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

Taking this one step farther with the Oriental Orthodox:

Has it crossed anyone's mind in the Byzantine Orthodox Church to apologize to the various Oriental Orthodox Churches for the persecutions that were carried out by the Empire? Especially in light of the most recent theological dialogues that have brought to light the fact that much of what everyone thought was divisive and heretical may have been a problem of translation from one language to others--Greek to Egyptian, Coptic, Syriac, etc.

Just some musings tonight.

BOB

Hey y'all,

Just want to introduce you to "RomanRedneck". Well I can tell you he really isn't one! Jason and I have had lots of good discussions, so I just thought many of us on the forum would enjoy them just as much. Anyway Jason, take your hat off (oh I forgot you don't wear a hat) and sit a spell. Get to know us and we'll get to know you. Lots of good folks here I am sure you can tell!

Jason may I suggest you start a new topic and introduce yourself as new to the forum. :rolleyes:

Pani Rose

Right. Most cannons are not infallable and rather have to do with the operation of the human side of the church. As such - they are reasonable for the situations that we current at the time. They were forged and enacted because the church was being pulled every which way by bishops and kings. No heresey became dangerous until it was supported by some bishop or bishops. Councils were nessesary so that the church would survive.

-ray

Right you are. There was some over judicator in the past when Rome felt threatened - and there was also misunderstandings. For example the excommunications surrounding the schism were personal excommunications and not excommunications of entire churches - but false impression became �reality�. And the early Orthodox reactions are also understandable as it too - felt threatened.

Your phrasing �an apostolic service� is well put and I believe that is what the Primacy is. It really has no force by is a thing of voluntary cooperation. There exists no real �punishment� if some other church decides to �do its own thing� and excommunications are not a thing of infallibility. History shows many have been issued which were in error and later revoked. Several saints (East and West) suffered the most cruel injustices from hierarchy of their own church - only to be declared a saint after death.

I believe that the reconciliation between Bartholomew and John Paul (and other recently reconciled Orthodox with Roman) is/are the model for all reconciliation and cooperation. Both churches remains as they are - but are takling and acting as friends and fellow apsotles. It is a Catholic �boogie man� which the rest fear - someone who does not exist. The Catholic church has opened itself for reconciliation for many years - it is a credit to Bartholomew that he was a major player to broke ranks and stepped up to the plate and with that the Catholic boogie man - disappeared.

-ray

Right.. exactly. I agree.

The language and definitions are slightly different - but each are very appropriate for the purpose and culture which each church is responsible for. I believe that you have said that and I echo it.

The East uses Greek philosophy based terms and definitions within Eastern theology and the Latin church uses Latin based philosophical terms and concepts within a Western theology. It is non-sense to demand that what makes perfect sense in the Latin cultures of the West - must also make perfect sense word for word in the Greek terms of Eastern theology. As if the French and Spanish languages - were identical as to the meaning of each word - except for sound and letters.

So any demands that the West change its terms to fit Eastern theology (or visas versa) and must further declare any of its past Latin (or Eastern) expressions as heretical - is foolishness and would do far more damage to the body of Christ than the false repair it would pretend to be. No satisfaction would be achieved and always there will be further demands - never to be an end to them. Force the square peg in the round hole. It is a cultural racism on spiritual levels.

This is really so simple that it indicates that these 'doctrinal issues' are not the real issues. Period - believe it.

Think now what would happen if all full ecclesiastical unity returned� what shall be done with all the overlapping bishops?? Which - shall step down? Which Russian ? Which Roman? Which what-ever? Who shall own what property? Which bishop elevated above others even if only in honor? Shall an Orthodox bishop decide what finances a RC bishop shall receive? Which group of bishops will stand up and say �For 400 hundred years we have been preaching the gospel of Christ and no lived it ourselves. We have perpetuated the division of Christ - and we have sinned.� I only see two bishops doing that (who shall surely be named saints) Bartholomew and John Paul. Isn�t it ironic that the very hierarchy of two churches which shall later declare them most holy men and will hold them up for public emulation - after - do nothing to emulate them now.

The management wishes to maintain such human respect and authority they currently have - which of any color vestments ? shall step back and instead of giving orders now take orders? - - think now clearly. The division is human and sinful. Period. Which humans? Church management. Period. What then are the reasons? Human reasons� Envy - pride - public adulation - in short - human position.

Nothing is new under the sun. Such human 'jockey for position' was rampant in the early church as bishop of this area fighting (sometimes to violence) bishop of that area. So bad that Councils became necessary. What heresy threatened the church without becoming dangerous because one of more bishops or civil authority (in cohorts with some clergy) supported the hearsay?? And mostly for reasons of personal power. Human position. Why were the Copts excumunicated - because they refused to take a side when pressured to chose an alignment and in so selecting either side - make one more powerful than the other.

We - as laity - contribute in the sense that we automatically attribute personal holiness to the office of clergy. We consider every opinion given as infallible - within our own particular church. Yet even while we do that for our own we claim the �other clergy� has bad human intent and has no personal holiness. We assume personal holiness for our own - and assume heresy for the �other� - as if Jesus had guaranteed �our clergy� infallible and �their clergy� corruption. Did Christ create two priesthoods? No - so all clergy are fallibly human and person holiness is a separate item from the fact of being a priest of bishop. They as well as we can and do make errors and intentions of personal benefit. All sin - boils down to the desire for personal benefit or security where good conscience should prevail. We are all (clergy included) in continual need of sanctification. How many RC priest have we honored in public while they molested in pirate? And how is it that it was covered over?? What was the motivation of the bishops who failed? Answer - they feared loss to their own honor and pride of position. Shall we say Orthodox clergy do not sin? I think not. As humans they share the motivation of honor, pride, public acknowledgement - authority and the aura of holiness.

Division is not Christ�s doing. Simple. Therefore division is of fallible human beings. Simple. The cause of the division is fallible human errors and part and parcel of the tendencies of fallen human nature. Look no further than that. Unity is not within hearts and the excuse for disunity is shifted to the intellect. In other words any intellectual justification is just razzel dazzel. We (without power) have been duped.

We who love the church in all her nature and variations - can debate intellectual issues until �the cows come home�� but in our souls we know it is not us - it is them - above us. While we here rack our brains and try all kinds of gymnastics of word and meaning in order to find a formula that will do the trick - those above us (they know who) are completely uninterested in crossing that bridge but rather have vested personal interest to maintain things - as they are.

God bless those who do break ranks and reconcile.

I already know I will be stoned for saying this stuff. That matters not. God Bless the good Bishops! Of personal holiness! like some Orthodox and Catholic bishops to be - because holiness even among clergy - is rare. Do what they say (they are entrusted with the gospels) but do not necessarily do what they do.

Now someone might think that I dislike priests and that would be a wrong assumption. But in my old age I no longer automatically assume a personal holiness to any and all priests. I have met some that are very holy and in their light - priest with no personal holiness and no humility - pale.

Now - it is time for me to vacation form message boards for a bit.

-ray

Dear RayK,

Thank you for your reflective contributions, as always!

I don't disagree with you with respect to your idea of "let's change nothing."

I believe that the respective theological traditions of the Churches should be left alone.

My only point is that these should be seen along a "Universal-Particular" continuum, if possible.

For Rome to return to the original Creed of Nicea where there was no "Filioque" would not mean that Rome would have to discard its own Particular theology of the Filioque, at least this is also the sense I'm getting from certain Orthodox teachers as well.

Although the excommunications between Rome and Constantinople are lifted, that fact alone does not resolve the theological conflicts that still separate the Churches.

We really cannot hold to a kind of "doctrinal relativism" that says that both Churches are in unity and let them go their ways on the Filioque etc.

Neither church would accept that position as the points of difference between them are considered to be serious ones, capable of maintaining their mutual estrangement.

We must seek unity on the basis of one faith that both sides can accept. Theological views and traditions are fine, as you know, as long as they are kept outside the "universal" body of faith and doctrine acknowledged as necessary for true and fundamental unity.

Alex

Dear Iconophile-Daniel,

Excellent point on papal primacy!

As for the other, private matter we discussed -I'll have to defer it for a while . . .

God bless,

Alex

Dear Redneck,

Welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing this thread with your Orthodox monastic friend - please thank him for his comments for me!

He certainly goes beyond what the aim of this humble thread is.

And he correctly highlights the issues that have yet to be resolved on Original Sin, Papal Primacy and the like.

His point on papal primacy, namely, how has it defined itself apart from what was recommended here is one that applies to Orthodox Patriarchates as well, I believe.

There is always the temptation for any large Church administration to "do business" bureaucratically alone and it is the challenge of the Church (Rome, Moscow etc.) to fight against that temptation.

Alex

Dear LatinTrad,

Do you honestly believe that the Eastern Churches were "under" the immediate jurisdiction of Rome, much like the EC Churches of today are, and that the schism of 1054 is the result of their repudiation of that jurisdiction, knowingly etc.?

This was the official line taken by Rome in the past, but, hopefully, the Latin West has repudiated this quite narrow (and historically false) perspective on East-West relations in the first millennium.

Alex

Dear Theophan-Bob,

That is a very good point.

But ultimately, I think the Oriental Orthodox will indeed come into union with the Eastern Orthodox and they can then decide whether apologies are a necessary prerequisite for themselves.

It could also be that the Assyrian Church of the East will come into full union with the Chaldeans at some point as I think they much prefer dealing with Rome than with their "brethren" in either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches!

I'm willing to wager a bet that if the Assyrians ever fully come into communion with Rome via a union with the Chaldeans - the Oriental Orthodox and the Athonite monks will STILL maintain that they are Nestorians and have duped Rome etc.

And if Rome ever allows the Assyrians to continue to locally venerate Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and some others historically implicated with Nestorianism, upon achievement of such unity - the fur (or wool) will really fly then!

Alex

Hi Alex,

Maybe you can offer us, who subscribe to this historical perspective you label as narrow and false, documentary evidence of the contrary. That is, documentary evidence that the Pope did NOT have primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church (East included) during the first millenium.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

The Bishop of Rome in the first millennium did not run the inner jurisdictional affairs of other Churches that were in communion with him, but who had their own Patriarchs and Metropolitans.

The EC Churches of today are "under" the jurisdictional control of Rome, some more than others, depending on whether they are a Patriarchate etc.

The notion of "universal jurisdiction" over other Churches is a much later idea and practice in the RC Church and, in fact, it was only practiced within the Particular Roman Church following the events of 1054 AD.

The Roman Church was, in the first millennium, a kind of "court of final appeal" and only in some extreme cases did it get involved i.e. to defend Chrysostom and the like.

It had a primacy of honour at Ecumenical Councils, to be sure. But that was a far cry from jurisdictional primacy understood in the sense that the Pope was "above" all other Patriarchs of the East as their "jurisdictional boss" - as is the case among the EC Churches today, in varying degrees.

There is no evidence whatever that Rome exercised regular jurisdictional primacy of any kind over other Churches and Patriarchates in the East in the first millennium.

In any event, at that time, Rome was too small an ecclesial body to even contemplate such and stuck to affirming doctrinal issues.

In the early centuries of the first millennium, the bishop of Rome did not even have full jurisdiction over the entire country of Italy and was referred to to as "His Beatitude."

It was the Pope of Alexandria who was the first to assume the title of "Pope" and it was he who proclaimed himself to be "Ecumenical Archbishop" and to hold immediate jurisdiction over every single church and priest in Christian Africa.

As for references where you could read up on these and other related issues, Meyendorff's work on the Byzantine Legacy is an acknowledged authority, by both RC and Orthodox historians. Fr. Francis Dvorak SJ in his book on the Photian Schism presents a similar historiography and bibliographies abound in both sources for further reading.

But I could be wrong and my word is not, cannot, be the final one on this and other subjects raised here.

I'll resume my reading and studies on these matters and will get back to you in a year or so!

Alex

Hi Alex,


I disagree. There is evidence.

But do they present documentary evidence? Their opinion alone is not more authoritative than mine, or even yours.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Perhaps it might be helpful if we determined what we mean by "Jurisdictional Primacy" here.

By this term, I mean more than a "Primacy of Honour" (of course). But not that the Eastern Churches were somehow "under" Rome as part of one big organization where Rome decided (as it does, in varying degrees, for EC churches today) who is to be bishop in the East and otherwise controlled the jurisdictional life of those other Churches.

And I also mean what Vatican I defined it to be.

IF you are in agreement with this understanding of jurisdictional primacy, THEN there is absolutely no evidence that such existed between the Eastern Churches and Rome. Nor does contemporary RC historiography cling to that notion any longer.

One important reason why it would be impossible for the Church of Rome to exercise any sort of immediate jurisdictional control over the Eastern Churches in the first millennium lies in the very understanding of the territorial basis of a bishop's jurisdiction.

Rome, as a Patriarchate, had its own jurisdictional boundaries and, at that time, did not involve itself in the immediate ecclesial lives of the Eastern Churches. Nor would it.

How would that have even have been possible at that time? Do you have any historical event at hand that you could share that would indicate otherwise?

Meyendorff does indeed analyse this issue and brings up examples in the church's life in the first millennium to back things up. So does Dvornik - and I think that this RC Jesuit's analysis is by far more important in this case.

That Rome could, and did at times, exercise the role of "final court of appeal" when either asked by an Eastern Church or during a time of crisis is something altogether different.

"Primacy of Jurisdiction" as Vatican I defined it would not apply to those few times in the first millennium when Rome did come to the defense of Chrysostom, for example, or chastised the Byzantine emperors for their iconoclasm etc. when the Byzantine Church was effectively and forcibly silenced by brute strength.

In fact, Rome's acting as a referee between the Emperor and the Ec. Patriarch was necessary to the two Eastern "combatants" and both were happy to have the Roman Pope in that role (basically to justify their positions and, in the Patriarch's case, to have a back-up authority to save his neck, if need be . . .).

And I do think that you've highlighted an important contribution to this thread by showing how there can be, in fact, an "alternative jurisdiction of papal primacy" that "might" be in agreement with VAtican I and also "might" be acceptable to the Orthodox!

Certainly, there can be no doubt that Rome exercised a "primacy of jurisdiction" as "court of final appeal" or however one wants to put it, in the first millennium.

Even if the cases were few and far between, Rome held that role and everyone seemed to be comfortable with it, especially in the politically volatile East.

So why not restore that earlier understanding of "primacy of jurisdiction" of the pope in a united, future Church?

There would be no question that the pope would not get involved in the immediate jurisdictional matters of the Particular Churches, but he could have a "reserved right" to get involved if:

a) Universal Canons were broken by another Church

b) He was asked by another Church to act as arbiter

c) There were specific situations of crisis in the Universal or else in Particular Churches.

That kind of "Primacy of Jurisdiction" just might be acceptable to both East and West . . .

Alex

Hi,

Perhaps. By that I mean anything essentially compatible with Vatican I's definition as Direct, Ordinary, Immediate, Episcopal jurisdiction over all Catholic faithful and all Catholic Churches.

Several clarifications:

First, I do not understand how A can have *any* Jurisdictional Primacy *over* B without B being somehow *under* A. It might be a matter of semantics, but if the Pope is to have authority over Bishop X, that means that Bishop X is under the Pope's mentioned authority, doesn't it?

Second, Let me stress that we are talking about the Pope's personal authority as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. This authority might be delegated to one or more dicasteries of the Roman Curia, but none of these instances can claim this authority as theirs Sui Iuris. This authority is not to be confused with the authoritry of the Patriarch(ate) of the West, which of course, has no effect outside the Western Patriarchate.

Third, No Bishop decides who is the Bishop of another diocese, and therefore, that would not be one of the rights or duties the Pope would assume if he was to use his Universal authority as defined by Vatican I. In the cases of Dioceses for which the final decision about Episcopal election rests on the Pope, the law itself gives him that right. For Dioceses for which this is not the case, the Pope would have to override the synod's authority, and while the Pope's authority would be enough to do that, I am not aware of any such case since Vatican I, and I esteem the chances of seeing one as very, very small.

Authority in the Church is a tool and a gift, you shouldn't be so afraid of it.

So Vatican I was wrong because modern historiographers disagree with it?

Let me offer an alternative explanation: Absence of evidence (if there is such a thing in this case), is not evidence of absence.

Maybe there is no explicit documentation defining the Pope's authority over the Universal Church prior to Vatican I, but we do have many recorded instances in which that authority was exercised for the benefit of the Church as a whole.

Since there is no evidence showing that these instances were NOT according to Vatican I's dogmatic definition, there is no reason not to believe Vatican I's definition is the explanation of those instances.

But we do not live in the first millennium any more (and perhaps failing to realize that is one of the reasons we are stuck in the dialogue on this subject).

We cannot propose to return to the first millennium. We need to find out what the Pope *could* do in the first millennium according to doctrine and canon law, and then see what that means in our world of today.

No, no different. If was the implementation of the Petrine ministry that was possible at the time, given the way the world worked 1000 years ago. Today's implementation will surely be significantly different, but both would be implementations of the very same doctrine.

We can always find different ways to implement doctrine and canon law. We are not afraid to revise implementation as often and as profundly as needed. This is the meaning of the Pope's invitation to review the "how" of the Petrine ministry. But since Vatican I the "what" is no longer open for revision.

Alex, the Pope is a human being. Do you think he would have the time and means to get involved in every little jurisdictional problem of every Local Church?

Of course not. That is not the point. The point is that he needs (or better yet, we need him) to have the authority to do so, if that is for the benefit of the Universal Church.

And who is to decide whether a particular issue falls in any of these categories?

If the decision is at the Pope's discretion, you basically have Vatican I, don't you?

If not, then the authority is pointless and meaningless, because the Pope would have to go through one form of bureaucracy or another, which was precisely the thing Vatican I wanted to get rid of, and which would be very harmful in our day, when even the smallest delays can have huge impacts in our hectic rithm of life.

Of course it is. Aren't you in full communion with us?

It is not the entire East that needs to be convinced, only the Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.

Shalom,
Memo.