www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Leaders Could Accept Papal Primacy

This is a Gold Star statement!
[Linked Image]

I also have to ponder, but not too much.

As Alex has stated in his own way, the Immaculate Conception shouldn't be a real big problem. It's almost a non-starter. In fact from the Eastern perspective it doesn't make much sense and just reinforces the notion that the Pope either didn't understand what Eastern Catholics believe, or didn't care, neither is a flattering thought.

Universal Jurisdiction? Huge.

I cannot believe that the Orthodox bishops in the kingdom of Poland would have agreed to union if they had known this would be thrown into the mix at any point. I would have called it a deal breaker, a poison pill.

My guess is it would have killed the Melkite prospects of reunion in 1724 too.

+T+
Michael

I would like to suggest that the bishops who opted for union with Rome knew what the deal was. They were very well educated men who I would venture knew quiet a bit of how the Churches in union with Rome operated. Dont forget the union at Brest implied the seniority of the Primate of Poland of what was another Metropolitan see under him. They then travelled the long distance to Rome to put them in the picture. Their biggest problem was to be the Polish king and his eyes on their property. Rome was not going to get much of a look in for some centuries when communications improved.

ICXC
NIKA

The Eucharist can be received unworthily, and so can actually condemn and not sanctify us. Neither does it remove anything essential to our human nature that would end our ascetic struggle. Even after baptism we retain the nature that we must struggle with to achieve theosis. The Latin formulation, if true, would preclude true theosis in the case of the Theotokos.

Andrew

Dear Friends,

The Union of Brest would have undoubtedly occurred even IF the Marian dogmas and papal infallibility were already proclaimed by Rome, in my view.

The Union of Brest did not come about, as I once thought and was taught, because a group of Orthodox bishops had qualms about whether their faith and Church was "right" with the Apostolic Church of the first millennium etc.

Culturally, these bishops were already focused on western Europe and its milieu in terms of academics, theology and general traditions.

They were, after all, and this must be emphasized, ALL appointed by the King of Poland.

The Jesuits in Eastern Europe that were forever trying to "Uniatize" the Orthodox had a general rule, that I once read in one of Met. Ohienko's works, to "appoint the lowliest village priest as an (Orthodox) bishop - and he'll be forever grateful to you (RC Church and Polish Kingdom) and will always do your bidding from then on."

In addition, there was the growing problem of the alienation of the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops (Ukrainian/Belorusyan/Carpathian what have you, but not Muscovite) from Constantinople and the heavy-handed way in which the EP was trying to maintain control over his wayward bishops i.e. via the stauropeghial brotherhoods who were invested with EP authority to oversee bishops and "keep them in line." As Met. Ohienko himself wrote, this was the MAIN factor that "pushed" the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops toward union with Rome at the time.

The 33 points of the Union of Brest clearly show that the bishops coming into union with Rome both knew about the real differences Orthodoxy had with Rome - and didn't care to the point they were willing to gloss over them and declare the differences "different expressions of the one faith" using the Florentine union agreement as their backdrop.

At a time when there were Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception in Kyiv itself with Orthodox Christians wearing medals similar to today's "Miraculous Medals" - do you think it would have been a problem for such people to accept the RC dogma of the IC? They would have come into union with Rome even MORE willingly!

John Meyendorff (+ memory eternal!) talked about Greek Orthodox theologians who both "understood and accepted the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" - surely their enduring interest in the RC Church was based on the fact that they had points of "faith sharing" with it.

As for papal infallibility - I don't think the East, apart from theologians, would have had a problem with that. The authority of the local Orthodox bishop was always absolute as teacher and administrator, as Fr. Schmemann wrote, and so if there was a chief bishop in Rome whose authority was absolute - what was one more?

We should also consider that although dogmas like the Immaculate Conception were proclaimed as such later, they were WIDELY held by Catholics for centuries before. The Spanish Empire, for example, decreed that belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary would be NORMATIVE for all Catholic subjects of the King of Spain - the monastery in New Orleans, built by the Spanish, was already dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. The French Jesuit missionaries in Ontario dedicated the land of the Hurons to the Immaculate Conception.

Finally, the Orthodox icon of the Conception of St Anne is virtually IDENTICAL to the western Catholic image of Mary standing on a serpent with her hands extended downwards (I've read this not only on the www.oca.org [oca.org] website, but also in Russian on the www.days.ru [days.ru] site).

So I'd really remove that gold star!

Alex

Dear Dr Eric,

You've hit the nail on the head here.

I would submit that the faith of the Orthodox and the faith of Eastern Catholics (but let's leave the "Latinized EC's" out of this for now) is the same and their expressions of it are the same.

BUT the real difference is in this - for the EC's, the distinctiveness of their theological, canonical and liturgical traditions do not constitute a "break" with Rome, but only a variation that is equal to those of Rome.

For the Orthodox, that same distinctivness DOES constitute a break with Rome - note how in some Orthodox circles even the use of azymes by the RC's is considered "heresy" etc. Indeed, the Old Believer tradition in Russia shows how tampering with the minutest detail of external liturgical praxis can constitute heresy, and must be opposed to the death, as many Old Believers did.

In the Ukrainian Orthodox tradition, however, there was and is the view that it matters not whether one baptizes, for example, by triple immersion or by pouring etc. What matters is how one understands the Mystery/Sacrament of Baptism itself - something that would have been anathema in the Muscovite Church of either the New or Old Rites.

This is why Ukrainian/Belarusyan Orthodox, when they went to live in Russia, were often "rebaptized" by triple immersion.

This "liberality" in the Ruthenian Metropolia of Kyiv horrified the Muscovites who insisted on externalities as the measure of their Orthodoxy.

However, when the Old Rite Orthodox were persecuted by their own brothers in Muscovy precisely for their refusal to adopt the newly imposed liturgical externalities, they often found a home in the Ruthenian Metropolia where they were left alone and could even publish their works (as in the Pochaiv Lavra) - it is no surprise that the centre of Old Rite priestly activity is in Bila Krinitsa and in Rumania today.

Alex

A bishops authority ends when his teaching ceases to be Orthodox, and he can stand in judgment by the church and by his flock. His power is not absolute. No bishop by himself has personal infallbility, and I can assure you that view is held at all levels (in addition to being voiced specifically in the response of the Eastern Bishops to Vatican I).

Andrew

The Pope is no different on this account.

Rilian said: And also: I would like to suggest that the notion that the Immaculate Conception dogma "would preclude true theosis" (or even gives the Theotokos some kind of "different nature" from the rest of humanity) is false. The official formulation of the dogma reads, in part, that the Most Holy Theotokos was "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race . . . preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." Nothing about this formulation, at least to me, is obviously un-Orthodox (with both a big and a little 'O'). Note that, even on the Orthodox understanding, one of the effects of original sin is that fallen human nature is separated from God and deprived of the inhering presence of uncreated grace. Thus says Lossky:

"The decadence of human nature is the direct consequence of the free decision of man . . . A condition against nature must lead to the disintegration of the being of man, which dissolves finally in death, the last separation of nature, become unnatural and separate from God. There is no longer a place for uncreated grace in the perverted nature . . . where the passions overthrow the original hierarchy of human being. The deprivation of grace is not the cause, but rather the consequence of the decadence of our nature. Man has obstructed the faculty in himself for communion with God" (Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 132)

Read those statements through and focus on what it says. Fallen human nature is deprived of grace, separated from God, no longer having a place for uncreated grace. This is what Christ repaired in his Incarnation, reuniting divine and human nature. But now consider what the angel declares to the Virgin Mary prior to the Incarnation, addressing her in the following manner:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!" (Luke 1:28).

What could possibly be going on here? Lossky has just said that fallen human nature is separated from God, with no place in it for uncreated grace, with no means of communion with God, and so on; and yet here is Mary being told that she is "full of grace" and that the Lord is with her, prior to the Incarnation, prior to the time when Christ irrevocably reunited divine and human nature and restored this communion for all of us. The angel declares here that Mary is full of grace already, interestingly enough. It seems that the very idea of the Incarnation only makes this that much more clear: the Virgin was so in communion with God that she was mysteriously able to bear God in her womb, to give her very humanity to the Incarnate Logos. But there you have it; some condition that Lossky claims is characteristic of fallen human nature (namely, the deprivation of uncreated grace and a separation from God) is apparently not a characteristic of Mary. Thus, an Orthodox understanding of the Immaculate Conception dogma, without having to reformulate it.

Now, does this preclude the possibility of theosis for the Theotokos? Well, ask yourself this question: does the fact that Christ ultimately and victoriously united human and divine nature in his glorious Incarnation prevent the rest of us from the achieving theosis? The answer is obviously no. But the fact described above is just that the Theotokos was graced, in view of Christ's Incarnation within her, with being receptive to uncreated grace and having a special communion with God before the Incarnation (i.e., from her conception); the rest of us have just received this same "receptivity" via Christ's Incarnation, in a different manner than that in which the Theotokos received it. But just as "it" does not preclude us from the possibility of theosis, neither does it preclude her.

Here's St. John of Damascus in his Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, with some emphasis added:

"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy offspring grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens . . . This Heaven is clearly much more Divine and awesome than the first. Indeed He Who created the sun in the first heaven would Himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice . . . She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God."

I've written this message in a hurry, so hopefully there are no errors; I'll check back in a bit, but I must run to class!

God bless,
Maximos

I do not believe that the Eastern Fathers make a sharp distinction between nature and grace. Certainly they are not identical, but grace is a constituent of nature, and so it cannot be absent from nature; instead, the faculty by which grace becomes active in man is damaged by the fall. I think this is what St. Maximos means when he speaks of "being" and "ever being" as essential to man (see St. Maximos, "Centuries on Love," 3:25), the former by creation, the latter by the incarnation and redemption. That being said, theosis requires the activity of the human will, for without that activity, a man cannot be deified.

The only part of the Immaculate Conception dogma that is problematic for Easterners are the Augustinian foundations upon which it is constructed. I do agree that reformulated in positive terms, that is, with a focus upon deifying energy being present in the Holy Theotokos from the first moment of her conception, it becomes less problematic. Nevertheless, the deification of the Holy Theotokos required the enactment of her own will in synergy with the divine energy previously given, and if that activity were lacking, she would not be deified. In other words, deification is not something done to you, it is done by, with, and in you, in a true synergy with God.

Blessings to you,
Todd

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, I think that a reformulation of Papal Primacy along the lines of Apostolic Canon 34 would help to resolve many of the difficulties between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

Is this not the case now according to Canon Law? And in both codes of the law? It does seem that way to me.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Welcome to the Forum! It is a great place to be and the people here are always very nice!

As long as Rome, and not the local Particular EC Church has ultimate control over the appointment of bishops throughout the world i.e. primacy of jurisdiction over the local Church, then that is not acceptable to the East.

Whenever Rome exercises its jurisdictional muscle over EC's, however, I'm sure it's done with the best and most loving of intentions!

Ciao,

Alex

Would it be possible for you to explain this in simpler terms? And please in your explanation could you also be much more specific about the "Augustinian" terms that gird the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception? I believe it has been argued that the dogmatic teaching is not nearly as dependent on "Augustinian" terms as some might say it is.

Also could someone tell me if the Orthodox simply do not believe The Apostle Paul when he says that sin came to all men through one man?

I believe the Fathers did distinguish between nature and grace or we would not have the fine distinctions that we do have in the teaching concerning the Incarnation.

Where do some of these myths come from that inform our understanding of the so-called east and west?

Eli

Todd,

Good to be speaking with you again; it's been a while since I've consistently posted to these forums.

You said: I agree with this completely and hope I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise. I don't believe that deifying grace, even in the case of the Theotokos, nullifies or overrides the human will and/or activity (energeia) (that would, after all, smack of Monotheletism or at least Monoenergism). Part of the reason the Theotokos is the New Eve is precisely her saying "Yes" rather than "No" to God.

As for the dogma becoming less problematic when understood in positive terms, I also agree, and believe that John Paul II agreed as well: "The negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition" (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, June 12, 1996).

You also do well to point out that this is not the original topic of this thread, however, so I'll leave it at that. If anyone would care to discuss this further with me, feel free to send me a private message (or, if you do post here, maybe we can keep it brief).

God bless,
Maximos (Jason)

Eli,

Others, such as Todd himself, will likely respond to your recent inquiries. However, I would strongly suggest that things are almost never so quick and easy as they seem. For example, when you say, "I believe the Fathers did distinguish between nature and grace or we would not have the fine distinctions that we do have in the teaching concerning the Incarnation," you seem to make "distinguishing between nature and grace" too simple of a thing. One of the points that Todd seems to make is that there is a conceptual distinction, for example, but that the two are never really and completely distinct because nature without grace whatsoever seems incoherent with some of the Eastern Fathers. The issue is more complicated than one of "either there is a distinction or there isn't."

Also, do you really mean for someone to tell you whether or not the Orthodox do not believe the Apostle Paul? Surely you do not mean to suggest that there really are Orthodox brothers and sisters who maintain the position that Paul wasn't telling the truth. I think what you mean to ask is how the Orthodox understand Paul's saying that sin came to all men through one man. This is another topic separate from this thread, so I won't comment on it at length, but I will suggest taking a look at some books which address the subject, such as John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology (there is a small section therein on the Orthodox understanding of original sin), or even John Romanides' book-length The Ancestral Sin (although I warn you in advance that the latter is a bit polemic and unfair at times, and also presupposes a decent amount of acquaintance with the issue from an Eastern perspective). Romanides has some material on the web somewhere, so you could do a search. I have a few interesting research articles on the subject, too, so I could recommend those titles to you if you're interested.

There might be more that others can add. That's all for me, for now.

God bless,
Maximos