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

Shlomo Lkhoon,
I have to second what Dan has said. I just posted the entire thread so far on the Maronite Board I belong to.

The energy that the people here have is truly in the Spirit of Christ. I hope that what I have posted will get just a few more of those within my Tradition to realize that being a Christian does not mean sitting in a pew on Sundays, but a total life commitment.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Friends,

If this is a good thread, it is owing to all of you and your usual excellent comments and reflections.

I wanted to reflect on Cantor Joe's deeply thoughtful comments (and I'm not just saying that to make amends with him, although I hope that I can eventually find my way back into his forgiving acceptance).

Let me backtrack for a moment.

My "conversion" to Eastern Christianity or to a focus on Byzantine theology and praxis versus the Latinized stuff I grew up on occurred at the end of high school.

For me, and for many here, the Eastern Church - together with all that it implies culturally - is what most of my personal identity is all about.

And everything about Orthodoxy is integrally related, one to another.

Our pastor who held a doctorate in Eastern theology expressed himself as did Joe Thur with respect to Byzantine theology and the Papacy.

He always argued that the first Millennium of Christianity acknowledged a role for the Bishop of Rome and that we "Orthodox in communion with Rome" simply had the fullest expression of the faith and practice of the early Church in this regard as a result.

And I accept that no question.

What impresses me most about Joe Thur's position is how he can be so totally Orthodox while AT THE SAME TIME maintaining the importance of communion with Rome.

That, for me, puts things in a whole new perspective.

It satisfies me intellectually and, more importantly, spiritually. I know more reflection is require here, but this represents a breakthrough for me for which I am grateful to Cantor Joe.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuhannon:
"
being a Christian does not mean sitting in a pew on Sundays, but a total life commitment."

PEWS??!

ANATHEMA!

My simple (perhaps simple minded) approach to this question is as follows: "I honor the Pope as he was supposed to be honored during the first millenium and as I believe he should be honored now. I resent what happened at VCI and believe that until that is reversed there will never be union and we will never be treated fairly. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we have been chosen to "live forward" or to "live as if" the reality is what Christ established and not what is in the minds of most of the Western Roman Catholics. It is a martyrs calling."

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

With all due respect, one person's private interpretation and opinion on how the Pope should be honored shouldn't be the basis for one's belief when it contradicts what has been declared in an infallible Council (be it ecumenical or general; I hold that VCI was ecumenical.) Shouldn't we obey what the Church has solemnly proclaimed while at the same time reformulating what has been proclaimed?

ChristTeen287

Christteen,

I don't wish to cause scandle but here goes: I'll submit to VCI's decision as long as I can ignore its meaning. The dogma of papal infallibility as it has been explained to me is either the work of a tyrant or it is nonsensical. So for now I will say that it is the teaching of the Church and let it go at that. I suppose in practical terms it doesn't affect me much. But it really makes no sense to me.

Dan Lauffer

Question for dan....

Why would you even want to be in communion with rome if you think it has gone astray? (proclaiming papal infallibility)

I'm not trying to be polemic here, but am confused....

It's a fair and good question. I wonder about it myself. It has to do with holiness/theosis.

First, the typical American or Protestant answer is to jump ship and either join some other group or create another group which one will run away from in subsequent years or even months. I don't believe one grows in grace by jumping here and there every time one has a disagreement. So, I stay.

Second, despite how Catholics will frame the issue in the future I believe this "dogma" is temporary. Perhaps what I really mean is the aspect of it that insists that both East and West must subscribe to the notion of Papal Supremacy will eventually disappear. Because the west is stuck on it they will probably retain it so they can continue to squabble amongst themselves. Yet, I do believe that officially the interpretation will be modified in order to provide for union.

Third, I believe the Lord desires union for His Church. The Holy Spirit will bring about this union and it will include some accomodation to the true sensibilities of the East which is quite rightly opposed to Supremacy and the way infallibility based upon Scholastic thought is formulated.

Will I be prompted to always follow this strategy? I do not know.

Dan Lauffer

Thank you for responding Dan....

I guess I was just pondering the same thing that Alex was when he started this thread. You are definately right that the american/protestant approach must be avoided. Unfortunately some of them have turned schism into an art form.

I think you are right that papal infalliblity seems to be a problem. But I'm not so sure it can be changed or developed to fit the east. I think the strong resistance that you get when you try to explain to RC's how you view papal infal. is very telling. I think you get these reactions because the RCC has made it very clear (at least it seems so to me) what it means by papal infal. If the "dogma" is modified to fit the east then it seems that it would create a pretty big faith crisis in the west.

When you have a magisterium that is set up to guide the church and is the formal teaching office of that church (as the west sees it), then it's really only a matter of time before the part of the church that "officially" speaks for the church(and consequently for Christ) is declared to be infallible. After all how could Christ err?

The east of course doesn't see things this way as "your either the magisterium or not".

I'm not here saying which one of these ways are right but i'm just not sure how this will all work. If we include the eastern view it seems we will be saying the "magisterium is the infallible voice of the church that speaks authoritatively for Christ..oh yeah but only for the west"

I just don't see how a modification of papal infal. will not cause a crisis for RC's. It seems that someone loses no matter which way we go.

Maybe Alex can shed some light on this issue...

I just pray that God will raise up some saints soon who will end this separation.

Bonaventure,

I pray for those saints as well. We may eventually discover that John Paul II may be numbered among them.

BTW I really do like you name. Is he your patron saint? Mine is Athanasius. I wonder if there is a Avatar for him?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I think JP2 has done alot of good also, I think he has genuinely extended a hand to the east. It seems to me at least that this isn't a "tactic" but a real reaching out. And despite grumblings from some "Christians" this has been long overdue. Lets hope it gets things started.

Thanks for the compliment but Bonaventure is not my patron saint. He is someone whom I really admire for his holiness though. You are very lucky to have St. Athanasius as your patron saint. He is definately one of my favorite church fathers and rightly admired by east and west.

BTW I heard you say before that you really don't like the approach that scholasticism takes on theology (not bonaventure of course!). Could you recommend some books that emphasise that point of view...or at least engage western theology from an eastern view? I tried to ask the forum readers on a thread i started but no one replied. I am looking at maybe purchasing "orthodox dogamtic theology" by pomazansky and the same title form dumitru stanilae...are these good titles?

God Bless

Dear Dan and Bonaventure,

St Alex the Man of God is my patron saint.

He lived under stairs and so is a good patron for me as I sometimes have to live in the dog-house, especially here .

Ultimately, I think that if we accept that a "Particular Church" embraces not only the idea of liturgical, ritual and theological diversity, but ecclesiological diversity as well, then being "in Communion with Rome" can and should be understood and practiced differently by different Churches.

For me, "Particular Church" is the embodiment of a distinct Christian culture, although there are Particulare Churches that are close to one another in terms of spiritual culture.

When we as Eastern Catholics bring our own Patristic and liturgical reflections to the discussion table on Papal Primacy, we enrich the entire spectrum of ideas revolving around it.

It is clear to me now that we don't just swallow the doctrines of the Roman Church on anything, including its own historically conditioned and evolving view of its own authority and status.

Even the doctrine on Papal Infallibility and jurisdictional primacy of Vatican I are things that can be and should be transformed within the context of Eastern theology and ecclesiology.

If we fail in this our responsibliity to so do, we will fail the entire Catholic Church.

It is the Latin Church's characteristic to be rationally rethinking and revising its own self-understanding through the centuries.

Our Patristic-oriented perspectives tend to be more stable and grounded in a surer foundation and frame of reference by which we interpret all doctrine and discipline, including that emanating from Rome.

Our Particular Churches are truly equals with Rome that has a "First among Equals" honour. Such an honour does not mean Rome is above anyone. It only means that there is an order of precedence at Ecumenical Councils and during the Liturgy.

We can truly be "Orthodox Catholics in communion with Rome" with all that this entails.

Whether Rome likes it or not . . .

Alex

Hi Alex

This statement

Even the doctrine on Papal Infallibility and jurisdictional primacy of Vatican I are things that can be and should be transformed within the context of Eastern theology and ecclesiology

is what i'm most concerned about. Right now I'm just trying to understand how. I think you and others here make great sense but it just seems to me right now that the way papal infal/primacy has previously been understood is creating problems. I think the discusson on another thread about Cardinal Dulles highlights this tension and also the reaction Dan says he gets when talking to RC's. To ask you the same question I asked Dan could you recommend some good books on eastern ecclesiology for me?

Sorry to hear you have to live in the dog house sometimes....What is the eastern understanding of dog house?...just teasing

I totally agree that we cannot fail the church on this.

Dear Bonaventure,

As an aside, I love St Bonaventure's "Psalter of the Mother of God" and did you know some Orthodox saints used it, e.g. St Dmitri of Rostov?

I think John Meyendorff's works on this topic, beginning with his "Byzantine Theology" and "Imperial Legacy" shed great light on Orthodox ecclesiology vis a vis Rome.

Meyendorff conversed with the great Byzantine Catholic theologians of his day, Jesuits included , and even asked them to comment on prepublication drafts of his books (e.g. Fr. Gustav Weigel, SJ, who once told him he was not strong enough on the Orthodox critique of the Filioque!).

Meyendorff truly internalized RC ecclesiology which enabled him to respond to it from the Orthodox position as well as he did.

He was remarkable in many other respects in this regard.

Other texts, Catholic and Orthodox, that treat of ecclesiology tend to be too idealistic for me, writing about what "should be" rather than about "what is."

Meyendorff made sense of what is in this regard.

Alex

Thanks for the tip Alex,

I actually just got done reading Meyendorff's book St Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. His other books I have checked out look good too. He seems to be very honest and intelligent. I didn't know he hung out with Jesuits though.....well I guess we need to be ecumenical with them too.