www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New Curial Document on Nature of the Church

Dear Robster:

I suppose we could quibble about levels of authority...but I can certainly accept that the validity of Orthodox sacraments was uncontroversial in the Catholic Church from the late 19th century!

Also, I think you very neatly sum up the magisterial status quo on the, unique identity of the visible Catholic Church and the Church professed in the Creed.

But this neat and tidy ecclesiology seems incompatible (to my tiny mind, at least) with the equally neat and tidy sacramental theology that requires:

1. recognition of the Orthodox Eucharist; and

2. recognition that the "source and summit" of the Christian life is nothing less than the...Eucharist.

Unless I'm very wrong, something will have to give. Perhaps then we might have some real ecumenical progress. Imagine if both communions truly believed their continual estrangement was, dare I say it, blasphemy!

unworthy hieromonk Maximos

I must admit that I'm probably Aristotelian through the week, but a Platonist on the weekends. I guess that's a kind of both/and...

On a philsophical level, I'd probably look here to the best insights of the good old Neoplaonists like my own sainted patron. The notion of emanation as these thinkers understood it (and they include, in his own way, St. Thomas Aquinas, don't forget!) may be the best way of conceiving of the relationship between visible and invisible realities. In other words, the relationship is not a static one, in which what matters is which state you happen to be contemplating, but a dynamic one.

That's how we might begin to justify in philosophical terms your very insightful both/and.

This sounds like a topic for the Transfiguration College [transfigurationcollege.org] people to look into

unworthy hieromonk Maximos
Holy Resurrection Monastery
hrmonline.org

Thank you for deleting my other posts Father Anthony.

My mind is flip flopping. I am upset. I have read the document and I must say that my conscience does not allow me to accept everything it appears to mean. I want to ... but I am in great difficult.

I can not accept the word 'defective'.

I believe that unity with a Primacy of Peter (whatever form of function that may be) ... *must* be entirely voluntary on the part of any other apostolic founded church. Jesus did not leave any other means for a Primacy to function except through charity and voluntary. He did not authorize force to be used nor a fear of being defective ... to bring about that exercise of Primacy.

God does not want us to love him out of fear of hell. That is not love. That is fear. That is survival. And full unity of his Church is not predicated on fear and survival.

Neither does God depend our entrance to the highest seat in heaven ... on our being "right" and passing a test of intellect. If that were so than he would always be right (after all he is God) and I would always be wrong about something and fail the test (I am human and not equal to God's intellect). It is rather a test of - heart.

I do not remember Jesus leaving the commandment "Get it right! or be defective." ... but rather "Love one another as I have loved you."

No church, founded by Christ through his apostles ... is any less, or is defective, if it does not voluntarily submit to a Primacy of the office of Peter.

THIS ... is a mess!! And it does not seem to jive with a whole lot of other Catholic theology.

We have torn the seamless robe of Christ yet again.

May I be given the grace to read this document in another way.

Peace be to all my Orthodox brothers and to the Holy Orthodox Church which Christ loves with his whole heart.

-ray

A note of humor in case anyone has any humor left...

Rome is currently drafting a document to the effect that we Catholics will not longer be calling our Orthodox friends ... "separated brothers" ... we will have to call them "defective brothers" from now on.

Just a joke. Come on .. smile.

-ray

Oh dear.

My friend, Ray

Do not feel that you should completely shut up. Indeed, look at this thread as a dialectical process. All of us have all sorts of thoughts bouncing around in our heads. Let them out. Let others comment and ask questions. Ray, your comments caused me to go back and read the document again. Isn't that a good thing? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making an error if it leads to more questions and discussion directed toward the truth. I make countless errors. I firmly believe that all of us are here of good will and we want what is best for everyone. Errors committed in the right spirit are vehicles to spur us on to further discussion. Be of good cheer.

Joe

I've just read through the whole thread of posts since I've been on here last. Thank you all. It is stimulating. I must think awhile before I post anything. You all give me much food for thought.

Joe

Well Joe...

My head and heart are doing flip flops. I can not, in good conscience, think of Orthodox churches as 'defective' in any way.

I see any Primacy of the office of Peter - as something that is not obligatory upon other churches. Their unity with any type of Primacy of the Office of Peter - is entirely voluntary ... become manifested through charity, honor, and voluntary cooperation. That ... is the solid reality that exists. Jesus did not authorize any type of force. A child can see that.

Voluntary means - there is no harmful repercussion (defect) if not give.

Jesus left no way for one church to force another church into submission. There are no means (given by Christ) to do such a thing. And that leaves the only method as being - voluntary.

Is it a 'unity' if someone is forced?

Is it a 'unity' if someone cooperates out of fear of being harmed (defective)??

Is the unity of a man and wife based upon love and respect - or upon fear of loss and desire to gain gifts and advantage??

There seems to be something really messed up here. Something which (up to now) I though was slowing getting straightened out through the great personal holiness of John Paul II and his approach of - charity first.

These are my current, uncomfortable, thoughts.

Anyways ... so that I do not ask Fr. Anthony to deleted even more posts ... I should hold my confused thoughts for a bit.

-ray

But Ray...

Is faith in the Nicene Creed binding on every Catholic and Orthodox Christian?

Yes.

If it is rejected, is there not the risk of the "penalty" of separation through excommunication?

Of course.

Is it thus no longer a virtuous thing because of the threat of a canonical penalty?

No it is still virtuous and most people do not believe in the Nicene Creed because they "fear" the canonical penalty if they do not. Most people are motivated by love - voluntary love.

There is NO WAY for any Church to force somone into submission, not unless the Church recently obtained a military, and even then it is still possible for someone not to submit. People are free to believe what they want. They are not free to believe what they want in everything, however, and still be regarded as Catholic. Freedom of nonbelief does not mean freedom from the effects (canonical or moral) of that nonbelief.

The Catholic Church views Petrine primacy as being intrinsic to the nature of Christ's Church as an extension of her mark of being apostolic. This she believes based on the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers starting with St. Irenaeus and going forward. She believes that the primacy exists at the service of Church unity, and that those apostolic Churches that reject this ministry of primacy are defective (wounded) in the full realization of their Catholicity. She also believes that her own Catholicity is not fully realized in history so long as there are baptized Christians who exist outside of her full communion. This does not mean she is NOT the Catholic Church founded by Christ. It does mean, however, that she is wounded by disunity and must be, therefore, committed to Christian unity.

If the Petrine primacy is to exercise a service of unity to the Catholic Church, it must - only as a last resort - have the canonical power of binding arbitration, especially in the face of a dispute. Without this binding power, even if never exercised, the Pope's ability to serve this unity fully is virtually non-existent. The Orthodox Churches by and large reject the notion of a binding power to artbitrate a dispute. It also rejects the power to teach and speak in the name of the college of bishops worldwide. We see this rejection as something more than just a mere rejection of a temporal provision for the Church's governance. We see it as a rejection of something integral to the nature of the Church qua Church, as spoken by Jesus Christ to Peter.

So no military jets will fly overhead if someone rejects papal primacy. Ultimately, we must all face the judgment seat of Christ and answer for how we acted and believed based on what we knew in our consciences. So we have great freedom to accept or reject, but no freedom from accountability or consequences or the effects of those beliefs.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear Gordo...

Your make some good points but I must admit to myself that I am still confused and I could not read you post well yet. My fault and not yours.

My own mind flip flops on this whole thing. Ask me on Monday and I will reply one way and ask me on Tuesday and I will contradict myself.

If I carry out one line of logic - it seems that all must 'convert' to be Roman Catholic or else there may be a doubt that one has really figured out which is the 'right church'. A figuring out not by faith but by intellectual powers. Kind of like a math quiz. That situation would require each of us to crack history books and become masters of theology etc.. in order to make the most informed decision. And if our intellect failed - we would be "out"?? Now would that not be God's fault for not assigning a better intellectual power to me?

You see?

I definitely believe in the appointment of Peter by Christ. But I do not believe that the earthy church is perfect (exactly as it is in heaven). I can not explain this further at this time.

My troubles are with the words 'defect' and 'subsists'.

I accept 'wound' but not in the meaning of 'defect'.

Jesus kept his wounds after the resurrection - is he then defective?

My mind will have to look at many things in many ways. Some of thing things have been foundational to my own faith. But for that document to have put me into this quandary - makes me think it was not well written. At the very least it lends itself to misunderstanding.

Anyway ... I might have some thing solid by the end of today. Right now a I am on a see saw and dizzy.

-ray

My impression has always been that the reason for no official mention (or little mention?) was that their validity was never in doubt. Certainly before the realization of the schism they were not questioned. Lines of inquiry that I would like to pursue (but can't at the moment) which may provide indicators are : (1) Did any of the "union" councils indicate otherwise? (2) How were "Orthodox" faithful, clergy and Churches received into Catholic communion during the times of the "Unia" / times preceding VCII?

The entry for The Eastern Schism [newadvent.org] in the old 1912 ed. The Catholic Encyclopedia, especially the last section,"V. REASONS OF THE PRESENT SCHISM" may provide some inferences to support my understanding.

Dn. Anthony

I've heard re-baptism occurred at times. Alex/Orthodox Catholic IIRC stated an entire church was washed clean stone by stone as well to get the "schism" off it.

I have really enjoyed this thread, and the responses so far have really done a great deal to reinforce and enhance what my belief is about the situation.

[quote] Also, I think you very neatly sum up the magisterial status quo on the, unique identity of the visible Catholic Church and the Church professed in the Creed.

But this neat and tidy ecclesiology seems incompatible (to my tiny mind, at least) with the equally neat and tidy sacramental theology that requires:

1. recognition of the Orthodox Eucharist; and

2. recognition that the "source and summit" of the Christian life is nothing less than the...Eucharist.

Unless I'm very wrong, something will have to give. Perhaps then we might have some real ecumenical progress. Imagine if both communions truly believed their continual estrangement was, dare I say it, blasphemy!

Can't go there.

However, where we can go is where the John Paul II and Benedict XVI are leading us. We must be intellectually honest (and I have only found in my life that following the teachings of the Church has brought joy and life-- and I dare say for laymen the teaching of the Church which has caused the greatest scandal in the modern world is in Humanae Vitae) and that means that we recognize there are true developments of doctrine no matter how painful that may appear to be. And then of course we need to have lots of contemplatives, like you praying that the divisions (which are scandalous) cease so that all men strive for the unity which the Eucharist signifies and IS, so that the Bridegroom is not disappointed upon His return.

lm

Slava Isusu Christu!

Ray--thanks for your posts. Please do not stop. I can understand stepping back to think, digest and focus your ideas before posting. I do that and I'm sure many others do too. But please do not stop! You have given us many, many things to think about. I agree with virtually all of what you are saying. I may agree with you 100%. But as you and others said, one statement or question leads to another. For example:

It was mentioned by more than one person about forcing another church into submission. And how we agree that is wrong. But how then do we reconcile that history clearly shows that is exactly what happened again and again? The Western Church did it and the Eastern Church did it. And not just in the year 500. Look back as recently as a few years in Eastern Europe. I'm not just revisiting history--I'm asking how we reconcile not forcing people to our beliefs (i.e. Orthodox and RCC) and those we call "heretics." Whether it is Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Paulician, Bogomils or anything else. Even including what happened to the Knights Templar and the Inquisistion. Were Nestorians "defective" or "wounded" or misguided or just plain dead wrong? I guess it all depends on one's viewpoint.

Emporer Constantine called the first Council at Nicea to settle some very serious questions--such as what does it mean to be a Christian? He knew that an Empire as large as the Roman Empire had to have a single definition if it was to embrace a single religion. One could not be a Christian in what is now Libya (then Tripolitania) and a Christian in Rome or a Christian in Judea or a Christian in Dacia (now Romania/Moldova as well as parts of Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria) and have different definitions of Christianity. And he was right. It wouldn't work.

So force was used. They didn't have jets to do a flyover, but they sure did use everything else they had on hand to "convert" people. Even those that called themselves Christians.

So with that in mind---how do we handle "wounded" or "defective?"
How do we handle Protestants? I'm NOT saying dig out the rack and sharpen our swords--Onward Christian Solderiers and all that. But can we say "let's agree to disagree?" I honestly don't have an answer. It's my first thought--you think what you want, I'll think what I want. But is that possible? Or are we as far off the mark as Gnostics? I don't know. I'm confused too, Ray.

Tim

A very good example of this is the Motu Proprio itelf. I dare say many Bishops opposed it. The Holy Father by his own authority issued it nonetheless. And real unity has been served.