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

I think Rome has made it clear that it is interested in hearing from other churches how they would envision a future petrine ministry. I am not sure that the Orthodox have taken up the question from Ut Unum Sint. If there has been a response, I sure would be interested in it.

I think I could envision a papal infallibility that required the consent of the local churches. I dont think that would be too much of a stretch for Rome.

Universal jurisdiction can of course be exercised in different fashions. The Eastern Churches are an ongoing experiment in having various models of primacy operative under one roof.

In truth, I dont see any of the separating issues as necessarily permanent. What most separates us is ecclesiatical cultures and pride and the same kind of general nastiness and grandstanding that can take place on a forums such as this. If we approach each other forthrightly, humbly and honestly, great strides can be made. This is more a matter of conversion of the heart than it is doctrine.

My dos centavos anyway.

Fr. J.

Father,

One response to Ut Unum Sint was written by Olivier Clement,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...amp;pf_rd_p=278240301&pf_rd_i=507846

If papal infallibility were redefined so that the Pope is infallible when speaking as spokesman for the united episcopate (represented by the patriarchal synods) then there may be a way past the impasse. The Bishop of Rome could meet with the patriarchs, the patriarchs would consult with their synods, and the synods would come back with "Yes, holy father proclaim this doctrine on behalf of all of us," or "No Holy Father, there is no consensus, we must wait." I can see this as being a possibility. Of course, this means that previous papal teachings that were proclaimed without the full participation of all of the patriarchal synods would have to be revisited or considered just private teachings. This would be a possibility and perhaps the Orthodox would go for this.

Joe

Thanks for the reply, Joe. That all sounds plausible to me. There are just two doctrines which qualify, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. I would presume that re-unification would first depend on the East approving these teachings among other things. I am not familiar enough with Eastern theology to know if the Assumption and the Dormition are mutually exclusive. Is the Dormition a doctrine, a pious belief? Does the Dormition precede the Assumption? Are they different words for the same thing?

I have already expressed my views on the petrine ministry in the thread entitled "The Papacy and the Eastern Rite," and so I have no intention of explaining yet again why it is that I reject the modern innovations of the Roman Church in connection with papal supremacy, which it mistakenly equates with primacy.

Those interested may read my posts in the thread mentioned above.

God bless,
Todd

The Assumption of Mary is not a problem. We do state that she died, and yes she did die because the Liturgy says so! But she was taken up in her resurrected state into heaven. So, no problem.

The immaculate conception would be problematic for two reasons:
1) The Orthodox understanding of original sin is somewhat different from that of Rome. In our view, if Mary were not conceived in the same way we all are, she would not have died and she would not be able to stand with us in solidarity as one of the redeemed.
2) Though the majority of Orthodox do believe that the blessed Virgin Mary was sinless her whole life, it is not dogma and there are church fathers who held that the Virgin Mary committed minor sins, even after the Annunciation. In any event, the most common view which seems to be the view of Patriarch Bartholemewl is that the blessed Theotokos was purified from all sin at the Annunciation. I think that the byzantine Liturgical tradition leaves all of these options open as legitimate interpretations. Personally, I favor the view of Patriarch Bartholemewl (sp?).

Joe

Thanks for the reply. I cannot help but think there was a kinder, more civil, even more Christian way of putting it.

If you are so exasperated by conversation with your brothers in Christ, then perhaps you would benefit from a break from it.

Evenso, I will be glad to talk with you.

God Bless+
Fr. J.

I can only speak as an outsider, and my opinion is it subverts the role of bishops in general and the heads of ritual churches in particular. The catholic church does not look like a communion of churches to me. There is another thread here where the Melkite Patriarch probably gives one of the better explanations.
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=256841#Post256841

You noted it seemed I am being critical, which is true, and it's not my intention. What goes on internally in the Catholic church is in actuality none of my business. It isn't my church, and I've got no reason to point out its problems when the Orthodox Church certainly has plenty of its own.

It would be good if the churches reconciled. I don't see how it could happen, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to.

I view the letter that started this thread as a small step, which certainly doesn't go far enough or cover all of the issues. Someone noted that even if the changes mentioned in this letter were instituted, their belief is that nothing would be left of the Catholic Church. So at least I'm not the only one who is circumspect about the potential success of all this.

Ultimately I think the Catholic Church does not merely need to find a new way to exercise the Papacy as it is, it must redefine the Papacy itself. That is why I say there is a theological divide. What Bishop Hilarion rightly said in an interview recently posted here is that the Papacy is not intrinsic to the nature of the church, it is an office basically like that of any other bishop with primacy of honor only in relation to the other churches. The Pope is not a universal bishop, but the head of the Latin Church, and his role needs to return to that. Those are basic stances of the Orthodox Church on the matter, and I don't see how the Catholics will ever come around to that viewpoint. So it's not like I want to see reconciliation fail, I just don't see how it will succeed.

Todd.

I think I can appreciate your position, though I find it as intellectually stiffling as 100% Latinization would be for an EC.

The reason I say this, Todd, is that this is a political stand, even an ecclesiological stand, but it is not a theological stand. Whatever Western theologies you might disapprove, you should disapprove them on their own merits or lack thereof and not as a tangential result of a political stand.

I do wonder what it is that draws Eastern Catholics to the ECs if they find everything Roman so repugnant. Why not just be Orthodox? And if there is a value in communion with Rome, why so often speak of Rome with such disdain? I dont ask these questions to be rude or doubt your motivations or your faith. I just honestly don't understand the tone that is so apparent here.

It seems to me that part of the vocation of being an Eastern Catholic is that you constantly have to explain yourself to both Latins and the Orthodox. One has to make peace with this fact. It is a high vocation especially in the coming decades as East-West relations accelerate.

So, you have this Latin here who won't bite. So, teach ... and maybe learn a bit along the way, too.

God Bless,
Fr. J.

Father, I must say that your post is quite to the point. Todd, I agree with you 99.9% of the time I think, but I have to go with Father on this one. It would seem to me that if one is going to be in communion with Rome, then one must accept the Latin theological developments as legitimate and where there is a perceived contradiction between Latin and Byzantine theology, some kind of synthesis must be worked out, or one must admit that on the disputed issue, one tradition is right and the other is not. Either purgatory is real or it isn't. Either indulgences are real or they are not. Either the Immaculate Conception is true Dogma or it isn't. Or, there must be a way of reconciling the two ways of thinking by appealing to a higher interpretation of the doctrine (uh oh, I'm showing my Hegelian tendencies ).

Joe

Joe,

I think you are spot on here. One could even say that in the very least, one should not assert that Rome and the Pope are in heresy while still claiming communion with them both. Now, that said, I do think it is possible (though at times very difficult) to reconcile the two traditions, or at least uncover much of their inner complimentarity, and I do not believe Rome or the papacy to be in heresy, despite any disagreement I may have with certain tendencies within the Latin tradition. If I did not believe that such an approach was possible, I would be knocking on the nearest Orthodox Church door for reception this very weekend. For me, it would be (and is now) a matter of conscience.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo

I've always been reluctant to use the word "heresy" for the teachings of Rome that differ from Orthodoxy and if I have used that term in the past, then I confess that I was rash to do so. I would rather describe such teachings that Orthodox don't currently agree with as "heterodox" (to me, heresy is denying articles of the Creed such as the divinity of Christ or the Trinity) "Heterodox" is a word that I use but I give my own meaning to that word. Heterodoxy, to me (and this is my own stipulated definition) means not entirely Orthodox but not totally out of bounds. In other words, I believe that the essential Gospel, Tradition, and Sacraments are preserved in Catholicism but are either disfigured or hidden due to heterodox accretions (this is the best way I can think of putting it). As you can see I am not one of those to say that Catholicism is "graceless," nor could I ever imagine myself saying and believing that. I don't even think that protestantism is graceless and Catholicism has surely preserved much more of the tradition than protestantism. On this issue, I am not a "hawk."

And it may be possible to achieve a higher synthesis, though that would take the work of some rather brilliant theologians. I think that as long as the principle issue of contention, papal supremacy and infallibility, are open to discussion, then it might be possible to reinterpret these Latin traditions in a way that is satisfactory to everyone. But the closest I can come to an interpretation is the one I gave a few posts ago.

Joe

I think Rome is still learning how to relate to the Eastern Churches in communion with her. And, I think there is willingness to recognize greater autonomy. This is the direction things are going, though it will develop slowly and organically.

One thing that Rome has learned from Vatican II is not to hurry reforms or do them all at once. This just releases a hermeneutical nighmare. So, look for continual incremental progress.

As for doctrinal differences, I think Gordo had the key word, "complimentarity." If one looks at the Joint Declaration on Justification between the CC and the Lutherans, you can get an idea how this may work. The declaration which is the size of a small book shows how differing theological systems can say different but complimentary things about the same essential truth. It even goes so far as to say that each illumines the other. But the declaration is not naive. It does also articulate affirmations on each side which are incompatible with the other side.

Who knows what continued talks can bring. Though we have done more work with the Protestants thus far, I dont hold much hope for a return to communion with them. I am not sure it is even desireable as they are not ancient churches and have no claim to permanence. But the East is a different story entirely. We have a history of coexistence with differences.

Fr. J.

Thanks for your post, Joe.

I don't think that this document is a waste of time or would be even if it were never accepted by B16. One thing I notice on this board is the presumption that theology is a fixed static quantity. It is not. Since the collapse of mere logical positivism in the early 20th Cen. I dont think there are many who absolutize language as was once invisaged in Vatican I. Can language perfectly and exhaustively capture a theological reality/conception? Today, most would say no. Now this isnt an excuse to bend language to mean what it does not mean (that is Anglican theology ). But it does mean that what was once pat and done with will still have some elasticity in it. Easterners will recognize that this is the apophatic/catophatic distinction applied to language. So while language approximates truth it cannot exhaust it. Even Vatican I left intentional wiggle room. Look closely at the language there. I am not saying to contradict the tradition or to be cynical or Machiavellian about it, but when two traditions explore the truth together there arise understandings impossible for either alone. It is a slow process and requires perhaps and even slower reception. But our division took centuries, so what if it takes some centuries to mend. As long as we are brothers to one another in the meantime and don't keep casting each other into hell for things none of us living are responsible for.

Joe, the catch-22 you point out is a real one. The papacy is what is holding the line in the Catholic Church at this time. If the Roman rite were to permit dioceses to elect their own bishops, for example, we would be where the Anglicans are. It is the perogative of the pope to name bishops that is keeping the Catholic Church, however perilously, orthodox.

But, one way out of the catch-22 is for Rome to maintain its perogatives within the Latin rite and recognize the autonomy of the East. How does that play?

That is great question. Perhaps it is the question. From an Orthodox point of view, it would certainly be canonically irregular. But who knows, perhaps there is a way to "spin" (I can't think of a better word for now) things in order to allow Rome to hold on to the authority necessary to keep things in line while not imposing a foreign ecclesiology on the eastern Churches. It is a delicate situation.

Joe