www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ravenna Document

Excellent points, all.

Where is this body of Orthodox teachings? What is it called? Is it on the internet?

You are right about advantages not making something right. It kills me that a dude can go to bible college for 6 months and become an evangelical preacher. This is a distinct advantage in Latin America for instance, but it does not make it good or right.

So, how do you see this necessarily corrupting influence of power tainting B16 or JPII?

I understand Pride as a cardinal sin. It is something real, though as with all terms it can be misapplied.

Cetainly the Catholic Church has a variety of rites in order to honor the legitimate expressions of ancient Christianity. However, I was referring to national churches within the Latin Rite (was being sloppy). We dont go about erecting national churches everywhere. The supranational character of the Western church helps keep the church from being hostage to each national situation, which happens occasionally. As I understand it, the variety of Eastern Churches comes not only from distinct cultural milieu, but also as a result of political relations between church and state. The West has been less beholden to the state in the course of centuries than the East.

Not quite sure how this connects to my post.

I was using the term "local Church" as it is employed in the Ravenna Document itself (see the Ravenna Document, Part II, no. 1, paragraphs 18-21).

The Orthodox Churches are unified, but just not in the Western sense of unity, which involves the destruction of multiplicity.

Not surprisingly I disagree with your broad caricature of the "Western sense" of unity, almost as much as I would disagree with the caricature of Orthodoxy as a loose affiliation of national Churches. In certain cases, yes both are true and the tendency to those extremes exist in both bodies. But not in all Churches or in all cases.

As to Orthodox unity, when the Orthodox are able to gather together in a Council, then I will be convinced of your position re: visible Orthodox unity. Until then...well, I remain understandably skeptical.

Gordo

Wow, much activity on here since yesterday. Father I wanted to respond to one point you made earlier about the advantage that the Catholic Church has because it has a defined, living magisterium that can issue authoritative teachings on nearly all matters. I find that this is a two edged sword that cuts both ways. I do agree that in one sense, a central magisterial authority allows the Church to develop and define doctrinal positions much more quickly than a Church with a much looser organization, so to speak. Also, I think that much of Catholic social teaching is profound and in many ways the Catholic Church is a much needed voice in the world. On the other hand, there is also a tendency to over define things. Also, there is a fine line between morality and politics and sometimes it is unclear when Catholic social teaching (or perhaps the applications of it) are going too far into a realm outside of its jurisdiction. Also, the more that is defined the higher the chance that a mistake will be made and so more backtracking and revising will be necessary. Perhaps it is true that in Orthodoxy we could use more official clarification of the deposit of faith and our positions on various social-moral issues, yet on the other hand, it seems to me that there is virtually no disagreement in Orthodoxy over dogmatic matters and very little disagreement over moral issues, at least in practice. Still, when the time is right, it would be good for us to call a Pan Orthodox council so that we can get together and flesh out our teaching on such things as contraception, in vitro fertilization, etc. At least, this will aid us in clarifying exactly what we teach.

Joe

Well put, Joe. There are no doubt pitfalls to an articulated magisterium, including occasional backtracking, over-reach of jurisdiction, the foray into politics, among others.

The greatest concern of any Church in our times, it seems, it to present the simple gospel and its not so simple implications for modern life in a way that is compelling and consistent. Modern life obscures the gospel in clouds of relativism, materialism, technology and interest politics. The present age makes the gospel at once more difficult and easier to announce. Contemporary cynicism and skepticism both make the gospel appear in turns quaint and attractive, naive and unrealistic, and farcicle.

The present attacks on traditional Christian morality are a case in point. The pressure is so great that some parts of the body will be tempted to cave (MHR in SF or the Third Reich). It is at these times that a supra national univocal church authority is most valuable.

I would suggest also that the two most recent popes have begun to explore a new voice by issuing writings of a more speculative nature. JPII's Theology of the Body and Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth are examples of teaching which is desperately needed but still a work in progress. Both of these are indispensable for the Church's mission in the present age and neither would have received the attention they deserve if written by a layman.

The modern world has deep philosophical problems. Not the least of these is the loss of the study of philosophy, particularly the Greeks and the rest of continental philosophy. Having lost it's grasp on truth beyond the merely scientific, the modern world needs a voice that calls it to the common good, that questions the absolutism of capital, the relativism of democracy, and it's anti-historicism. Philosophical and theological discourse imbued with the spirit of Christ is the only salvation lest the politics of brute force become our guide. This is true for dialogue with Islam, the gay community, the scientific community, the international business and political communities. I thank God for the voice of Rome in our day as much as I am appalled by some of Rome's actions in the past.

An ecumenical council does not signify, nor does it cause, unity; and to think that it does is to misunderstand the very nature of a universal synod, which is a kairotic event and not a permanent institution (see the Ravenna Document, Part II, no. 3, paragraph 39). That said, the Orthodox Churches are united in a common profession of faith and in the celebration of the liturgy, which is how unity has always been expressed since the time of the Apostles. Sadly, what you are looking for is a unity of command structure, and not a unity of faith and practice. Now, the Roman Church clearly has the former, while at the present time a strong case can be made that it lacks the latter. In fact, papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction -- two novel innovations of the second millennium -- are the only things that hold the Roman Church together, while unity of faith and the Eucharistic liturgy hold Orthodoxy together.

Well said, Apotheoun!

Well, it is just more complicated than that. It is difficult to speak of the pre-Constantinian church as it was under various persecutions and not able to govern itself as well as it might have. With Constantine we see a novel development, that of the Emperor. No one disputes his indispensable role in the governance of the Church in the late Roman period. But, no one can really justify his role from scripture or the pre-Constantinian Fathers either. It is just a fact of history. We have to learn to live with these facts. The East continued to rely on the Emporer as a factor in Church life for thousand years after the West fell. The role of the Emporer in the West was subsumed by the pope. Some of this role was not really proper to the pope, particularly civil governance. It is a good thing that the pope has lost his lands. However, the Emperor's role in the governance of the Church can be said to rightly reside with the successor to the head of the apostles. This did not happen only in the second millenium, but began with Leo the Great.

It was not only liturgy and doctrine that held the East together for those thousand years, in practical terms it was the Emporer.

In order to speak properly about ecclesiology, we have to get the facts of history right first.

Interesting post, Father. We cannot overlook the role of the Emperor in the Eastern Church.

In looking over this thread, I would like to remind everyone to keep this discussion as civil as Father has.

Alice, Moderator

I am going to have to do some more cogitating on this. Certainly the creeds have been a major factor in church unity, or filioque would not be such an issue. And, the creeds are the product of councils. Sociologically speaking, every time a council or synod marks a boundary between what is accepted and what is not, it creates a unity within the church around the espoused principles forces those who disagree to either change their thinking or eventually depart (either of which can take generations).

There is a regular commenter on Anglican blogs who goes by the screenname "truth unites...and divides" I really like that idea. So, if it is liturgy and doctrine that create unity and both of these are shaped by councils, how are councils not a principle of unity? What am I missing here?

The dogmatic deposit of faith is expressed through the cycle of services held throughout the year. It is first and foremost a living theology, and one can ascertain what the Orthodox Church teaches and believes through participation in its services. Questions that arise in terms of how to apply the principles of the church to one's life are primarily seen as pastoral matters, and direct contact with a priest would always be preferred. At times the bishops issues clarifications or directions on certain issues if deemed important enough. My personal feeling is if you're going to liturgy and confession, taking the sacraments, you pretty much know what is right and what is wrong yourself.

Generations have lived in faith and carried forward the traditions of the church without the Internet or a centralized Magisterium.


The office and theology of the Papacy is distinct from the personalities that occupy the seat, whether for the good or bad. I would think Catholics would certainly acknowledge that.


Yet the distinct expressions of national churches exist within the Latin Rite, including the unfortunate side effects of division and rivalry. There are examples everywhere, current and historic.


Unfortunately this has often occurred by the Latin Rite acting as a steamroller over the other churches and traditions. Look at what happened in Goa.


The western Patriarchate itself became a state; and carried out wars, negotiations and engaged in prolonged political battles with its surrounding states. The West has been no less beholden to the snares of the temporal, and much of the secularism that exists in the West grew out the western Patriarchates involvement in the affairs of the state.

While it's interesting to investigate the weaknesses and strengths of both traditions, I think it really distracts from the central issue. There is a theological divide between the churches. The theology of one or both must be changed to reconcile.

The first part is very difficult to reconcile with the iconographic tradition of the Church which clearly portays the kairotic event of Pentecost as a "conciliar" gathering of the Twelve and was, in fact, the unifying event of the Church's common life (faith and practice) sine qua non. To my mind (which is guided by the teachings and feasts of the Church) the notions of hierachy and kairos are inseperable as unifying principles of the Church's visible unity. Both are manifest, albeit not exclusively, in an ecumenical Council, where the full, visible and kairotic power of the Church are made visibe. This was the primary organ of the magisterium of the first millennium. Are we to believe that somehow the need for councils ceased after then?



No - what I am looking for is not "unity of command", which is a miltaristic framework largely unfamiliar to the Church, but rather the unity of fatherhood and apostolic stewardship which helps to govern the common life of the familia dei. Both concepts are not mutually exclusive, as Acts 2:42 makes abundantly clear.



Again, you create caricatures in polar opposition to one another, which may make your arguments neat and tidy, but they lack the nuances of both history and the current reality. Not everything is as black and white as you have painted it out to be.

God bless,

Gordo

What is that "common prfession of faith," for instance, regarding the baptism/rebaptism of, say, Catholics?

If I may simply respond with an equivalent level of detail: this is as simplistic as it is wrong, surpasing even the level of hyperbole.

Dn. Anthony