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

It's stated in the creed; there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. There is no basis for explaining the workings of grace outside the church given what is stated in the creed. While it is understood the sacraments are channels of grace provided through the church, it is acknowledged they are provided for us and God is not bound by them. With this in mind it is generally a decision on how to exercise sacramental economy when looking at such matters. Some prefer extreme strictness, some perhaps extreme laxity. Most probably fall in between and have concluded that if one has been given a trinitarian baptism, Chrismation is all that's necessary to complete it. The underlying principle does not vary.

Well said, Father. The deveopment of an Imperial Ecclesiology was a novelty hatched in the mind of the Church historian and semi-Arian heretic, Eusebius. It largely replaced the Apostolic Ecclesiology which had as its visible unifying principle the Petrine principle of headship and primacy, the locus of which was in elder Rome, as acknowledged by Eusebius in his treatment of early Christian history. He then, however, takes it a step further by separating the age of the Apostles from the Age of the Christian Imperium, treating it almost as a new dispensation in Church life. His motivation for doing so was his full "conversion" to Constantine, who condescended to ask him personally to publicly accept the orthodox teachings of Nicea so that he would not face excommunication and deposition. The Emperor as the center of Church unity now became his apologia for an extreme about face theologically, after so vigorous a defense following the sanctions of the synod of Antioch.

Of course, the limits of the Imperial Ecclesiology became painfully manifest in the Iconoclast controversy, where both a heretical Patriarch at the behest of a heretical emperor called heretical synods/councils to ratify iconoclasm as the official teaching of the Imperial Church. This of course eventually led Theodore the Studite among others to vigorously and rightfully defend the independence of the Church from imperial control. This largely Eastern heresy contributed to the eventual establishment of Charlamagne as "Holy Roman Emperor" in the West which only created further division and set the stage for the Photian controversies and 1054.

As I have said before, we have all inherited a history we did not create. But I think we need to look honestly at this history in order to build a future in unity. The plain facts are that the responsibility for the breach between East and West cannot be laid solely on the shoulders of the West or Western scholasticism (and I am no apologist for Western scholasticism). The East needs to recognize its own contribution.

God bless,

Gordo

Folks. Please see my thread in the Books forum for a selected bibliography of 19th century books that address questions of papal authority.

Joe

Wow, thanks for the detail, Gordo. I do need to do more reading on this.

I appreciate your concluding words on history. There are many facets of history we simply have to accept. And the history of non is perfect. From the heresies in the ancient East to the political machinations of the West, there is a lot of history for us all to deal with.

I think Imperial Ecclesiology is a dimension of our histories with which we all have to cope. If not for the interventions of Constantine and his successors, we might not have ever seen the excesses of the papacy in the West or the caesaropapism of the East, both of which have compromised the gospel in various ways. Perhaps we are East and West now gaining enough distance from our Imperial pasts that we can look more honestly at Imperial Christianity and its effects, East and West.

Indeed, "one baptism." That is the issue.

Rather, it appears the underlying principle varies significantly.

Dn. Anthony

Thank you, Father, for your kind words. And coupled with Caesero-papism is the equally weighty charge of Papo-caesarism, as coined by Father Louis Bouyer. We have much to face honestly on both sides. The aroma of repentance should spread everywhere!

Gordo

The underlying principle is sacraments are accomplished in the church, because the church is a visible sacramental union. There is no variance on that front. The variance is with the dispensation of sacramental economy.

Interesting. This could have been written by an Anglican. But their prayerbook has not guaranteed Christian teaching or unity.



However, if the office of the papacy is by its nature corrupting, then that corruption should be apparent in each papacy. Otherwise, it is the person which is corrupt, not the office.



I do not doubt you have examples in mind. Could you offer some so I understand you better?



No doubt. That situation took place in an era when Western culture was considered inseparable from Catholicism. Matteo Ricci experienced the same, along with other Eastern Catholic Churches. However, there is ample evidence that they Church has made a separation between Catholic faith and cultural expression.

I was not referring to inter-church relations, though. I was referring to supranationality as an antidote to Gallicanism. For instance the Church could have identified itself with Pinochet in Chile or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Both would have happened if the local church had its way. Both were rendered impossible because of the supranational aspect of the papacy.



I don't think you will find anyone defending the papal states here.



Again, no real dispute here. Theology is an essential aspect of the conversation. However, as we consider a Church of the future, we must also deal with our history. We must also deal with the demands of the present age and how a newly constituted church can address these demands, pressures, etc. There are many facets to the conversation and these various aspects require a fresh approach after a thousand years of bludgeoning each other with bible and church father quotes and the dates of past atrocities.

Because their leaders have no desire to enforce dogmatic unity. Apples and oranges. They had unity, or the best approximation of it given the nature of the Anglican compromise, when they affirmed the prayer book and its contents. The disunity is a result of abandoning their own principles.

No systems is without its weaknesses, those in Anglicanism have been exposed. A centralized Papacy can be lynchpin of a neatly ordered and comprehensive set of teaching, but may through various circumstances find itself unwilling or unable to guide its flock to follow these teachings, either in their public or private lives. A centralized Papacy may be an effective way of governing the church, but the price may be the subversion of the role of all bishops.


I'm not sure Lord Acton's fear is the issue. It's not the personality at issue, it's the theology. Papal Supremacy from the Orthodox viewpoint is bad theology, and its exercise has corrosive effects on the church as a whole. That is a distinct issue of the personal nature of the holder of the office. JPII and Benedict are clearly good Popes, but that doesn't mean the office itself as a theological principle is appropriate or good.


When I lived in Chicago there were four Catholic Churches within a mile of each other. Two within a block The reasons for this were:

- Not primarily due to excessive population in the area needing multiple churches (past or present).
- Not the result of something born in America, though given a starkly illuminated here.


What I see when I look at that communion is the imposition of Roman theology, ethos, governance, canon law, etc. on the church as a whole. I don't see separation. I see domination. Part of the corrosive effect I was speaking of is that people see this as normal or acceptable.


Aside from Nicaragau, I disagree. In Chile, Argentina, Mexico and Spain to take examples from recent history the church has been identified closely with the regime; and that was not in spite of the Papacy, but often with its support.


A fresh approach can only operate within the theological confines the churches have erected through history. I see little latitude, and therefore myself believe these talks will come to nothing ultimately.

I could be wrong but it sounds like this is your preferred outcome. But, whatever you may feel, the future of the Churches is up to the Churches. There is nothing in our past that pre-ordains a future--unless you count the will of Jesus in his sacerdotal prayer.

If unity is a goal, as I believe it should be, then we have to do some walking to do together. Why not here? Why not now?

I see only one insurmountable problem and it is teaching on the Papacy of Vatican I (reaffirmed by Vatican II). Everything else can be worked out I think mainly because the cause of most of the troubling divisions is the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the papacy. If Rome would give up supreme, universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility then we would be in communion in little time at all. But can Rome do this? If the answer is no, then there is going to be no union.

Joe

Okay, if the theology and the institution of the papacy have corrosive effects what are those corrosive effects under JPII and B16?



That is fair. But how is this different from what the Eastern Churches practice on a larger scale? If national churches are divisive in Chicago, how are they not divisive in say the Slavic countries?


So, you see domination by Rome within the Latin Rite, but divisiveness where the Catholic Church has national churches. It seems you are critical no matter what the Catholic Church does.



Okay, so Rome does not always prevent identification with a government. How would not having a Roman Office improve any of these situations? I dont think for a minute that Rome can enforce a closeness between a local church and a state where there is a fundamental antagonism at play. So how would not having a Rome make any of these situations better?

If you disagree that ultramontanism is the opposite of Gallicanism, which is the generally accepted interpretation of history, then what is your position?

For the sake of clarification, can someone explain ultramontanism vs. official Catholic teaching?

Joe

There is no opposition between ultramontanism and Catholic teaching. Ultramontanism is the movement in France that opposed Gallicanism, which is opposed to Catholic teaching.

Gallicanism is a form of caesaropapism which asserted that Roman teaching was subject to approval by the French church in order to take effect in France. The ultramontanes looked "over the mountains" to Rome for correct teaching.

Gallicanism has been repeated in different forms in many places. Francisco Franco for example forbade the promulgation of Vat. II in Spain until his ouster. Americanism is a different form of Gallicanism not based on legislative priority within the Church but on a kind of cultural hegemony of American popular ideas over church teaching. It lasted from the late 60's into the late 80's and its effects are still felt today. It advocated easy divorse and remarriage, contraception, gay rights, WO, pre-marital sex etc. etc. It was successfully put down as the dominant force in American Catholicism by JPII.