www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Catechesis

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Dan,

As for the infallibility issue, the definition of that isn't the real problem, as I see it. The real issue is context - in what context does the Pope speak infallibly?


HI Alex!
I don't agree with you here. It IS the definition that is alien to the Orthodox. It states that the Roman Pontiff in or "outside" of a General Council speaks infallibly when speaking on Faith and Morals. Of course, the Orthodox see this is as a major distortion of the structure of the Church and an error. It is not the "particular" ways is it used but the entire idea of one Bishop having this seperate authority given to him by the Holy Spirit.
I think the Catholic Church has to take a good look at Vatican I again (if that is possible?) before they can ever get close in reality to the Orthodox Church. It IS the prime issue

Dear djs,

Yes, I agree with you.

The matter of judging Catholic sacraments as valid or not has varied among the Orthodox jurisdictions.

Even judging ORTHODOX sacraments/mysteries as valid or not has varied too.

For example, in the 17th and 18th centuries, Ukrainian Orthodox were often baptised by sprinkling.

The Russian Orthodox would sometimes rebaptise Ukrainian Orthodox emigrating to Russia by dunking three times under water, as Met. Ilarion Ohienko discusses in a number of his published works (e.g. his book on St Arsenius Matsievich).

So, this might be a case where the Russian and other Orthodox Churches would not recognize the validity of a sacrament because the received FORM of it was lacking, in their view, nomatter whether this referred to Catholics or to Orthodox.

Today, though, we don't question the validity of our Mysteries on either side.

For Ukrainians, whether they were Catholics or Orthodox was NEVER a big deal.

Whether they were UKRAINIAN Catholic or Orthodox - that was the big deal.

Alex

Thank you djs, I was waiting for someone to comment on this.

It appears that there is some significant differences even withing Orthodoxy itself, so how can one claim there are no real differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?


I don't really understand what your getting at here.


David

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear Brian,

Yes, I agree with you!

The "context" I am speaking about is precisely what you've said - the idea that one bishop or Patriarch can speak independently of the rest of the Church and its tradition.

Now, that wasn't the intention of Vatican I to say that, but that is how it came across.

Again, Pius XII asked the views of the world's RC bishops before defining the Assumption.

But a better "context" would be that of an Ecumenical Council.

Again, and in accordance with the way dogma is developed in RCism, an ecumenical Council in future could review Vatican I and amend it, as could any Pope at present.

John Meyendorff, for example, even went so far as to suggest that the papal doctrines should be "re-presented" to an ecumenical Council of both East and West (upon reunion, of course) for amendment etc.

And Pope Urban VIII is a lot different from Pope John Paul II, to be sure.

Styles of governance also vary in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The papal doctrines do command obedience from Catholics in communion with Rome.

But do they have the final say on the Petrine Ministry? They do not and what RC theologian would say such a thing today?

As Meyendorff quotes an Orthodox theologian of way back when as saying: "When a Latin talks to you about St Peter and the Primacy, do not argue with him for the Primacy is good for the Church. Only ask him to show that (the Pope's) faith is the same as Peter's, and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Again, in St Mark of Ephesus' day, had Rome agreed to withdraw the Filioque and let Purgatory and some other minor aspects alone, there would have been one Church.

Alex

Dear David,

Patriarch Joseph Slipyj himself, who spent 18 years in Siberia for the Catholic faith and communion with Rome, said that there are no essential differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I don't know about you, but I tend to take his statement seriously.

Alex

Cardinal Slipyj may have believed this, but that doesn't necesarily make it true.

If there are no essential differences then why no re-union in almost 1000 years?

I think I have said my piece on this issue and there will be no resolution so I guess we are at an impasse and should just let it be.

David

Brian and Alex --

Orthodox of course have to acknowledge that there is a need for primacy in the church. In the thread discussing Pope St. Hormisdas Stuart and I have been discussing some of the more recent theological presentations of this issue by Orthodox theologians, most notably Metropolitan John of Pergamon. I won't repeat here what I've written there, but the gist of it is that conciliarity and primacy are *both* requirements for the church to function in a trinitarian manner.

The definition of infallibility developed by the Roman Catholics at Vatican I is, of course, a tremendous stumbling block, but ISTM not an insurmountable one. The definition will need reforming by the entire church in order for it to become "orthodox" by reflecting the trinitarian life that should underlie the life of the church and its structures. Specifically, one would think that the unilateralism would have to be changed so that the Pope must speak together with the synod (perhaps on its behalf), but not unilaterally -- that unilateralism seems to run the very great risk of distorting the relationship between the primate and the remainder of the episcopate. But one can certainly imagine a definition of papal infallibility that posits that the pope speaks infallibly when united with the voice of the synod (whether a formal ecumenical council or another, perhaps "standing" synodal mechanism that the church might devise in the future ... that wouldn't be unorthodox at all. It would, however, require a significant reordering of the definitions reached at Vatican I, and therefore would require flexibility from the Catholic side. On the Orthodox side, the time has come to begin to realize that it is possible to have a Roman primacy that is orthodox and even a papal infallibility that is orthodox ... not as currently set forth in Roman decrees, but as set forth in an adjusted way that reflects greater balance in its ecclesiological outlook ... and for our part we need to be flexible as well, and not simply dismiss the very concept of infallibility out of hand, almost reflexively (which is what we sometimes do).

Jurisdiction will need to be addressed in the same way -- that is, adjusted to reflect a more balanced ecclesiological understanding, but not outright rejected. It is without doubt useful for the primate to have a broad jurisdiction in the church -- but query, from the Orthodox perspective, whether this need be unilateral, or "ordinary". An "extraordinary" or "appellate" jurisdiction, triggered by certain conditions -- as clearly existed in the first millenium as attested to by Eastern canons predating the schism -- would seem workable (and if we don't find that workable, then we have difficulty with our own history), and we should be flexible about that (we will have much to overcome in our own ecclesiastical psyche to do that, but we should still do it). Similarly, an appellate jurisdiction that is exercised by the primate together with his synod would also seem to be more workable than a unilateral jurisdiction. Roman Catholics need to show flexibility in these areas as well; it may be possible for the Pope to retain ordinary jurisdiction over the Latin dioceses, but for his jurisdiction outside of the Latin church to be limited in the way outlined above. Again, the decrees of Vatican I need to be adjusted, but there is no reason to reject the very concept of any papal jurisdiction out of hand -- we must simply work towards an articulation of these concepts that is based on the trinitarian model (and perhaps we need to spend some quality time discussing that model itself as a first step).

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I get the privilege of posting with you three times in one day! How positively Eastern!

Of course, I agree with you - couldn't have said it better myself

I think a blessing is that RC's both need to be more flexible and, in the end, I think they will be more flexible.

The way you've outlined a future Petrine Primacy and Ministry is something that all Apostolic Christians of good will could agree on.

I see a great future for you in a united Church at the Vatican, my Friend!

Alex

David et al,

From my cursory readings of the period after 1054 I find that much of the underlying reasons had to do with continued political isolation that each side suffered from the other. Wars and rumors of wars. Foreign domination and mistranslations of letters all have more to do with continued separation than any theological issue(s).

I believe, with Brendan, that the central issues have to do with the definitions of the role of the Papacy.

Having said this I will indeed look more deeply at the sources you have all given me so that my teachings will be more in line with our hope of being Orthodox yet in communion with Rome.

Thanks to all,

Dan Lauffer

Dear David,

Yes, of course there are differences but ISTM (what does that really mean?) they are not insurmountable.

Cathologians have shown how close we really are, but the papal primacy needs some work and reform, as our Brendan has shown in his usual scholarly and well thought out way.

Remember that when Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians got together, they, as Meyendorff said at the table, wondered why their two families of Orthodox Churches were separated from each other for 1800 years over the meaning of one single word regarding the Incarnation of God the Word.

We're close, but that only counts with horses . . .

Alex

[But if we accept the Pope's position from an Orthodox standpoint - and everything else from the same standpoint - then who are we kidding?
We are then Orthodox and should formally become Orthodox.
Right, Orthoman?]

You got that partially right Alex! Change it to 'we would then be Orthodox in belief & pratice but not in reality and therefore, should become so' and I will agree. Until you do, you are not kidding anyone but yourselves with the 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' oxymoron. And, with all due respect, you all come off as being either entiely hypocritical or completely nieve when you come off with this sui juris 'independent' from Rome bit. read the Canons of the Eastern Churches which I am in the process of doing now to see just how 'independent' you are from Rome.

One of my Godchildren (a ex RC) was in Toronto on business during the WYD happening. He sent me an article from the Toronto Globe about the Pope entitled 'Yes, but is he catholic?' by Will Johnson. Good article! If I didn't know better, I'd swear this guy was an Orthodox Catholic. We have gotten into discussions here on the Pope stating that everything, for the sake of unity is negioable and the denial of the Orthodox accusation that the Pope speaks out of both sides of his mouth. This came to mind as I read the following paragraph from the article -

[The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, published Oct. 11, 1992, UNDER THE AUTHORITY AND SIGNATURE OF JOHN PAUL II, lays out in paragraphs 881 and 882 the claim to the imperial power of the Bishop of Rome: "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his church. He gave him the keys of his church AND INSTITUTED HIM SHEPHERD OF THE WHOLE FLOCK....
The Pope, the Bishop of Rome and Peters successor, IS THE PERPETUAL AND VISIBLE SOURCE AND FOUNDATION OF THE UNITY BOTH OF THE BISHOPS AND OF THE WHOLE COMPANY OF THE FAITHFUL. FOR THE ROMAN PONTIFF, BY REASON OF HIS OFFICE AS VICAR OF CHRIST, AND AS PASTOR OF OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, HAS FULL, SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL POWER OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, A POWER WHICH HE CAN ALWAYS EXERCISE UNHINDERED.]

And that was agreed to and signed just twelve years ago by the same man that is supposed to be telling the OC that the Papacy is negiotable! Come on guys and girls! Mind telling me what part is negioable?

[And since Rome is separated, we are what then, "Orthodox separated from Orthodoxy?" Does that make any sense other than in the idealistic, unrealistic way in which we have all come to regard this term and our relationship with Rome?
Right, Orthoman?]

Right Alex! Orthodox separated from Orthodoxy is about as contradictory a term as you can get. Either you are or you aren't. One's Orthodoxy is not only identified by how one worships but what one believes. Your unity with the Roman Patriarch requires you to accept his supreme authority and the doctrines he proclaims and protects. otherwise, you are stating that you are knowingly and willingly under the FINAL AUTHORITY of a Bishop who protects and upholds questionable (hetrodox) beliefs and practices.

DavidB writes:

[And to imply that politics is more of a western thing is just wrong, I think that the Orthodox suffer from politics just as much if not more than Rome.]

And, as an Orthodox Catholic, I will back you up on that 100% David!

[I do not mean to be cruel here, but if this is the catechesis we are giving our children, no wonder we are losing them. This tells them that if they want to be catholic, then they should go to Rome, if not then go Orthodox, we don't really give them a choice to stay Byzantine Catholic because the way we teach them, that we are really Orthodox, teaches them that we are truly schizophrenic. That we do not know who we are.]

Oh boy! I think I will just bite my tongue and tape my fingers on this one and just say AMEN!


OrthoMan

Alex,
on a competely different topic altogether (Our Lord knows, NONE of us are guilty of this
I came across the webpage of St Elias Church in Brampton, Ontario. What a wonderful parish that seems to have recovered it's Orthodox heritage entirely! I was not only impressed by the beauty of the Church interiorly and externally but by the true Orthodox Praxis shown in the articles in the page.
Is this parish and it's example having an impact on the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada and worldwide? It really astonished me as i was used to the Ukrainian parishes i had been to before which were heavily Latinized. It was a blessing to see St Elias! I hope it is a model for new Churches coming up.

Brian

Dear Orthoman,

If you've bitten yourself too hard, I have some bandages for you!

Well, at least we agree!

I, for one, have no illusions on this. I am happy to be in union, under, beneath, or all over that holy man from Rome, Pope John Paul the Second.

And that article is only one in a sea of articles by secular journalists who praised "Yego Svyatost."

Even my Protestant neighbours exclaimed on the miracle of the Pope's visit and the Catholic youth, how wonderful they all were.

I stood next to him and knelt to him. It was quite electrifying.

His personal holiness is beyond question.

As for his orthodoxy, it depends on one's point of view. If you're Catholic (RC, with Rome or however the current Orthodox political correctness would have it), then you'll see him and his Communion as orthodox. If not, then . . .

So, yes, Big Guy, I'm hopelessly Catholic and Roman and under the spell of that man in white, that Holy Father, that big Pole from Cracow!!

I can't help it!

So, from the Orthodox perspective, I guess I'm "Heterodox in union with Rome" and probably suffering from a serious case of papal prelest.

How's your summer been?

Alex

Come, Holy Spirit:

OrthoMan writes:

..We have gotten into discussions here on the Pope stating that everything, for the sake of unity is negioable and the denial of the Orthodox accusation that the Pope speaks out of both sides of his mouth. This came to mind as I read the following paragraph from the article -

[The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, published Oct. 11, 1992, UNDER THE AUTHORITY AND SIGNATURE OF JOHN PAUL II, lays out in paragraphs 881 and 882 the claim to the imperial power of the Bishop of Rome: "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his church. He gave him the keys of his church AND INSTITUTED HIM SHEPHERD OF THE WHOLE FLOCK....
The Pope, the Bishop of Rome and Peters successor, IS THE PERPETUAL AND VISIBLE SOURCE AND FOUNDATION OF THE UNITY BOTH OF THE BISHOPS AND OF THE WHOLE COMPANY OF THE FAITHFUL. FOR THE ROMAN PONTIFF, BY REASON OF HIS OFFICE AS VICAR OF CHRIST, AND AS PASTOR OF OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, HAS FULL, SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL POWER OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, A POWER WHICH HE CAN ALWAYS EXERCISE UNHINDERED.]

And that was agreed to and signed just twelve years ago by the same man that is supposed to be telling the OC that the Papacy is negiotable! Come on guys and girls! Mind telling me what part is negioable?

Actually those quotations, given in The Catechism of The Catholic Church, are simply selections from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Lumen Gentium..

What the pope actually said and didn't say on the negotiations around the exercise of the primacy, is found in his Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint. He speaks clearly to what is of Catholic faith and what is open to new possibilities. You can read it for yourselves at:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2UTUNU.HTM

Best to get it directly from the "boss's" mouth!


[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Gerard Serafin ]

Dear Brian,

Orthodox heritage?

Be careful, Friend, or you'll be sorry . . .

Yes, St Elias is a prime example of what a parish can do when it has an (Eastern) mind to!

The only other parish I know of that's better is St Nicholas' in Toronto!

Everything St Elias knows, it learned from St Nicholas!

But you are right. These churches have reclaimed their Orth . . Orth. . . Eastern Catholic heritage.

If we had more like them way back when, people like me wouldn't have gone astray!

Alex