www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils

Father,

I have only one "polemical" point and that is that if one of the Churches had held a primacy of authority over the other Churches in the first millennium we would see legislation about it in the sacred canons. No matter how much individual Popes may have now and again claimed primacy of authority, it all means very little until it is embodied in the canons. It is the canons which regulate the relationships between the Churches of Christ.

Father Kimel has an excellent suggestion. Here is a proposed outline:

1. Definitions;
(a) Primacy
(b) Authority
(c) Jurisdiction
(e) Power

2. Ante-Nicene Period
(a) Emergence of the Church of Rome
(b) Emergence of other Great Churches (including Africa)
(c) Ecclesiology in the Ante-Nicene Period
(d) Practical examples of primacy and conciliarity.
(e) Key patristic and conciliar documents

3. Post-Nicene Period
(a) From Nicaea to Constantinople
(b) Council of Serdica
(c) Canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon
(e) The Quinisextunct Council
(e) The Role of Rome in the Great Councils
(f) The Role of Rome in the Christological Controversies
(g) Key Patristic Writings

4. The Late Patristic Period Through the Middle Ages
(a) The Photian Schism
(b) The Impact of the Gregorian Reforms
(c) External Factors Affecting Inter-Ecclesial Relations
(d) The Events of 1054 and Afterwards
(e) Impact of the Crusades
(f) Byzance apres Byzance
(g) Developments in the West

5. The Modern Era
(a) Council of Trent
(b) Vatican I
(c) Vatican II
(d) Modern Catholic Ecumenical Scholarship
(e) Slavophile Theology
(f) Modern Orthodox Theology
(g) The State of Orthodox Ecclesiology
(h) The State of Catholic Ecclesiology

Stuart,

I look forward to reading your book. When do you expect it to be published?

A labor of my old age, to be done when I retire.

My friend and mentor Edward N. Luttwak just completed his life's work after some thirty years of research, analysis and writing. Called The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, every page scintillates, and you can tell that he not only mastered, but fell in love with his subject.

That's the kind of book I want to write.

As mentioned before (I think in this thread, or it not one of the similar ones that are running right now), I re-listened to Archbishop Hilarion's lecture given at St. Vladimir's earlier this year, where he reads a paper he wrote about primacy and takes questions.

Key things of interest to my last post on was his objection to the Ravenna document is that it fundamentally paves the way to an ecclesiology that he does not believe the Orthodox Church ever had (and attempts to create an ecclesiology where none existed, without any research into precedent or pan-Orthodox consultation, is in his paper the key problem with much of the current ecumenical diologue). He believes that this model is being encouraged, on one side, by Rome and on the other by some in Constantinople - and that this is very problematic.

A few other random points:

- he focuses on an Irenaic, local church model for the Church, and states that metropolitans and Patriarchs do not have ordinary jurisdiction over eparchies under them, and that the highest body in the local church is the synod vice the patriarch. All the bishops in the world save one could apostasize, but that one would remain the Church [my comment: this is certainly a good ideal, and I'd hope that all churches follow this. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are times when this was not followed. Does that have any implications for this model?]

- He asserts that bishops in union of Rome derive their episcopal authority from Rome, and that in the end without Rome there would be no Church. [my comment: this is incorrect. I don't believe the CCC says this. More importantly, my local bishop said explicitly that the church in all its fullness is present when he, his clergy, and the people are present - mirroring I believe the positions of the Melkite and Ukranian Greek Catholic Churches, as well as bishop Hilarion's own model].

- an interesting discussion that came up in the questions and and answers was "hierarchical" primacy versus "monastic" primacy, referring of course to the role monks played, ostensibly trumping the hierarchy, in cases like the iconoclastic and hesychastic controversies. [I have my own opinions on this - namely, it'd be better phrased as a "hierarchical" and "charismatic" distinction, that the monks are "keepers of the faith" only in the sense that they live and express authentically Christian lives, and that the emphasis given to certain monks in certain Orthodox quarters is overblown and harmful. Christos Yannaras has written sufficiently on the last point. And for what it's worth, even if I have some questions about some of the ways the Athonite revival has gone in some quarters, I treasure everything I "took home" from Athos and I also met several real monks when I was there. In the event someone wants to talk about this, please open a new thread]

- finally, Metropolitan Kallistos of the EP, naturally, had nothing but praise for Archbishop Hilarion's paper and said essentially that it was accurate. Thus, I would not try to read "Moscow vs. Constantinople" into his statements.

These are my notes; apologies if I misrepresented anything in them. You can find the lecture in the Saint Vladimir's section of Ancient Faith radio - this presentation, as well as presentations by one Father [I forgot his first name] Alexopoulos, Metropolitan Kallistos, and Father Robert Taft are well worth listening to.

Thanks for the reference - I was unaware of it, and I'll have to buy it! I'm a fan of the previous book (even if one can have legitimate questions about its concept, as well as the whole idea of "is there such a thing as grand strategy?").

But that's all for another thread and another forum.......

I don't know if anyone has posted this, but seems to me an important factor.

Quite simply, we Catholics of the Byzantine rite are very much in transition. We are in transition from Churches that were very latinised, esp. in their theology & spirituality (when one's clergy are trained in Latin Seminaries and theologates, it is not surprising), to becoming Orthodox in theology and spirituality.

So not surprising that it's difficult to "nail down" our position on a variety of fairly central issues, eg. papal infallibilty, the Code of Canon Law, etc. Why?

Cf. the dictum of his very Reverence, Archimandrite Robert Taft SJ: we should be exactly like the Orthodox in everything except we are in Communion with Rome (or words to that effect). That's what "Should be" but is not yet, alas. These things take time. (How long did it take the Chaldean rite Orthodox Church of India to evolve into a West Syrian rite church?)

Also, not surprising that there is not absolute and perfect harmony between our quickly evolving praxis on one hand, and some official documentation on the other.

In many parts of the UGCC for example, icons are new, statues still exist, iconostases are vigorously refused by the congregation, etc. all this despite vigorously direction to become Orthodox from the highest authorities (eg. Popes, Vatican II, Canonical Instructions, Holy Synod declarations, etc.)

Given this matter, some things we quite simply have not worked out yet.

And some things the Latin Church and the Catholic Communion are still working out (e.g. Papal Primacy working with other Patriarchs and Patriarchates, which work began under JP2 if memory serves)

Regarding our Canon Law, all our theologians I think agree that it is very much a work in process, but is nevertheless an important start (though perhaps not necessarily a "good start"). And Canon Law, in the Catholic Communion, is always a work in process. The Latin canon is continuing to be revised - given various developments in the church around the world.

The Latin Church is itself in the process.
What does it mean for such as infallibility when (was it Pope Benedict at some point opined that some of the Ecumenical Councils might merely be General Councils of the Latin Church?

We're getting there, but we've a goodly ways to go but we've already come a long ways and fast!

God continue to help us.

And I would humbly beg our Orthodox brethren help us too.

Edward told me the other day that the idea of writing about the Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire seemed like a logical follow-on to Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, which had taken him all of thirty months to write. I said, you said, "You were going to do it back in 1979, so what happened?"

And he told me that, although the Byzantines were much better than the Romans about writing things down in formal manuals and handbooks, the historiography of the Roman Empire is pretty much settled, all the documents have been catalogued and translated, and there is a very long trail of scholarship to follow.

On the other hand, until recently Byzantine History has been something of an academic backwater, few of the documents have been catalogued, fewer still have been translated, or if translated, not into an accessible modern language, or, if translated into a modern language, done in a very slapdash manner, so that it took him twenty years just to assemble all of the materials,

And, thinking of the problems of liturgical translation in the Byzantine rite, I saw his point, entirely.

This represents the whole nature of why this debate has got so heated. In the present day and age, the idea of "being Orthodox and in communion with ROme" is a tautology. What you mean, from an Orthodox viewpoint, and this is how Orthodox will continue to interpret it, is EASTERN and in communion with Rome (or actually part of the Roman church).

Shedding latinisation and becoming Eastern is one thing, but should not be confused with becoming Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not in communion with Rome; in fact, one could argue that that is what distinguishes Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because if the schism had never happened and we had remained in Communion, we would not be having this discussion.

Any way, I was awesome to stand in the place where the Oecumenical Council was held and the Creed formulated.
Nicea and Constantinople.
It was a highlight of my life.
Stephanos I

Actually, if you're an Assyrian or a Chaldean, or Malabarese or Malankarese, then the "Orthodox" are most definitely "Western". It's an Orthodox conceit that the Byzantine-Constantinian Rite constitutes the totality of Eastern Christianity.

The "Eastern Orthodox" communion needs to recognize that it is not representative of Eastern Christianity as a whole.

Dear Father Stephanos,

If you are inclined, please share your impressions of your trip with us. I would love to hear about it.

Asking your your blessing and your prayers,
Alice

What a wonderful experience. I would love to visit those places, and Hagia Sophia too.