inclusion of the Epiclesis into the Roman Canon by the Western rite Orthodox would be an example).

Finally, there is no parallel ecclesial structure; i.e., the Ordinariate will not be headed by some Latin Archbishop of Canterbury competing directly for disaffected Anglicans. Indeed, the Ordinariate does not seem to be evangelizing at all, but simply announces its presence and receives those who willing wish to enter it.

In some ways, the Ordinariate is just as much a "bottom-up" movement as that which led to the Treaty of Brest, because the idea seems seems to have originated with some Anglicans themselves, and was established by the Holy See over the objections of many Latin ordinaries. But there the similarity ends. The Kyivan bishops and presbyters who entered the Union of Brest intended to do so as a true Church, only to find themselves reduced to a mere "rite" of the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglicans entering the Ordinariate can make no pretense of having been a Church, not having either valid orders or sacraments. And, to stress again, the Anglicans are an offshoot of the Latin Church, to which they are returning, in contrast to the Eastern Catholics, who were never part of the Latin Church at all.

I don't disagree that Vatican II muddled things. In fact, the whole project of Vatican II seems to have been to widen possible interpretations of just about every topic mentioned, and the project since has been gradually to tighten them up.

So if you're going to go to the whole "subsists" thing, hadn't you better include in the discussion the clarifications the Holy See has since produced? And if not these, what about at least the phrase following yours (about being governed by the successor of Peter)?

One can act surprised and disappointed about the clarification that started this topic, but it seems more fruitful to view it as one of a long line.

In the end anyway, all these discussions seem to be to me a bit of "my mother gave me permission to disobey her".

I should think it better to insist upon your legitimate rights without reference to them being recognized or granted by anyone but God.

I do not believe that Vatican II "muddled" up anything? I think that Vatican II changed Rome's position on the nature of the Church, because the bishops gathered at Vatican II used the technical term "subsistit in" instead of "est" in order to affirm that there are elements of the Church outside her visible boundaries, which is something that Pius XII could not affirm in the same way because he was burdened with a medieval Latin universalist mindset.


Yes, I have read the many texts explaining the term "subsistit in" issued by the Roman Curia over the years, but they do not ultimately change what I have said, that is, that the Roman Church's position has morphed into something other than what it was prior to Vatican II. By the way, the new teaching is better from my perspective, which is why I have no interest in seeing the Roman Church return to its medieval approach to ecclesiology.

I see that phrase as a holdover of the medieval Latin mindset. Besides, all bishops are successors of St. Peter by episcopal consecration in the mystery of holy orders, and not just the bishop of Rome. After all, there is no special sacrament of petrine sucession, and even when looking at the historical succession of the Roman Church it is not unique, because Pope St. Gregory himself believed that Antioch and Alexandria were also historical petrine sees, and that together with Rome they held a certain priority among the Churches. But that priority did not - at least according to St. Gregory the Great - make them "universal bishops" or "universal pastors."

You have misunderstood my post. I was only arguing against those modern Roman Catholics who like to pretend that Vatican II did not change anything in Western ecclesiology.

Rome is not my mother.

The Roman Church is a wonderful local Church, and the Latin Church is a beautiful communion of Churches under the governance of the Bishop of Rome, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not belong to the Roman Church or the Latin patriarchate.

Which is what I have consistently said in my posts here at Byzcath over the past five years. The Roman bishop has no power over any Church other than his own local diocese. Nevertheless, his priority within the taxis of Churches gives him the honored position of primacy within the universal episcopate, but that primacy is not supremacy, and so it does not make him a universal bishop, nor does it give him jurisdiction outside his own diocese and patriarchate.

Apotheoun, your position is inconsistent. You can't appeal to Vatican ii as an authority if you can follow up with the next breath dismissing the clauses you dislike as "holdovers" from a wrong way of thinking.

And anyway, if you view it as a local Roman council, it isn't binding and all the declarations and clarifications since are enough to overturn your interpretation.

In the end, all you're left with is the fact that five decades ago some Roman bishops got together and seemed to move toward adopting a position they have since backed a long way off from.

It's not much. All I mean is, Vatican II's a pretty flimsy tool for advancing your perspective.

General Councils of the Latin Church are binding on the Latin Church, if not a priori on any other. Of course, canons of local councils can gain universal authority if they are received universally.