www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things the West can do right away

But really Cizinec, this argument is a something of a red herring.

Actions of the EP - whether canonically sanctioned or not; whether properly authorized or not - have been far more radical than anything the Pope has done. Nevertheless, the Serbian and Antiochian orthodox, for example, maintain communion wih the EP.

Cizinec,

Certainly, you are right. This could happen - but we - Catholics and Orthodox - are human and don't have it within our power to assure that anything will or won't happen at some point in the future.

If reunion of the Churches depends on such absolutism, it can never occur.

What has to be realized is that if union comes about and such as you describe suddenly recurs, then disunion will again result - bulls of excommunication tossed on respective altars or, more likely, posted in full page ads in the respective ecclesiastical organs of the Churches.

And you have to wonder, would God be as forgiving of such stupidity by either or both sides a second time around?

Many years,

Neil

Dear djs,

It should not be astonishing at all.

What the West can do in this respect, if it can, is to return to as much of the common, pre-1054 heritage it once shared with the Orthodox East.

If the West can manage that, and there is every indication in the statements of His Holiness (and in the statements of our RC posters here too!) that this is feasible and "doable," then I think we're ahead of the game of ecumenical rapprochement.

Don't you agree?

Alex

Dear Cizinec and Neil,

You discuss a very important point, to be sure!

Perhaps certain mechanisms, agreed to by both sides, can be worked out in this respect.

The idea of the Pope being in absolute jurisdictional control over the Orthodox East is simply a non-starter.

And Rome could also show good-will here too by, for one thing, ABOLISHING the Congregation for the Eastern Churches which was, as I understand it, formerly part of the Office of the Inquisition.

At some point, the RCC will have to ask itself if full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be had EVEN IF Rome won't be able to appoint bishops and patriarchs for the Orthodox .

If this is possible, then we can all move ahead.

Alex

djs,

I will answer your questions concerning our discussion of Daniel's position after I clarify my understanding of that position.

I don't want to misrepresent it.

Daniel,

I apologize for judging your position too quickly. I do need one clarification.

If there were a reunion, would the Pope have the authority to require all priests in other patriarchates to be unmarried? Would he have the authority to require azymes? Would he have the authority to remove the epiclesis?

I know you do not believe Rome would ever do such a thing. I am not arguing that either. I, unlike others, do not believe this Pope would ever do something so uncharitable. I'm trying to understand your understanding of the extent of Papal authority, so please don't get irritated. I'm not trying to be controversial. I'm trying to get to the substance and extent of your position on the authority of Rome. Sometimes that requires a review of extremities.

I hope I haven't offended you or mistated your position.

This premise is one of the obstacles to union.

The premise is that the "O"rthodox East holds the unadulterated, "pre-1054" Faith, and that the West has departed from that Faith and needs to return.

I think if the East is serious about dialogue it must be willing to discuss the validity of this premise, before telling the West what it needs to do "right away.," i.e. before any discussion takes place.

Of course, if you grant this premise then it is obvious that the West, "right away" must return to the "common" "shared" "pre-1054" heritage. Of course.

BUT--the cracks were there before 1054. Photios the Usurper anathematized the Holy See many decades earlier, for allowing the Filioque to be said in her territories, for requiring celibacy of her priests, for fasting on Saturdays, for using unleavened bread in her liturgies, etc. The root cause of the schism, from a western point of view is not that the West departed from a more pure Christianity that it used to share with the East, but rather that Eastern Patriarchs revolted unjustly against the teaching authority and jurisdictional primacy of Rome, which they had always previously acknowledged.

I think the first step in dialogue must therefore consist, not in telling the West what it should "do right away," but rather in listening to each other's views about how the schism happened in the first place.

Thoughts?

LatinTrad

LatinTrad,

I thought that was part of what we're doing.

Alex, I am not astonished by the content of your suggestions, which are not without merit. But in the interest of "particularity", there is more merit, IMO, of thinking about what our own churches should be doing, rather than other particular churches.

I am happy that the West might consider removal of the filioque, but would be soliticious about making recommendations to them regarding their traditions (which for some parts of the West antedate the 1054 schism). I would similarly like the West to be solicitous about suggestions to us.

If one were to conside the most immediate problems between Orthodox an Catholics, the situation of UGCC in Ukraine would certainly spring to mind. A Latin might be tempted to suggest that something the UGCC "could do right away..." is to stay in L'viv. Respect for particular churches, of course, precludes such a comment. IMO, it also precludes us from telling the West what traditions they could abandon "right away".

Cizinec my friend, no I am not at all offended; I am not as touchy as some posters here [you know who you are. Or maybe you don't]. I appreciate the spirit in which you have been conversing.
I certainly think it unlikely that Rome would go backwards to another round of ecclesiastical imperialism, but have no objections to juridical limits to its exercise of power to assure the East that it is only a last resort and an apostolic service. I am sure that if reunion occurs it will be with signed agreements about married priests and other juridical matters. My only point is that the Pope must not be reduced to a symbolic entity with no authority, ala the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Dear Latin Trad,

I think Roman Catholic historiography has advanced well beyond the previous Western notions that Rome had jurisdictional control over the East until, one day, the East decided to up and shake off the "Roman Yoke."

These are important questions that need to be discussed, however.

Rome has been engaged in dialogue with the Orthodox at various levels and the idea of removing the Filioque, something that was never in the original versions of the Creed as a universal statement of faith, is something that Rome is having less problem acknowledging over time.

The Roman Catholic Church of Greece has received permission to do away with the Filioque completely - the sky hasn't fallen in and the world hasn't come to an end.

The return to pre-1054 traditions has nothing whatever to do with "Orthodox purity."

Both Rome and Orthodoxy were one Church before that period of time and both shared a COMMON Creed and several other things in common as ONE CHURCH.

This doesn't mean that discussion won't be needed - along with give and take on BOTH sides.

But these FEW things I've suggested are largely symbolic. If Rome did them, the fact WON'T heal the schism.

But it might predispose BOTH sides to further understanding of each other's theological and ecclesial developments since 1054.

So I think you need some more ECST (Eastern Christian Sensitivity Training).

Failing that, you might want to have a look at what RC theologians are saying about Photios, for instance (Francis Dvornik - a Jesuit, no less!).

Remember that the Byzantine Catholic Church itself liturgically venerates St Photios as a saint and it is truly Catholic.

You need to work on your ultramontanist papal triumphalism, Big Guy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not SSPXer, so why come across as one?

God bless,

Alex

Dear djs,

I fear you misunderstand me, Sir!

I've NEVER said the West has to "abandon" any of its traditions as a Particular Latin Catholic Church.

The purpose of this exercise here is to focus on trying to better distinguish which traditions of the Roman Church are "universal" (which it shares with other Apostolic Churches, notably the Orthodox East) and which of her traditions are "Particular" and therefore proper to the Roman Church alone.

At NO TIME would the Roman Church be required to "give up" any of these traditions, "Universal" or "Particular."

It is simply a question of which of these the Roman Church may legitimately "impose" or demand that other Churches believe to be of the "Universal" faith and practice and which are her own legitimate traditions reflecting her own Particular Church life.

For the Roman Church to remove the Filioque from the Creed does NOT mean that it has to drop the theological tradition of the Filioque from her life as a Particular Church - Orthodox theologians have always said that the Filioque can be maintained by the Latin Church as a theological opinion/tradition. But it cannot be imposed on the universal Church nor kept in a creed intended to express the faith of the universal Church of Christ.

What the West should do in this circumstance is simply prune back those of her Particular traditions from the realm of "Universal traditions" that Rome has demanded of other Churches in history.

It is not a question of "delete this and that." It is a question of affirming the Universal and Particular character of the Roman Church and which traditions belong to which respective character.

We are commenting here on those traditions that are shared UNIVERSALLY by all the Churches, Rome and Orthodoxy, as before 1054.

We are not, as members of Particular Churches, telling another Particular Church what to do.

I've not mentioned mandatory celibacy here because that is ENTIRELY an internal matter for the Roman Church.

(It CAN impinge on the EC Churches insofar as Rome has sought to enforce it on our Churches as well, but that is another issue.)

As for the UGCC, this discussion would clearly set out, as I believe the points in the original outline would show, that the Particular Latin Church has no business telling the UGCC what it can or cannot do in Ukraine. It can try, but we don't have to listen and we won't listen - not any more.

And these are topics that have been discussed by RC and Orthodox theologians before. The Holy Father in Rome himself understands the historical significance of the Filioque issue etc.

So I believe we need to focus on the "Universal-Particular" paradigm here and realize that no Church is asked to discard any of its traditions - only to perhaps reconfigure them.

Alex

Dear Friends,
I am new to this forum, and freely admit that I am not a Catholic- Roman, Byzantine or Orthodox! I probably have no standing to enter this discussion but I have been following this along with great interest, though.

The current pope is not an Italian, nor, as I remember, was he assigned to Rome or Italy. So, If any (bishop?) may be selected as pope, why couldn't a Byzantine or, or say, (reunited) Orthodox become pope? What would that do to the politics of the Church.

It seems to me, as an outsider, that worldly and ecclasiastical politics is as important as common faith in the operation of the RCC, Is it not so in the BCC and OC?

Respectfully,
Michael

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Michael, Welcome to the Forum!

That's a fair question, as a matter of fact the have been quite a few non-Italians in the Papacy, the first being Simon Peter. In the first few generations the bishops of Rome were probably mostly Jewish Christians who spoke Greek. Then a long series of Greek speaking Roman Citizens, many of whom early on must have had Jewish ancestors and many who must have had Greek ancestors.

Later in about the sixth and seventh centuries there were a few Greeks and Syrians who became Pope, some were appointed by the Emperors from Constantinople when they had the ability to do so, others may have attached themselves to the church at Rome when the Muslim invasions disturbed the east and worked their way up the "ladder". There were Spanish and French Popes, even an English Pope.

Of course there was that 400 year string of Italian Popes. It should not matter what nationality or tradition the Pope is from, but as Patriarch of the West he has a responsibility manage the affairs of that church in particular.

As has been explained better by others the bishop of Rome has three offices: bishop of the Diocese of Rome, Patriarch of the West and Pope. Roman Catholics often tend to see the Pope as one of their own (he's not, he's everyones), and history has shown that after the Great Schism the Popes and their staffs have sometimes acted as if the Roman church was the only one that mattered. In other words, they sometimes have hopelessly confused the role of Pope with the Patriarch of the West and try to impose western ways on the eastern churches. I suppose it is understandable, theoretically if Simon Peter had served the church in the East somewhere like Alexandria or Edessa and ended his days there I think we could have all of the same problems with a different cast of characters! They could have been pushing Coptic or Syrian liturgical practices on everyone instead of latin ones.

At one time uniformity was a highly valued quality and was pursued vigorously for many generations, we now have a mentality that respects diversity a great deal more but some people have not caught up with the program.

So to answer your question, I would think the background of the Pope would not affect his job as patriarch of the West, he would have to respect the traditions of the West and maintain discipline just the same, however if he was from the east I am sure we would have a more even-handed approach to eastern affairs during his Pontificate. Of course when the following Pope is named we might just all hold our breath to see what happens. So it almost doesn't matter where the bishop of Rome ultimately comes from, the issue is just way too big. I guess we need another council to hammer out the details.

The Papacy can be the focal point of a renewed united Christianity, but there is a great deal of confusion as to what that would mean in the long run, it still must be worked out. There is teaching authority and there is administrative authority and the two are closely blended in the Papacy today, I think the eastern churches (Orthodox and Catholic) would like to run their affairs more autonomously than the Eastern Catholic churches have so far been allowed, and any model for future unity will have to make allowances for these concerns with some kind of guarantees to protect them.

In Christ,
Michael, the other one

Daniel,

Are these juridical limits something a Pope voluntarily would do or is required to follow?

Are these agreements something that will bind Rome (another ecumenical council?) or something voluntary?

The Pope would still be the patrarch of the West, with all the authority that goes with it. The Archbishop of Canterbury has little authority within his own church. My only questions and concerns are with the extent of Rome's authority on other patriarchates. That's what I'm trying to understand.

Hi,

In the West, we have a clear distinction between "guilt" and "stain" and while we absolutely affirm that guilt is strictly personal, and therefore Adam's guilt is his, and his alone, the stain, or impure state of the relationship between God and mankind is something to which all of us are born.

A very holy Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim von Abele, shared with us this "sudden insight" on CINEast:

If my Orthodox brothers and sisters can find this acceptable, we are quite ready to express the dogma of Immaculate Conception in Eastern terms. Do we dare to agree?

Shalom,
Memo.