www.byzcath.org

Hi again, Brendan. Your amen corner here.

I agree that the temptation to conservative antinomianism � the dissent game � among some of our friends, the Orthodox faction among the BCs, is a problem that undermines credibility and understandably raises fear and distrust among conservative (ultramontanists who accept the Novus Ordo but cautiously criticize it) and traditionalist (Tridentine but not necessarily papalist caricatures) RCs like some of our nemeses (like Dr Warren Carroll), as they realize the illogic of this dissent, even though it�s being done by sincere non-liberals, can play right into the hands of �AmChurch�, their mortal enemy in the RCC civil war.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 03-05-2001).]

Dear Greg,

It would seem that Byzantine Catholics have found that much post-schism RC dogma is already present in the Orthodox-Catholic theology they profess.

For example, the Immaculate Conception is a RC dogma that basically is saying that the Mother of God was always Holy and sanctified.

The Eastern Church has always believed that and has always celebrated Her Nativity as the Saint of Saints, the Ever-Immaculate Virgin Mary and Most Pure Mother of God.

So we don't need extra RC dogma to explain what our Mother Church, the Orthodox Church, has always believed.

As for the Papacy, the way in which it was viewed has changed for Roman CAtholics over the years.

The Primacy of Honour is something the Orthodox Church has always held.

The Primacy of Jurisdiction was also tacitly acknowledged in that anyone under any other Patriarchate could appeal to Rome, if his or her Patriarch did them wrong. BUt only under those circumstances. Rome normally did not get involved with other jurisdictions administratively.

Papal Infallibility is, like the Immaculate Conception, couched in terms that reflect Latin concerns in the first instance.

However, the Holy Spirit guides the CHurch and He is certainly infallible or indefectible, Who will bring us into all Truth.

Speaking from the Chair of Peter to defend or define Apostolic teaching on behalf of the whole Church, including the Ecumenical Councils, the Pope can be said to participate in this charism of indefectibility which is certainly extended to other Bishops and Patriarchs who defend the same with him.

Perhaps in future, the Pope's role could be limited in this area to the formal ratification of the decrees of Ecumenical Councils?

God bless,

Alex

"Must BC's "accept" post schism dogma? Beats me. Nobody will give you an answer."

It's not that hard to get an answer, actually. Ask the priest. The problem is "does the priest have the same answer as the Bishop" and "does the Bishop have the same answer as the Synod of Bishops". In my experience, there is no lack of answers, but rather too many answers that are contradictory.

"If you do get an answer, it will must likely be: "We BC's don't worry about those questions." Gee, that's helpful."

Actually, with all due respect, the person who says that is trying to be helpful. Spiritually, the person who can keep his head down about these matters (as they surely won't be resolved in this lifetime) does so to his spiritual benefit. So that's not bad advice, really. The problem is that for folks who come from the RCC, in particular, that level of ambiguity *can* cause discomfort (because it is so alien). Good advice, but might not work for everyone.

"Now I am a heretic. Yet, I think that the papacy has a dynamic course through history. Can anyone elaborate?"

Careful. Heresy is a strong word. Vatican I was not the last word on the Papacy. Vatican II modified it considerably, and the recent statements from Rome concerning the Papacy are not really written in the Vatican I vein (although they are careful not to call VI's definition into question, formally). I think it is possible to dissent on this without being a heretic -- but it does definitely make one a dissenter.

Brendan

Dear Alex,

Good answer! Exactly why the postschism Roman definitions are superfluous, redundant, unnecessary, in the Orthodox system. The $64K question is: will the BCs officially stop annoying people like Greg and come out and say this, embracing the Orthodox way as complete?

As to whether this position is really dissent from Catholicism, my friends in the Orthodox wing of BCism can cite Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, as respectable a conservative-party RC source as you can get, who has written the Orthodox would not be forced to change anything in their way if reconciliation were achieved. Granted, he didn�t write that when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but he never has retracted it either.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Serge,

Yes,my Friend!

Sometimes I see ourselves so close to Orthodoxy that I wonder why we just aren't, in a formal sense.

I remember reading about the early Uniates in the sixteenth century.

When asked why the Pope was now being commemorated in their Churches, they said, "Perhaps the Pope has joined the Orthodox Church?"

God bless,

Alex

Alex,
Thanks! My thoughts exactly...why define what is already "defined" within the tradition and life of the church?

Brendan, thanks for the post. I think my questioning goes beyond intellectual curiosity, however. But, I do understand where you are coming from...no Thomist or canon lawyer here!

Why can't we (Byzantine Catholics) be Orthodox and that is it? Hence, I am Orthodox who happens to accept the bishop of Rome as the pope. I am afraid that the truth is is that accepting the bishop of Rome as the pope carries just too much baggage for the Orthodox. Unfortunately, if you accept the papacy, you have to (through dogmatic teaching) accept the whole deal.

Brendan, you are correct when you say that there are too many answers that are contradictory. My point exactly. Where does one go for counseling?

Dear Veritas et Vita,

You raise a very crucial point here, my friend!

If someone is truly Orthodox, however, how can they accept the Pope as he is within Roman Catholicism?

The Papacy as it has developed did so as a result of the a priori's of post-schism Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox Church didn't agree with those and so the two Churches parted company.

Some Orthodox believe there is a link between Papal Infallibility and the Filioque, for example.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father, then the Pope who is seen as the Vicar of the Son or Christ, must also be said to have the Spirit proceeding from him (ie. infallibility).

Papal jurisdiction is also something that comes from the distinctively Roman view of ecclesiology.

If we are saying, as I think we are at times, that we are Orthodox in all ways except when it comes to the Papacy and that we accept the Pope, then that poses a theological problem.

The Papacy is part and parcel of Roman Catholicism and its theological system which we say we don't accept for whatever reasons (e.g. we believe the same, we have our own theological and canonical traditions).

Some of us say they accept the Pope as first among equals only. That is fine, but that isn't what being "in communion with Rome" is about, to be perfectly frank.

So when we say there is no difference between us and Rome on the Filioque, except that we express the same thing differently, let's remember that our Orthodox brothers and sisters see in that something that Byzantine Catholics have created for themselves, perhaps ostensibly to get closer to the Orthodox or whatever.

To be truly "Orthodox" is not to be in communion with Rome. As one angry Athonite monk yelled at me, with fists clenched, "The Uniates are not Orthodox!!"

Now, there are congenial Orthodox like our Brendan. He would be my number one recommendation for any ecumenical commission.

But Brendan is far from the norm within Orthodoxy itself.

I think we need to study Orthodoxy and what it says is the problem from its particular point of view.

Trying to water down the real differences that do exist helps no one and we simply wind up offending our Orthodox friends, as I know I have on occasion (I did perform penance, in case anyone is wondering . . .)

I think that if we can let our Orthodox friends know that we love them and are trying to understand them without the slightest hint of disrespect towards them, then I think we will have accomplished a great deal.

Sometimes the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" offends them, if not all the time as my friends tell me.

What is worse is when we gloss over the real differences that still exist between us.

God bless,

Alex

"Brendan, thanks for the post. I think my questioning goes beyond intellectual curiosity, however."

Oh, I understand that completely. There is an intellectual component to the faith, without question -- it's not always *solely* intellectualizing or intellectual curiosity or intellectual dilletantism. The question is: can a Roman Catholic who becomes Byzantine expect the same level of "cohesion" that he/she had as a Roman? The answer is "no", I think. The advice that was given to you was basically "Don't worry about it, there are more important things" -- which is basically right, but it doesn't address the issue, particularly from the perspective of a Roman or ex-Roman.

"I am afraid that the truth is is that accepting the bishop of Rome as the pope carries just too much baggage for the Orthodox. Unfortunately, if you accept the papacy, you have to (through dogmatic teaching) accept the whole deal."

Let me try to be careful here. I am a guest and I don't want to say anything needlessly provocative, particularly during the Great Fast.

To me, all of these so-called "differences" really come down to the Papacy, because if you accept the Roman teachings on the Papacy you can't possibly find any fault, or have any reservation, about the way the Romans have handled all of these things -- you can take issue with pastoral advisability, perhaps, but you can't say "The Romans were wrong at Vatican I". If you analytically drill a Roman doctrine down, for example, and you are troubled by it -- nevertheless, if you have the faith in the Papacy that the Romans (profess to) have, you should be able to lay your worries aside by trusting in the fact that you are walking with Peter's successor, who has special charisma. That is the *rock* of faith for countless millions of Catholics around the world -- follow the Pope, and you can't go too far wrong.

So, to me, theologically at least, it should be the case that if one accepts Peter's successor on his own terms, one cannot possibly deny the truthfulness of anything that he teaches in an official role (clever canon lawyers will quibble about technical "ex cathedra" hair splitting re the formal applicability of Vatican I's pronouncement to this or that doctrine, but at the end of the day Catholics are required to give their full moral, spiritual and intellectual assent to *all* teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of whether they are technically infallible or not). So, to me, you either take comfort in that because you accept Peter on his own terms, or you don't -- in which case, you're in dissent, according to Catholicism.

Now, just because one is in dissent doesn't mean its a disaster. I know a lot of good, thinking Eastern Catholics who dissent from much of this stuff -- privately. Again, if you can focus on the spiritual stuff and not worry about these issues, you're better off spiritually. And if you can't, but you feel comfortable with dissenting, you're okay as well.

"Brendan, you are correct when you say that there are too many answers that are contradictory. My point exactly. Where does one go for counseling?"

Try your priest. Have an open and honest discussion with him. Most Eastern Catholic priests I have met are well-versed on these issues, and have pretty well-formed views on them. That's always the best place to start.

Brendan

"Now, there are congenial Orthodox like our Brendan. He would be my number one recommendation for any ecumenical commission.

But Brendan is far from the norm within Orthodoxy itself."

Thanks for the compliment, Alex, but it makes me giggle to me honest. I'm not always so irenic (and I certainly was NOT so irenic when I was an Eastern Catholic!).

"Some Orthodox believe there is a link between Papal Infallibility and the Filioque, for example. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father, then the Pope who is seen as the Vicar of the Son or Christ, must also be said to have the Spirit proceeding from him (ie. infallibility)."

That was one of Lossky's points -- but really it wasn't raised by any Orthodox for many centuries after the separation, and so it seems suspect (as Bishop Kallistos points out in his book).

"Some of us say they accept the Pope as first among equals only. That is fine, but that isn't what being "in communion with Rome" is about, to be perfectly frank."

See, here you've put your finger on the nub of the matter, Alex. The issue is: can one accept communion with Rome on ONE'S OWN terms, instead of on Rome's terms. This has often been skirted at by well-meaning Eastern Catholics who claim to be in communion with Rome as they were during the first ten centuries -- but that assumes that, in the present-day Catholic Church, one (or, for that matter, an entire sui juris Church) can choose the terms on which it is in communion with Rome. Rome appears to disagree with this, believing that it sets the terms of communion.

The more subtle and sophisticated corollary to this is that "since Orthodoxy has no dogmatic statement on the role of the Papacy, neither do I [as an Eastern Catholic], and therefore I do not outright reject the Roman view as heretical". The problem with this is that Orthodoxy has pretty well excluded what the Romans have done in this area from "right belief" -- in several different ways over the centuries. Vatican I complicated the issue (of course, it dodn't create it). Orthodox are generally not willing to say "it's okay for Rome to teach "x" which we think is wrong, since we don't teach anything dogmatically relating to "x"".

"I think we need to study Orthodoxy and what it says is the problem from its particular point of view."

And this states well the Orthodox side of the problem. Because while Orthodoxy has made it clear that Rome's present teachings in this area are not, in its mind at least, 'orthodox', nevertheless Orthodoxy has failed to come up with its own ideas, in a coherent way, regarding how this relationship should work. Platitudes like "first among equals", frankly, ring very hollow against the spectacle of nearly constant Orthodox feuding about the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Orthodox can't really say "first among equals" with much credibility until we develop our own ideas about what the role of our own existing first among equals should be.

Brendan

Alex and Brendan, you both are making good points.

One problem (and it is a big problem) is the use of language in the Catholic church. Since the pope is the bishop of Rome and a Roman Catholic, he will use his own lanuage (i.e., Thomistic, legalistic, etc) to communicate to the entire Catholic church. This use of language poses a serious theological problem to non-Romans. A non-Roman cannot simply look for the essence of the dogmatic statement...he will end up turning the statement into a neat little dogma that has been customized to serve the individual, not the church as a whole. Now, to be fair, the pope must use this language because it is the language of the Roman church. And, if you are Catholic, either Roman or Eastern, you must accept this.

How is this problem solved? Do not define anything unless it is: a) completely universal and a matter of faith and morals and/or b) an article of Faith that is at such a risk of misunderstanding that could cause great harm to the faithful. If either of these are the case, then ALL the chruches should come together through the leadership of the pope.

Brendan, I am not sure what, according to your reasoning, the consequences of being in dissent means.

Regards,
Greg

Dear Brendan,

Please don't giggle, what I said is true!!

The Orthodox Church has clearly emphasized the role of the local and Patriarchal Churches throughout its 2,000 year history.

Primacy of Honour certainly varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Pope of Alexandria was the first to have full jurisdiction over every single priest, let alone parish, throughout Christian Africa. The Moscow Patriarchate certainly operates with a well defined notion of jurisdiction as well.

Lossky's point is repeated by traditionalist Orthodox polemics. To be frank, I find it to be a coherent argument.

Primacy of Honour appears to be exercised at two levels in the East.

There is the Primacy at an Ecumenical Council whose decrees are universally binding. The Primacy of Chairmanship there is still exercised within the context of collegiality among the Patriarchs. Primacy of Honour does not necessarily imply that the First Patriarch is "more" or "above" the others in the Church.

What I would like to know more about is how the Roman Catholic Church herself understands Papal Primacy today and in the light of the last forty years.

The Papal Office and its role has changed throughout history.

What is its real role in the Church today and how has it changed say from the time of Pope Urban VIII?

How will it change in the future? How does this impact upon relationships with other Churches?

The Orthodox position on this is that the Petrine Ministry and Primacy is something that the entire Episcopate shares in. Pope St Gregory himself said that the "See of Peter" includes Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all three of which had strong ties to St Peter.

Also, if we as Christians confess Christ as the Son of God, then we too "are Peter."

For the Orthodox this ultimately comes down the issue of faith. If the Pope of Rome is of Orthodox Faith, the "let him enjoy all the privileges of Peter."

So the issue comes back to agreement in the Faith. The Primacy is a given. How it ought to be exercised is something that is not clear on either side as yet.

God bless,

Alex

"One problem (and it is a big problem) is the use of language in the Catholic church. Since the pope is the bishop of Rome and a Roman Catholic, he will use his own lanuage (i.e., Thomistic, legalistic, etc) to communicate to the entire Catholic church. This use of language poses a serious theological problem to non-Romans."

Right. This is what Fr. Meyendorff wrote about the Council of Florence-Ferrarra -- essentially that both East and West talked past each other because they were using different theological language -- and even the same words had different theological meanings. At this point, there are enough people in both Churches who understand the other well enough, I think, to overcome this. However, for the Churches as a whole, for the laity/clergy/monastical orders as a whole, to overcome this will be daunting and difficult.

"How is this problem solved? Do not define anything unless it is: a) completely universal and a matter of faith and morals and/or b) an article of Faith that is at such a risk of misunderstanding that could cause great harm to the faithful. If either of these are the case, then ALL the chruches should come together through the leadership of the pope."

That's an interesting idea, but in a way it ends up penalizing the Romans for having the Pope, if you will -- because the Pope, since he has a "universal" role, would have to be more circumspect when speaking than the other Patriarchs would. OR, the Pope could clarify when he is speaking with which hat -- but that could be problematic as well, in practice, and cumbersome.

"Brendan, I am not sure what, according to your reasoning, the consequences of being in dissent means."

Only you, together with your priest, can assess that. Suffice to say that many are dissenters on many of these issues (at least as they are "officially" framed up in official Catholic documents like the CCC) while participating fully in the life of the Church. I would suggest speaking with your priest about it.

Brendan

Dear Greg,

Thank you for your post and for your keen insight into the relationship between language and theology.

Actually, I think your point is so salient that a lot of historical problems could have been avoided if the language issue was nailed down more.

The recent talks between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox demonstrated this when they realized that one word describing the union of Christ's human and divine natures was understood variously by the Greeks and the Copts and that they really meant the same thing.

The same is true of the "Filioque" since the Greek rendering would mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father. The thing is that this statement is considered heretical by both the Greeks and the Latins, when put this way. The Latins believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son "passively" only and actively from the Father.

In terms of definition of dogma, I agree with you.

Perhaps it is better for the Pope and the Patriarchs to define such dogma within the context of an Ecumenical Council alone. That is the way dogma was defined for the first thousand years and it is still the tried and true way.

Even when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption, he still consulted with the world's bishops before so doing.

That is, I think, a form of conciliarity, irregular, but still a form.

Brendan is extremely well read and well meaning, as we know!

I don't know, and this is not a slight against Brendan, if his deeply thoughtful approach to doctrine would play in Peoria or among traditional Orthodox, as you mention in your final point.

For me, the issue of Church unity is the issue of how an Ecumenical Council can, once again, be the voice of the Spirit in the undivided, One, Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the Pentarchy of Patriarchates at the table.

God bless,

Alex

"Primacy of Honour certainly varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Moscow Patriarchate certainly operates with a well defined notion of jurisdiction as well."

Right, which was pointed out well by Afanasieff in his ecclesiological writings.

"There is the Primacy at an Ecumenical Council whose decrees are universally binding. The Primacy of Chairmanship there is still exercised within the context of collegiality among the Patriarchs. Primacy of Honour does not necessarily imply that the First Patriarch is "more" or "above" the others in the Church."

Agree, but the Romans point to the fact that they never viewed Ecumenical Councils this way (at least not consistently), and there are many actions by Popes in the first millenium that suggest, either directly or indirectly, that they did not view themselves as "bound" by Ecumenical Council pronouncements with which they disagreed. Already there was a difference of opinion about this, long before a separation happened.

"What is its real role in the Church today and how has it changed say from the time of Pope Urban VIII? How will it change in the future? How does this impact upon relationships with other Churches?"

Well this is the moose on the table. The problem is that right now there is a war going on in the Latin Church, and the conservative/traditional "side" wants a strong Papacy to be able to win the war. Until that war is substantially won, I don't expect many practical changes in the centralized structures we see today.

"The Orthodox position on this is that the Petrine Ministry and Primacy is something that the entire Episcopate shares in. Pope St Gregory himself said that the "See of Peter" includes Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all three of which had strong ties to St Peter."

Right, and Cardinal Ratzinger repeats it in his ecclesiological book "Called to Communion". But herein lies the seed of another issue -- namely that Orthodoxy sees (or, more accurately, USED TO see) these structures as changeable, whereas Catholicism does not. For Catholicism, Petrine primacy is permanent because it is Petrine, and the fact that perhaps Alexandria and Antioch share in this due to a Petrine link means that they simply share, to a degree, in this indelible mark of Primacy. When Constantinople was "moved up" per Ecumenical Council, this was offensive to Rome, because it was not a Petrine See. Obviously at that point in time the East viewed these issues as changeable/mutable, to a degree that the West did not, and still does not. Now, this is largely theoretical, because the Orthodox structures have become largely calcified as well (which is an abuse of Orthodox ecclesiology, as Schmemann bravely pointed out in some of his writings), so there isn't a lot of mutability going on these days, even in Orthodox circles.

"So the issue comes back to agreement in the Faith. The Primacy is a given. How it ought to be exercised is something that is not clear on either side as yet"

Yes, this is basicaly right. I don't think too many seriously doubt that Rome would be primatial in a reunited Church -- that's a given, as you put it. Yet, there are more issues to be resolved than simply exercise of Primacy, although that it is important -- including, for example, whether Primacy includes jurisdiction the way that the Romans have dogmatically defined it, and whether Primacy includes individual infallibility, again the way that the Romans have defined it. For an agreement/consensus about the exercise of the Primacy in practice is very hollow if full unfettered jurisdictional power is nevertheless retained.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Actually, friend, your last post is just so concise and well written, I think you should get an award or some sort of recognition for theological understanding and scholarship!

The Romans did indeed refuse to be bound by every pronouncement of an Ecumenical Council.

These were the beginning of the murmurings that led to the formal split in AD1054.

There is also the matter of how one defines what an Apostolic See is.

Is it because an Apostle was at that city and established its Church?

In Rome, this was true and this made Rome the only such Apostolic See in the West. But, in the East, Peter and the Apostles established Churches even in small villages, not to mention Antioch and Alexandria and elsewhere.

As Meyendorff notes, one argument the Romans had that the Byzantines might listen to is that Rome had the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul etc.

Realistically, the actual role exercised by the capital city of the Roman Empire is also an important consideration since Constantinople went ahead of the much more powerful Alexandria in the Patriarchal pecking order only because it became the New Rome.

I think that unity can be achieved jurisdictionally if every Church's administrative structure is left alone while an Ecumenical Council becomes the normative instrument for settling important doctrinal or disciplinary disputes with the Pentarchy chairing it.

Jurisdiction should only be exercised internally by a Patriarch or Metropolitan. It should not, and cannot, be exercised by another Patriarch over another Patriarchate, unless, of course, it is invited to in circumstances of crisis.

God bless,

Alex