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

Dear Memo,

Just about to leave for the airport when I thought I would pop in . . .

This is an excellent example of the "Universal vs Particular" paradigm that has been mentioned here.

The IC doctrine is a Latin doctrine that responds to an historical definition of Original Sin - certainly not the only one, but one that has gained ascendancy in the Latin Church.

What, in pith and substance, does the IC doctrine affirm?

It affirms that the Mother of God never had any stain of sin on her soul, even from the moment of her Conception.

The East, as the good Father above states, has always affirmed this in its liturgical celebration of the "Conception of St Anne" - that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Holy Spirit from her Conception (as was also John the Baptist as we celebrate his Conception too).

And because the East always believed this, there was never any move to dogmatize this into a doctrine.

The West did indeed understand Original Sin as a "mark of sin" on the soul and so this gave an impetus to the dogmatize on the IC and oblige all Latin Catholics to believe it (as discussed also by Kallistos Ware in his "The Orthodox Way.").

So both East and West can say together that the Mother of God was "Conceived in Holiness."

Anything after that belongs to the Particular theological traditions of the respective Eastern and Western Churches.

Alex

The only problem being that solemn dogmatic definitions like the Immaculate Conception are NOT phrased as opinions or local traditions or only binding on certain groups of people.

There is no way to bend the Immaculate Conception into something that the Pope only obliged "Latin Catholics" to believe. He declared it to be part of the Depositum Fidei.

Dear LT,

But if the East has always believed in Mary's total holiness since her Conception, how is this "bending" the IC?

If anything, it shows that the most ancient tradition in the East always believed what the IC, in pith and substance, affirms, namely, Mary's total all-holiness.

It is the "way" in which the West understands this that contrasts with Eastern theology.

Alex

Recently I was in Rome and was sitted in the VIP section of the general audience held on Wednesday.
So I was within 25 feet of the Pope.

1/ You would not want to ride in the Popemobile.
The Bishops who assisted the Pope get out of the Popemobible bumped him all around. If I was him I would have fired them.

2/ Then they put him in the sun. Thought we were going to have a fried Pope.

But I must say the man does have charisma.
All I could think of is how much more grace and power emanates from Our Lord.

He did appear to be better than I expected.

After all that I read about indulgences here I gladly received the blessing and indulgences I received that day.

Alex,

Yes, but no dogma has ever been a response to a Universal Church-wide controversy.

If there is doubt or controversy within a sector of the Church, and the Church defines a dogma to settle the matter, then the whole Church accepts the definition, even those who had never heard about the doubt or controversy.

I do not think the great Christological controversies solved by the 7 Ecumenical Councils were a big concern for the Church of Rome, at least not at the same time they were in the East. However, the Church of Rome received the dogmatic definitions just as well as the orthodox bishops in the East.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi I sent the original post in this thread to a friend in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher (Orthodox) and thought his replies were worth posting here.

Jason B.


1) Remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed as recited in the West. This has been a symbolic "wall of separation" for centuries. "Dominus Iesus" and other documents have suggested the West isn't married to the Filioque and the RCC of Greece already has permission to use the original Creed without that interpolation. This, of course, does not mean that the Filioque as part of a Western theological perspective could not continue to be used.


The difficulty here is that there have been (at least) two "versions" of Filioque theology since at least the 600's, and probably more accurately the early 400's or before. St. Maximus in his Letter to Marinus mentions this and describes one as orthodox and the other as heretical. The first version is emphatically Orthodox and the faith of the Fathers, and is explicity taught by: Athanasius, Basil the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory the Great (the Dialogist), Tarasius of Constantinople, the VIIth Ecumenical Council, Gregory of Cyprus (and Patriarch of Constantinople), etc.
The second (heretical) "version" was not held by the Roman Church (East or West) prior to the schism, but rather by Germanic peoples predominantly. Those who held to this belief were probably as follows: German (Latin) missionaries in Moravia in the 800's, Charlemagne, some might say Augustine (and some might defend him on the grounds that his expressions were simply unclear), some might say the Synod of Toledo in the 500's (and some might say in their defense that their theology was probably orthodox, even though their use of the "filioque" in the Creed, which has a specific theological context where "proceedeth from the Father" is a parallel statement to the phrase "begotten of the Father," caused "confusion" and so led to heresy; Vladimir Lossky seems to say this), and of course the Latin Church from the time of the Great Schism, at Lyons and Florence, and into the mid-twentieth century. What the Latin Church believes now is really quite up for grabs. Pope John Paul II's Clarification (1995) seems to hearken back to the first "version" (the orthodox one), but without "clarifying" (pardon the pun) that the version held and taught prior to 1995 is heretical.


2) Distinguish formally between the "Ecumenical" and "Universal" nature of the Seven Ecumenical Councils versus the "Local" nature of the later 14 Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. Apart from the papal doctrines, there was nothing in those later councils, reflecting Latin Church concerns and relations with Protestantism et al. as they do, that relate to the faith, morals or canons of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy also has its Local Councils.


Both the Orthodox and the Latin Church refer to "an Eighth" Ecumenical Council. It must be clarified which council this was. Latin canonists (either in the 12th c. or the late 11th c.) altered the Latin Church's earlier decision in this regard. Prior to this time, both East and West (including the Popes of Rome) acknowledged the Council of 879-880 as the 8th Ec. Council. The later Latins, though, in order to support the actions of 1054, changed the identification to the Council of 869-870, and this identification has held in the Latin Church until today. (See Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium for more details.) Unless this matter is addressed properly, other questions cannot be settled.


3) Affirm an eschatology that leaves "Purgatory" as what it is - a legitimate but Latin theological term/framework that would not be ever imposed on the East - while asserting the common tradition in both East and West regarding assiduous prayer for the dead.


As a personal opinion, I would offer that the real problem is not "some" idea of purgation after the soul's separation from the body, but the problem is "any" idea that this might has to do with "satisfaction" (or technically, "satispassio"). The whole problem is not the after-life, but two diametrically opposing views of God. Anselmian, Western views of the atonement and "justice" must be eschewed if there is to be any progress.


4)Affirm a view of Original Sin that the West already says it shares with the East and outside the parameters of Augustinianism.


This sounds very good. But which "West"? I am not sure that the modern Latin church has anything close to a oneness of mind on this matter. It is similar to the question of the 1995 Clarification (above). If you say that one teaching is true, but do not declare that opposing (and heretofore prevailing) teachings are false, then you've only confused the matter, and confused the faithful.


5) Affirm the two Western Marian doctrines as a Latin expression of what the universal Church has always believed about the Most Holy Theotokos, doctrines that do not alter or affect what the East believes about Mary.


That only sidesteps the real question. It's just like the Filioque question above; it's not "some idea" of "Assumption" or "some idea" of "Immaculate Conception" that is the bone of contention. It is precisely the Latin expression of these ideas which the Orthodox find unacceptable and heretical, and precisely because both doctrines assume, as their theological raison d'etre, that very doctrine of Original Sin which point 4 above said was no longer believed.
(By way of another example, both East and West believe God is "just", but it's precisely Anselm of Canterbury's idea of "justice" that the East finds odious.)


6) Define Papal Infallibility within the context of affirming the canons of an Ecumenical Council and that alone. When Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary an infallible doctrine, he did poll the world's Catholic bishops on the matter first, before he proceeded. A pope of a future reunited Church could be said to be exercising "infallibility" when he signs the decrees of an Ecumenical Council.


Well, any and every bishop can and should exercise that kind of infallibility; and so can every Christian, for that matter.
The wide array of patristic interpretations of "Thou art Peter" should be sufficient to demonstrate this.


7)Define Papal Jurisdiction solely in terms of the Local, Roman Church in terms of its "immediate exercise." Define it "universally" as a Primacy of Service and Love and in terms of when another Particular Church invites it to get involved in its internal affairs in situations of crisis involving faith, morals or the canons of the Church.


Absolutely right; similar to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church.


8) Define the Church as a "Communion in unity and love of all the Churches that make up the Body of Christ of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church."


My question is, what did the Latin Church define the Church as before now, if the author of these suggestions feels it necessary to clarify this point which should seem obvious to all?


9) The West should adopt as its own the Paschal date of the Orthodox Church which is the Paschal date established by the First Ecumenical Council. Perhaps Rome could even influence the World Council of Churches or individual Protestant communions to accept the Orthodox Easter that would become the One Easter for all Christians.


Yes.


10) Affirm a uniform Old Testament Canon of Scripture with Orthodoxy.

Okay.


11) Assist the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches to become as autonomously self-governing as possible, and this even outside their established Patriarchies and to encourage greater dialogue between them and the Orthodox East. Should a Particular Eastern Catholic Church wish to return to full unity with its Mother Orthodox Church, Rome should, by all means, encourage this as a positive ecumenical event.


Okay, except for the problems (in both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism caused by the problem of overlapping jurisdictions in the West). We both need "one city, one bishop" as the rule. By this standard, a bishop is bishop of a place and of its faithful, not bishop of a "rite" (or an ethnic group) that is, quite frankly, spread all over the place! And this should hold true for both Orthodox and Roman Catholics.


12) Regularly adopt into the Roman calendar chosen and newly-glorified saints of Orthodoxy.

Okay.


13) Review immediately the current ecclesial arrangements of the Latin Church in Orthodox countries and the conditions under which its activity gives offense to the local Orthodox authorities - while striving to open negotiations with them to ameliorate the sources of tension.


Okay.

14) Use the voice of the Pope to make known to the world the plight of Orthodox people, especially when there is no one to defend them.


Amen. Thank you for thinking of this.


15) Promote an annual week of prayer specifically designated for Catholic-Orthodox unity, perhaps around the feast of St Andrew. In addition to liturgical celebrations, lectures, conferences and forms of lay-participation at the local parish level for purposes of mutual enlightenment and understanding could be planned.


These questions are always sticky.


Alex

Brethren
let us keep in mind also that not all statements of an Oecumenical Council are infallible or nescessarily universally binding.
Stephanos I

To quote Memo...

It is blunt day.

Why change - anything???

Bartholomew and John Paul - have reconciled - and I think that is a terrific model for all else. I don�t know exactly how it works - but it seems to be working fine for them. Orthodoxy remains Orthodox and Roman Catholic remains Roman Catholic - yet the two trust and cooperate.

To quote Alex on a good day �the myth of union�. And there is something to that. The union between Bartholomew and John Paul - seems fine to me. Why seek a mythical union? Perhaps that mythical union is really not the union that is - real - anyway?

Let us get real.

�Things the west can do right away�� for what? For why? Any division is totally - totally - on the human level and a human thing. So let us look at these things in a human way.

The West understands its filoque in a proper way. It has no heretical meaning in the context of a Western way of understanding it. In other words it works fine for its purposes. And the Papacy works fine for the West� it has no heretical use or meaning in context of the West where it is used. Why change that? It works fine.

Currently the Papalcy makes no judical demannds on Orthodoxy. So what is the worry over hypothetical and imagined conditions of "what ifs?"

Most of what the East has a problem with is in the way - it - understand these Western doctrines when it looks through Eastern theology. When it does that - these items look heretical. Easy answer = well don�t do that.

Let us face it - what the Latin church has and does - works just fine in the Western world - and the Western world is most of the Christian world. The number speak: there are 80 billion Roman Catholics and 8 million Orthodox (numbered to make a point). What possibly could motivate the Roman Catholic world to rend a thousand years of doing things one way - to make a few Orthodox happy??

Recently the RC changed just tow things at Mass - you stand at one point - just a bit sooner. So now - you look around and everyone is confuded when it comes to this one portion. Up - down - down - up... and we want to change the way they say the creed? What shall Rome say to 80 billion Catholics "It has been heretical for a thousand yets - so this week we are going to fix that and you have to say 'proceeds from the father' and leave out the son." Can you imagine?? Or perhaps "We are changing the words because people that you do not know - and will never come to your church - want us to." And all goes smooth untill just that part - and then all mumble and trip over words and shrug shoulders. Can we imagine that 80 billion Catholics are looking forward with egar anticipation - to say the creed "the right way." - I think not.

Let me try an example.

Here I sit in my big back yard with my pool and my huge family of 50 people - all eating and chatting and having a good time - when my next door neighbor walks over to the edge of my year and motions that he would like to speak to me. His yard is very small. His family is only 10 people. His house is very small and old and he does not have a lot of money. �. So � I get up from my lounge - dry off a bit from the pool - and walk over to see what he wants. And what he sez is this �If you want me to be friends with you and like you - you will need to move those hedges of your over there - ten feet. And you must repaint this side of your house yellow so that it matches mine. You must invite all of my family to your picnics - and you must learn and speak the language that my family speaks.�

How do you think I am going to respond?? I am going to offer him a hot dog - wave to his family - wish him a great day - and get back to my picnic.

Now - what is the real - problem here??

The REAL problem is that my neighbor has made his own happiness dependent on the way I accommodate myself to him.

I, could be a bastard. And if I were - my neighbor would never ever be happy - having his happiness depend upon the way I might treat him.

What Orthodox that have reconciled with Rome (like Bartholomew) have done so without changing themselves or changing Rome. They just decided to cease demanding that Rome change and decided to cease judging Rome�s ways. It had been - a waste of time.

Now if anyone think I am picking on the Orthodox - prove it - show me what demands Rome has made on the Orthodox world - that it must change??

Instead of working towards a mythical union - why not follow the model of Bartholomew and John Paul?? After all - it seems to me to be the exact kind of reconciliation - and union - all are really looking for.

Let us be even more real.

Who is it that agonizes for the reunion of the churches? Mostly I think - just us. We who come here to the Byzantine board and have one foot in each church. No matter what words may be spoken - anyone that comes - here - loves the entire church. I do not think that the patriarch of Moscow rolls in his bed at night agonizing over how to be reunited with Rome. I find it incredible that John Paul HAS agonized over that subject (but even Orthodox see him as near a saint). There is simply nothing to motivate the Roman Catholic world to change.

OK.. That is what I think so far.

The model of reconciliation is - Bartholomew and John Paul. No more. No less. Mutual respect and voluntary cooperation. That seems to me now to be - union.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Well - I agree with my Orthodox brothers that there was an over extension of it in the past. On the other hand the concept of Primacy by honor (voluntary cooperation) admits of some type of Papal infallibility hand in hand with the Primacy. But in the real world it does not seem to be a problem between Bartholomew and John Paul - so why should any of us let imagined and hypothetical situations (not real) stand in anybodies way?

Bartholomew and John Paul! Yes!

(I just threw this out on the table - that is all)

-ray

Christ is risen!

The previous poster has a good point. I am just as pro-Orthodox as anyone else. I think that the Latin Church, in some of the most important areas of ecclesiastical life, has everything to learn and very little to teach the Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, I am still convinced that the two churches are both part of the Church that Christ founded, in spite of their differences. So the Orthodox really have to ask themseleves the question: why are we so small? Although they could argue that size doesn't matter, that Orthodoxy is the true church in spite of its miniscule size in comparison with the Catholic Church, I really do not think that in their heart of hearts they really believe that. How can they? Such a belief would really lead to the concept that in order to be a true Christian, one has to be Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc. You can press historical circumstances for the limited extension of Orthodoxy 'til the Athonite all-night vigil is over, but in the end, God does not leave things to luck. If God let Constantinople fall to the Turks, but defeated them with through the intercession of the Mother of God at Lepanto, thus saving Western Christendom from the fate of Byzantine Orthodoxy, one really has to ask why? Why has the Roman Catholic Church been God's main vehicle in spreading the Patristic Faith? The diatribes of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Western Greek and Russian Orthodox theologians, no matter what their merit if taken as constructive criticism, cannot answer this. At the very worst, they appear to be in bad faith, defending a position they know is really false.
So should Orthodoxy come under the Papal tiara out of a sheer question of numbers? No, I think for many reasons they should stand their ground. But one should notice that the magnanamous nature of the Papacy towards Orthodoxy can be seen a position of strength towards a weaker brother. In the end, it will take a profound kenotic act by the Latin Church to re-unite Christendom. Whether or not they should do this should not be debated by theologians alone, but primarily by the men of prayer and sanctity in both churches.

Arturo

RayK:

You wrote:



I nearly fell from my stool with your statistics.

This EARTH has, as of last estimate, slightly over 6 billion humans, unless you are including the population of Saturn and/or Jupiter, or some other planet(s)?

According to the latest Annuario reports, the Catholic Church stands at around 1.07 billion (~20 million Eastern Catholics), or about 17+% of the world's total population as of the end of 2002.

According to some researchers, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox respectively have around 215 million and 30 million faithful.

aMADo

This is a factual error.

The council of 879 was never recognized or ratified by the Pope of Rome.

On the contrary, it led to a decree Photios' deposition by Rome.

The action of the Papal legates who were there in 879 was NEVER upheld by the Pope.

LT

The more I read that list of "Things the West Can Do Right Away," the more upset I get.

If I gave a list of Things the East Can Do Right Away and If They Did Them We Would All Agree, it wouldn't be very helpful. So too with this list.

You might as well say "The West should just realize that the East is right about everything and then we will have unity." If you believe that, THAT'S ONE THING, but if you expect the West to buy it, THAT'S QUITE ANOTHER.

Watch how UNHELPFUL THIS IS:

Things the East can do right away:

1) Insert the Filioque
2) Accept all the Ecumenical Councils
3) Submit to the God-given authority of Peter

etc.

You see? It's not really helping!!!!

In Christ,

Lt

LT my NYY fan,

R-E-L-A-X

What has taken place between East & West Churches over the past 900 years or so cannot be repaired in a couple of weeks etc.

Lets take our time and have patience with each other, maybe our grandkids may experience it.


james

Ha, that is simply UNTRUE. Have you been reading the Catholic encyclopedia online again?

Seriously, you need to crack out "The Photian Schism" by Francis Dvornik which proves that council was accepted by Rome.

Council of 879-80:


What LT says is in error (see his reply to RR's posting).


For this, please read the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Vol. 1, under the entry, "Constantinople, Councils Of" > "Council of 879-80", where it says the following (p. 513), quoted in full:


"Council of 879-80. This council composed of 383 bishops solemnly recognized PHOTIOS as patriarch and annulled the decisions of the anti-Photian council of Constantinople of 869-70 (see above). As Dvornik has shown, its rehabilitation and vindication of Photios definitively ended the Photian schism, because the pope, JOHN VIII, never repudiated the council's decisions, to which two papal legates had subscribed. Thus the "second schism" described by subsequent "legend" never occurred. On the contrary, the council succeeded at achieving reunion and was even recognized in Rome as "ecumenical" until the Gregorian Reform, when the official Roman tradition was abandoned in favor of the council of 869.
"Likewise with Rome's full endorsement, the council anathematized anyone who would tamper with the original text of the creed (Mansi 17:520E-521A). Although the "privileges" of Rome were recognized, the canonical and juridical authority of pope and patriarch were defined in terms of equality (canon 1). Papal jurisdiction over the Byz. church was thus excluded. The council's decisions were inserted in every subsequent Orthodox collection of canon law and normally followed those of the first seven ecumenical councils. It is referred to as "ecumenical" by some Byz. authors.
"SOURCE. Mansi 17:373-526.
"LIT. Dvornik, Photian Schism 159-201. J. Meijer, A Successful Council of Union: A Theological Analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880 (Thessalonike 1975). J.L. Boojamra, "The Photian Synod of 879-80 and the Papal Commonitorium (879)," BS/EB 9 (1982) 1-23. V. Peri, "Il concilio di Constantinopoli dell'879-80 come problema filologico e storiografico," AnnHistCon 9 (1977) 29-42. -A.P."