www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Seeking an End to the ‘Scandalous Disunity’ Between East and West

Dear Fogey,

Thank you for your various clarifications!

As I understand the Faith and how the seventh Ecumenical Council defined the veneration of images, we CANNOT opt out of their veneration for that would be an attack on the Incarnation of God in Christ (which is why the Council defined it to begin with). As to how many icons etc., that is up to the local and Particular Churches, of course, and also to local monastic traditions. So I take your meaning but I think "opt out" in the sense of "not venerating at all" would be mistaken.

A Greek Orthodox monastery on Mt Athos has initiated an ecumenical experiment there by inviting some Assyrian monks to an abandoned monastery. They are still there but are seeking other premises simply because the plethora of icons is distracting to them . . .

The Nestorians/Assyrians do venerate the icons of the Cross, relics etc. That they didn't formerly have a developed iconography was due more to their iconoclastic enemies than to their ecclesial traditions. The more numerous Chaldeans and also those Assyrians who came into communion with Russian Orthodoxy do indeed have icons etc. I have visited our Assyrian parishes in my area and they have, in fact, introduced both icons and Latin statues.

(Also,, the term "Nestorian" by which we mean the heresy of Nestorianism is no longer applicable to the Church of the East given that they reject the idea of "two Persons" in Christ and also that their Patriarch has signed a Christological agreement with Rome.)

Your reference to the Orthodox Church's "few definitions" of doctrine SEEMS to contradict what you said earlier re: negotiability.

The fact that the Orthodox East doesn't accept the West's Latin theological dogmas and constructs does not, of course, mean they reject their "substance" even more broadly defined.

The West, for example, does not have the beautiful "lex orandi" liturgical tradition of the East wherein there are points of theology that, while not dogmatically affirmed, are nevertheless part of the Faith as we consent to the "lex orandi, lex credendi" principle. In the absence of that, I could see why the West would want to define the Most Holy Virgin Mary's total holiness and her Assumption to heaven. But this is what the East has always affirmed via its lex orandi liturgical tradition. Also, and as a result, the East never had theological disputes about Mary's sinlessness stemming from the Augustinian view of Original Sin etc. that the West had. Within that context of disagreement, it was inevitable that the West would move to dogmatically definte the two later Marian dogmas. This is but one example.

There is, to be sure, only one Church. But there are, by Latin theological a priori's, different levels of incorporation into it. The Orthodox Church is, from Rome's POV, the most incorporated, save the Papacy issue. As for Rome's later doctrines, stemming from its Latin, scholastic milieu, Rome could, as one possibility, simply affirm that what the Orthodox Church believes about the Trinity, Mariology, Eschatology etc. is the same as what it believes, although using different approaches. That the Papacy itself would need to be re-assessed in this context is also something that would have to be opened. Until such time, real unity is a closed issue.

In addition, the debate over the exercise of the Petrine Ministry today is something which the EC Churches would participate in as Churches like the UGCC want to have the same Particular rights they had before the Union (e.g. the right to glorify their own saints).

Your point on St Josaphat is well taken. He was, unfortunately, someone who was, after his death, used and abused by RC authorities, including UGCC authorities, to promote the Union of Brest. He remains a popular saint within the UGCC and very unpopular in other circles, as you know.

But there are voices within Ukrainian Orthodoxy, here and there, which indicate he is no longer the "dushekhvat" or "soul-snatcher" of previous generations. It is better not to poison the atmosphere by bringing him up in an ecumenical discussion, however . . .

Alex

What are you winking at?

Alex

Oh, just making sure nobody would think that my "What, that's not ecumenism?" was serious.

I'm not as well-read but I still disagree. A Catholic must believe that images are an option, that other Catholics who use them aren't worshipping idols. To force their use on everybody? Again, the church can make rules like that but they're not doctrine and would be a mistake. If one tried to byzantinize the Nestorians, for example, one would lose credibility complaining about latinization, for example. (Again, I hold that mother church offers both the unlatinized and latinized forms of the Byzantine Rite, which is great.)


No. Of course the church agrees that the first seven councils are true.


I'm all for expressing Catholic doctrine in Byzantine terms but won't throw out our doctrine. As for the other side, again, their doctrine is our doctrine. Their opinion, on the other hand, can and often does reject our substance.

Well put but the Catholic Church and I won't discard our doctrine. Two words to refute the idea that the West doesn't understand lex orandi: Tridentine Mass, the true analogue of the Byzantine and other Eastern liturgies.

The most incorporated while remaining outside indeed. As I say, born Orthodox are estranged Catholics.

The rest sounds a lot like what we teach: what Byzantine Christians who are good Catholics affirm, but without denying any doctrine.

That depends. Much is negotiable but the infallibility of his office as a subset of church infallibility is not.

Fine with me.

There have been very nice ecumenical Orthodox I can imagine sounding like that; from the Ukrainians, the late Archbishop Vsevolod, one of the nicest men I've met. They're eirenical and I appreciate that, but we've got the battle of the true-church claims. One side must surrender and join the other. Our mission as Catholics is to walk the talk, showing the Orthodox that to be Catholic is NOT to lose their customs. That includes making up for the times we haven't lived up to that (Cum Data Fuerit). I doubt anybody on this forum disagrees with me on that.

Peter - you rock!

And I'm very serious . . .

Alex

Dear Fogey,

Absolutely - no one would disagree with you on that.

Just a minor thing about your comment re: images. The Assyrians do indeed venerate images, even though they don't have the same iconographic tradition of the Byzantine East or Western statues. Ancient Assyrian churches do indeed have icons of their saints and teachers painted/written on the walls (I once found one with a depiction of Nestorius himself - as the tour guide, himself a professor of Assyrian antiquity, indicated).

But, yes, the seventh Council did in fact affirm the veneration of images which would mean no Christian may opt out of that practice - just as no Christian/Catholic may opt out of believing the later Marian dogmas and the like. The "how" and "how much" are indeed left up to individual Christians and Particular Churches.

Also, I would never assert that the West doesn't understand lex orandi (if I gave that impression, I apologise). It is just that the Byzantine liturgical hymnography is so highly developed with such integral theological nuances that what the West has been led to define dogmatically is contained implicitly in that Eastern hymnography. The East feels less of an impulse to define what is not explicitly and directly attacked from without, especially by heresy.

Alex

Alex, I don't take issue with most of what Fogey posted nor with the general context of your response, but I am surprised that this one sentence did not catch your attention: " One side must surrender and join the other. "

Such a sentiment is contrary to ALL of the work done over the past half century by the ongoing bilateral Dialogues among the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and in North America at least the Eastern Catholics as well as the expressed statements of the Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople during said period.

I realize that such reflects the opinions of many on both 'sides' of the divide, but it does not reflect the opinion of those involved in the process.

Dear DMD,

Yes, indeed . . .

I myself wouldn't put it that way, but others will and do!

The Rev. Fr. Professor John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) addressed this very issue a few times in some of his articles dealing with East-West unity.

You and Fogey have put your finger on what is probably THE most important issue to be resolved before East and West could ever reunify, that being, who will be seen to have been "right all along?"

If Orthodoxy should admit to a doctrine of papal infallibility, however it might be defined, as well as of papal jurisdiction - does that mean Orthodoxy has capitulated to Rome?

Conversely, if Rome removes the Filioque from the Creed and is ever able to say that what Orthodoxy believes now and what the united Church believed in the first thousand years is the sum of the Catholic Faith, later Latin additions be darned - does this mean that Rome has capitulated to Orthodoxy?

I do think that Fogey has expressed the ultimate crux of the problem of reunification - even after everything can be agreed on.

Some theological writers I read in university even went so far as to suggest that ideally when reunion occurs, both sides will exhibit a certain degree of self-satisfaction that their side "won out" when, in reality, both sides would have had to have constructed a new ecclesial paradigm that transcends the ones we have had since the Great Schism.

For me personally, the "true Church" does exist and it subsists in BOTH the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (including the Miaphysite and Assyrian Churches and the "High Churches" of the West). Both have the Apostolic Faith, true Sacraments/Mysteries, true Episcopacy which have produced true Saints on all sides. But the true Church is in schism, both sides being responsible for it.

While Rome continues to exercise her Primacy - the fact is that "Primacy" in the East is not the absolute thing it is in the West. The Orthodox East has its own Primate, although its focus is on Christ as the Head of the Church (which is also that of the Western Church).

I am with my UGCC. And Rome has apologised to the Orthodox for having had a hand in creating the UGCC in 1596 and later. This is confusing to me. Ultimately, the goal is not the maintenance of the UGCC against all odds, but a Particular and canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its Patriarch in Kyiv and in communion with the entire Church, including the Roman papacy and the Eastern patriarchs.

And there is nothing that Rome can teach my Church about Triadology, Eschatology, Mariology (Theotokology) etc. that we don't already believe or matain on the very best Apostolic authority of the early Church.

For the EC Churches, I believe, unity is not about faith matters but about a reintegration with our Mother Churches from which we came and their ultimate reintegration, as well as that of Rome, within a reunified, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don't know what the Catholic church and Fogey would say about any of this. One thing I do know is that I wouldn't move away from these conclusions despite it.



Alex

If my experience is anything to go by, I would say that quite a lot of Catholic bloggers think exactly as you do.

"One side must surrender and join the other." Sure, it's blunt, but that's what a true-church claim means.

Again, according to our teachings, "capitulating to Rome" wouldn't mean the Orthodox would give up their customs. How and why the Greek Catholic churches exist. I admit their self-latinization makes it seem not so, but again both that and the unlatinized forms are good; the Greek Catholics who have been doing it for centuries have rights. The unlatinized Greek Catholics need support, lest they be misunderstood.

Yes. No to that.

So they don't believe either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true church? Can't imagine a Pope or an Orthodox bishop making that statement.

Liberal ecumenism right after Vatican II sounded like that; then the Catholic liberals thought they'd work with the Protestants to build a new church. Again, no to that.

Almost Catholic and not Orthodox. There's our teaching on valid orders: basic credal orthodoxy, apostolic succession, and the truth about the Eucharist, a way the Orthodox et al. are connected to us that the Protestants (including the Anglicans) aren't. They have the Mass.

All "subsists in" from Vatican II means is, same as before, Orthodox and the other historic Eastern churches have bishops and the Mass, and Protestants have baptism, while the church "in its fullness" is the Catholic Church.

The world desperately needs more Western-Rite Orthodox ( ) if for no other reason than to finally -- finally -- stop Catholic "apologists" from endlessly trotting out the See? Greek Catholics prove that the Orthodox should join the Roman Communion! theme.

Dear Fogey,

Yes, but you omit the very important matter of the life of Grace that, according to Vatican II as well, can and does exist among non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians even with what little they do have.

It is what we do with what we have that determines our standing before God and our life in Christ in the first instance.

In terms of Western non-Roman Communions, there is the Polish National Catholic Church and also those Anglican priests and bishops who do have valid orders through ordination/consecration involving Churches, like the Assyrian, who either participated in their consecration, often on the principle of economia.

Alex

Dear Peter,

Generally speaking, the historic unias were often achieved by less than good methods from within a context of Roman triumphalism which simply does not obtain today. The official policy of Rome is that reunion with the Orthodox East will never be achieved along those same lines and Rome has been very apologetic to the Orthodox (usually the Moscow Patriarchate) for the "Uniates" of today.

Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, especially in Eastern Europe, was achieved primarily under pressure from their Roman Catholic neighbours who were also, at the time, the EC's political masters. Latinization was a way in which to get EC's to become not only Roman Catholic but also more pliant subjects of the RC kingdoms.

Conversely, when the Russian Orthodox Tsarist forces invaded those same lands, they initiated movements for "Easternization" which, at the same time, meant "Russification" - usually beginning with the removal of the Filioque. The same occurred with the Soviets in 1946 who forcibly "reunited" the UGCC with its "Mother Church" the ROC. This is why keeping the Filioque is so important in a number of UGCC circles - its removal is, to them, an expression of that imposed Russification via the ROC.

The Russian Orthodox hierarchs were just so very surprised that the UGCC had survived so many years under the Soviet anvil and, beginning in 1991, that so many Ukrainian clerics who were trained by the MP and ordained by the MP were now singing "Many Years" to the Pope of Rome and in their faces.

But none of this had ANYTHING to do with faith matters, canonicity etc. It had everything to do with politics, nationalism and culture.

Western Orthodoxy seems to have failed completely everywhere except in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. There are Western Orthodox Christians, of both the Roman and Anglican traditions, who are very serious about their commitment to Orthodoxy and who, in the case of the former, bring to it some very strong resentments. But if you meet a convert who doesn't do this, please let me know immediately!

Happily, the future of Catholic-Orthodox reunion does not rest with those Catholic trad bloggers you mention. The problem with many such Catholic Trads is that they really have zero knowledge of and experience with Eastern Catholicism, let alone Orthodoxy.

They should get out more . . .

Alex