www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A New Ecclesiology?

Apotheoun,

Thanks for that bit from Cardinal Kasper (in the "Papal Priorities and Privileges" thread), it certainly serves to help clarify the Vatican's current position with regard to the EOCs and the (existing) ECCs.
Reflecting on this, I am starting to think that the reason many of the EOs resent us so much is that we were/are willing to accept the role of subordinate churches.

Part of the problem is that Rome really doesn't have an ecclesiology worked out that could serve as a basis for having Churches "in communion with" Rome but not "subordinate to" Rome.

Of course, sometimes these things are worked out by putting them into practice first and deriving a theory from the reality as it is lived.

Any thoughts on this?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

ICXC

Avery Dulles' and Metroplitan John Zizioulas' (EP) work on the various models of ecclesiology has revealed that a Eucharistic or Communion model would work--which closely approximates the Eastern ecclesiological modality. However, with the resurgio of a neo-ultramontanism in the younger Latin clergy--the future ecclesial model will most likely return to ecclesiogical format of the Institutional Church--one reduced to the iconic formula displayed in the old Baltimore series of catechisms. The complexity of Pope Benedict's unique ecclesiology is almost always mis-understood by his disciples as Institutional, when it is really focused on the Communion, Sacramental, and People of God models of Church.

Uniatism as a pre-Conciliar model of prosyletization is of course repudiated by the Vatican II Decrees: Orientaliam Ecclesiarum and Unitatis Redintegratio. With the removal of the Mutual Anathemas by the Pope and Patriarch Athenagoras--the Catholic Church is in a state of full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches--even though this is not worked out through the beaurocracy of Canonical Literature and various visions of 'communio in sacris' notions. However, because Athengoras did not have papal prerogatives his action was purely symbolic and viewed by some Orthodox as uncanonical--and since there is not uniformity of opinion in Orthodoxy--His All-Holiness action was pre-mature, although of the best intentions.

Uniatism is dead, The notion of sui juris Churches is dead--what the future Church has to work out is how to get rid of the tribunal beaurocracy and free the Eastern Catholic Churches to be formed as autocephalous Churches following the Communion model of ecclesiology--mentioning the Pope in the diptychs, but that is it--no papal appointment--no papal involment except in matters where a mediator in ecclesial disputes is needed.

In Christ,


Robert

Robert,

Thank you for your comments.

This is good.

I think the key here is the term misunderstood. It isn't as though they're rejecting Pope Benedict's ecclesiology. Once the significance of what he's really saying becomes more apparent, I think a lot of them will be taking another look.

The action was clearly symbolic, since it did not result in ending the schism--the "state of full communion" is strictly theoretical. It did, however, serve to inaugurate a new era of seeking for unity.

The concept of the ECCs being a tool to proselytize the East is certainly dead. I'm not sure why you're saying the notion of sui juris Churches is dead, though, except that it would be better to use the traditional Eastern terms "autonomous" and "autocephalous" instead of a term with Latin roots.

Well stated. I have often thought that the only serious thing that Rome will need to change is the declaration that the Pope's authority is "universal, immediate and ordinary." Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, Lumen Gentium has already emphasized the bishops' authority in such a way as to challenge at least the "ordinary" part of that statement.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

What an interesting threat!

Way above me.

-ray

I always find these descriptions of "models of ecclesiology" rather mystifying as it seems to suggest that we construct the church as a merely sociological entity that has been determined by historical circumstance. It seems to me that the Church is rather more like an icon of the Trinity and is the gathering of those in communion with the Trinity. "A new ecclesiology" seems dubious to me. Our understanding can deepen bu t I am suspicious of a "new ecclesiology"

Everything in the world from chickens to governments to ant colonies has a visible head with 'the buck stops here' authority. The 'new ecclesiology' with the concept of 'first among equals' seems to be trying to create an unnatural entity out of the Church that I am not sure was the case before 1054. My personal view is that they role of the Pope was more influential than modern Orthodox would accept but much less authoritarian than most Latin Rite Catholics believe.

With that said, the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church's acts very much like the Western Pope does in the Latin Rite. How would the Moscow Patriarch react if one of the Russian bishops started teaching heresy or even wanted to come into full communion with Rome?

I agree, because innovation of any kind is not Catholic.

That said, the communion ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches is an icon of the Trinity, because multiplicity and unity (not uniformity) are brought together in the harmony of the many and the one.

The Church is a supernatural organism founded upon communion with the Holy Trinity, and is not structured along the lines of any earthly government.

Now, as far as the authority of the pope is concerned, he has no authority over any other bishop; instead, he has a primacy within the synod of bishops. In fact it must always be borne in mind that authority within the Church is not to be understood after the manner of "the rulers of the gentiles who lord it over them," for � as Christ said � "It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" [Matthew 20:25-28]. Thus, the Western Church must abandon its false notion of papal supremacy in favor of the ancient doctrine of primacy within synodality, because sobornicity in ecclesial government involves a harmonic symphony in which the pope works as an equal within the synod of bishops, but is not placed over the synod, which is composed of his brothers and not his sons (see Apostolic Canon 34).

This is a very important point. When we deviate from Our Lord's own directives for His Church, we can be sure that it's a human initiative.

God willing, the next round of Catholic-Orthodox talks will look deeply into this point, along with all pertinent events and comments from the first 10 centuries of the Church. What comes out should be very interesting.

For my part, I have to say I like the phrase "primacy within synodality," which I think says more than merely "first among equals." In particular, because synodality conveys a sense of cooperation within a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I have had some thoughts (its a miracle!) But they are embeeded in my usual diatribe

Dear Deacon Richard...

You said ... that Rome has no means to deal with other churches except as subordinates. And I echoed your observation.

In what I say below ... I make no effort to be real accurate. It is an overview and I do not feel like cracking the books to write at a forum. I teach nothing.

Since my last research into Papal Primacy and Infallibility (the first not standing the test of history and the second not standing either the test of classical philosophy or Catholic Mystical Theology) .. I have reluctantly been studying Western Middle Ages that set the direction for current Latin conditions. I am not done (a lot to learn) but I am lucky to be able to listen to mp3 lectures at work so I have a few weeks of study under my belt. I did hesitant to take on such a subject but I do need (for myself) to bridge the gap between Peter in the early Church ... and Rome today.

Now there may be no interest in what I say ... and some may already know what I am about to say. Again .. I may not get every detail right and am not trying to.

In your statement above ... you have hit upon a key feature. One that definitely has more to do with the inability for Rome to draw together into better communion with other churches. And such a lack (the inability to deal with other churches in any other way excepting subordination to Rome) certainly has its solidification in the circumstances of the Catholic reformation (Trent). Some would say that Trent was not a reformation ... but indeed its results are definitely a direct reformation of the main causes which precipitated the Reformation. Which amounts to an admission that such church and clergy abuses actually did exist. If nothing had been wrong then changes would not have been needed. Drastic changes evidence that there was a need to address them.



With Trent .. Catholic dogmas were reformed and elevated to the same statues as Revelation.

But here is the interesting part ... two fold. Which sets the stage for why Rome can not deal with any other church except through subjugation. One reason of which was/is the focus of my own study.

Q: How did the 'Privilege of Peter' turn into the 'Primacy of Peter'?

A: Peter .. to Roman today .. there are three stages.

The final results of my own study of Matthew 16 ("upon this rock I will build my church") is that this is a prophecy (prediction if you will) that Jesus makes regarding the person of Peter. The rock is understood as to be a foundation of a new church (paralleled to the rock upon which the Temple had been built upon). I totally agree with Meyendorff (the book: The Primacy of Peter) that this prediction/prophecy related to the person of Simon Peter .. and not any 'office' of Peter. That is: Peter himself would be the foundation of the birth of the church ... which event did take place in Jerusalem.

Peter the person - acts first - and boldly - at Pentecost etc... and is in many ways becomes personally responsible for the birth of the Church (the foundation). The first phase of the church is its foundation being laid.

But it is very clear that a second phase of building begins with Paul .. and Peter subsides. While Peter and other apostles remain in Jerusalem (with the mind set that Christianity is really a restoration or clarification of the Jewish cult) ... Paul finds that gentiles are responding and it is Paul who begins build the gentile churches. Eventually the church at Jerusalem is dispersed and the church becomes predominantly - a gentile church. The command "Go and preach to all nations ..." should be understood in a Jewish context which has it to mean 'not just Jews'. In other words tell the gospel not just to Jews alone (the nation of Abraham) but too anyone who will listen (commonly called the 'Greeks' by Paul because Greek was an international language and by it Paul did not mean just Greeks alone).

The first part of ACTS is essentially about Peter ... but the second part of ACTS (the greater part) is entirely Paul being the second phase of building upon the Jewish foundation having already been laid by Peter in Jerusalem. In fact we go so far as to recognize that the Judisicors(sp) which Paul so bitterly complains about ... were set with letters of authority ... from the Jerusalem church ... the home church .. of Peter.

I will certainly not note all details but it is clear that Peter's leadership subsided and was at times .. problematic regarding this second phase of church growth (among the gentiles). I do note that when Peter's life was in danger and he had to flee Jerusalem .. he was offered sanctuary by the Roman community - which was founded by hearers of Paul and had considered Paul as their apostle. Peter was not the first bishop of Rome but the second bishop - and like Christ - was apparently thought to have been a problem as he was betrayed to Roman authorities and killed. A change of leadership through what amounts to assasination.

A correct reading of history regarding the bishops of the line of Peter from that point ... to the event of Western Christendom ... records that Rome (being a large church of wealth and at the heart of the Holy Roman Empire) was sometimes asked to media disputes in other churches. At the same time - Rome was also often rebuked by other churches for butting into their affairs. A prime example would be the African church (Augustine) which declared at Council to send message to the Roman Pope to keep his legates and opinions - to himself - and to stay in Rome and out of African church affairs.

When all historical records are correlated it seems clear that Peter (himself and not his apostolic line) was indeed a proto (the first to act and preach etc..) in his boldness ... but his line ever after his death ... displays an equality among Patriarchates. The Petrine line was both honored (invited) and at times refused (told to mind its own business).

A privilege of honor (similar to the current role of the Ecumenical Patriarch among the Orthodox) seems to have been the Papal role - only when invited. But certainly no universal jurisdiction or judicator of a Roman Patriarch either existed or was tolerated.

Now comes the Orthodox / Latin schism of mutual excommunication.

The result of this non-communication .. is that the Latin church ... is isolated. Both by communication and by geography. There ceases communication between the Eastern churches and Rome. Western Christendom grows and is a world power - however - the world we are talking about is just ... the extent of the old Roman Empire.

The Latin church is in an environment in which she is only concerned with herself. Both the Eastern church and the Latin church (separated not only ecclesiastically but also geographically) both continue to grow but in almost total isolation from each other. As isolated s the two cultures are and continue to be. Planes and the internet had not yet been invented

The Roman Emperor and the Roman Pontiff ... (up to this point) are coregents of the Roman empire. Up to about 1054 ... the Roman Pope is appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor .. and in turn .. the Holy Roman Emperor - is appointed by the Pope. Very reciprocal. Peter (the office) is granted what is called 'Privilege of Peter' ... which grant is solely within the Latin church and within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire.

From what I can tell so far .. Peter's Privilege had to do with the Holy Roman Emperor granting the Pope (Emperor's appointment) ... certain governmental privileges as Patriarch over the offcial religion of the entire Roman empire. I say privileges because these were not automatic and the rights of these privileges did not transfer to the Papacy. These privligages always belonged to the emperor and were lent at his will. This is evidence by the fact that it was most often the emperor who commanded bishops to councils ... which the Pope was obliged to attend.

It must be understood - that in isolation ... the 'known world' and the only 'world' that mattered ... was the West. The extent of the Roman empire (Europe, Italy, etc...). As for any other apostolic churches ... out of sight ... was indeed out of mind. The universal church . .. consisted of only the Latin church.

Proof of this isolationist mindset exists with Western Ecumenical Councils which consisted entirely of Latin bishop ... no invitation and no participation from other churches (Syrian, Oriental, Chaldean, Orthodox, whatever). Ecumenical in name (applying to the entire universal Church) but not in participation. And so the term ecumenical was used to designate its application and not its fact of universal collegiality.

At this time .. comes all the Western religious wars. The break up of the Roman Empire .. the Reformation ... the Enlightenment .. etc.. etc... and decades of blood. And an election of three concurrent Popes (the Roman line, the Avignon line, and the Pisan line) which legitimacy was indeterminable ... compounded by the fact that the King of Germany named himself (as opposed to being appointed by the Pope) as the Holy Roman Emperor. At the age of six I add.

The method of appointing Pontiffs .. had fallen apart .. no longer workable.

All this mess was ended when the Council of Constance declared that ... a council of the bishops has supremacy over Popes ... and deposed one of the current popes ... and elected a fourth Pope - which election was accepted by all - and whoes first Pontifical act was to declared that ... a Pope has supremacy over any council.

So it is clear that we are still dealing with a Privilege of Peter and not a Primacy in as much as it was a primacy of a council - which ended the era and made (retroactive) anti-popes.

Luther (who never intended to do anything more than debate reform to the Catholic church) nails what he proposed to debate - to the church door (as was the custom)... and that whole thing begins.

Much blood is spilled etc.. etc.. particularly bad wars in France and Gernany, England, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden .. on and on and on.

In response to the rebellions against the Pope and the Church - the Latin church launches a counter-reformation in the form of the Council of Trent. And THIS is when the Privilege of Peter is transformed into Papal Primacy. A primacy declared over all the Christian churches and divisions ... but the defacto purpose is over all Chritinaity within the territory of what had been the Holy Roman Empire.

Thus began the next round of Catholic/Protestant wars where Rome (aligned with certain kings) sought to re-assert the empirical privileges (now become a Primacy) .... the Primacy of Peter ... re-asserted in all religious matters.

And so the Primacy of Peter .. grown out of the Privilege of Peter ... became a universal Primacy of the Latin Pope over all Christianity ... as now existed (fragmented and divided) within the West.

But no matter how much Rome wanted or expected the clock to be turned back - religious plurality had come to what was no longer one holy Roman empire.

Now sick of religious wars - secularism came to be. If religions could not agree and caused so much blood - religion needed to get out of governing.

No thought was given to (Primacy of Peter) its true universal consequence involving collegiality with other original apostolic churches (Orthodox, Syrian, Oriental, etc..). Out of site out of mind. Rome was simply saving herself.

In retrospect ... a contributing cause to Rome's having to go it alone ... was the East/West excommunications. There was no body there !!! no other apostolic bishop to confer with the Roman bishop and keep the reality of other apostolic churches in their minds.

Rome was alone .. and had to act alone as true ecumenical communications were cut off. There was no need and no call to work out ways to deal with other churches on a brotherly bases. However there was need (of survival) to establish a primacy over all Christianity within the territory that was the old Holy Roman Empire. West. Spain, England, France etc... the bishops were all acting independently and Christianity itself was fragmentation into Protestants (who thought of themselves as a reformed Catholic church) and extremist Protestants (who thought of themselves as reformed Christianity and not part of the Catholic church).

Trent (absolutism) began a round of absolutism... across the board. Positions which one can not retreat from.

Again, this is a rough outline and all details might not be entirely accurate. Heck .. this is only an internet forum.

With the solidification of the idea of the Primacy of Peter over all Christianity ... it is easy to now look back to scriptures and see certain sections as metaphorical ... ignoring (or changing) the tense of the Greek and ignoring the fact that all the apostles received the same keys and they were not exclusive to one apostle alone. A simple and straight forward reading of Matthew 16 has it that Jesus is telling Simon that he (Chephas the rock) that he (personally) would (at some time in the future) would be the foundation (first stone laid) of the new church. Nothing further than what was said .. should be assumed.

Can Rome reform Papal Primacy? No dogma can be re-formed. But on the other had there is a history of dogmas being ... re-formed.

Trent and Vatican II - do not say or mean the exact same thing. With Trent there is no religious freedom one is either Roman Catholic or one is not-saved. With Vatican II there is now a recognition of existing plurality of religion and a God given right to freedom of religion.

In Trent ... Christ is only at work within the Roman Catholic church - and with Vatican II Jesus is also at work (saving souls) in other churches. A reform (err.. 'further understanding') that also resulted in several fundamentalist (traditionalist) splits in the Catholic church. Dogmas are forever - untill the next time they are adjusted.

Such reformations of dogma only became a problem when scholastic dogmas (arrived at by reasoning) were made absolute and infallible and raised to the same level as Revelation (which in reality is a limited number of items not arrived at through human reasoning).

Historically - when one refroms what one has pronounced as not-reformable ... it is best to wait one or two generations between. Meemory is a problem (everyone has one) but research and study into the past which one had not not known first hand ... is something very few do.

http://www.teach12.com/store/course...-%20Ancient%20and%20Medieval&fMode=s


Peace to all Chritians
-ray

Trent said dogmatically that Christ is only at work in the Catholic Church, and this says something at odds with Vatican II dogmatic teaching? That's all news to me.

Ray, if you believe everything you've written, why are you still Catholic?

Alexis

Alexis:

I think we miss the nuance here. Vatican II did not repeal anything posed by Trent. Vatican II expanded our understanding of what constitutes the Catholic Church in a way similar to the way the Orthodox Church sees itself. We know where the visible Church is--the Council said that the Catholic Church subsistit in the Catholic Church visibly in communion with the Roman Pontiff. What the Council also said was that there are various ways of being related to the Catholic Church that are not entirely as clear cut: the Orthodox Churches, for example, are termed as sister Churches that have everything that we have except that they are not in communion with us in visible sacramental form--though I believe that mystically we are already so at a level that we can only dimly see, but that is my own theologumen. The people of the Reformation ecclesial communities are also related to the Catholic Church by virtue of Baptism, since Baptism is a function of the Church and can be administered in emergency by any baptised Christian.

So, by extension, Christ is at work by the Holy Spirit wherever there are communities of the baptized. Beyond that, we have expanded the vision to include the idea that the Holy Spirit blows where He wills and is active with those open to His inspiration wherever they may be. Remember, too, that Trent was a Council that was called to deal with the danger of the Church being totally destroyed by new religious and national trends. It came to be to reform the Church internally and to "man the ramparts" for the attacks from without.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Without getting into what the Council meant by "subsistit in" (it was recently clarified, and I posted on it), and the fact that the Council also in more than one circumstance said "the Catholic Church *IS* the Church of Christ" - without any "subsistit"), my point was more or less your own. I.e. that Vatican II didn't contradict Trent, in fact that it cannot. But Ray seems to be saying it actually did.

In other words, I'm getting "the nuance," as you say; it didn't seem clear to me that Ray did, though I may be mistaken.

Alexis

Rome has and does in fact "deal with other churches except as subordinates" through a proper understanding of the term sister churches, link [vatican.va] , e.g.,



Also, I find that the most authoritative pronouncements on Trent are frequently made by those who have never actually read what Trent says. A lot is said about Trent's ecclesiology when in fact Trent had hardly anything to say explicitly on ecclesiology. Follow the logic ...

However little one thinks of internet forums, they should not be made a source of misinformation.

Dn. Anthony

I think these two statements are too unnuanced.

Clearly there is innovation, the most obvious being the jump in the creeds from strictly biblical language to philosophical language, e.g. "hypostasis". Also each age and time has to face new circumstances.

To limit the Church as the icon of the Trinity to only multiplicity and unity is too narrow as St. Maximus in his Mystagogia beautifully shows.