www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

I must admit that I have been influenced by the Eastern Catholic canonist Fr. Victor Pospishil on this issue, but I pray that someone can refute his well written argument. Sadly, so far no one has, and so his well reasoned position stands.

Now, as far as submission to the Pope goes, I choose to side with the Melkite Patriarch who said that, "the Patriarchal ministry is equal to [the Petrine ministry], 'servatis servandis', in Eastern ecclesiology."

Moreover, all bishops hold the grace episcopacy; and so, no bishop should be in submission to any other bishop, because they are all ontologically equal.

That being said, I unequivocally accept the primacy of the Pope, I simply reject the concept of supremacy of power and jurisdiction, which is foreign to the ecclesiology of the first millennium.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

I do not see the matter of papal primacy (and supermacy) to be a matter of ontological difference between bishops. I agree with you - the pope is not some sort of "super" "uber" or "universal bishop", as stated clearly by Pope St. Gregory the Great. The Melkite Patriarch is right to say that his ministry is equal to that of the Patriarch of Rome (especially considering Antioch's Petrine roots, but that is another matter!). In matters pertaining to his exercise of ministry as a bishop and as a patriarch, the pope is an equal. The differentaition occurs in the exercise of his office as head of the college. As you know, this is an elected office, not an "ordained" office. It flows from his episcopal ministry, which he already exercises as a member of the college. At the point of his election, however, certain rights and canonical powers (and spiritual charisms) are granted to him by virtue of his role, namely to speak and act in the name of the college and the whole church. Should he resign as pope (which has happened) these rights and powers are then transferred to the next bishop who is elected, the previous pope exercising no primacy whatsoever.

If anyone has made an ontological argument, I have not seen it.

Also, the ecclesiology of the first 1000 years has instances of direct intervention (such as the one I cited with Pope St. Clement.) They are rare (as they SHOULD be) but nonetheless exist.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: How do I get a copy of Fr. Victor's text? I'm sorry if you mentioned it before, but I don't want to go cruising through the psts to find it again if possible.

The decree of Vatican I is posited precisely upon such a distinction, and that is why it says that even the Patriarchs must submit to the rule of the Pope.

Now, I tend to agree with Archbishop Vsevolod, when he said that the Vatican I decree will require "re-calibration" by the Roman Church. But even with that necessary "re-calibration" done, I do not foresee the day when the Eastern Orthodox Churches will accept Vatican I, or any of the Latin local synods of the second millennium, as ecumenical. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that does not mean that the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is impossible; instead, it just means that the West will not be able to force the East into accepting its doctrinal innovations.

Overall, I remain upbeat (except when I talk to Ghosty ) about the chances for the restoration of communion. I just do not think it is going to look like what Westerners expect it to look like.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

That is the first time I have heard that. Is that your assumption in reading the text or does it state it explicitly?

Gordo

It is based upon what Bishop Gasser said in the Official Relatio delivered to the council Fathers prior to their vote on the decree Pastor Aeternus. The Relatio is considered to be an authoritative document of the Magisterium since it clarifies questions about the decree on the primacy of the Pope raised by some of the council Fathers, and in fact it is referenced within the notations of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium in connection with the primacy and infallibility of the Pope. The Fathers of Vatican I saw the primacy as a special or distinct charism, which is precisely what the Eastern Orthodox deny.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

Thank you for your answers and this thread does make for fascinating - and illuminating - reading!

I'm quite squeamish about the proposition that EC's may say that Roman theology is in "error" though.

In fact, I think there are Orthodox witnesses who will say that the Filioque does not contradict what the East teaches about the Trinity. Certainly the view, that has been completely unexplored by anyone here (and theologically I'm a "no one") is the RC theology behind the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

If the RC Church teaches, as it does, that the Spirit proceeds "passively" from the Son, does this not safeguard the Father as the sole Cause and Monarch of the Trinity? I think it does and I believe this is in harmony with the central theological "pulses" of Eastern theology.

And Fr. John Meyendorff himself said that it was possible for both sides to reach a Trinitarian agreement at Florence - the Latins simply had to discard the Filioque in the Creed and both sides could have agreed to the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father through the Son." And I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of these statements fully.

Fr. Meyendorff did not have as high a regard for St Mark of Ephesus as a THEOLOGIAN and saw him as having certain limitations in his approach to things.

My point of view is that EC's and RC's have different theological and spiritual traditions and should remain faithful to them each in their own way.

It is WRONG for RC's to impose their own traditions on EC's to be sure.

But to say that RC theology is "wrong" is to imply that it is "heretical" - do you not agree?

And that is fine to say that - as long as one is Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.

Am i being unreasonable?

Do you not then affirm yourself as being Orthodox rather than EC? (Not that there's anything wrong with being Orthodox, only with being EC and saying that Rome is wrong).

I'm trying to understand the bases for our particular religious commitments and, in my own simplistic way, I cannot see how an EC can affirm that Rome is wrong . . . on anything having to do with faith or morals.

So the most I believe EC's can say is that we're different from Rome but confess the same Apostolic faith.

And isn't that what Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement is all about - to see how the two sides may confess the same Apostolic faith and therefore be in communion with one another.

Without that confession of faith, there is no communion or whatever.

For us to say that Rome is wrong here or there on matters of faith and morals is to affirm something other than the kind of full communion/union that Orthodoxy itself would affirm is required as a condition for full communion.

If you are Orthodox, that is fine, sir!

My point is how can we affirm we are EC's in communion (or under the boot of ) Rome when we say Rome is wrong.

Is that not contradictory?

And if we oppose the papal jurisdiction and infallibility - Rome's teaching alone affirms we are outside its communion in so doing.

So my question now is: IF you affirm all that Orthodoxy teaches AND affirm Rome is wrong (rather than "different from the East") on those points of divergence, AND you affirm the Orthodox ecclesiology - then WHY do you even require "communion with Rome" at all, especially since you know what Rome teaches about jurisdiction and infalliblity - and also what Orthodoxy itself believes about those teachings?

If I believed as you (and I can definitely put myself in your position, as I have done so before in my life), it seems to me I would want to NOT be in communion with a "Rome that is in error" or with what is an "heretical church."

In that case, what is stopping you from coming into full communion with Orthodoxy? What is the point of remaining EC?

I'm not berating you (at all), just asking since this question comes up a lot in the circles that I am associated with . . .

As for being "under Rome," I think that as far as the UGCC is concerned, that is a good thing for the most part.

Rome has often come to our rescue to save us from ourselves.

There is tension, of course, between Rome and the UGCC over the patriarchate issue.

Peter B. once berated me for imputing negative motives to Rome for not acknowledging the UGCC Patriarchate.

And I'm not imputing anything that hasn't been affirmed by many UGCCers, including our former patriarch and many priests I know.

We have criticized Rome for not acknowledging our patriarchate and we will continue to act as one anyway - a movement that is very strong in our Church right now. We ARE loyal to Rome and we remain so, even while we disagree on the matter of how we are to exercise our own church government.

And our Church has sufficient martyrs and confessors for loyalty to Rome whom we venerate in all our parishes - we know our Catholic identity and we just want the right to be who we are.

I'm sorry that offends some, but then I'm one of many in the UGCC who affirms that stand, including our holy patriarch Joseph Slipyj who spent 18 years in Siberia for loyalty to Rome.

Anyway, I see this thread moving from its original issue to that of a discussion of ecclesial loyalties - something you brought up above.

There is no question in Orthodoxy that if you were Orthodox and affirmed that this or that Orthodox synod was wrong - you know what that would imply.

Why does the same thing imply something different for EC's?

Thanks again, for this fascinating thread.

No one has ever brought up such a thread in the history of this forum, I believe. Not me, and certainly not the Administrator! :p

Alex

But the idea of a special charism associated with an office does not constitute an ontological difference between the pope and his brother bishops. One could say that the bishop of a particular diocese has the charisms necessary in the exercise of his office as shepherd of that church. Were he to change churches or retire, he would still retain the charisms granted through his consecration as bishop, but they do not necessarily include those of the office he once held.

That the one who holds the office of Peter should receive a special charism that pertains to the exercise of his role as head of the college only makes sense. But the charism is ultimately tied to the office and the officeholder as an ecclesial person in his role as as pope. These charisms would not continue with him if he should he leave the office. He would simply return to his place within the college. Similarities can be found, I believe, in the idea of the elected High Priest within Temple Judaism, except that his election was not for life.

Pace e' bene,

Gordo

Alex,

In defense of Todd, surely you would acknowledge there are degrees of error? Perhaps Todd does not see them as being serious enough to break communion over. Also, it seems to me that both sides are trying to say the same things about God, as opposed to say Calvinism and Catholicism. That must count for something.

Matt

Dear Matt,

I'm not attacking Todd (nor would I ever) and so there is no need to defend him against anything (besides, he can wipe the floor with me anytime he so desired!)

I think Todd would be the first to deny the idea (as Latin) that there can be degrees of error!

It is like the Jesuits who were sometimes accused of trying to rework moral theology to let people know "how far they could go" without actually sinning.

In matters of the Holy Trinity, there can be NO room for error, indeed, one word was enough to set off, well, we know!

As someone who has been at the precipice (considering which commitment to follow, Catholicism or Orthodoxy), I really want to know how to understand what is being said here.

I respect both Orthodox and Catholics (including those who convert, even though I don't like stridency in converts - but who does? ).

If I come across as being "attacking," I do not mean to be AT ALL.

Todd is a theologian in his own right, who is extremely articulate and thoughtful.

That he would even consider pondering a response to my simplistic and theologicall less than well-informed viewpoints is a great tribute to me and I value him most highly.

I see this discussion now being more about commitments and loyalties than anything else.

I want to understand as I don't know. I'm not imputing anything to anyone, I've only become better informed by reading these posts for which I am grateful to Todd, yourself, Gordo and Ghosty!

Forgive me, but I mean nothing other than the above!

I take all that is being said here very seriously. It affects me in ways that I don't care to articulate right now. That's how seriously I take it. If I ask pointed questions about Todd and his commitment, it is because I can put myself in his place.

Ciao!

Alex

Alex,

An important clarification is called for, because the Roman Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit passively proceeds from the Son. In actual fact, passive procession in the Scholastic system is a property of the Holy Spirit Himself, that is, for the Scholastics the Holy Spirit passively proceeds from the Father and the Son; and thus, He receives His existence from them both. Now as far as active procession (what St. Thomas calls spiration) is concerned, this is a property common to the Father and the Son, because in the Scholastic framework, both the Father and the Son actively spirate the Spirit and give Him His existence as person. This is why, in Roman theology the Father and the Son are held to be "one principle" in connection with the Spiration (i.e., active spiration or procession) of the Holy Spirit as person, because they both together actively impart subsistent being to the Holy Spirit.

To understand the Roman doctrine of double procession better I recommend that you read the "Summa Theologica," Prima Pars, Q. 28; Adolphus Tanquerey's, "Manual of Dogmatic Theology," volume 1, page 330; and Dr. Ludwig Ott's book, "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," page 68.

God bless,
Todd

Since the Fathers of Vatican I held that it is a charism distinct from episcopacy, it follows that it is ontologically different from the grace of orders. Now, of course, Westerners do not have a problem accepting this idea, but it has already been rejected by the Orthodox, for as Fr. Schmemann has said, there is "no sacramental order of primacy, [and] no charism of primacy exists." [Fr. Schmemann, "The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," page 33]

God bless,
Todd

But the charism of pope is not entirely distinct from the charism of episcopos, anymore than my "function" and "office" as father can be separated from my ontological reality as a male human being. One flows from the other. That is why the individual who holds the Petrine office must be a bishop, since his proper and exclusive origin or place is within the college.

With that said, I do believe that the Petrine ministry as exercised by the papacy is part and parcel of the Church's constitution. In that sense, you could say that it is an "ontological" reality insofar as the ecclesia is concerned. But the charism itself as granted to a particular individual lasts only so long as the temporal head is alive and in office. Should death or resignation come, the Petrine charism intrinsic to the episcopal nature of the Church, continues in the Church and rests with the elected officeholder's successor.

IMHO,

Gordo

Yes, I understand that that is what the West teaches, but the point I am trying to make is that the Eastern Orthodox have already rejected that idea, because for the Orthodox there is no such charism.

God bless,
Todd

Alex,

Your points are well taken I wasn't thinking in terms of error within the Trinity. I completely agree that within that realm one must be completely on point. I was just attempting to provide a possible explanation which in retrospect probably should not have been offered up in the first place.

Todd,

My point is that, while you indicate that the Catholic CHurch asserts an ontological difference between the bishop of Rome qua bishop and his brother bishops qua bishops, I have not seen any evidence to support this.

The idea that the Orthodox churches reject the Petrine charism as intrinsic to the church is not true. (Any wonder that the Pentarchy in its founders is made up of individuals affiliated in some fashion with Peter?) That some or most (or all) may question the "rights" of the popes of Rome vis-a-vis their own churches is true, but not one credible source to my knowledge has ever questioned the Pope's role as Peter's successor. If they do so, there is no historical basis for it. In fact, the councils and the fathers of the first 1000 years argue the opposite, so by doing so they would contravene Tradition.

Gordo