One of the complaints sometimes voiced by Orthodox with respect to the movement for the restoration of communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is that, despite the advances achieved theologically by the ecumenical commissions, Rome has done not a single thing to implement any of them and so demonstrate its good will to take its own perspectives delineated in Vatican II and since seriously at all.

I've often thought that one thing Rome could have done long ago was to return to the original Nicene Creed of the first millennium without the Filioque - that big sticking point.

RC's, on the other hand, nervously wonder what such a move will be seen as. Does it mean that Rome was wrong on the Filioque to begin with? Does this assail the pope's infallibility prerogratives? If so, what ELSE has Rome been wrong about?

Rome seems to have spent a lot of time and effort adapting to what some observers understand as "cultural/spiritual Protestantism." IF this is true, why does Rome appear to have done very little, by comparison, with respect to the Orthodox East (if this is true as well)?

Do the old battle-lines between Rome and Orthodoxy remain where they have been, commissions and warm encounters notwithstanding?

Alex

I personally vacillate between seeing the filioque as a real dogmatic problem and seeing it just as a linguistic hiccup about an obscure theological question that no one really can pretend to understand anyway. I think Rome was certainly wrong to insert it and try to impose it, but I wonder if the eastern arguments against it are overblown.

Papal supremacy, in my mind, is the biggest problem. If it were merely a question of church polity, it wouldn't be a big deal- I don't have any fundamental objection to one bishop having supreme jurisdiction- but the dogmatization of this, which flies in the face of Church history, is a serious error and our churches will not be able to unite without a plain retraction of this dogma by Rome.

Edit: I know many on this forum will disagree with me about Papal supremacy, and I am not trying to start a debate about it here- plenty of other threads for that. Just pointing out that this is a salient disagreement which I don't think there can be compromise on.

Alex:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think there are many things that Rome needs to do in addressing these issues. In #403750, I posted some points that the Orthodox seem to think need to be stated beyond the issue of the filioque.

On the other hand, there is a Vatican source on the official website that details the dialogue with the Lutherans. Some of the points there seem to suggest that Rome is moving farther away from the points made in the dialogue with the Orthodox.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

It seems to me that Rome needs to step back and figure out where she is on many of these points. In other words, in what direction is Rome moving? Some of the points about the ministerial priesthood on that site seem to be ones that the Orthodox would never accept. In addition, Rome seems to have forgotten Pope St John Paul II's instruction about the priesthood being restricted to men alone in the dialogue with the Lutherans. How can a mutual recognition of orders take place when one side accepts the ordination of women and the other is on record as saying that it can never happen?

That might also be a point for the Eastern Catholic Churches to address. If they are to be part of the reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches, where does this put them?

Bob

This is all fascinating!

Bob, where do you see Rome moving away from Orthodoxy in what you've sourced? I'm asking, of course, not telling . . .

And Swan (may I call you "Lebed?" :)), I agree with you.

But, to get back to the original point of the thread, as I understand it (am I sounding like a moderator? Years ago, I turned down the Administrator's invitation (was it?) to be a moderator - and now I'm sorry I did . . . it would have been fun . . .).

What specifically direct action could Rome now take/make in light of the RC/Orthodox ecumenical agreements (is there name Legion?) and on a unilateral basis to demonstrate to Orthodoxy that it is serious about ultimate reunion?

Perhaps we could put this in a particular paradigm here, namely, that IF the guiding principle for such reunion to ever take place is a return to the Tradition and praxis of the first millennium, then can both Rome and Orthodoxy be, today, assessed in accordance with such a "standard" - assuming everyone can agree on what exactly that standard constitutes.

If they can agree on that, then how may Rome address issues like the "14 later Latin Councils" which the Orthodox don't accept because they weren't, for the most part, present at them (in the case of the union councils of Lyons and Florence, while the Greek reps did sign the documents, they were later repudiated by the Churches in question);

OR, as our Swan has so eloquently put it, the issue of infallibility - infallibility of one bishop (the Pope) versus the infallibility/indefectibility of an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church;

OR, a number of other issues.

Again, this question relates ONLY to what Rome could unilaterally due in advance of any union council (although such actions undertaken by Rome could certainly pave the way to such a future council).

So if YOU were the Pope, what would YOU do as such to help bring the faith and praxis of Roman Catholicism closer to that of Orthodoxy, WITHOUT, at the same time, compromising the that faith and praxis (any more than it seems to have been compromised by documents such as the one Bob/Theophan/Moderator Extraordinaire has brought forward above?

Alex

Following, intensely. But, I'll throw this out there: My friend (Orthodox parish choir director, who came to Orthodoxy through St. John Paul II..) said something to the effect the Protestant milieu is the child of Rome, so you'd tend to your kids, first.

A lot of high-level ecumenical business is alienating to people in the pew (or standing in the narthex).
The filioque is pretty a marginal issue now in the West, except for the apologetics set, which plays the mouse that roared sometimess.
Any removal of the filioque could be perceived as mere cosmetics to the Orthodox unless backed up by something more substantive.
Maybe a lot of things that are not doctrinal could be altered...like celibacy, which is a discipline, but is an item Orthodox apologists focus on as if it is a perceived Latin dogma.
More important than changes in wordings of things are: what do you think of Christ and the practice of Christian charity. As someone with Orthodox leanings, I think the Roman Catholic Church really goes the extra mile in showing charity.

I don't think it can be done. Papal supremacy is so dogmatically ingrained in the Catholic Church now that the only way back to Orthodoxy is a flat renunciation of it- and that would certainly be a compromise of the RC faith as it stands. Other issues (azymes, clerical celibacy, etc.) can be easily settled as local traditions. Like I said above, I'm not sure what to make of the filioque issue. But Papal supremacy seems to me an insoluble issue short of a complete and unambiguous renunciation. The connected dogma of infallibility actually bothers me less because it is basically meaningless, but of course that would have to go too.

I don't, by any means, want to suggest that dropping the filioque (from the recitation of the creed) would be some kind of cure-all, but to dismiss it as mere cosmetics seems absurd.

On a side note, I've suggested before that the Orthodox too could do with a more precise translation than currently used. E.g. In English texts "proceeds eternally" would be more precise than simply "proceeds".

The filioque could even be retained, IMO, so long as it is understood the way St. Maximus accepted it, and not according to the teaching of Lyons, Florence, etc.

Alex:

Christ is in our midst!!

Paragraph #176 asks whether Rome "can recognize the ministry of the Lutheran churches." It mentions that the ordination of women is part of that. I know of many in the Catholic Church who have been pushing this issue despite the document that Pope St. John Paul II promulgated in 1994. It seems to me that this paragraph suggests that reconciliation would make such a recognition necessary. Of course, that would mean further denial of women's ordination in the Catholic Church would be impossible. But there are Orthodox statements that mirror the Pope's 1994 declaration.




So the question becomes where does the ecumenical effort go and what are the implications for the Catholic/Orthodox reconciliation.

I guess it comes down to the question of what a Christian return to full communion of all the Churches and ecclesial communities can contain. I see it as the idea that a healthy body cannot accept everything. There will always be things that it cannot accept--opposing statements of theology and practice.

Bob

Ecumenism went from being a Protestant idea ridiculed by Catholics to a notion much-cherished by Catholics. What makes it so great?
I forgot, Happy Feast Day, whatever your calendar.

I think the best thing Rome can do is recover a truly patristic mindset and patristic reference point for spirituality. Authentic spiritual praxis needs to made a priority instead of social/political issues. Recovering authentic teaching on prayer and asceticism rooted in the fathers. At this point, Roman Catholicism is looking more and more like a mere socio-political organization. It's disturbing and depressing.

This needs to be said a little more often, and more visibly. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I may be idealistic, or optimistic, but I don't much is lost as it's more of a piling on of stuff. As I noted in social media, it's up to the Latin Church to get its identity together. You can still have diversity, as long as there is coherence in place. At this time, it doesn't appear to be the case, on the surface. I can always stand to be corrected, of course.

All good points!

However, it is good for the Church to reach out and touch the poor and dispossessed, privately by way of good works and also publicly via policy - this is also very Patristic.

The great Cappadocian Fathers and others would often criticize the wealthy of their day during droughts and famines. Great lights like St Paisius Velichkovsky would dedicate their monastery kitchens to feeding the poor during times of crisis.

As for Pope Francis and his Roman Catholic Church, I've met so many people who either expressed a desire to look at the Catholic Church more seriously because of him or else who have returned to regular participation in Church life as a result.

This is not to say that Orthodoxy does't do social outreach - I support a local Orthodox soup kitchen and am proud to be able to do so.

Recently, we were at a Shrine Church up here where I saw many young Catholics do a 150 mile pilgrim walk (could have been more) over the span of a week. Devotional life is like it has never been before in our once devotionally weak Latin parishes here.

All good!

Alex

.

Well, if by some set of circumstances I was made Pope ("Alexander VII Romanus" to make up for the badness of my"namesake predecessor . . .), this is what "We" would do:

Remove the Filioque from the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds after some solid catechetics as to why the one true Roman Church was returning to the earlier version - just as it returned to the early version of the Liturgy

Then "We" would place St Photios the Great into the universal Roman calendar of saints (sic) together with some others, formerly suspected of both heresy and schismatic tendencies.

"We" would then move to have the Latin Church and the World Council of Churches follow the Orthodox Paschalion with respect to the celebration of Easter.

Following these largely symbolic acts, "We" would bring together a theological commission with the most traditionalist Orthodox theologians that could be found.

This commission would then proceed to develop an agreed statement with respect to issues like the "14 later Latin Councils," the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Original Sin etc.

Once the work of this commission would be completed, We would call a special meeting of the Cardinals to see if a papal declaration could be made to implement the conclusions of the committee.

This would not, as yet, touch the issue of the papacy. But then "We" would move to distinguish between the immediate jurisdictional powers of the papacy within the universal Roman Church and a renewed emphasis on the right of the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches to govern themselves in the SAME way as their Orthodox sister-Churches do.

This means that "We" would abolish the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (probably in advance of our papal coronation date). Ancient rights of the Eastern churches in communion with "Us" would include the right to glorify their own saints for veneration in their own Churches (without the need for the tedious distinctions re: "Blessed" and what-not).

"We" would reserve the right to canonize such Saints for the universal Roman Church and, just so Latin Episcopal Conferences don't get "their" noses out of joint, let them do likewise (they have always had the right to canonize their own miraculous images).

We (the parentheses are getting to be rather tedious) would reserve the right of all Eastern Church primates to be present at all future conclaves whether or not they are Cardinals.

We would also ensure that all matters of internal jurisdictional governance touching the Eastern Churches would be their own sole administrative responsibility without having to report in any way to Us here in the Apostolic See of Rome.

Then, and only then, would We move to convene a union Council with Orthodoxy, to which the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians would be invited, with the view to finally unify us within a dynamic model of ecclesial inter-communion that respects our diverse traditions and Particular identities, with a renewed Petrine Primacy of service in love.

+ Alexandrus PP VII Romanus
Given under my hand in the city of Rome

I can so go with this!

Bless you, my son!

Alex

Your Holiness,

Where may I apply for an official papal blessing (with parchment/certificate)?

Kissing the Sacred Foot,

Messdiener

No need to kiss my foot, my son! (I've just gotten over a foot infection, so I don't want to introduce any further bacteria in the general area anyway . . .).

As I've not been formally invested as pope, I'm not (yet) able to fulfill your admirable request!

You'll have to be satisfied with my regular blessing!

+ Alexander VII PP Romanus

It could be argued that the change was really pretty small: many of those Catholics simply came to define ecumenism in terms of other Christians coming into communion with Roman Catholicm. Switching from a negative view of the term to a positive one was a natural corollary.

I don't wish to offend any Orthodox Christians here, but I honestly believe that the papacy as defined by Vatican 1 makes complete sense, not just from an historical perspective, but from a logical one. Rome can't do anything more. It's up to individual Orthodox Christians whether or not they want to convert to Catholicism, because there's just no way the two views can be reconciled.

At the end of the day, an ecumenic council itself is nothing particularly special. There had been many councils before Nicaea (some of which were considerable in size), and Nicaea itself only had a fraction of the total number of bishops invited present, not to mention that it completely excluded bishops outside of the empire.

So the real question is: what gives a council its teaching authority? After all, if what the Orthodox say is true, that Nicaea was convened by Constantine without the Pope's involvement, then what is it but just a slightly larger gathering than previous councils? An emperor has no spiritual authority.

If the ecumenical council was the invention of a secular leader, then it can't possibly have authority on spiritual matters. But if, as one source states, Nicea was convened at the recommendation of Pope Sylvester, then there's something more to the council's essence.

Considering the ante-nicene period, what objective spiritual authority was there in those days? Even if its nature is disputed today, the Orthodox can agree that the Roman Church was seen as the authority.

I'm no expert in the matter, but every theory of Church authority proposed by Orthodoxy seems absurd. There needs to be a SOURCE of infallibility, and it needs to be something greater and more fundamental to the Church's existence than the ecumenical council, which is nothing but a fourth century novelty anyway. (If Orthodoxy truly wanted to avoid novelty, it would reject ecumenical councils!) This novelty is only acceptable if its foundation is something that has existed since the beginning.

In the Jerusalem Council of the Book of Acts, Peter is the solemn authority. When he speaks, all go silent, and when he finishes speaking, all are silent and the matter is closed to further discussion. If someone wonders why James was in charge of the council and not Peter, I'll refer to John Chrysostom:

"And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world."

So, in my opinion, all councils and gatherings can't depend on "numbers" to gain authority. A council can't rely on "the passage of time" to gain acceptance and "prove" its authencity. That makes no sense. A council depends on an objective source of infallibility. I agree with Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828), when he speaks regarding Rome presiding over the seventh council:

"Without whom (Rome) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they, the Popes of Rome, who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."

And Macedonius (466-516), Patriarch of Constantinople, who declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that "such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible."

For me, nothing else makes any sense whatsoever. It makes no sense to have no objective source of infallibility from which the Church derives its strength. This head is Peter and his successors, because, as St. Macarius of Egypt wrote:

"Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood."

For me, the truth is crystal clear. I firmly believe as St. Maximus the Confessor when he said:

" The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High."

And,

"Rome is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate."

For me, the papacy is the absolute truth. Ecumenical councils, as wonderful as they are, are a novelty in ecclesiastical function and therefore must derive their authority from a preexisting source--otherwise, we'd need to review each insignificant council, because, as we all know, some councils not considered ecumenical were much larger in size and more inclusive than even some of the "official" ecumenical councils.

The decrees of Vatican 1 make perfect sense to me. If one only skips to the definition of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, it may be jarring, but if one reads all four chapters of Session 4, which leads of up the definition of the Dogma, papal infallibility becomes logical and inescapable. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined

(Besides, when has a Dogma ever been a "license" to do anything? Dogmas merely define something. When it comes to practice, the Catholic Church still looks to the past for guidance. Any future threat or heresy is already known by God, anyway, so there's no need for us mere mortals to ever worry about "using" a Dogma.)

For me, the biggest question is why do Orthodox churches care so much about "autonomy"? Orthodox patriarchs always argue among themselves about their authority. What makes autonomy desirable? The ancients were autonomous out of necessity; it wasn't a "desirable" thing. I would go as far as to argue that the whole reason for an ecumenical council was to allow the churches an easy way to communicate! Modern communication makes autonomy a cross that no bishop or church has to carry anymore, but for the Orthodox, it's a prize to be gained. I don't get the appeal. It's Christ's Church, not "Patriarch So-And-So's church."

In the words of John Cassian to the Bishop of Rome:

" Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God."

You have offended in a major way. And it is only your opinion that Vatican I makes "complete sense" from either perspective. What you have to answer is how the definition could be made when a great number of bishops left the council before the vote was taken on that definition of papal infallibility, why it could be defined without a unanimous declaration by the whole number of Catholic bishops, and why papal delegates went out to those who left and demanded that they sign after the fact their allegiance to this dogma.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church would disagree. In Paragraphs 891 and 250, it describes the supreme magisterium--the top teaching authority as the ecumenical council.


Something the Orthodox and Catholics agree on: the Holy Spirit working in the council either through the unanimous consent of the assembled bishops or through the lone dissenter. In other words, the Holy Spirit speaks in council through everyone in complete agreement or though the lone voice that says the rest are off track.

You also miss the point of the Emperor calling a council. He facilitated getting the bishops together. Whether the Bishop of Rome now has that authority is an open question in the Christian East. And that has a lot to do with the different governing structures that developed around the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Like it or not the West developed a monarchial/feudal model and the East a synodal model. And those developments are part of the problem because each side sees its model as the only one possible. Cardinal Humbert didn't help either.


You're way off on this one. The ecumenical council was the ONLY source of infallibility until Vatican I. So you're saying that for 1970 years there was no source in the Church for making definitive statements on doctrine or discipline? Then the Christological definitions of the first seven ecumenical councils have no basis in Truth and can be dismissed? then how do we answer the question Jesus posed to Peter and poses to all of us: "Who do you say that I am?"

Citing individual fathers and patriarchs to back up the papal claims is a Western approach to these questions. The east seeks the consensus of the fathers over time as their answer to these questions. Even what the Lord meant when He said to Peter that "on this rock I will build My Church" has been open to interpretation and differing understandings from the beginning. The Armenian Orthodox ordination prayer, for example, speaks of the candidate holding the "faith of Peter"--an interpretation held in the Christian East from the earliest times.


Again, these are your opinions. Remember that opinions are like sweat socks--everyone has two and most of them stink.

If your intention in coming here is to "teach" the Christian East rather than learn to see the world as she sees it, please reconsider your motives.

Bob
Moderator

I didn't mean to argue. I was under the impression that this was a Catholic forum and that the majority of people here was Catholic. I'm not trying to "teach" anything, because I don't consider myself a teacher of any sort. The only reason I responded was because it seemed like the Catholic faith was being slightly undermined on a Catholic forum. Why should a Catholic "demand" anything of the Church of Jesus Christ? That's why I felt compelled to respond to this thread.

It's true that there was some argument at the Vatican 1 Council. But I feel it's ultimately a non-issue; if the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is true, then the Council is only an extension of that authority anyway, and if the Dogma is untrue, then the whole discussion is pointless because then the Catholic faith is a lie.


When I said that an ecumenical council was nothing special, I meant it from the Orthodox perspective. As far as I understand, the Orthodox believe an ecumenical council confers upon itself its own infallibility, but my problem with that belief is that, if there's no preexisting source of infallibility to bestow infallibility on the council, then what difference is there between Nicaea and any of the councils held in the 300 years prior to Nicaea? In my opinion, the Orthodox view of ecumenical councils is logically insupportable. Of course I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit works through the ecumenical council. My point was that He only works because of some preexisting authority that gives the council authority. Since the ecumenical council is a fourth century novelty, its binding authority needs to be justified by something that has always been a part of the Church, and that very something, the papacy, doesn't exist according to the Orthodox.


The Council was the only source of infallibility, but the question Vatican 1 sought to answer was: why? What gives a council its infallibility? Every council in the history of the Church wishes itself to be guided itself by God in some way. What made the ecumenical council so special in this regard? The only answer I can reason out is that a preexisting source of infallibility recognized by all of Christendom bestows upon an ecumenical council its authority. If that's not true, as the Orthodox claim, then any council can be disputed, but if it is true, as the Catholics claim, then the council has always been a vehicle of the papacy. When I look at ante-nicene history, Rome was always the authority. It's may not be clearly expressed in the early church fathers, but it was clearly there.

Of course I don't deny the first seven ecumenical councils and the Christological definitions they taught us. My point is that, without something giving the ecumenical council infallibility, it has no meaning. It's not enough to say that a "large number of bishops" gives a council its infallibility when so many ecumenical councils excluded so many bishops, and it makes no sense to say that an ecumenical council gains authority when its accepted "through the passage of time," because Nicaea was enforced immediately. My question to the Orthodox Church is: what gives an ecumenical council its authority in the first place? Any answer the Orthodox gives can be used to justify any of the Catholic councils of the second millennium, but the only answer the Catholic can give, which is the papacy, automatically dismisses any Orthodox council not recognized by Rome.

Peter was the only one who was able to answer Christ's question, because the answer was not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father. I don't understand how this argues against what I'm saying.


Isn't what you wrote here a contradiction? You say it's wrong to cite individual fathers to support something, and yet you claim that it's ok if the Orthodox do, because the Orthodox cite them as a "consensus."

But isn't citing a list of individual fathers the definition of a "consensus" of fathers?

If not, then what is the correct definition?

And how many of the fathers is necessary to make a consensus? It is 51% 75%?

If I cite, say, ninety-four church fathers, would that be considered infallible? How many church fathers are there in history? When it comes to the issue of papal infallibility, do we cite only those fathers whom we both agree are fathers?

When did "consensus of the fathers" became an infallible source of doctrine? Surely it wasn't during the time of Ignatius of Antioch. I would argue against even Irenaeus believing in it. So, at some point in the third century, perhaps? Before the concept of "consensus of the fathers" or "ecumenical councils" took form, where did a church look to for correct doctrine?

And what's wrong with a "western approach" to anything? Neither the "western approach" nor "eastern approach" is bad. I don't even know what a "western approach" or "eastern approach" is.

I'm not sure what the prayers of the Armenian Orthodox Church has to do with anything. Doesn't everyone hold the "faith of Peter"? The Orthodox Church criticizes a "legalistic" approach, but they use it all the time when it comes defining "the Rock" or "the faith of Peter." Why can "Rock" and "faith of Peter" have more than one meaning in different contexts?

When one looks at the first and second centuries, before the days of "church father consensus" or "ecumenical councils," there had to have been some unshakeable source of doctrine. If there was no source, then no novelty of later centuries certainly can, and if there was a source, then that source had to have been established by Christ and we would be foolish to ignore it.

What would it take for the Papacy to take a step back from "infallibility" and perhaps redefine this claim?

The Catholics who are closest to us in other matters (the traditionalists) are also the ones least likely to revise the dogmas of Papal supremacy and infallibility, it seems to me, though perhaps the Vatican II liturgical reforms and the antics of Francis are leading some to question to wisdom of these doctrines.

kamalayka:


Your impression is wrong. Please go to Town Hall and read the thread "Who We Are." We began as an Eastern Catholic forum and have grown to be an Eastern Christian forum with membership from many more Christian Churches and groups than just Eastern. Note, we have "grown." We are here to listen to each other and grow from that learning. Our goal is to see the world as our brethren who are not in communion with us see it. And we are committed to the uncomfortable feeling that we may have from these insights.


You’ve got ecumenical councils and papal infallibility turned around. Anyone who takes your stance has to answer why an ecumenical council stripped a Pope of Rome of his office and only restored him at the same council when he clarified his position.

What you “feel” is irrelevant.” You still fail to make a case for the 1870 years of Church life BEFORE Vatican I. And if those years were without papal infallibility, then what you are saying is that the Faith delivered to the Apostles and defended by countless martyrs is also a lie.

What gives the ecumenical council its authority is the Holy Spirit. Need anyone else? The Holy Spirit is recognized by the Church—paragraph 250 mentions “the sense of the faithful”; the common person in the pew if you will—all levels over time. That is why some of the early councils are recognized as ecumenical and others not. I believe that you would also profit from reading the Circular Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs to Pio Nono that can be found online concerning who is the guardian of the Faith—hint, it isn’t the Pope by himself.

You say that the only answer to what makes a council ecumenical is the papacy. That isn’t even the Catholic position. Better go through the Catholic Catechism for your position. Anything else at this date is not current Catholic teaching.


You’ve also got the Orthodox perspective on ecumenical councils wrong—completely. Please check your sources. Here are two articles from respected Orthodox sources—one Chalcedonian and one Non-Chalcedonian. They may help you understand where real Orthodox Christians are at in this area.

The first article is a personal reflection from a bishop of the Church of the East which grew outside the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire--neither Byzantine Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. The second is by Father Thomas Hopko--recently deceased--formerly Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York.

http://news.assyrianchurch.org/2015...he-unity-of-the-church-of-the-east/12378

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php


The unshakeable source of doctrine was, and continues to be, the Holy Spirit working within the Church. The consensus you have so little respect for came from the way the Faith was transmitted before it could all be written down. And, given the way communication can change over time as it is passed from person to person, it is definitely the Holy Spirit at work in the Church because the message was essentially the same in places far removed from the Church of Jerusalem where things originated.

And if the papacy was so important that nothing was true without it, how could the Church of the East have been so successful in evangelizing as far as China in the centuries it worked outside the Roman Empire?

Bob

kamalayka:

Christ is in our midst!!

When one works really hard to understand the point of view of another, he really understands when he can pose the other's position in concrete terms. Some time ago, I posted this on another thread dealing with what future communion ought to look like from an Orthodox perspective.

1. In the event of full communion, there will be no Eastern bishop who will report to the Roman patriarchate for any reason whatsoever. If Rome has something to say to a specific bishop, it can be addressed to the relevant patriarch in whose synod that bishop is a member. In ordinary matters, that will not happen.
2. There will be no issue whatsoever of any Eastern bishop having to answer to anyone but his own synod over who he accepts for priestly formation nor who he ordains. The Eastern Churches are fully capable of making their own decisions in these areas based on their own canons and traditions.
3. In the event of full communion, there will be no issue with any man transfering to another bishop if he feels called to Holy Orders and the decision to accept or reject him will be entirely up to the bishop he approaches without any appeal or interference from Rome. so if a Latin man is rejected because he is married and an Eastern bishop feels he has what it takes and accepts him, there will be no comment from his former Latin bishop or from Rome.
4. In the event of full communion, the Oriental Congregation that has been the Roman Patriarch's medium of dealing with Eastern Churches in full communion up to that time will be abolished. The Pope can feel free to send a delegation to another patriarch to discuss any concerns he may have, but there will be no jurisdictional authority to interfere in the internal workings of another patriarchate unless based on the ancient canons wherein Rome is a last resort for certain limited matters. If Rome wants some sort of regular contact with other patriarchs, an ad hoc committee can be set up, but with no authority other than that granted by the patriarchs involved.
5. In the event Rome does not like these concrete statements of how life in renewed communion will be, then it will be Rome's fault that full communion cannot be achieved.

From an Orthodox perspective, the problem with the development in the Roman Church in the second millenium is that the Pope acts as if the Lord made Peter the overseer of the other Apostles in such a way that they could do nothing without his permission. Such is not the case. While he is supposed to support his brethren in the Faith, he is not their master.

Bob

Kamalayka, I believe you have a very improper understanding of the dogmas of Vatican 1. What can Rome do to move ecumenism along? It can clarify and quality the papal dogmas, and in the process hopefully correct the wrong interpretations of its decrees that are extant in the minds of many Catholics.

Yes, I am Catholic, and very loyal to the Pope and the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Kamalayka,

I too am Catholic (Eastern - Byzantine Rite), and agree with Marduk.

I recommend you consider what theophan (Bob) has offered in his most recent post.

You may also want to research some of the work of the North American Catholic-Orthodox Theological Consultation. The put together a white paper on this subject worthy of consideration.

Blessings,
Joe

Sorry, got the order wrong (no offense intended). It is the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

Dear Kamalayka,

The following are some sources which might help in the proper understanding of the Catholic teaching on the relationship between the Pope and the Ecumenical Council.

Bishop Gasser was the offiicial Relator of the Commission de Fide to explain the meaning of the Decree on "papal Infallibility" to the fathers of the Vatican Council, The Commission de Fide was the committee of bishops established by Pope Pius IX to formulate the Decree. The following is from that explanation, delivered on July 11, 1870:
The most solemn judgment of the Church is and always will be, the judgment of an ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishop of the Catholic world sitting and judging along with him...Decrees of faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope. The reason of this is not the one which I have sometimes heard, I say it with sorrow, alleged from this ambo, namely, as if all the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church...The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the entire magisterium of the Church.

I'm sure you are aware that traditional Latin Catholics regard the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) as a trustworthy manual of all things Catholic. The following is from the old Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Infallibility:
Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together...An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedra and an ecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility.

I sincerely and prayerfully hope that the foregoing helps you reassess your understanding of the Catholic teaching on the papacy vis-a-vis the Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree, kamalayka, but it's equally up to individual Catholic Christians (Western or Eastern) whether or not they want to convert to Orthodoxy. (Or do you see it differently on that point?)

The Pope needs to obey Our Lady of Fatima and let her do the rest. Anyone who thinks unity can be achieved otherwise is treating the Church as a political or social institution, whether they realize it or not.

Hmmm . . . A much more serious attitude toward the restoration of the unity between East and West that existed in the first millennium?

Rome seems to not have gotten over the medieval arguments with respect to "papal vs conciliar" forms of church government as if the former meant the rejection of the latter.

As one Redemptorist seminarian (now a priest) wrote for his master's thesis by way of ecumenical hypothesis, Rome could redefine papal infallibility as being exercised when the pope of Rome is the final signatory on a list of proposals of an actual Ecumenical Council comprising the Churches of both East and West.

In fact, when the dogma of the Assumption was defined, the Pope did practically that - he asked the Catholic bishops of the world what they thought of the proposal prior to his definition of it.

At the same time, Rome could/should better define the relation between the first seven Ecumenical Councils and the 14 "later Latin Councils."

Also, there is so much to be gained if Rome went back to recognizing the 8th Ecumenical Council which re-affirmed both St Photios the Great as Ecumenical Patriarch AND the original Nicene Creed (without the you-know-what :)).

That is a tricky one insofar as not all Orthodox acknowledge that Council as "Ecumenical." But all of Orthodoxy does acknowledge it as inspired and the fact that Rome affirmed it for a long time before rejecting it in favour of the other one ten years apart has been a thorn in the proverbial ecumenical side of the East. Likewise, there is no reason why Rome could not affirm as authoritative and orthodox, what in a number of Orthodox circles is terms the "9th Ecumenical Council" on hesychasm (with a subsequent declaration of St Gregory Palamas as a Doctor of the universal Church . . .). That would go a long way in East-West ecumenical relations, in my humble view.

Alex

As a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima (who also wrote an Akathist service in her honour), I'm wondering if you could explain yourself further here.

A major problem that Eastern Christians (and also Latin Catholics engaged in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue) have with Fatima is not the apparitions and teachings themselves, but with how certain Fatimist groups have interpreted them.

That interpretation is that when Our Lady of Fatima referred to "Russia will be converted," traditionalist, ultramontanist Catholics understood that to mean not only that communism would fall, but also that Orthodox Christians would "return" to Rome.

So when it comes to East-West relations, Fatima is a non-starter and is even scrupulously avoided by Rome in its talks with the Orthodox.

I know Orthodox priests who believe in the Fatima messages and who say that her prophecy has been fulfilled insofar as the Russian Orthodox Church is now free and its churches in Russia are full etc.

But when the idea of Fatima is even raised, the Orthodox understand it to mean the old RC notions of them being "schismatics" who need to be "brought back" to Rome for the sake of their salvation etc.

And Fatima along with any other Marian apparition does not belong to the Church's deposit of faith.

Eastern Catholics (and even Orthodox that I know) are free to venerate the Most Holy Theotokos under this title, but, for example, Ukrainian Catholics do not have her feastday in our official calendar.

Reliance on the Mother of God is of utmost importance for any and all of the Church's needs and troubles, to be sure!

But when it comes to Fatima, Rome proceeds with great caution. And Fatima groups have no one to blame in this respect but themselves.

Alex

Yes, and there are conversions back and forth (for some individuals who seem to be "professional converts and reverts" this process is a life-long one).

The fact is that Rome itself takes a very dim view of Catholics becoming formally Orthodox (and vice-versa). It is not the "well, you have 'doxed' - congratulations!" attitude that we have on this forum for the most part ( how are you today, Mr. Administrator?).

Frankly, we would be better off if both Churches just stopped receiving into their communion members from the "other side."

Both sides have recalled the excommunication of 1054 and both recognize the Apostolic heritage in each other. How is moving from one to the other Church a "conversion" then? Conversion to what exactly?

It would be much better for each side to live out their lives within their respective Churches as committed Christians while, at the same time, Orthodox and Catholics maintain, at the local parish level, a respectful and prayerful relationship with each other, learning about one another's history, liturgy and other traditions.

I never like to hear of conversions of Catholics to Orthodoxy and of Orthodox to Catholicism. It is time for all of us to acknowledge that we need to move beyond that triumphalist paradigm once and for all!

Alex

Alex,

Well, how would you explain Mary's words about "the errors of Russia?"

One thought I've had is that it could refer to the "Third Rome" idea. Doesn't this actually mean that Moscow is supposed to conquer the entire world--by force of arms?

Exactly. Just as in 1054, neither side realized the full implications of the mutual excommunications, so now, neither side seems to realize the full implications of the lifting of those excommunications.

I just don't think that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have a positive enough relationship for such an agreement to happen. But perhaps a smaller step ...

Well, logically, Rome cannot consider Vatican I to be an ecumenical council but not affirm what it said about PI. That's a significant obstacle.

It would be helpful for pretty much everyone to read Gasser's relatio on Papal Infallibility that was used at Vatican I. There is way too much misunderstanding out there about the doctrine.

What source would you recommend for a proper interpretation of Fatima?

The "errors of Russia" are surely that of communist imperialism - and also those of the neo-soviet imperialism. At no time did Our Lady of Fatima make any statement in that regard with respect to the Orthodox Church. "Conversion" surely was intended to mean conversion from atheism to the fervent practice of the Orthodox Catholic Christian faith i.e. publicly celebrated Divine Liturgies, prayers and other demonstrations of pious faith.

The "spread of the errors of Russia" throughout the world could also not have referred to the Orthodox Church but to communism and/or Russian imperialism (in fact, Russia has always been an imperialist power, communist or tsarist).

Alex

Certainly, Rome has already stopped the practice of receiving Orthodox jurisdictions into communion with it (i.e. the Macedonian Orthodox application of recent provenance). In Ukraine, there is a small UAOC jurisdiction that wants to unite with the UGCC - not with Rome directly - and there are ongoing talks in this regard between the two Churches. The UGCC patriarch has simply refused to bring in the UAOC as a part of the UGCC and wants it to be "in communion with the UGCC" but also maintain its own ecclesial status. That is a unique development that we shall have to see about in future.

I have heard RC theologians say that EC's have the "privilege of returning to their Mother Orthodox Churches."

And of course not all Orthodox Churches would agree that RC's shouldn't be received into Orthodoxy from the "Roman schism/heresy."

But Rome can take the initiative here - let it be the "first among equals" in more than simply authority.

Alex

Hypothetically, Rome COULD consider Vatican I a "Local Latin Council" and affirm what it said - although Vatican II surely cast what it said in a much more collegial framework.

Local Councils in both the RC and Orthodox Churches have affirmed truths and practices that have been later "canonized" with a universal application within those Churches - Ecumenical Councils' decisions have an automatic universal application in their totality, of course.

This brings up the issue of a more defined RC perspective on what is part and parcel of the Latin theological/ecclesiological patrimony and heritage - and therefore limited to the Latin Church alone - and what is/can be something applicable to the Eastern Churches as well.

Although any such application would have to involve the consent of the Eastern Churches via a Council in which they are fully present and to whose principles they give their full assent.

Alex

Perhaps it's time for the ecumenical commissions to start taking a more pastoral approach--to start going over the things they've done theologically, develop some concrete pastoral strategies for implementing them, and then distribute these recommendations among the Catholic and Orthodox bishops for their comments and buy-in.

It's a thought ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

A very good thought, Rev. Fr Deacon!

Alex

Fr. Robert Fox and also the literature of the Blue Army (World Fatima Apostolate).

I think that these have brought a much more ecumenical spirit to the message of Fatima, while reducing the "triumphalism" formerly apparent in other interpretations.

I like the Blue Army's new catechism on Fatima.

Notwithstanding, the damage has been done with respect to Orthodox-Catholic relations on this score. The Vatican scrupulously avoids any mention of Fatima to the Orthodox and even St John Paul II, in his excellent letter on the Rosary, makes NO mention of even the Fatima decade prayer - despite the fact that he had a life-long devotion to Our Lady of Fatima.

Alex

The theory of the Papacy is one thing - its exercise quite another.

Most importantly, the most pressing ecumenical issue here is the centralized Roman authority over the EC Churches and the resulting "tension" that ensues when Rome is seen to be saying one thing, and certain Particular Churches do another (i.e. the UGCC).

The UGCC is large enough and more than capable enough of handling its own affairs - in the Ukrainian homeland and in the diaspora - without Rome's meddling, thank you very much.

When Rome appoints a new UGCC bishop for the diaspora, over and above the heads of the UGCC Synod, such uneasiness on our part is more than self-evident.

Rome can and should abolish the Eastern Churches Congregation (its historical past is quite nefarious) and let the Patriarchs and Primates of the EC Churches do what only they know how to do best - govern their own flocks. If there are small EC Churches who need support - they can easily get it from some of the larger EC Particular Churches without having recourse to a Roman congregation.

The same thing MIGHT be said of the Ruthenian Catholics in the U.S.

Their bishops, if I'm not mistaken, would rather go to Rome to have the Pope impose their pallia, rather than, say, the Patriarch/Primate of the UGCC (whom they appear to want to avoid at all costs).

But why? Isn't this biting off one's nose to spite one's face?

Alex

This issue should have been apparent after the recent worldwide synod on the family. The final document was submitted to Pope Francis and the comment in the media said that he had no obligation to issue it as it was presented since a synod was only advisory. It was also noted that all bishops in communion govern and teach "cum et sub Petro": with and under Peter.

With this same approach after all that Vatican II said or seemed to say, there will never be any change for the EC Churches and never be any communion with the Orthodox Churches.

Bob

How close were their people to Sr. Lucia?

Dear Bob,

Not necessarily. IF Rome could differentiate between how the papacy operates as the primate for the universal Latin Church and then as the Petrine primacy - the problem you cite could possibly be resolved

Let's remember that the Moscow patriarchate operates very much like a centralized authority with visions of being the "third Rome."

In addition, "communion with Orthodoxy" presupposes an Orthodox agreement on primacy to begin with.

And there is no such agreement.

It would likewise be naive of us to believe that regardless of what Rome does, the Moscow Patriarchate, under the current political conditions in which it is obliged to live and work, will NEVER agree to any sort of union/communion with Rome. That is simply not in the books given the resumption of full state-control of Russian Orthodoxy.

Suffice it to say that the Moscow Patriarch exercises his authority very much like that of a pope. The teaching of papal jurisdiction isn't there in Orthodoxy, but that doesn't prevent the Patriarch from closely approximating a papalist style of governing.

Alex

Dear MariaCatherine,

I don't know how close they were to Sr. Lucia. I do know that Sr. Lucia was very close to the Church and submitted herself perfectly to the judgement of the Church.

Fatima is an approved apparition, of course, but it does not, and cannot, add anything to the deposit of Faith. The only thing it does is call people to prayer and penance - something the Church is called upon to do in every generation - and to devotion to the Most Holy Mother of God etc.

Only the Church may interpret and approve (or not) apparitions and other events.

Fr. Fox and the World Fatima Apostolate are likewise under full obedience to the Magisterium.

That's more than good enough for me - how about you?

Alex

I am a Roman Rite Catholic and I would 100% support regularly ordaining married men to the priesthood, dropping the filioque or modifying it (from 'and the Son', to 'through the Son', bringing back minor orders like the subdeaconate, doing away with extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and re aligning Chris mating to directly after baptism and giving infants and children the Eucharist.

If we implemented all those changes, I think it would show serious initiative on our part toward reconciliation and restoration of full sacramental Communion.

Jason:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think there is much more that Latin Catholics need to do in order to move along full communion with the Eastern Churches. Some have expressed horror at the liturgical practices that have become prevalent in the past 50+ years. There are some YouTube videos that compare the reverence of Orthodox celebrations with some far-out Latin celebrations that will make you cringe.

The filioque has been discussed to death here, but I believe that the major point left is that of Rome making a unilateral change to a statement of faith that was ratified by all the churches gathered in council. Additionally, history shows that the change was not completely universal in the West until after the Great Schism.

Some of the other things you mention will be a real challenge because they have become so accepted in the West and probably would be greeted with the same resistance to being changed as the calendar question is in the East.

There is an additional point that does not surface but which would also have to be addressed: feminizing language. It was a major roadblock to a common translation of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and other services when it was proposed by Father Robert Taft, S.J., formerly a faculty member at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. The Orthodox Churches wanted none of it.

Bob