www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox responses to the CDF Document

I wonder if any has seen this article [orthodoxytoday.org] by a very fine Orthodox priest, Father George Morelli?

I've put my own brief comments on The Anastasis Dialogue [hrm.ductape.net] . It really would be a shame if a priest like Father George, who is very involved in the Orientale Lumen West conferences, is discouraged by this document. I think that, regardless of our views on the document itself, we have a duty, especially as eastern Catholics to try to ameliorate this discouragement wherever we find it!

unworthy hieromonk Maximos
Holy Resurrection Monastery
www.hrmonline.org [hrmonline.org]

Father bless,

I don't think that Pope John Paul II's position was any different than Pope Benedict XVI's. After all, the Pope signed off on Dominus Jesus Just as Pope Benedict XVI signed off on this document. Personally, I think the only difference is that Pope Benedict XVI's style is more clear, precise, and dispassionate, whereas, Pope John Paul II's approach was more "visionary," and rhetorical. I sometimes think that Pope John Paul II wanted to woo the Eastern Churches back into communion with Rome through a passionate plea and through an indication that the papacy would restrain itself in practice. But, the fundamental issue was not being addressed, and the basic kinds of poetic metaphors that Pope John Paul II used, "breathing with two lungs," contibuted to confusion and ambiguity. I think that Pope John Paul II made it sound, at times, like the Church of Christ was divided between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But, that is not what Rome has taught and I just think that Pope Benedict XVI is simply a better theologian. Just my personal opinion.

Whenever Rome says that nothing would be required that was not present in the first millenium, just remember that they believe that universal papal jurisdiciton and infallibility were, at least implicitly, believed in the first millenium. The current CDF document simply makes that explicit. Without Rome, there is no Chuch. Rome is foundation and mother of all of the Churches. That is what is really being said, but in as polite a manner as possible, with no anathemas. And that is fine with me. I don't agree with Rome. But, I don't see how Rome can take any other position without admitting that she was wrong at Vatican I (and Vatican II which endorsed and built upon Vatican I).

Joe

Dear Father ...

I, myself, being an RC and familiar with RC and Vatican publications ... do not see this new 'document' as much of anything at all. It does not present any new position of the Roman church - nor does it clarify anything. It mis-quotes past more important documents and has other errors.

As a knowledgeable RC - I can see that people are taking this publication for much more than it was intended to be. It is intended to be informative for purposes of the 'debate' just like it sez in the intro.

The publication does not have the format that official pronouncements have neither in header nor in body. It is in an interview format. The RC does not use an interview format for its declarations and pronouncements. Nor do official pronouncements mis-quote such important past documents.

The Vatican Publishing House publishes all kinds of stuff. Not just official pronouncements and declarations alone.

I have been trying to contact the Vatican via email - but the email addresses I have tried from the vatican.va web site - are not working.

In any event - perhaps someone there in the Orthodox world should contact the Vatican regarding this publication - and find out its intent. A little communication goes a long way. Else this misunderstanding will only grow and fester in suspicions.

Pepace to you good Father and to your Holy Church.
-ray


-----
update
-----
It appears that I now have the email address of the Holy Father - himself. Now I just need the guts and composure to use it. I will. I am sure secretaries read it and not him personally.

-ray

Ray,

I believe that many of us are hoping for new pronouncements and publications from Rome that will work towards the healing of old wounds. The old statements are well known, at least in the way they're popularly interpreted (either by East or West), but I should think that any attempt to reiterate them in a new document or pronouncement ought to contain an express statement that we are still seeking this healing.

In any reconciliation, it is imperative for the party perceived as the "offender" (whether or not that is the case)--a role that clearly belongs to Rome--to take pains to act in ways that will be perceived as conciliatory at all times. This is a long process, and anything that can be perceived as a setback will be--at least by some.

Naturally, there will always be those who interpret any gesture of reconciliation as "giving away the store," so in the case of a group reconciliation such as this, care must be taken not to alienate one's own people. You could certainly argue that this document serves the latter purpose.

For my part, I cannot pass judgment, but I do feel disappointed.

That's an interesting statement, would you care to give some examples?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joe, the document clearly states that the Orthodox are real and true Churches. With and without Rome, the Orthodox (Byzantine and Oriental) are Apostolic, real, true, Sacramental Churches.


If that is Rome's contention, then Rome doesn't agree with Rome either. But that isn't what the document says at all, and it would be foolhardy for anyone to try to "prove" that Rome is the "mother of all Churches", in regard to the East. Rome IS the mother of Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Old Catholicism. Rome is the "sister"/"elder brother" to the Eastern Churches, not mother, nor did Rome claim otherwise. If you believe Rome did claim to be "the mother" of the East, please show me where because I missed it.

From Dominus Jesus

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him�.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that �they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60


Note, that the particular Churches not in communion with Rome (i.e. Orthodox) are not identified as being in communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church (the one, universal Church of Christ) only subsists in the Church(es) that are in communion with Rome. If one is not in communion with Rome, one is not a part of the Catholic Church, at least in the fullest sense of the word. So, according to Rome, the Church of Christ does not subsist in the Orthodox Churches, even though they are true particular Churches. In fact, whatever grace the Orthodox Churches have, is grace that flows out of Rome and the Church in union with her. The Orthodox Churches do not have any intrinsic grace and salvific means of their own. They are all derived from the Catholic Church (i.e. the Roman Church and those Churches in union with her). Without using the expression "Mother Church," it seems that the document is essentially asserting the same content. In effect, we Orthodox have sacramental grace because the grace that subsists in the Catholic Church (i.e. Rome and the Churches in union with her) flows out of her and makes its way to us. I don't see how the document can be read any other way.

Joe

I mention a few in this post in another thread. Look for the quote comparisons.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=4&Number=244877&Searchpage=1&Main=18789&Words=%27catholic+unity%27+Ray+Kaliss&topic=0&Search=true#Post244877

In my mind one of the most important errors was a capitalization error which changes 'catholic unity' (a wide sense of the Greek term of universal and not specific to any particular one church) ... to ... 'Catholic unity' (a restricted sense and common name for the one church known as the Roman Catholic church).

This capitalization error has Christ maintaining his 'Church of Christ' (himself) within the Roman Catholic church only - while the original meaning (small 'c') has Jesus maintaining his 'Church of Christ' through out the united collective of churches who voluntarily cooperate with Petrine governing.

The word 'defect' bothers me and is not used in the orginal documents. The word 'subsists' bothers me (it is 'sustain' in the original documents) because subsists is sometimes used in the sense of 'origin' (that is not dictinary use but I have seen it used as orign in philosophical works).

Peace to you Deacon.
-ray

It is not clear to me, at all, what Rome means when it sez "Catholic Church" (note capitalizations).

At times ... Rome seems to be using the term "Catholic Church" in the same way the term "Orthodox Church" is used (to indicate a collective of churches) and not any one single particular church.

At times - it seems that the term "Catholic Church" is being interpreted by some (including Roman Catholics) to indicate the one single and particular church known as the Roman Catholic church.

This leads to confusion.

It appears to me (and I could be wrong) that the use in official documents such as pronouncements and Constitutions and such ... is pretty consistent in the the first way ("Catholic Church" = the collective of churches in unity with Peter).

It is absolutely clear to me that many Orthodox, Eastern, and RCs - are consistently interpreting "Catholic Church" as to be the single Roman Catholic church.

Therefore .. reading such quotes as Joe gives above - can and does have two different meanings according to the way one interprets "Catholic Church". I would suspect that the general public always reads "Catholic Church" as the Roman Catholic church.

A cause of perpetual disagreement over the meaning of the text.

Read in one interpretation it seems to say the same thing the Orthodox collective claims about itself. Read in the other frame of interpretation it seems to say exactly what irritates Orthodoxy the most (that Rome alone is the sole origin of the Church).

Just my observation.

-ray

Ray, either way, Orthodoxy is still excluded from the Catholic Church qua Catholic Church. Whether we are speaking of Rome as a particular Church or we are speaking of the communion of Churches governed by the Bishop of Rome, we exclude the Orthodox Churches from the Catholic Church. And whatever grace is found in Orthodoxy is found because it has its roots in that communion of Churches in union with Rome and not of itself. It doesn't seem at all implausible to say "Where Rome is, there is the Church." After all, official Catholic documents also say that the Petrine office is an intrinsic component of every Church, meaning that the Pope is immediately and intrinsically within each local Church. So, instead of "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church," (St. Ignatios of Antioch), "Where the Pope is, there is the Church," (general position of the Church of Rome).

Perhaps, all of the confusion is occuring because of the use of local Churches to describe Orthodox Churches. Perhaps another term is needed. How about, "ecclesial communions with sacramental validity?" (this would indicate that the Church of Christ does not subsist in the Orthodox churches, but that there is a real distinction between the Orthodox and protestants) That would indicate that we, the Orthodox, have valid Sacraments even though the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church does not subsist in our Churches. This would be more clear, anyhow. And I don't think that my suggestion is unjustified, based on what I've read from Vatican documents.

Joe

Each local Church, through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith, is the concrete realization of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That said, a true particular Church is by definition a manifestation of the one Catholic Church.

Todd,

I certainly agree with you. But I don't think that the CDF agrees with either of us. It would seem to me that if the office of the successor of Peter (the Bishop of Rome) is an intrinsic constituent part of every true Church, then it follows that the Orthodox are not really Orthodox, since we lack something that is necessary for each Church to truly be what it is supposed to be.

Joe

Yes, the CDF holds a viewpoint that is not compatible with the teaching of the ancient Fathers. As I said in another thread:

"The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church is not lacking in any sense. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox accept a Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal (catholic, i.e., according to the whole) Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, and -- of course -- this theological viewpoint is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome."

An excerpt from an earlier CDF document, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html:

13. The Bishop is a visible source and foundation of the unity of the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral ministry(55). But for each particular Church to be fully Church, that is, the particular presence of the universal Church with all its essential elements, and hence constituted after the model of the universal Church, there must be present in it, as a proper element, the supreme authority of the Church: the Episcopal College "together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him"(56). The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the episcopal College are proper elements of the universal Church that are "not derived from the particularity of the Churches"(57), but are nevertheless interior to each particular Church. Consequently "we must see the ministry of the Successor of Peter, not only as a 'global' service, reaching each particular Church from 'outside', as it were, but as belonging already to the essence of each particular Church from 'within'"(58). Indeed, the ministry of the Primacy involves, in essence, a truly episcopal power, which is not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over everybody, whether Pastors or other faithful(59). The ministry of the Successor of Peter as something interior to each particular Church is a necessary expression of that fundamental mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church(60).

14. The unity of the Eucharist and the unity of the Episcopate with Peter and under Peter are not independent roots of the unity of the Church, since Christ instituted the Eucharist and the Episcopate as essentially interlinked realities(61). The Episcopate is one, just as the Eucharist is one: the one Sacrifice of the one Christ, dead and risen. The liturgy expresses this reality in various ways, showing, for example, that every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people(62). Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it, as in the case of the Christian Churches separated from Rome(63).


As we can see, the medieval papal bull, Unum Sanctum is still intact. Papal authority exists immediately and supremely over all in each particular Church and it is an essential component of each particular Church; sacramental in a sense.

More food for thought. This is a summary of Cardinal Dulles' response to the Kasper-Ratzinger debate over the nature of the Church:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/ZRTZKSP.HTM

All the Bishops possess the petrine ministry, because the Bishops are successors of the Apostles, all of the Apostles, including Peter. Nevertheless, it is true that Rome has a historic connection to Peter, but -- as Church tradition affirms -- so do Antioch and Alexandria, and thus Rome must not be elevated above the other Churches in some kind of secular and juridic sense.

To be a "true" particular Church a community must profess the Orthodox faith in its entirety, and if it lacks anything in that profession of faith, it follows that it is not a "true" Church.

I stand by what I said in the other thread on this topic:


God bless,
Todd