www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Rejection of Branch Theory

If the branch theory (that the Catholic Churches are Orthodox Churches are together Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) is fundamentally rejected by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, which is the true Church? Obviously Catholics recognize Orthodox Sacraments as being valid (and Orthodox generally, but not always, view Catholic Sacraments as being valid/legitimate). But Christ desires all to be "one". So who is right? Do all Orthodox need to become Catholic and submit to the Pope of Rome to be correct? Or does the Pope need to roll back Vatican I (and various other errors pointed out by the Orthodox), completely decentralize, and assume the Eastern mindset of theology and Church governance?

Every time I see things being argued (papal supremacy, the filioque, etc) the Catholic arguments are Orthodox arguments both seem correct. Yet they "can't" both be correct. So who is the true Church in the fullest sense of the word?

Christ is in our midst!!


Colin:

ISTM you need to understand the concept of what it means for Churches to be "in communion." I will see if I can find a post by Father Robert Taft, S.J. of thrice blessed memory on this very subject. He stated quite simply and bluntly that all we can ever hope for is "communion." Communion does not mean that one Church submits to another. Neither the Orthodox will submit to Rome nor will the Pope kneel in front of the other Patriarchs as some Orthodox have suggested. Humiliation of "the brother" will not happen because such an idea is antithetical to the whole idea of "brethren dwelling together in peace, communion and love.

The short answer to your question is BOTH.

The idea of Communion is tied to the indissoluble nature of the Holy Trinity. When you, I, or anyone else receives the Lord of Glory in the Mysteries, we are taken into the life of the Holy Trinity. When anyone with true Mysteries enters into communion with the Lord, regardless of whether he is in visible communion on this earth at this time with anyone else--or is NOT in visible communion--he is, in fact, in communion with the other person. We may not be able to see those relationships, but since the Trinity cannot be divided, there is a relationship at some level we cannot see whether we like it or not.

There is another area here. When we enter into communion with the Lord, we are required to be in peace with anyone AND we are commanded to make peace with all those who are at odds with us BEFORE we approach. Now, practically, we are all guilty of not being up to this standard. BUT, remember that we will answer for our behavior when we meet Him face-to-face. So our arrogance and pride need to be regularly checked so that we do not come into eternity and hear "Depart from Me, I do not know you."

Bob

I've always liked this statement from "Catechism of the Catholic Church": Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

My most earnest prayer is that a few, and, step-by-step, all the Orthodox Churches will share that feeling. I still await what I call, "the triumph of substance over style"!

Here is a cut and paste post off Facebook from Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, an Antiochian Orthodox priest and part of the Ancient Faith ministries outreach. It is his summary about Orthodox views on schism. It indirectly address's the range of Orthodox opinions about Catholicism. Enjoy.


Today I received the following question:

"There is a pressing issue of potential schism between Constantinople and the Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. If this schism were to occur, wouldn’t that make one side (and the churches allied with it) no longer Orthodox? As far as I know, if someone goes into schism with the Church (like Roman Catholicism) they are ipso facto no longer an Orthodox body."

My response:

Schism doesn't have an instant effect of putting one side outside the Church. There have been many breaks in communion over the centuries. Historically, most of these breaks get healed.

Right now, the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem are out of communion. (That's been so for a few years.) The ROCOR was out of communion with most of the Orthodox churches for most of the 20th century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow Patriarchate broke communion for a while in the 1990s over a dispute in Estonia. Yet almost no one regards these breaks as meaning that someone on one side or the other was not Orthodox, not Christian, not in the Church, etc.

There is no clear formula we can apply that defines exactly when a body in schism is no longer the Church. Despite the schism being now almost 1000 years old and a number of heresies having been promulgated by Rome, there are even some Orthodox who see Rome as more a deeply diseased branch of the one tree than having broken off it. There has not been a definitive, pan-Orthodox statement on the status of Rome's churchliness (as it were), though there is of course universal Orthodox agreement that we are not in communion and that certain teachings are heretical.

There are similar kinds of questions and views regarding the non-Chalcedonian churches that are commonly known as the Oriental Orthodox, where the break in communion is longer-lasting (by some centuries) and even included a clear theological question from the start and defined anathemas at Ecumenical Councils. Yet still some say that we are basically all Orthodox and ought to be in communion. And some disagree.

My personal opinion on both these examples is that I am not really sure either way. Certainly we must not concelebrate or commune with whom it is forbidden. And that's where the rubber meets the road, anyway, isn't it?

I wish there were some obvious way to be able to say "now this group is not Orthodox or is not in the Church," but we don't really have that short of an Ecumenical Council, and as we have seen, even that doesn't quite yield universal agreement.

We might be tempted to wish for a supreme papacy to sort all these things out in an easy way, but it's pretty clear that that institution doesn't always mean clear, obvious answers, either.

All we can really say for sure is that schism and heresy are harmful and may put one outside the Church. But we should remember that all questions of being inside or outside the Church finally do not get truly resolved until the eschaton -- the end of time when cosmic history finally comes to a close and the fates of all mankind are truly sealed.

---

(NB: I am not going to host a debate on the Ukraine question here. (Or whether Rome or the Non-Chalcedonians are in the Church, for that matter.) There are numerous other places where that discussion is raging, so please find one of those if that's your thing. My purpose here is just to address the effect of schism on ecclesiology. Whatever you do, though, please pray that there is not a schism and that all existing schisms or breaks in communion may be healed.)

Christ is in our midst!!

Thank you, Utroque and Devin 1890, for your replies. My thought was that Coliln was asking what a future where the Apostolic Churches were finally together would look like. I am still waiting for some help with my search for a few old posts that might add to this discussion.

Bob

I guess I am having trouble not seeing these views as contradictory. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches reject the Branch Theory, that we are both the True Church. That implies that one has the fullness of Truth and the other, while incredibly close, does not. Just as God cannot be divided, Truth cannot be divided either. Since both Churches say that we can't both be true, then one must be objectively true and the other one not. I've been trying to hold to the branch theory because it makes sense to me, in my limited lay understanding. But after having it refuted so many times by Catholics and Orthodox alike, I've come to realize that the branch theory is nothing more than my wishful thinking.

If both Churches were still tied via communion, then there wouldn't be a sin of schism for a Catholic to become Orthodox or an Orthodox to become Catholic. Yet the sin of schism is what happens by both parties view should one of their flock leave for the other. I know, obviously, that there is no easy answer to this question. If there were, the schism would have ended centuries ago. But just because it's difficult to sort through all the information, the arguments and counter arguments, doesn't mean there "isn't" an answer underneath it all. I just don't have the intellectual strength to navigate through all this. I find that my faith in the papacy has been all but destroyed. I think Vatican I was a heresy and a grave mistake. I'm just not convinced that the Bishop of Rome ever had or exerted authority over the Eastern Churches. There just doesn't seem to be a shred of historical proof in this regard. That said, I'm not convinced on some of Orthodoxy's claims either. The fact that I can't make sense of all this just adds to the confusion.

Christ is in our midst!!

Colin:

Truth--that is, Jesus Christ--is greater than our logic and our polemics. You seem to think one must start from polemics and that is not the case.

By analogy of where the Truth lies here, let's take the case of seven blind men and an elephant. Each one was asked what an elephant was like by touching the elephant. The first got hold of the tail and announced that an elephant was like a rope. The second got hold of a leg and announced that an elephant was like a column. The third leaned up against the stomach between the legs and declared that, no, an elephant was like a wall. The fourth got hold of the ear and announced that an elephant was like a sail. The fifth got hold of the tusk and announced that an elephant was smooth and hard like marble. The sixth got hold of the trunk and announced that an elephant was none of these but was like a hose. The seventh was in front and was bowled over when the elephant trumpeted and declared that they were all wrong--an elephant is like a fog horn. Each had a piece of the truth about the elephant but none had the whole truth.

At the expense of being accused of syncretism, let me posit that the truth is that the Churches actually cannot be placed one against the other. There are tragic and complex things that separate us, but what joins us--our participation in the Mysteries--is greater. Somehow the Holy Spirit is leading the Churches to a dim view of what unites them and will continue to lead them to full communion. What that will take is the idea that everyone needs to mind his own business--something Cardinal Humbert needed to have in mind when he broke the camel's back. Similarly, with the Oriental Orthodox, much of what seems to have set them apart 500 years before the East West schism has, according to some scholars, been cultural and political. Would you deny that any of the Churches of Apostolic origin have no Eucharist and the other Mysteries? I think not.

Everyone needs to get over himself because when we get to eternity, the only question will be :How faithful were you to what you were taught and in the place I put you?" Remember taking the speck out of your brother's eye and having a beam in your own.

Actually the Branch Theory is an Anglican device where they pose the idea that there is Latin Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican as the three branches.

Well Rome (I forget which pope) pretty well articulated when the anglican sacraments became invalidated. So even though they consider themselves the true Church, they arne't. They don't have Christ in the Eucharist. On that note, I've been told by priests repeatedly that visible communion with Rome is necessary to go to Heaven (barring invincible ignorance). So for any of us Catholics, if we decide to become Orthodox for any reason, we would be in a formal state of schism and would damn ourselves to hell for all eternity. When I started rejecting this legalistic approach Rome has made de fide it made me realize there's probably other things Rome requires me to believe that I can't give assent to. And naturally, this has made me more and more sympathetic to Orthodoxy as being the true Church. As Catholics, we can't believe that Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants are all holding on to different pieces of the same Truth. One community, by necessity, must possess the fullness of Truth in itself. As Catholics we are taught that this Church is the Catholic Church. I don't know if I truly believe this anymore, hence my frustration with the whole mess.

Christ is in our midst!!

Colin:


Somewhere along the line you missed the "Who We Are" in town Hall. We do not denigrate other Christians on this forum. Your comment about Anglican sacraments is out of line. The Bull by Pope Leo on Anglican Orders in 1896 is no longer something that we refer to, other than it was a product of its time and circumstance. The truly sad part of this history is that while reading the document itself and reading Anglican responses I came to the conclusion that the hatred between the Catholic and Anglican Churches at that time was truly a scandal. The British newspapers actually celebrated the Pope's document as proving that they were NOT Catholic, as if that were something to be avoided. It is my fervent prayer that that type of hatred between the members of Christ is no longer present, or at least dying out. As I have said many times--and will until my last breath--we must come to a way of living and supporting each other in an age when all Christians are under attack from a secular world that is not only hostile but aggressively so. We must all "hang together" or we will surely hand separately.


I suspect that you have been told by members of the SSPX which is not part of the Catholic Church. This kind of statement runs contrary to the teaching of Vatican II which is Catholic teaching from the time fo that council going forward. (BTW, my pastor is a seminary professor who confirmed my statement about the SSPX.)


Actually the 2nd Vatican Council teaches us that those who are followers of Christ have varying degrees of membership in His Church. There are those who are in visible communion and there are those who are in varying degrees part of the Church. It's akin to the Orthodox who teach that one can see what the visible boundaries of the Church, but that one cannot rule out who else may be in relationship with Christ but we cannot see or know it now.


Your frustration may be caused by lots of things. It may be a pride that cannot be conquered. It may be that you are not conformable with things not being in the strict outlines yo want them to be. Life is not that simple.

Please take your polemics away. This board is dedicated to bringing people together and providing a place where we learn from and respect one another despite our differences. If you are not comfortable with this idea and our orientation, maybe this is not the place you thought it is.

Bob
Moderator

Here's what I think might happen: Having tired of not being heard, the Moscow Patriarchia will accept the autocephalous status of the OCU and get over her spat with Constantinople. Realizing all the jurisdictional confusion that prevails among them, all the Orthodox Churches will gather for a second session of the Great Council that had been called by His Beatitude, Bartholomeos, during which they will iron out all the wrinkles and face seriously the question of Primacy in the Church. In the final and third session they will come to accept and honor the primacy of Constantinople and establish an order of primacy among their churches. Having done this, they will come to the conclusion that Roman Catholics and their Uniate brothers and sisters aren't so bad after all, especially since Rome has, in the meantime, established unity, without much fuss, with the Armenian Apostolics and Egyptian Copts; and, hoping that they can iron out some of the heretical wrinkles of the lot, invite them all to a really Great Ecumenical Council. The Popes of Rome and Alexandria of the Copts accept, and the Catholicos of the Armenians concurs. The logistics of achieving equitable representation, irrespective of numbers, takes several years, but the Council is finally held in Bari, Italy. Most of the wrinkles are ironed out, the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is taken for granted, but defined as the Ancients understood; everyone thanks St Nicholas for his gifts and marvelous intercession, a huge multi-ritual and vested liturgy stakes place and all pledge to root their hierarchical service in Christ and in His Gospel, and promise never to let their divisions take place again. The Peace is exchanged and they depart. Representatives from Evangelical groups throughout the world, who have been there as observers, feel the winds of change blow from the sea, get on their knees and beg to have in. Not a few liberals and radical reactionaries are extremely upset and vow separately, of course, to sabotage this nonsense.

Christ is in our midst!!


Given my experience of working with large and small groups and organizations, I laughed at this insight. There is always someone who puts his wrench in the cogs of the machinery.

LOL

I wonder about the Armenians. I have read that they do not see Chalcedon as an obstacle because, according to their history, they were not invited. They recognize three Ecumenical Councils. It was interesting to me that when Pope St John Paul 2 visited their headquarters in Armenia that they allowed His Holiness to celebrate his Liturgy at their Patriarchal altar--something that it was reported was never done prior. It seems that they recognized some sort of communion at that time, though nothing has moved since.

The Church of the East has a position, as I understand it, that they are in communion with anyone who wants to be in communion with them as long as it is understood that they are the Catholic and Apostolic Church in their canonical territory--remembering that they lived outside the Roman Empire and were not part of all the haggling and history that has caused so much division among many of us.

Bob

Bob, respectfully, I don't understand your charge of polemics toward me. All I said was that Rome has decided anglican orders are invalid. This is an objective fact (from Rome's understanding). While you are so quick to defend protestants, you would throw Catholics under the bus (SSPX)? We've had this talk before so I really don't want to re hash it since you don't like talking about them. But to reiterate, the SSPX are not now and have never been in schism. They are 100% inside the Catholic Church and always have been. Just like how Constantinople and Moscow view each other as excommunicated but still hold that the other remains fully Orthodox. This is similar to the SSPX, except the SSPX have always maintained communion. Archbishop Lefebvre (God rest his soul) and the others were wrongfully excommunicated by John Paul II, something Pope Benedict XVI recognized since he lifted the excommunications. Pope Francis has gone even further to recognize their sacraments as licit (though, again, the SSPX make a pretty solid claim to supplied jurisdiction). But all that aside, it was an FSSP priest and corroborated by an Institute of Christ the Good Shepherd priest who insisted to me that one must be visibly tied to Rome in this life to be able to go to Heaven. All the norms are still in place of course, being in a state of grace and what not. But that visible communion with Rome was a necessity of the utmost importance, barring invincible ignorance. I didn't spend enough time with the SSPX to hear this, though I wouldn't doubt if they held this position too. This isn't an extremist position, this is the position of the Roman Catholic Church for approximately 1950 years until Vatican II happened and all the traditional teachings were thrown out for the new age stuff.

Bob,

I take issue with dogmatic-like pronouncements like this (as with others you have recently made) in that they go beyond (your) opinion as they are stated, and are unsupported. In what real scenario is it that "[t]he Bull by Pope Leo on Anglican Orders in 1896 is no longer something that we refer to, other than it was a product of its time and circumstance"? In reference to that Bull how does stating that it "articulated when the Anglican sacraments became invalidated" warrant the admonishment that "[w]e do not denigrate other Christians on this forum"?

I refer everyone to the Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context for their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church [usccb.org]. As part of its conclusion consider: It also is correct in noting:


Dcn. Anthony

Christ is in our midst!!


Deacon Anthony:

This statement is not my opinion. It is a direct repetition of a statement made to me circa 1995/1996 when I asked a former pastor, a seminary professor, what was being done to discuss Pope Leo's Bull on Anglican Orders. I had said that I thought it might be something that ought to be discussed at the centenary of its publication in the spirit of speaking the truth in charity in ecumenical settings.

As far as taking issue with "Anglican sacraments became invalidated," I would refer you to our "Who We Are" in town Hall. We have Anglican members here and one new poster has made several negative references to Anglicans and Protestants that seem to me to be contrary to the spirit of this forum.


I am aware of "a possible re-evaluation of Anglican orders by the Roman Catholic magisterium."

I found this particular passage, within the Report, significant.

Finally, the archbishops pointed out that the words and acts required by the pope in 1896 are not found in the earliest Roman ordinals, so that if their omission renders an ordination invalid, the orders of the Church of Rome are on no surer footing than those of the Church of England.

The Anglican response makes a good point.

Nevertheless, what I think is much more important than the validity of Anglican Orders for the issue at hand, is the validity of Baptism. That is at the crux of the developed ecclesiology of Vatican II. The Church has long upheld the validity of Baptism of heretics if it is administered using the correct form and matter. They are baptized into Christ!

And so you have from that Council in Unitatis Redintegatio: “Those who Have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

I guess if you reject that Council and still consider yourself Catholic, you might be left in the bind that Colin is. But even Pope Pius XII condemned and excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney and his following for repeating and insisting upon a rigid interpretation of the Nulla salus… cant. He and his followers were reconciled with the Church before he died in 1972. I do, however, see a relationship between Father Feeney’s Slaves of Mary and SSPX.