www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Fr. Hopko presentation

Regarding the charge of heresy against the Orthodox, I think that this is a very delicate question and needs to be treated in light of the hierarchy of truths. On matters touching the essence of the faith, we are all one. The issues appear to be mostly re: matters which bear upon the exercise of the temporal leadership of the church.

I guess one should ask - what do the Orthodox reject in terms of Catholic dogmatic teaching and why? A full rejection of Petrine primacy would, to my mind, constitute heresy from whatever quarter. But I know that this is not the Orthodox position at all. Nor do I believe that they in principle reject the idea of some kind of interim state after death. Often it seems to be less of of an issue of WHAT is defined than HOW it is defined, expressed and exercised by the West. The lines are not always as clear as we would like them to be, as we have seen with the Monophysites and Nestorians. Sometimes issues boil down to culture and language when it comes to expressing the same faith.

Would a rejection of the teachings of Vatican I constitute heresy? It depends - one may be inadvertently rejecting something that does not contitute the essence of the coniliar teaching without rejecting the teaching itself. There is certainly room for misunderstanding on both sides.

From the Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate of the Melkite Synod:

"The Melkite Synod sees that the church of the first millennium could be the model for unity today. The Synod strongly affirms its full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and that this communion would not be ruptured. ...

They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."


That about sums up my position.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Excellent quote Fr. Deacon and I couldn't agree more with you and the Archbishop.


~Isaac

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

Ok - so apart from the difficulty of determining how exactly one would go about identifying "everything" which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, would that include in your own postition the condemnations by the Patriarchs in response to Pope Pius IX in the 19th century? You may recall that the encyclical letter condemned the Catholic Church and declared the "filioque" a heresy. According to the letter [en.wikipedia.org] , the Catholic Church was in heresy, apostasy and schism. I suppose that if you interpret Bishop Zoghby's statement as meaning that you affirm all that is affirmed by Eastern Orthodoxy, then I am with you for the most part. But if you include what is denied, then I'm afraid we would have to part ways on some points.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

The difficulties with this statement are numerous. The first part "I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops" is perfectly acceptable to a Catholic - Eastern or Western. The second part is very problematic: "according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation". One cannot simply replicate the 1st millennium and pretend that 1870 did not happen. And where do we find these so-called "limitations" defined and by whom? Are we to look to precedent? Would that include the 1st century? Should Pope St. Clement have consulted with someone before he intervened in Corinth?

My issue is not with the spirit with which these statements were made, but rather with their particular content. It is overly simplistic in my view. The path is not a path of return nor is it a path of renunciation. It is a path of reconciliation - a third way that is far more difficult.

Why not? It worked then.

Yes - apparently so well that we ended up in a virtually irreperable schism. I just question the wisdom of portraying a certain age or era within the church as "ideal". The church is a living entity with historical continuity, not an archeological dig. That is not to say that we should not look to the first millennium to discover the church's strengths. I'm all for a return to the sources! But we cannot simply deny the development which has occurred naturally within both communions.

My first comment is this: Pope Benedict never said the above quote about Papal Primacy reverting back to the First Millenium. Father Joseph Ratzinger said it thirty years ago when he was a professor. Not when he was a bishop, not when he was a cardinal, and not as Pope.

We have no idea what his mindset is right now as far as the limits and boundaries of the Papacy are concerned.

More to come...

To be fair, it is correct to say that Joseph Ratzinger said this but at least so far Benedict XVI has not. It is also correct, however, to note that Joseph Ratzinger, when a Cardinal and head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, not only authorized a reprint of the book in question, but also authorized an English translation, published by Ignatius Press (which is not known for publishing heresies).

Benedict XVI is a most welcome Pope, and brings us much joy. His Holiness does, however, create an etiquette problem, just exemplified - what is the polite and honest way to quote the theological writings of Joseph Ratzinger, since he and Benedict XVI are, after all, the same person - it was Joseph Ratzinger who was elected Pope, after all!

However, since the Hierarch in question is perhaps the most outstanding Catholic theologian of our times, I shall put up with the slight inconvenience of deciding what method of quoting his published works is accurate, courteous and respectful!

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

My point was that the quote in question was voiced over 30 years ago and due to the fact that he is the Pope, he may not feel the same way or he may. We don't know....

Gordo-

I'd like to address a few of the questions you've raised, albeit from a different viewpoint (hermeneutic, if you will) from the one you're looking at it in.

First, as to the question is the Orthodox Church in heresy. You seem to have a list of things the Catholic Church affirms, and that since the Orthodox Church may not affirm some of them, it might be in heresy.

I look at it differently, in a historcal manner. I'm no historian of Church documents and dogma, but I have never encountered a single document from Rome which says that any Orthodox Church is in heresy. Schism, yes. But never heresy.

Limiting oneself only to the Cathechism of the Cahtolic Church and the recent Dominus Iesus from the Vatican (the two most important documents on this subject), I think it's impossible to come to any conclusion BESIDES the idea that the Orthodox (and all eastern churches) are a full part of the Catholic Church because of the grace Jesus Christ gave to the apostles, which they kept, and because of the celebration of the Eucharist. This is all desite the current lack of full union with Rome; nevertheless the CCC says something to the effect that the communion with Rome is profound (because of those two factors) and what seperates the churches is really very little.


As far as the Melkites, I'd look at it from two angles. First, starting with the paragraph I just wrote, if the only real bone of contention is the role of the Pope of Rome, and the role of the Pope in the first millenium is an acceptable basis for union (as put forward by many popes of recent years, with whom some Melkites are in direct contact with). So, one logical line you can conclude from this is that there really is no barrier to union - a conclusion Rome has basically affirmed.

I also think the Melite initiative is a bit different than Hans Kung. Kung is a priest/theologian pushing his own ideas, which are popular to a vocal group of people. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a full and real Patriarchate, with its own direct line to the apostles independent of any other see. The Patriarch of this Church approved of this initiative (before he was Patriarch) and stood at Pope Benedict's right hand in concelebration during his innaugural Eucharistic Liturgy little more than a year ago. The Zoghby initiative was approved overwhelmingly by the synod of bishops.

I defintely think the Zoghby initiative, as well his admitted "shock-book" Are We All Schismatics?" (proper translation) are premature in terms of practicality. But the synod believed it has value beyond despite its impracticaility. For more information, I'd suggest Archbishop ELIAS' book, as well as some of the statements by Patriarch Gregory published by our Sophia press.

Markos, who's apologizes as he's getting real wordy and more than a bit preachy and pedantic.

Marcos,

Thank you for your kind reply! And please - as one of the kings of wordy, preachy and pedantic replies, no apology is necessary for me!

But I will attempt to keep this brief.

I did NOT in any way mean to imply that I thought the Orthodox churches were in heresy. If anything, I tried to take issue with that assertion, albeit not very successfully. I have never held that view personally, nor, as you say, has the Catholic Church in any official way that I have seen. I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are part of the same ecclesial reality, as was argued by Father Louis Bouyer. If anything, I was trying to say that we share the same essence of faith, despite differences which may not amount to insurmountable obstacles after all. Some of the differences are rooted in culture and language, and may not constitute the rejection that some think they do.

As to the Archbishop's initiative, I have read his book, "We Are All Schismatics," although it has been several years. As I stated, I think the challenge with the two statements approved by the synod are twofold:

1. How does one define "everything" taught by Eastern Orthodoxy? I offered the encyclical letter from the Patriarchs as an example of something that I would imagine Father Deacon Lance - and you - would reject, even though it was issued as an official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox churches. What parameters define Eastern Orthodox teaching? I use Archbishop Zoghby's first statement sometimes when educating Latins on our church tradition, but it is pimarily a catechetical "short-cut" to explaining our identity. When you dive into the details, however, it can be somewhat more problematic on both sides.

2. While the first millennium is an appropriate point of reference, we cannot simply ignore the past 1000 years of development on both sides. The task of reconciliation is not to merely revive the ancient Pentarchy or restore the ancient papacy...what would then become of Moscow? What are we to say of 1870, as well as Vatican II? My question has more to do, though, with the source of the aforementioned "limitations" by the Holy Fathers of the East on Rome's exercise of authority. Again, I'm wondering what those limitations are and how, when and by whom they were defined.

Believe it or not, I am far more sympathetic to the initiative than I am perhaps making myself out to be. My issues are with the details, which to me do not seem to be fully defined, hence my view that as a basis for re-establishing communion, it seems very simplistic and, to be sure, premature.

I hope that I have clarified my position somewhat. Your thoughts?

Gordo

Gordo,

I am not trained at all in theology so I can't really judge the theological merits of the argument. However, I'm OK at methodology and history, so I'll babble a bit more on this subject.

For the "everything the EO church teaches", the Liturgy, the Bible, the ecumenical councils, the Nicene Creed, and other "primary sources" are what they're refering to, AFAIK. Obviously "secondary sources" (the term is given by a a writer on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America\'s webpage [goarch.org] )like the one you referenced or St. Photius' angrier encyclicals are not considered main source of the Orthodox faith; they're superceeded by the 1724 (IIRC) Union. I don't think this presents too much of a problem at least from the Melkite perspective. No Orthodox Church holds quite that perspective today (though admittedly they are fairly apophatic on the issue - as the should be).

As far as the first millenium, IIRC this phrase is derived directly from statements various Popes made that all Rome can ask for is the first millenium relationships. Really, Rome cannot make up new dogmas about its primacy; it must hold to what was given it and no more. Thus, you see the very narrow definition of Vatican I and later attempts to clarify the definition, especially during Vatican II. The Initiative only takes this ""no more than the first millenium" concept, supplied by either John XXIII or Paul VI IIRC, to its next logical step - though one that is undoubtably uncomfortable to many.

So, I think there's no doubt that the Initiative is "ecclesiastically" (for lack of a better word) immature. Rome, Constantinople and Antioch aren't ready for it (to say nothing of Moscow). To my mind it "solves" outstanding theological issues by sidelining them.

But I still don't think solving those problems were the purpose of the Initiative. "Are We All Schismatics?" came out about 10-15 years after the Second Vatican Council. The Melkites' influence in that council is well known, and again I think that Archbishop Elias wanted again to galvanvize and push the ecumenical envelope (again for lack of a better word) with what he called his his "shock-book". The Initiative is essentially a (Melkite) Church-wide affirmation of that position. Again, probably designed to galvanize more than be something immediately implementable.

But on the good side, when unity comes we'll be the first to have said so.

Oh, and apologies for the typos in the last post.

Wow! I wish I could "babble" like that more often! I think you (humbly) understate your abilities IMHO.

I think that this is a fair distinction. As a Catholic, I have always regarded Patriarchal/Papal encyclicals and synods as carrying weight as a primary source of magisterium. I have never heard the Orthodox position articulated in such a way which says that they are relegated to a position of being a "secondary source". I'll have to mentally chew on that one for a while. It is a perspective I did not consider.

I for one count myself as being part of group that "wishes" the Vatican I definition had never even been promulgated. But as my wife says, "if wishes were fishes...". It would be good to read a source or two on the "first millennium" phrase. I'll have to do some searching...

AYCG (I love creating new acronymns) this was my primary issue with the initiative. But perhaps there is something prophetic in it as well...It is somewhat analogous to a negotation strategy, where two parties have staked out positions that appear to be contradictory, so they must go deeper into the underlying "interests and needs" to discover some inner complimentarity and come to some type of agreement. I actually do admire the Orthodoxy of the Melkites. As a patriarchal see, they have the ability to push the proverbial envelope.

ASTCO. (Again, something to chew on! )

That's ok. I understand...FFS. (Fat Finger Syndrome) :p

Gordo

PS (Post Script ) I assume that you attend one of my FAVORITE churches...Holy Transfiguration? I was a regular attendee at HT during a summer of graduate theology in the DC area in the early 90's. "I did not know if I was in heaven or on earth...!" What a marvellous parish! How are Father Joseph and Father Ephrem? God bless!

One attempt at clarification. I do not think anyone here accuses any Eastern Orthodox Church of formal heresy. They affirm, as their source of Faith, Holy Tradition, which includes Scripture and the first (as a Catholic would state it) Seven Ecumenical Councils (this is not exhaustive of what comprises Holy Tradition to an Orthodox). Beyond that, the Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge, considers any statement made by any Orthodox Christian, which would seem to be heretical, as an opinion of that person, since the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as a body, and officially, have not attempted to define anything in the setting of an "Ecumenical Council". That is why only a status of "schism" is affirmed. Perhaps others can shed some more light on this topic. I do give credit to the Melkites for trying to "kick start" the process of re-establishment of full communion. We don't want the "ecumenists" to be making a "career" out of "glad-handing".

Dn. Robert

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning here then, Father Deacon. I assumed that by asserting this, you thought the Orthodox were ergo in heresy. That was what precipitated my (rather murky) defense of Orthodoxy against a charge of heresy - from a Catholic perspective.

Gordo