www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hi, I'm Orthodox, and I believe in the IC.

Nevertheless I think that the path to our much hoped for unity which the 1895 Encyclical mentions is still the bottom line position of the Orthodox Churches... "it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere..."

This is not a request for administrative submission.... after all, to whom would the Church of Rome be subject - to Jerusalem, to Moscow, to Antioch...? Of course not. But it is a statement that we will never find unity except we hold the identical faith which once united us. "Nec Plus, Nec Minus, Nec Aliter."

This is an Orthodox conceit--that they have, quite literally, "added nothing, deleted nothing and changed nothing". Such immobilism is easily disproved, and would, in any case, be evidence that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Orthodox Church, transferring it from life in the Tradition to death in traditionalism. But history demonstrates--and Orthodox historians with even a shred of intellectual honesty have conceded--that the Orthodox Church has seen the "development of doctrine" every bit as much as the Latin Church, albeit in different directions and by different means. You yourself are evidence of this (witness our discussions of the theology of marriage, in which you explicitly repudiated the Tradition handed down by the Fathers because it does not fit your conception of the pastoral requirements of the present day).

So, the 1895 statement takes us nowhere, and is effectively limited to what Father Kimel stated. Had the Latin Church not "dogmatized" the immaculate conception (and how can it be dogma, if we Eastern Catholics are not obligated to profess and teach it?) then the Orthodox Church would have been perfectly happy to allow the Latins to think what they wished about the conception of the Theotokos. But it is one thing to have an opinion on something about which the Church has not spoken definitively, and quite another to teach it as something received from the Apostles without the assent of all the other Churches. Therein lies the rub.

I think you'll find that the Orthodox won't budge. They are not much interested in new theological constructs and compromises which will open a way to creating some kind of unity. They are quite genuine when they ask for a return to the undivided faith.

Many believe that the next meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church set down for September this year will be a watershed. The bishops of the Churches have, just prior to Cyprus, announced that they will take control of these meetings and the Declarations which they draft. No longer will they be content to leave them in the hands of small groups of enthusiasts. This is a very promising development. It augers well for the commencement of a really genuine dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.

The odd thing is, if you are correct, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was NOT intended by the Pope to apply to the entire Church then it is NOT an exercise in papal infallibility. Infallibility requires the intention of the Pope to teach the entire Church.

Ler us search the Apostolic Constitution and see if the Roman Catholic Church of the Eastern Rites (as they were called in those days) were exempted by the Pope.

Strong words.

Except that their conception of the undivided faith is not that of the Latin Church, nor, for that matter, is it that of the Fathers. The fundamental problem that keeps the Churches separated is the inability or unwillingness of each side to examine, objectively and without preconceptions, just what the undivided Church believed--areas in which unanimity was both required and obtained, and areas in which diversity of opinion was permitted, and areas in which no agreement was reached.

For those who believe that the Church of the first millennium knew true unity are sadly mistaken. Such unity was never obtained or known by the Church of the first millennium--but it did bear witness to such unity, by its willingness to approach disagreements in charity.

Presumptuous, too.

Only when Father Ambrose needs him.

Isn't that a snide remark? :-(

The letter was from the Synod of the Church of Constantinople of 1895.

You are saying it is presumptuous of the Pope to speak to the entire Church and declare dogma?! Never thought I'd hear that from a Catholic!

You'll have to argue that out with a far greater theologian, Pope Benedict. He has declared that (apart from the Papacy) the Orthodox have preserved the entirety of the Faith pure and unadulterated.

But he also includes all the Oriental Churches in that statement - how does Eastern Orthodoxy view her Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters?

i'll be interested to see if anyone touches that one since we all know what the answer is.

Which speaks only for Constantinople as patriarchate, and those who voted on it. Which Churches were part of this council?

Oh and Orthodoxwiki says only certain synodal documents are symbolic books, and 1895 isn't one of them.

Is the theological statement of the Pope untrue? Is he unable to correctly assess the faith of the Orthodox?

I would give the Pope more credit than that. Benedict XVI is a top mark theologian.