www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites at Vatican I

Danman,

I find it a bit distressing that you made no attempt whatsoever to address the affirmations made in my last post, choosing instead to address only the fact that I had contradicted your previous post, then going on to reiterate what you had already stated.

Let me therefore state once again--IT IS THE POPES THEMSELVES WHO ARE SAYING THIS. The popes themselves are affirming:

• first, that it is God's will for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be reunited
• second, that this reunion will in no wise involve the Orthodox converting to Catholicism

(How this can be reconciled with V2's reiterations of V1, I really have no idea, but I can say that very few RCs are calling for JP2 to be declared a heretic.)

Therefore, I invite you to address these affirmations however you may wish, but PLEASE do not continue to imply that we are in disobedience to Rome if we continue to do exactly what Rome has been telling us to do!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Papacy of necessity is more like a constitutional monarchy, in which the power of the Pope, theoretically unlimited, is hedged about by long-standing customs and conventions. Even at the height of papal absolutism under Boniface VIII, the Pope could act only through the support of the bishops. The true role of the Papacy is thus mediating within a consensus. A Pope who tries to govern without the bishops will soon find himself ignored.

Deacon Richard,


I can happily agree with both affirmations, but as you said, it comes down to how one interprets what is said.
I believe that it is God's will for both the Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches to be united. I also believe that Orthodox do not need to convert to Catholicism.

But what do those words mean? Does this then imply that both Churches keep their own respective ecclesiologies without modification to either one's understanding of how one is to be reconciled with the other? I don't see how this can be.


I think that the fear has always been that if the East recognizes the primacy of Rome, that it will spell the end of Orthodoxy and will only erode the Eastern traditions.
Unfortunately, Rome has often stepped beyond what it should do (notice I did not say, what it can do). SO the East has some history to back it's concerns here.

There is little trust, and the Western Church has a long way to go to build that trust (because Rome has often acted only in its own interests in the past, unfortunately). I think that one way for teh West to address this is for Rome to recognize that its primacy is to be used in the affairs of the East in only extraordinary ways that are extremely extremely rare only as a last resort when the very unity of the entire Church is at stake.

The problem as I see it is that the Eastern Churches desire to be too independent from one another and the Western Church desires to have central control over everything (this is only my take on it).
But neither side seems to think that there is no problem with their structure and everything wrong with the other Church.
It seems to be the position of Rome that Orthodxy isn't embracing the fullness of its own orthodox faith and traditions of the entire Church until it recognizes the visible sign of unity in the Bishop of Rome. Since Sacred Tradition is ordered toward catholicity (fullness of the whole, not just a part) what is believed and accepted in that Sacred Tradition is ordered toward the whole.

Now, I do not mean to imply the disobedience of Eastern Catholics. I apologize if I came off that way. I only mean to communicate that I see no way to reconcile an Eastern and Western ecclesiology without some kind of recognition of the East of the primacy of Rome and its subsequent development as well as the west developing a hands-off attitude in the East's personal affairs.

It becomes difficult to reconcile that the decrees of Vatican I are specifically meant to be universally binding on the entire Church and an explanation that it only applies to the west.
All I am saying, is that I just don'tudnerstand how to reconcile these. That others can only shows my limitations, so I am trying to sort it out.

Danman,

Thanks--that makes me feel better!


The good news here is that Rome has already made statements suggesting that the ecumenical status of the post-schism Western councils could be questioned--if this position is ever formally adopted, it will handle a lot of these issues.

FWIW, a lot of the Western emphasis on papal authority was in reaction to the Conciliarist heresy, which essentially said, "hey, Pope, your authority is not supreme because it is less than that of an ecumenical council; therefore, we can act as if you had no authority over us!" All this derives from a confusion between earthly authority, which is based on coercion, and heavenly authority, which is based on charity. If we can get this straight, we'll see a lot less fighting and a lot more souls being saved!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

Could you provide a link to these statements that you mention. I have heard this same thing but have never been able to find anything to back this up.

Thanks,
Scott

Yes, I would enjoy seeing these too. Thanks

Ravenna Statement, Paras 35-39, for starters.

Well, the Ravenna statement clearly describes the issue in paragraph 45.


What it does not say, though, is what is to be considered legitimate doctrinal development in the second millenium. I think that that subject is too much of a hot-button issue to be addressed at this time. There is no doubt that the universal primacy described in Vatican I and Vatican II is a development of doctrine. I realize that some think that the word development is a "4-letter word", but it is a legitimate understanding of ecclesiology in the West.

That's to be negotiated, but having moved to the Orthodox position that reception is the vital criterion for ecumenicity, undoubtedly there will be "clarifications" on Pastor aeternus that will have the effect of rendering both infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction effectively null--probably by establishing conditions under which they can be employed that could never be met in reality. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in Introduction to Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1985), [as regards to the primacy], the Catholic Church can demand no more of the Orthodox Church than was accepted and lived by the Church of the first millennium, before the separation".

The key issue is whether the Orthodox want unity more than they want to humiliate the Catholic Church. That is, can they be good winners, or will they want to rub it in?

Which begs the question, how does one define the parameters of reception? When two Churches develop along two different ecclesiologies and both of them operate under their own particular way of expressing the faith, how is this worked out in a practical way?


undoubtedly there will be "clarifications" on Pastor aeternus that will have the But the very definition in Pastor Aeternus is defined as being irreformable. It says:


I simply don't see how one can get around this and deem it null, when it seems to indicate that it is irreformable and defined as a dogmatic matter to be held by the entire Church (as opposed to any particular Church).



It would be nice to see how Pope Benedict would reconcile his statement above, as a Cardinal, with the quote I referenced from pastor Aeternus. Frankly, I just don't see how there can be any wiggle room.

And there's the rub, IMO. If any one side says to the other, "you've got to proclaim that you were wrong, and we'll let you into our communion", then unity is never going to happen.

There's going to have to be a lot of nuancing on both sides in order to reunite. Rome is going to have to say they have the primacy that does extend to the entire Church in theory, but really never in praxis, and the East is going to have to recognize the Bishop as having a real primacy. Both sides will have to find a way to respect the ecclesiology of the other, recognizing that a tension exists, but also realizing that the Greek and Latin expression of the faith does not constitute the totality of the way to express that faith.

In lay-men's terms, both sides will have to "give a little" in good faith, IMHO. But old suspicions are very hard to break.

I think that charity would include both a universal primacy as well as collegiality (the term used at the Vatican II council) in which both the college of Bishops recognize the need for the Pope's role as well as the Pope's recoginition that he truly cannot act unilaterally, but that his role in the primacy is only meant to be excercised in conjunction with the other Bishops together.

Dear brother Dan,

I don't agree at all that the idea of universal primacy is a development. It was our Lord Himself who stated that He would set one servant over His household to watch over it in His absence and that this office would exist when He returns (Matthew 24). St. John Chrysostom himself used these very same Matthean passages in reference to the papacy.

On the other hand, I would agree that the idea of papal infallibility is a development of doctrine - however, not insofar as the fact of it, but rather its specifics.

Blessings

Notice carefully the phrase:


Theologians might do well to try to develop an understanding of this. Clearly, the infallibility in question is that of the Church.

Fr. Serge

The key question is whether the infallibility of the Church can or should be personified in a single man.

I am really enjoying this discussion. It's helping to clarify several questions that I have had since I seriously started studying Eastern thought and theology. (I still have so much to learn.)

However, not to send this off in a different direction (and if this really deserves its own thread, please let me know), I was wondering what practical implications this has for the Melkite Church. If our Patriarch, and the entire Synod of Bishops with him, only accepts the dogma with the added understanding of the Council of Florence, is that the official position of the Melkite Church to this day? Does that mean that we Melkites are in union with the Pope of Rome and accept the dogmas of Vatican I but only as they would have been understood in the first millenium?

This is really where my understanding is headed and has been headed since I made the choice to become Melkite. I have heard several people say and read several posts on this forum and other places stating that this understanding is not truly Catholic . I don't have intentions to leave the Church, but at the same time, several people seem to say that if you hold for this position, you are not really part of the Church.

I hope that makes sense, and I look forward to reading your responses.