www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

Just to add about Fr. Hryniewicz. According to news reports:


So, I guess he knows a bit about the subject.

I have no chip on my shoulder, I just reject the late medieval Latin viewpoint.

By the way, the Church of Cyprus became autocephalous in the 5th century, not the 21st century, which is why autocephaly is not contrary to the patristic understanding of the Church, but the universalism of the West that sees the Catholic Church as existing over and above the local Churches most certainly is not patristic.

The definition of autocephaly, has, however, been turned on its head. The autocephaly of Cyprus meant that its Archbishop answered directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople, without the intermediate level of a Metropolitan Synod. Today, autocephaly means a completely independent, self-governing Church answering to no one but itself. The notion of independent national Churches was strongly resisted in the patristic period. The Bulgarian patriarchate, for instance, was established mainly through coercion resulting from the Byzantine Empire's poor military situation: a Patriarchate was the price of peace with the Bulgarians. As soon as the military situation reversed itself, the Bulgarian Church was reduced to a metropolitan province of the Church of Constantinople.

Much has been made of the use of the term "ethnarch" in patristic canons, falsely interpreting this to mean the leader of a people or ethnic group. However, the term means "leader of the people", and always refers to a particular territory, which was usually rather cosmopolitan.

There can be no denying the current Orthodox understanding of autocephaly is uncanonical and in serious need of revision, and trying to make connections between the patristic definition of autocephaly and its modern incarnation leads down a false trail.

And it seems that he only cares to know a bit or to be so selective in his presentation that he only tells the part of the story that he wants heard. Even a cursory scanning of Magnus Dominus exhibits the Pope addressing a Metropolitan and the bishops of specific Sees and the clergy and the people of the Ruthenian "nation." On the most essential and theological basis of the faith, that of the sacraments/mysteries, the union took place. No "re" ordinations, chrismations or baptisms. Contrast that with even current practices by Orthodox churches and what those practices demonstrate about ecclesiology and Christian identity.

The Church of Cyprus, as I understand it, gained its independence from the Antiochian Patriarchate in 431. It had nothing to do with Constantinople per se. Autocephaly is perfectly orthodox and patristic, while the Western ecclesiology of the Scholastics is not.

I was not saying that Fr. Hryniewicz is above criticism. For example, I would disagree with his statement that the 1997 Letter from Rome on the Zoghby Initiative that it was "conditionally approved" (page 259).

I would agree with your statement that "no 're' ordinations, chrismations or baptisms" took place with the Union of Brest. However, that is often the case with corporate reunions on both sides.

Fr. Hryniewicz's comments on Magnus Dominus relates to the concept of "Sister Churches" and is not discussing validity of baptism or chrismation:


For those who can read Latin, is his description from Magnus Dominus accurate?

As to Baptism, he documents the trend in some places of conditionally re-baptizing Orthodox when they entered Catholic communion. However, re-baptizing itself was not allowed.

As to current Orthodox practices: They vary widely. One Orthodox jurisdiction receives Eastern Catholics by Confession (I don't know how they receive Latin Rite Catholics). Most Orthodox jurisdictions require Chrismation while a few require Baptism also. However, many Orthodox jurisdictions receive Catholic clergy simply by vesting with no re-ordination. I would agree that this is a problem needing to be resolved inside Orthodoxy. How a corporate reunion would be handled, however, is likely to be decided at the time and could well be different than the above.

Correction:


I meant to say:

he documents the trend in some places of conditionally baptizing Orthodox

It's not exactly light reading, but you might find an article which highlights a debate on this issue by Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Ratzinger, helpful and enlightening about contemporary western Catholic views. http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/63/63.2/63.2.1.pdf

There are two different ecclesiologies here. One (in the imagery of the "branch theory") is that in place of the one tree planted by Christ there are now several or at least two with none able to claim full congruence with the one original. Ratzinger, and current Catholic ecclesiology see the same several trees but ONE still retains the congruence, and that ONE is of course, the Catholic Church. One of the much discussed and debated nuances introduced by VCII was to say that this unique ONE Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church rather than to simply say “is.”

link [en.wikipedia.org]

Some have made a big deal out of this presenting the wrong conclusion – and it is a big and important deal but must be properly understood. Using the several trees analogy, the use of “is” functions in an exclusionary way identifying only the ONE tree. By saying “subsists in” the same identification and congruence is meant except that it acknowledges the presence and existence of the other trees (churches) though unfortunately separated from the ONE tree ( link: Q3 [vatican.va]). Hence, they “suffer from defects,” (link: Q3 [vatican.va]) that is, the lack of unity with the ONE (at the least). This is, according to Ratzinger as I understand him and Catholic ecclesiology, the correct interpretation. The incorrect conclusion, based in part on an incorrect interpretation of “subsists in” and what is meant by the term particular church, understandably leads to:
But this applies the term “particular church” in an uneven way as explained in the clarification about the use of the term “sister churches” ( link [vatican.va] ) Part of the confusion is caused by the number of ways the terms church and particular church are used. As I’ve said before, the terms can be used in what I’d call a canonical sense, arising properly from important and venerable and legitimate decisions, going to church order, that are not essential and intrinsic. These include the patriarchal, the metropolitan, the autocephalous, the sui iuris etc. sense of church. There are (I propose) only three intrinsic senses, by divine not human origin, of church:


(1) the one body of Christ - ekklesia as koinonia (communion)
(2) as gathered around the (monarchal) bishop - ekklesia as ekklesia apostolikē
(3) in the Eucharistic gathering - ekklesia as sunaxia (the snyaxis)

The term particular church applies intrinsically to ONLY (2) -- they are all catholic churches. By extension the term particular church can also be applied in a derivative sense to the grouping, the communion-in-part of several of those particular churches as, for instance, a partriarchal or a metropolitan (particular) church. All the churches of (2), basically diocese or eparchies, are “sister” churches, including the church of Rome. By extension the various groupings are also referred to at times as "sister churches."

There is, however, ONLY ONE CHURCH in the sense of (1). According to Catholic ecclesiology, that (sense of ) church is NOT the sister church of any other particular church, including the particular church of Rome, or communion or union of churches, for instance, the Orthodox church. Also, according to Catholic ecclesiology (and as explicitly noted by Ratzinger in his subsequent comments), the ONLY ONE CHURCH in the sense of (1) is not intrinsically fragmented and is identified by being that communion/koinonia that includes, as a sine qua non, the particular church of Rome. I maintain that this sense is sometimes termed the Roman Catholic Church, but it refers to the communion(1) of particular churches (2) one of which is the particular church of Rome (2) and NOT the assimilation of the other particular churches into the particular church of Rome.

The true, proper and full – the catholic/katholikē – Church as (1) exists, uniquely, even though particular churches, catholic churches, are not in the communion that is (1). There is the often encountered calculus of ecclesiology that states 1+1+1+... =1. This is so but, as I have differentiated by the numbering above, the left-hand-side are the (2)’s and the right-hand-side is the (1).


Again, Ratzinger disagrees, explicitly and expectedly given the explanation I’ve tried to outline.

Rome as (2) is well aware of and alert to her status as a particular church and has said so clearly. Others are not and draw incorrect conclusions. [I also believe that the church of Rome’s and its bishop’s role in (1) must go beyond the sense of protos and primacy to properly reflect its character. It must in some way be intrinsic and inherent to really be effective and have significance. It is, therefore, not by consensus of the churches (2) but if not actually ontological in nature then at least resulting from a unique selection and election by Christ.]


I believe so. Rome already accepts in principle and even de facto in practice the sacramental life of ALL the particular churches (2), and therefore, what we speak of as the Orthodox church. It is Orthodoxy that finds it is not able to reciprocate.


I have tried to explain the Catholic position. Unfortunately, there are misinterpretations of what Ratzinger originally said that nullify his intent and seek a syncratist approach that, as is its nature, dilutes the truth to point where both Catholic and Orthodox rightly object to the contradiction of a dismembered one body of Christ that we creatures are somehow going to reconstruct.

Thanks for this very interesting and challenging reference.

The mode of reception into the Catholic Church of a corporate reunion corresponds to the determined ecclesiological status of those received. The praxis is the demonstration of the theory. Unlike the application of economia, it says something and is unequivocal in that regard.

And he capitalizes on the papal rhetoric of the time -- and I suspect the rhetoric of the time was triumphalistic for both East and West. But he can better manipulate the theory to make his case -- as though the concept of sister churches was already developed and common -- but the actual praxis speaks loud and clear. No wonder then that he doesn't consider the implications of the praxis.

The translations are basically accurate but there are nuances and these and his summaries and interpretations would have to be evaluated on the basis of a complete translation and the full context of the quoted passages.

This seems true to his methodology: He documents the splinter but ignores the beam.

Too true. In the actual celebration of the mysteries, lived theology as doxology, a divergence of praxis that makes me ask, what then is the meaning of heterodox?

Deacon Tony, the point he is making is that the concept of sister churches was not developed and common. That's all.

That's all I intended by citing him.


I await these further responses to the translation by others.

I think your accusation of "manipulation" by him with regards to Magnus Dominus is a bit premature if a further analysis of the text shows his interpretation is correct

Dave, he spins objectivity and balance to oblivion. I would repeat here my previously mentioned critique in the 2009 thread The Nature of Dogma. Also, for instance, it seems to me he presents the term and concept "sister church" as an established and accepted term that the heavy, Rome, is now explicitly denying (section headers [crvp.org])
and Where does he get this "ROMANAM" version from in that it is used as the title of one of his sections, as though in general (not private) use, a common dictum?

To clarify, I said that "he can better manipulate the theory to make his case...", that is, a 20th c theory, an expression of ecclesiology and soteriology that commonly uses the term "sister churches," and applies it retroactively to analyze a 16th c formal, papal document:

Thank you for the link, but I have read the article before, and so I am familiar with the issues involved. In fact, I read about the Kasper / Ratzinger exchange before the article you referenced was even published (See Ratzinger's response to Kasper "The Local Church and the Universal Church: A Response to Walter Kasper" pubished in America magazine), but - and I doubt that this will come as a great shock - I do not accept Ratzinger's views on the nature of the "universal" (it is better to use "Catholic" - according to the whole) Church.

There is no "universal" Church over and above the local Churches, because each and every one of the local Churches is the whole Catholic Church. To put it another way, the multiplicity of local Churches is an icon of the triplicity of God, and just as it is utter nonsense to say that divinity exists over and above the three persons of the Holy Trinity, so also it is foolish to say that the Catholic Church exists over and above the many local Churches.

Thus to reiterate my position: the whole Church is made manifest in each of the local Churches, and so the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is fully and completely present (lacking in nothing) wherever the Eucharist is celebrated under the presidency of a bishop in apostolic succession and the orthodox faith is professed.

P.S. - I also read Communionis Notio in the 1990s, and although the document has some good insights, I do not agree with it when it talks about the Eastern Orthodox Churches being "wounded."

Catholic is theologically richer and to be preferred.

While a catholic church is "full" and may lack nothing, it is the nature of that which is catholic to be in communion. Inherently there is only the one church, the many who are one, as there is only one body of Christ, one Spouse. As the Munich Statement [vatican.va] of 1982 says so clearly:[emphasis added]