|
1 members (Fr. Al),
343
guests, and
69
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,461
Posts417,217
Members6,102
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
I did a search and haven't found a discussion on this recent book (2008). I just became aware of this book yesterday:
His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent A. Cleenewerck. Published by Lulu [ lulu.com]. Large portions of it can be read at Google Books [ books.google.com]. Fr Laurent is an OCA priest and based what I could read at Google Books has written, I believe, a very intriguing book. I ordered a copy and expect to get it soon. Have others here read it? Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
I received my copy of the book today. It contains a letter of appreciation from Patriarch Bartholomew and the back cover has a note from Cardinal Kaspar. It's a thick tome, covering many angles of the subject: history, ecclesiology and theology.
I think anytime I visit this subject in the future I'll have to refer to this volume to see what it says on the subject. I think most members of this Forum would enjoy reading the book, regardless of their personal views on the subject. It will challenge people on both sides of the fence. The text is available in a PDF format from the Lulu site at a reduced price.
If others have or do read this in the future, I'd be interested in the varying perspectives on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
I am not so sure of Fr. Laurent's thesis, but, unlike many ecumenists, he is able to present an honest picture of how Orthodox (not just some Orthodox) view the Catholic Church- as a heresy. Likewise, he says on P. 124, referring to the definition of Papal Infallibility: "It is therefore preferable and more honest to present things as they really are: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
This, of course, comes in the section of the book dealing with Vatican I. There are many Catholics who believe (and many Orthodox who hope) that Vatican I is not the final statement on this from the Catholic perspective. How this could all be harmonized is another question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
None of the subsequent presentations of Papal infallibility have altered the definition or lifted the anathema from those who reject it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28 |
None of the subsequent presentations of Papal infallibility have altered the definition or lifted the anathema from those who reject it. That is incorrect. There are several sources that can be referenced, but the Catholicism Catechism is handy: Catholic Catechism
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054. The Catholic Church has understood this since as the lifting of all anathemas against Orthodoxy (whether all of Orthodoxy accepts this or reciprocates does not affect the Catholic understanding). This lifting of anathemas did not restore communion but did open dialogue, and that dialogue led to what is in the Catholic Catechism. Yes, there are outstanding issues keeping the one Church divided. But there are also a lot of issues where the disagreement was not real, but merely a disagreement in either language or understanding. As a further example from this past year, look at where Pope Benedict XVI recently lifted the anathema against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). He did so purposely. The focus is not on stating who is outside the Church as the Catholic Church has restated its ecclesiology in a more inclusive way. The focus is now on healing. I am not sure why Embatl'dSeraphim is purposely continuing to misrepresent Catholic Teaching? Can he not present the sweetness of Orthodoxy without misrepresenting what Catholics believe?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335 Likes: 1 |
Adminstrator John,
I agree with your words regarding Embatl'd Seraphim. Often I have thought of posting a response to one of his postings as I thought it was mis-representative, combative or insulting. This is, after all, the Byzantine Catholic forum where we "discuss the Christian East." It is not the place for Orthodox to attack or disparage Catholics nor is it the place for Catholics to do the reverse. It is a discussion forum, and charity is required. Nothing less should be tolerated.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,370 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,370 Likes: 31 |
I am not so sure of Fr. Laurent's thesis, but, unlike many ecumenists, he is able to present an honest picture of how Orthodox (not just some Orthodox) view the Catholic Church- as a heresy. If any of those "ecumenists" are Orthodox then the statement is self-contradictory. Is it really that this is one thing about which all Orthodox agree? That would be an odd and ironical principle of unity. I would phrase that principle this way (based on many posts on this forum): They don't really know what Catholics believe, but they know it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
That is incorrect.
There are several sources that can be referenced, but the Catholicism Catechism is handy:
Quote:
Catholic Catechism
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054. The Catholic Church has understood this since as the lifting of all anathemas against Orthodoxy (whether all of Orthodoxy accepts this or reciprocates does not affect the Catholic understanding). This lifting of anathemas did not restore communion but did open dialogue, and that dialogue led to what is in the Catholic Catechism. Yes, there are outstanding issues keeping the one Church divided. But there are also a lot of issues where the disagreement was not real, but merely a disagreement in either language or understanding. Thanks to the Administrator for the quote from the CCC. I can understand how Orthodox can be perplexed by this, however. On the one hand, we say we have a 'profound communion' and that there is little lacking to prevent shared communion. We even print statements that we would not object if Orthodox received Communion in our parishes. On the other hand, the anathema of Vatican I has never been officially abrogated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,750 Likes: 28 |
I can understand how Orthodox can be perplexed by this, however. On the one hand, we say we have a 'profound communion' and that there is little lacking to prevent shared communion. We even print statements that we would not object if Orthodox received Communion in our parishes. On the other hand, the anathema of Vatican I has never been officially abrogated. Again, the Catholic Church considers this to have been accomplished in 1965: Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare [ vatican.va] that: A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period. B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion. C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion. Study what has happened in Orthodox / Catholic relations (the fruit of the dialogue). Study the teachings of Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and etc. The Vatican I anathemas were not specifically directed towards the Orthodox, anyway. All anathemas against the Orthodox have already been committed to "oblivion". I see it as being very legalistic to expect the Church to hold a formal ceremony and read off a list when it has given a far greater gesture in 1965.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
The 1965 lifting of excommunications dealt with the 1054 AD event. The Vatican site explains: The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054. True, Vatican I doesn't mention Orthodox specifically. Still, the dogmatic force of Vatican I remains recognized in official documents. I agree that more modern Catholic documents show a different mentality, one which I have embraced. All I'm saying is there's a difference between Vatican I and the more recent documents. I think this disconnect has to be addressed in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. Vatican I will have to be expressly nuanced before most Orthodox will be comfortable with any sort of reunion, I believe.
Last edited by DTBrown; 09/19/09 04:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
The "lifting of the anathemas" referred to the anathemas particularly arising from the East-West schism. It had no effect on the Vatican I anathema which is still in place. The anathema is not aimed particularly at the Orthodox, as you say, so I don't see why the 1965 gesture applies. It is aimed at anyone who has the temerity to reject the dogma. We Orthodox certainly do have that temerity (as do a few Eastern Catholics, apparently), therefore the anathema still applies. It is nonsensical to "lift" anathemas when the underlying causes of the anathemas persist.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church has not simply re-stated its ecclesiology; it has completely revised it.
Those who accuse me here of "mis-representing" Catholic thought have yet to provide a corrective, beyond vague references and out-of-context quotes, and they have yet to account for the fact that many Catholics, including some on this forum, including [i]Eastern[/i] Catholics, believe that Vatican I is a binding ecumenical council and that all Catholics are obliged to assent to Papal infallibility, [i]however[/i] one may choose to interpret that dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,370 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,370 Likes: 31 |
"... The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema." Is this accurate or just meant to be inflammatory? Even a conservative, pre-VC II, old style approach has this to say about the "Eastern Schism": There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. [ newadvent.org] "It is not a heresy, but a schism."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Even a conservative, pre-VC II, old style approach has this to say about the "Eastern Schism": There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. [ newadvent.org] Dear Father Deacon, This quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia is so patronising and quite offensive to the Orthodox! Without even bothering to look it up I would guarantee it is from Adrian Fortescue whose disdain for Orthodoxy shines through all his contributions to the Encyclopedia. One of the really awful examples is his article on Hesychasm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Quite note, not wanting to take the thread off topic...
Fr George Maloney has written a lot on hesychasm, and I think that his writings have had an effect on Roman Catholic acceptance of the theology underpinning hesychasm and he is a corrective to Adrian Fortescue. Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries and presents an excellent understanding of Orthodox theology.
"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209
"Theology of Uncreated Energies of God"
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165
|
|
|
|
|
