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

Dear Dr. John,

I have been the beneficiary of so many of your posts and insights.

However, I cannot thank you for the brilliance of this post and for your courage in saying what you said, the way you said it.

Your ecumenical and Eastern vision is truly that of someone like Bl. Andrew Sheptytsky and others.

Another reason for me to be thankful on this American Thanksgiving Day.

Evharisto-poli!

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Rum Orthodox:

I was born into the home of two Roman Catholic parents. They were pretty much flower children of the sixties and decided that I should decide for myself the religion that I should belong to; so they did not have me baptized in the Latin Church, much to the disdain of their folks. I had investigated many religions in my youth, but had mostly went to the Latin Church for Mass, of course without the Eucharist. I was introduced to the Byzantine Rite by my friend Sophia and I fell in love immediately. The priest at St. Nicholas, Father Steve Greskowiak was awesome I mean talk about a walking encyclopedia of Byzantium and all things Catholic and Orthodox and everything in between. He was and is such a powerful priest.

I was baptised and Chrismated a Byzantine Catholic when I was 22 in 1998 at St. Nicholas of Myra Byzantine Catholic Church in Anchorage. Later after going through a real, perhaps you would say a Eastern Rite inferiority complex, I decided to enter into Orthodoxy. I returned home to Ketchikan, Alaska and introduced myself to Father Nicholas Bullock a retired priest of the OCA. I spent almost a year as a catechumen and made a life's Confession, a renunciation of former heresy and was Chrismated and Tonsured December 19, 1999 into the Orthodox Church in America. I returned to the Catholic Faith in March 2001 after a long struggle.

So as to being exposed to the riches of Orthodoxy and Her way of thinking I had a great teacher in Father Nicholas. He has a chapel in the lower level of his home, where him and Matushka live. And they have books, boy do they have BOOKS! My struggle and need to return to communion with Rome came over a need for the Holy Father and the things I had taken advantage of as a Byzantine Catholic. The Lord led me back into the Catholic Church; it is where I belong and where Christ wants me.

I hope that helps,

In Christ and the Theotokos:


Robert Horwath, Chief Sinner

Robert:

I love all of your threads, you are a wonderful example of someone being Byzantine and loyal to Rome. Good job!

I am a Byzantine Catholic who has lived here in Oklahoma City, OK for some time. I am currently attending St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church On Portland Ave. I am thinking of changing rites, but have heard it is difficult for Byzantines to change rites to the Roman.

Again Robert keep the Faith!

It is nice to be here for the first time.

[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Joyce Scott ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

Thank you so much Joyce. It is God who gives me His help to remain faithful.

Why one earth would you want to Change Rites? You might want to consider that it is very hard to Change Rites to the Roman from the Byzantine.

Sincerely in Christ,


Robert, Chief Sinner

Robert H,
I love reading your posts. Thank you for sharing your spiritual journey with us.


Joyce,
As a Latin Rite Catholic I could sit here all day long and sing the praises and beauties of the Latin Church. However, as a Byzantine Catholic you belong to a Patrimony that is as rich and beautiful as the Latin Church. If I may make a suggestion to you I would say don't rush in to anything. Take a long time and make sure that Christ is really calling you to become a full time Latin Catholic. I almost changed from the Latin to an Eastern Church myself without giving enough time and thought. As I was on my way I I looked back at the Church I was about to leave and all of it's particular beauties and riches, The Latin Mass, benediction, adoration, Gregorian chant, Latin spirituality, and on and on. I saw what I was about to leave and turned right around. I would hate it if you made the same mistake I almost made. Leaving your ritual church is a very serious thing that should only be made with the guidance of a very prudent priest.

[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Laus Tibi, Christe. ]

Friends,
May I recommend a book that I think can help alot in the developement of this topic on the Papacy.
"Models of the Church" by Avery Dullas

Does the Papacy need to be continullay viewed according to one model or another. Maybe certain modes where held because of the difficulties of the time in which the Church was then living.

Can we not go forward and come to some kind of consensus, like the present Pope has repeatedly asked?

May the day come soon when our Sister Churches may once again be in communion with each other.
Maranatha.

Fr Stephanos
Unworthy Monk and Archsinner

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

Blessings to all on this forum. I just found your board and have enjoyed reading & learning from many of you.

I'm a Latin Catholic and have had some frequent conversations with some Orthodox friends who strongly disagree with me on the usual points of contention and I've decided that I needed to learn more about my greek part of the Catholic church to use as a bridge to gap the differences btwn the EOC and the Latin church.

I'd like to respond to Dr John &Serge comments if I may.

Dr.John ne aspect is that the Roman bureaucracy (and its minions) seems to regard themselves as the ultimate authority to make decisions for absolutely everybody. How we disabuse them of this mindset is a serious problem. The easist way would be to vaporize all those bureaucratic entities, but bureaucracies' primary job is to ensure their survival. And they won't go quietly.

Tom: Since the split btwn greek &latin churches the Roman's patriarchal role was mingled with that of the primacy over the whole church. Since Rome was the only see in the west, the pope no longer discriminated btwn their rights & duties as patriarchal see in the west and as pastor over the whole church. In doctrine and practice the two powers merged.Cardinal Ratzinger says that since patriarchal authority is "by nature administrative and centralized" it would permit the Petrine ministry to fulfill the responsibilities more proper to it.

By separating the patriarchial authority from the papal authority one could then assure appointment of bishops and thereby be able to restrict the bishop of Rome from exercising his patriarchal authority over the east, but allow in cases of appeal or overt heresy to intervene with papal authority.

COmments?

Serge:Here is an answer a Byzantine Catholic online friend gave once: check the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger. Years ago he said that in a reunion the Orthodox wouldn't be forced to change anything to conform to postschism Roman practices or formulations. He has never retracted that. And now, he is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Tom: Ratzinger has proposed 3 principles
1) The west would recognize "the church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."
2)ROme must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
3)The east would have to cease opposing as heretical the developments that took place in the west in the second millennium and would accept the cahtolic church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development.

How he uses or defines these terms I don't know. Those 3 principles could be difficult to absorb on either/both sides depending on how one define's the terms.

Blessings

Tom

Hi Tom --

I guess that the rub is coming to a common understanding of what the first millenium means. The Latin Church believes that the first millenium supports its view of the meaning of the Roman primacy, whereas the Orthodox believe that the first millenium supports their view. My own opinion is that there was never an actual meeting of the minds between East and West on this issue during the first millenium, which is why it became such a problem when the issue was "forced", if you will. Therefore, I'm less optimistic that looking back to the first millenium for models will be very fruitful. In my view, what is to be recovered from the first millenium is rather the spirit of tolerance and broad-mindedness that infused the life of the church at the time -- such that differences of opinion over certain issues were not seen as fatal to communion. That will be hard enough, because positions on these differences have tended to harden over the centuries, and to a certain extent have been "baked into" the differences that can be considered post-separation developments.

Brendan

Tom: Ratzinger has proposed 3 principles
1) The west would recognize "the church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."
2)ROme must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
3)The east would have to cease opposing as heretical the developments that took place in the west in the second millennium and would accept the cahtolic church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development.

Tom,

Thanks. ISTM at least most of the time Catholicism officially accepts 1) and the future Cardinal Ratzinger proposed (and never has retracted) 2). Re: 3), there is a window because Orthodoxy never has dogmatized on these matters. The whole thing hangs on, as you seem to understand, making clear that the West doesn't regard Rome as better or more Catholic. A super-patriarch as a court of final appeal isn't necessarily a problem; the conflation of the roles of vicar of Christ and patriarch of the West is. Clearly separating them may be the key to ending the Schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

Hi Brendan,

Brendan:coming to a common understanding of what the first millenium means. The Latin Church believes that the first millenium supports its view of the meaning of the Roman primacy, whereas the Orthodox believe that the first millenium supports their view.

Tom: Indeed. Having studied this topic for about 2 years I'm still stuck on what the view of the east was in the 1st millenium.

Brendan:My own opinion is that there was never an actual meeting of the minds between East and West on this issue during the first millenium, which is why it became such a problem when the issue was "forced", if you will.

Tom: I tend to agree somewhat. It appears to me that both sides were "bi-polar" for lack of a better word when it suited their purpose.

Brendan:I'm less optimistic that looking back to the first millenium for models will be very fruitful

Tom: The jury is out for me. I think the filioque issue is do able in our life time. The rest is more of a 2 to 3 hundered year outlook, which for our faith is rather fast don't you think;&gt

Brendan:what is to be recovered from the first millenium is rather the spirit of tolerance and broad-mindedness that infused the life of the church at the time -- such that differences of opinion over certain issues were not seen as fatal to communion.

Tom: Amen.

Hi Serge,

Serge:there is a window because Orthodoxy never has dogmatized on these matters

Tom: Actually, I though this is the biggest problem facing us. But I'm simply outside the loop to know. I thought that the issue of phyletism(or as I understand it) would make dogmatizing anything a practable impossibility,wouldn't it?

Serge:. The whole thing hangs on, as you seem to understand, making clear that the West doesn't regard Rome as better or more Catholic.

Tom: I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean make it clear to those from greek culture that the latins don't or won't regard Rome better.

Serge:A super-patriarch as a court of final appeal isn't necessarily a problem; the conflation of the roles of vicar of Christ and patriarch of the West is. Clearly separating them may be the key to ending the Schism.

Tom: I don't think a super-patriarch would be clear enough for the west. Implied is that it is a historical human development. Peterine primacy will always be view by the latins as divinely instituted. If for a minute we thought it was strickly a human development we would reject it just as the east has.

I think the present pope is looking to separate the patriarchal function, which would be a primary concern of the greek church's[from my uninform knowledge,Vs. the petrine office(which includes infallibility) as divinely instituded. I guess the big question is from the quote below of Pope JP II "no way renouncing what is essential to its mission". What is essential and what is non-essential.This is probably not enough for the east, but I think it's a start with some promise.

[I expressed in the Encyclical Ut unum sint my conviction that "I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation" (n. 95).]

Blessings

Tom

Dear Tom,

Welcome!

Rome's main contention with Orthodoxy is the Papal issue, it just doesn't see the other doctrinal points as relevant any longer. Thus, the old Roman description of the Orthodox as being "in schism" (from Roman authority).

Orthodoxy's main contention is that Rome has erred in doctrine, that the Papacy (even though it is different today than it was in the first millennium) and its recognition is dependent upon the successor of Peter holding the Orthodox Faith of Peter. If he does, then he can enjoy the privileges of Peter (quote in John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology").

Thus, the Filioque, Mariology, Eschatology, Soteriology etc. come first for the Orthodox - indeed Lossky said the Papacy rises or falls on the Filioque - which is why they have historically branded Rome "heretical."

The two sides bring two different sets of issues to the table, although they are all under one umbrella.

Rome doesn't take the Filioque issue as seriously as the Orthodox and the Orthodox can't believe that Rome is serious about wanting jurisdictional primacy over them - and also on the issue of infallibility.

The first thing I would like to see happen is a formal RC-Orthodox agreement on all matters pertaining to faith apart from the Papacy.

Once that happens and the two sides can then really see each other in a different light, the Papal issue could presumeably be more easily solved.

For example, Rome would be less reticent about not having jurisdiction over a part of the One Church as long as the faith that it held with it was the same.

My point is that as long as Rome and Orthodox see themselves estranged from each other theologically, they will be forever trying to "bring over" the other in one way (jurisdictionally) or another.

A theological agreement that can be implemented immediately would help, I think, alleviate that problem.

Alex

Hi Alex,

Alex rthodoxy's main contention is that Rome has erred in doctrine, that the Papacy (even though it is different today than it was in the first millennium) and its recognition is dependent upon the successor of Peter holding the Orthodox Faith of Peter. If he does, then he can enjoy the privileges of Peter (quote in John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology").

Tom: Indeed, I partly understand the view, but that which i understand I naturally disagree.
As I posted earlier I think the filioque issue is resolveable in our lifetime, I didn't mean to say that it's easy nor to imply that the latins take the issue lightly. How could we, I think church has made it perfetly clear that the issue is so important that it requires the heading of heretical, not just a misunderstanding.

Alex: The first thing I would like to see happen is a formal RC-Orthodox agreement on all matters pertaining to faith apart from the Papacy.

Tom; That's find, but could you inform me who represents orthodoxy these days. I use to think that it would simple be the Partriarch of Constinanople, Alexandria,& Antioch but that doesn't seem to carry the freight as it once did or atleast some of my EOC friends advise me.

Alex:the Papal issue could presumeably be more easily solved.

Tom: I think the issue will be resolved by a better understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Divine economy in it's relationship of procession thru the Son back to the Father. A clearer grasp of this I think will lead to a better role of the papacy as vicar of Christ on earth. But I'm still working through this one myself, and cann't really elaborate on it any better then that.

Alex:Lossky said the Papacy rises or falls on the Filioque - which is why they have historically branded Rome "heretical."

Tom: I think Lossky has nothing to worry about. The latins reject as heretical the teaching of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father & Son as from one source as well as the Greeks. The problem is trying to convey that message & explane what it is that the Latins mean by it in language that the Greek church can understand and accept.

Blessings

Tom

So, what would be wrong in "permitting" each Church to understand various theological points from unique points of view or understanding?

Does it really matter in light of the fact that ALL our human descriptions must, of necessity, be mere shadows of the reality?

Are we absolutely convinced that everybody must believe the exact same formulation of belief in order to be "saved"?

I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that this is true for salvation.

Blessings!