www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology If we're so Orthodox, do we need the Pope?

Dear Friends,

Lance reiterated the point that we are to be identical in terms of our Orthodoxy with the Orthodox (words to that effect).

If we are to be as Orthodox as the Orthodox, having our spirituality informed by the liturgical and Patristic theological sources of the Christian East seen as an integral continuum, how does the Pope figure in all that?

Are we saying that we accept all there is about Orthodoxy, save for the Pope?

Even if we say we have our own perspective on the Papacy, Orthodoxy doesn't agree with the Papacy as it is currently set up in Rome.

We maintain that we can be in communion with Rome, even though a) the Papacy is rejected, in its present form, by the Orthodox and b) even though it is arguable that the Papacy is an integral part of Orthodox theology.

So aren't we back to the contradiction that says "get on the train of Orthodoxy, but get off at the Papal stop?"

Another contradiction is for us to say we are Orthodox in communion with Rome, but on OUR terms, not Rome's, even though our forefathers signed terms of unions with Rome that were largely dictated by Rome. And if not, then Rome later ensured they were.

So how can we say that the Papacy is somehow related to the Orthodox theology and practice we say we have?

And is Rome telling us what we are to believe about the Papacy, and we are telling it what we will believe - how is that "communion?"

And how can we be truly "Orthodox" and not be in full communion with world Orthodoxy over this issue?

Alex

I think it's really very simple. We are currently under the Patriarch of Rome. We used to be under the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Gee, I wish all questions were this easy. :p

My dear Alex,

It is because world Orthodoxy rejects administative unification. I don't think of it as not being in communion with the Orthodox as being in communion with all the Churches which make up Catholicsm. Only under the Latin Patriarch can a Roman, Byzantine, and Coptic priest celebrate the Liturgy. As I see it, World Catholicsm is the ideal of what Christ wanted. The vine is Christ and we are the branches (with all our varied traditions). In other words, the various Eastern Churches complete Orthodoxy in my opinion. The Papacy is simply the administrative (and Spiritual) effect of that unity.

Dmitri

Dear Alex,

you raise some very good points. As it stands now Eastern Catholics are definetely under Rome. This is not such a bad thing if it only applied to the Pope. But it also applies to members of his Nuncio who seem to believe they have Papal Infalibility. If we were truely Orthodox in Communion with Rome we would only be dealing with the Pope. And only be in league with the Pope.

The Orthodox reject the Roman Pontiff but put too much power in the Patriarchs. They have no problem with the MP or EP or even conceptions of monolithic Orthodoxy but reject the Roman Pontiff better than old-school Calvanists . The Bishops need a bigger voice. I love the National brands of Orthodoxy with a bit less Patriarchial power. This seems to be the best model unless the world converts to the Russian Old Believer faith. I would but you are not allowed to have Christmas trees in your home during the Holidays and essentially clean it bear with this model .

Dear Steven,

O.K., but for many of us Easterners, Catholic or Orthodox, the Pope will always be "outside" our respective ecclesial, liturgical and cultural experiences and identities.

He is "closer" to the Western Catholics as he is your Patriarch.

Our Patriarchs can be heavy-handed too sometimes .

But at least if they are autocratic, they are "our autocrats" Moscow Patriarch included.

The Ukies, for example, have a bone to pick with Rome (no pun on relics) for things that have less to do with "Eastern Church" issues in terms of theological patrimony (largely meaningless to many Ukies), but with things that have more to do with their identity and "culture" as Ukrainian CAtholics - Patriarchate and other issues of church autonomy.

Many Ukies already see themselves as being "self-contained" and "complete" as a Church.

What is lacking is a Patriarchate in Kyiv. The need for a Pope falls through the cracks somewhere along the way.

Alex

Alex: What a Great Thread, esp. as posed by someone from the Catholic Communion!

My 2 pence:

The Papal Primacy has yet to be fully or even adequately articulated within the Catholic Communion. It may have done this vis a vis the Latin Patriarchate, but not for the entire Communion of Churches - in itself a canonical principle not well known in the Latin Patriarchate nor I dare say in much of the Communion.

For the past 1,000 years or so, the Catholic Communion has really only been articulating and developing it's theology and ecclesiology of the Bishop of Older Rome being the Patriarchat of the entire Latin Church.

And Papal Primacy [stricte dicte] is not the same as Patriarchal Primacy.

It has not yet really turned it's mind to deal with the question of the Primacy of Older Rome vis a vis other Patriarches of Autonomous Churches much less Autocephalous Churches in a Communion of Sister Churches.

But we have made a start. Not too long ago[sometime in the last 2 years] Zenit reported that the First See of Peter, viz. Antioch [unless you count Jerusalem] has begun a process of dialogue and exploration re Papal Primacy. I think that His Beatitude Lubomyr of Kyiv is also part of this process.

I think that is a good and sound Orthodox position. It seems to me that both the Orthodox and Catholic Communions are still developing their ecclesiologies of inter-ecclesial primacy. It certainly is not [or rather should not] be our position that we are Orthodox in everything, then suddenly when it comes to ecclesiology, treat the Bishop of Rome as if he were our our Patriarch, and our Patriarch as if he were his Nuncio.

herb.

Lubomyr for Patriarch! Yeah!!!
He is and will be!

Alex,

I can understand the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" if by this it is meant pre-schism Orthodox Eastern Christianity. However, world Orthodoxy is the Catholic Communion, and post-schism Orthodox Churches are outside of it. I believe Eastern Catholics are being truer to their theoligical heritage by accepting the Papacy, as pre-schism Eastern Christianity did.

True, this "communion" with Rome needs to be worked on. But it has come a long way in a very short time, and I see things only getting better. Even if things were getting worse, that doesn't validate a schism. I think Eastern Catholics have truly discovered their Orthodoxy, and I respectfully am inclined to believe that the Orthodox Not in Communion With Rome have yet to discover this.

ChristTeen287

Does Byzantine theology have more to offer than issues of ecclesial administration? Were the original signers of the Union of Uzhorod (all priests) really aware of the contradictions they were inviting?

Our communion with Rome is just that: communion with Rome. What is so un-orthodox about that? Does this contradict the First Millenium of Christian Ecclesiology? Does rejecting the canons of the first few Ecumenical Councils make today's Orthodoxy closer to First Millenium Christianity?

Even Rome has admitted that our current arrangement is an "imperfect" union, hence the need for becoming one. Though it may be considered an imperfect union by some (or many) it is still a union, something much more than an eternal litany of ecumenical talks will ever produce.

Our current debacle is one of a child caught in a nasty custody battle from an ugly divorce. How does one love one parent and not the other though both parents may have contempt for each other? Alex' heafty question is aimed at the innocent child who loves both. And someday, all those bishops who can't seem to love the other side will have to stand before the awesome judgment seat of Christ.

In the meantime, we Byzantine Catholics haven't even begun to see and write with Byzantine Eyes. https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000038 Like learning a new language, we still "think" in our native tongue while trying to translate each vowel and consonant of our newly (or old) found way of thinking. We go through the motions of Byzantine liturgy this and Byzantine liturgy that, but have we really internalized the thought patterns of our tradition in heart?

We are Catholic, but do we have to celebrate and write hymns to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? the Dogma of the Assumption? do we have to refuse to sing troparia to St. Gregory Palamas and/or St. Photius the Great?

Do we need the Pope? I think so. Somewhere in the litanies we mention the Pope's name. That's it. The rest is the same Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that is celebrated in most, if not all, Orthodox Churches. Does this fact change our Hymn to the Only Begotten Son? the Lord's Prayer? the Cherubic Hymn? the Trisagion? the Creed? the Anaphora? the Gospel lections? I don't think so. Not if our theology is directed at Christ, the Rock.

In our Church "village," the problems that many have accounted for is that the mayor sometimes meddles a bit too much in the family affairs of the other villagers. This can be a problem. But the opposite situation in believing that we can live out our merry ways as if a mayor should not exist (even though we once acknowledged it at the founding of our village) is just a problematic. Add to this the oddity of a nasty custody battle whereby the child tries to find his/her identity in the midst of family feuds.

Is it all politics and not faith in Jesus Christ which keeps us so d*mn divided?

Dear Alex,

what has always been lacking for the Ukrainian Orthodox has been a united KP-Patrarachate recognized by the EP.

When you say that the Roman Pontiff is incompatible with the UGCC Church you are understating the fact. How can you compare a Patriarch Slipyj with any Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot. We are Kyivian, Nationalistic, and Byzantine. But the nationalism includes 92 distinctive Nationalities. All with their own language, customs, and distinctive identity. What binds us together is the nation like Byzantium itself and a very distinctive Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

I believe we all have some work to do in establishing a Ukrainian Patrarachate. But we are also closer than you may think . As usual Canada is leading the way on these matters.

Not to beat a dead horse, but pre "Schism" Orthodoxy did NOT include Papal Infallibility and did not agree with Papal Universal Jurisdiction over the ancient Patriarchates.
It is also complicated by historical and emotional factors. Some of these can be overcome in charity. Let us all pray for more charity beginning with myself !!!

Cheers again to Alex for coming back!!!

Brian in Sacramento

Just want to applaud what Cantor Joe just posted!

It bears rereading!

herb.

ps: dear ChristTeen287:

I totally agree with you that we have come such a long ways & in such a short time!

And you're right, things do rather look brighter for us these days [compared to where we have been historically] - we're just "Rev"-ing up to speed!

Although I do think we've a fair ways to go on the issue of refinding our own voice and mode [a la what Cantor Joe has just posted].

You might find interesting the ideas and writings of Bishop Elias Zoghby, hierarch of the Melkite Church. Bishop Elias was one of the more Brilliant Council Fathers at Vatican II.

He wrote, e.g.: Nous sommes tous schismatiques [we are all schismatics]. By which I think he meant, since we are separated one from the other, we have both lost out.

Obviously, we each think that our particular Communion may have a slight edge on the other [e.g. Yes, e.g., I think that the Primacy of the Latin Patriarch has a very important role to play in the unity of the Churches [even though we've got a ways to go on that too].

Cf. the good he has done so far - apologising to the Greece Church for the TERRIBLE things that Catholics and Catholic hierarchs have done to them, the violence & sacriliges of the 4th Crusade and the Suppression of the Greek Church; excommunicating the Ecu. Patriarch for NOT introducing unagreed-upon innovation into the Creed, etc.]; but the schism is now a given.

The question that interests me is how to heal the schism with all mutual charity and mutual respect.

And we as OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome have a privileged part to play in this great work of grace, I think.

pps: BTW, Where are the other 286 ChristTeens? Have they nothing to post? Or do you show them up too much?

Alex as usual asks important questions and provides astute answers. I haven`t met this guy yet, but the sooner he takes a trip up here to the Institute in Ottawa to meet me the happier I will be!
Anyway, his question, in a nutshell, is what I hope to do my doctoral dissertation on next year. The much vexed question of the papacy and the Eastern Churches requires, I think, a comprehensive examination of three parts: first will be an examination of the theology undergirding (or failing to undergird) the papacy. Let us remember that Bishop Kallistos in his introductory volume on Orthodoxy pointed out, 40 years ago, that the issues of papal monarchy and the *filioque* are bound up with one another. I am convinced (though have not yet mastered the evidence to demonstrate it) that a fresh examination of Greek Trinitarian theology will provide a much better basis for the papacy, but, perforce, a much different papacy! That is my first line of argument.
Second, I think that the modern papacy is bound up with corrupt Nominalist philosophy from the High Middle Ages in particular�the age of God as supreme dictator whose will (hence the name `voluntarism`for this movement as well) trumps everything, even reason itself. This must be examined and discarded.
Once we have engaged in these two swamp-clearing exercises, then we can move toward a fresh re-configuration of the papacy, as John Paul II himself called for in 1995 in *Ut Unum Sint*. As far as I know, there has been little to no response to his invitation�expressly directed to non-Catholic Christians�from the Orthodox on this question and so I should like to sketch a vision of what the papacy could look like and how it could be exercised in a manner whereby it would be acceptable again to the East as it was for the first 1000 years of the Church`s life (more or less). It is here that I would like to invite as much commentary as possible, soliciting from thoughtful Orthodox their reflections on what a re-modelled papacy would be like. This could include very practical things like abolishing the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, ceasing to make Eastern primates and patriarchs cardinals of the Roman Church, reforming the Code of Canons to remove Latinizations, etc.
So how does all this grab you??

Every baseball game needs an umpire. The umpire's job is not to interefere with the flow and actions of the game, but to be there and "make the call" when needed at critical moments when it is not apparent who is right and who is wrong.

As Eastern Christians, ideally we have the Patriarch and Synod to take care of those day to day affairs. We are in communion with the Roman Church because we want to and we need to. Seeing the difficulties of jurisdictionalism amongst the Orthodox, we recognize the need for that umpire to be there.

Should there be, God forbid, a grave matter of faith and morals involving the highest echelons of our church, or if there is an issue that needs to be resolved at the highest level, there is the successor of Peter, first among equals, to appeal to.

Consider the revision of the Ordo Celebrationis by a Roman commission. Metropolitan Sheptytsky knew that the latinizer bishops under his authority would never accept the Ordo, even by his order, as it was a great return to authentic Slavic Byzantine liturgical practice and would be seen as too Orthodox and not "Catholic" by the latinizers who judged their adherence to Catholocism by the level of Roman practices they had adopted.

Luckily before Metropolitan Andrey died Rome acted, "made the call", and now we have that beautiful gem of Byzantine liturgical guidance for our church, the Ordo Celebrationis (although nearly 60 years later we are still far too slow in implementing it). I thank God Rome acted to promulgate the Ordo (which was unpopular with many Eastern Catholic bishops) and shudder to think what kind of persistent latinizations would have and still be occurring without that in place.

Even after the Ordo's promulgation there were curious events like Bishop Mihalik specifically requesting latinized exemptions from the Ordo to Rome. A Byzantine Catholic bishop asking Rome for permission to promulgate more latinizations. There are times when we as Eastern Catholics have needed the intervention of Rome to keep us on the right track of recapturing our authentic Byzantine liturgical tradition.

Dmitri,

"In other words, the various Eastern Churches complete Orthodoxy in my opinion. The Papacy is simply the administrative (and Spiritual) effect of that unity."

Not that I care much what a Roman Catholic thinks about our view of the papacy but simply to assert, since VCI I doubt that you would find very many RC's who see it this way.

I believe strongly that your first paragraph is exactly correct. However, VCI has made Papal Supremacy and infallibility not simply a matter of administration but of dogma which must be believed, hasn't it, at least as far as those who think they are our keepers are concerned?

Dan Lauffer

This is one of the best threads I've seen in the two years I've been here. Kudos to all of you.

The Nominalism of the high middle ages has certainly corrupted all discussion of theology as far as I'm concerned. But just try to explain that to the typical Roman Catholic. Oy!

I hope to post more later when I have a bit more time but just wanted to encourage you all to keep this discussion going. This looks like an area that may bear fruit for the whole Church.

Go get 'em, Adam!

Dan Lauffer