www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

Brethren,

I've been reading through the thread entitled "Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog," and I have to admit there were some things written there that I found disturbing.

Let me start by saying that I think the concept of ecumenical dialogue is fundamental to this forum, and that it would be helpful if we all would remember that all true ecumenical dialogue is predicated on the distinction between faith and the words by which that faith is expressed--it is the words that need to be discussed and clarified, as we read here in Article 11 of Unitatis Redintegratio:
As you can see, this article highlights the vital distinction between true ecumenism and religious indifferentism.

It seems to me that no matter how precisely we have sought to express the truth of the Gospel by dogmatic statements, we still "see in a mirror, dimly" (c.f. 1Cor. 13:12), and there is always the possibility of explaining the Faith "more profoundly and precisely."

Furthermore, I submit that when we speak of "the Faith," we are not speaking merely of a collection of affirmations about God, or even our assent to those affirmations, but the opening of our hearts to God himself--made possible by ("actual") grace--and our subsequent sharing in the divine life (a.k.a. "sanctifying grace").

This is why I have a problem with anyone referring to Catholicism and Orthodoxy as "different faiths," or of their beliefs as being somehow opposed to one another. To all who would state such things, I would ask with St. Paul: "Is Christ divided?" and affirm with him: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all." (Eph. 4:4-6)

Sorry to sound so preachy, but this is something very close to my heart. Real ecumenical dialogue, I believe, involves the sharing of perspectives in such a way as to enable all parties to see more clearly the divine truth that lies beyond the words.

Is the authority of the Pope a matter of faith or mere opinion?

When Our Lord told the Canaanite woman, "Woman, great is your faith!", was He concerned about what she thought about the authority of the Pope?

Nope. So the authority of the Pope is not a matter of faith.

Is the Incarnation, i.e., fact that Christ is one divine person in two natures, a matter of faith?

I would say it's a matter of fact. The faith of a reunited Church just might help us determine just how far it should go; but you seem so convinced that the Latin church is on life support and hardly worth the effort that it's hard to get beyond your revulsion to a little liturgical gusto on the part a few zealots among the creative set.

Ut oh! The thread already contains posts that express disagreement about what is or is not a matter of faith.

If you are referring to my previous post, I would say that I neither affirmed nor denied that papal authority was a matter of faith. I simply affirmed that its exercise is a fact, and a long-standing one at that, whether you or I believe in this authority or not. That the Bishop of Rome has exercised such authority over such a long period of time, supported by the belief of millions, raises the concept beyond mere opinion. There is little patristic support for a denial of this authority. There is, however, substantial patristic support for its affirmation. All sides need to come to grips with this, if there is to be any advance in our journey together.

If papal authority is a fact, what kind of fact is it? If it is a biblical fact then it is a matter of faith. Personally, I do not think that papal authority is a fact. After all, the pope has no authority outside of the Roman Catholic Church and (in a limited way) in Eastern Catholic Churches. To put it another way, it is a fact that the pope has no authority in Eastern Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodoxy and Protestantism for that matter).

I suppose it all depends upon what you mean by the word "fact." Personally I do not see papal authority as a "fact" in any sense outside of a Roman Catholic context.

Again, for Roman Catholics the idea that papal authority is founded upon the patristic tradition is based upon a particular way of reading the Church Fathers, an approach (i.e., a manner of interpretation) that is not shared by Eastern Orthodox Christians. In fact, many of the patristic texts that supposedly support papal authority really only speak about St. Peter and his role in the early Church. Roman Catholics then make the interpretive leap of saying that the bishop of Rome is uniquely the successor of St. Peter and that therefore he has the same (or a similiar) type of authority. But that is not how Eastern Orthodox Christians read those same texts. In Orthodoxy all bishops are successors of St. Peter, because the bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter. So ultimately you have two different interpretive approaches to the patristic sources. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of opinion.

One way to bring about the restoration of communion between the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches might be to appoint a different see, i.e., one not associated with the errors of the past, as primate within the reunified universal episcopate. I mean, it would be foolish for Rome or Constantinople (or for any other Patriarchal See for that matter) to stand in the way of God's desire for unity just so that the Roman Patriarch or the Ecumenical Patriarch could have primacy. After all there is nothing in divine revelation that says that the Church of Rome or her bishop, or the Church of Constantinople or her bishop, must have primacy. So choosing a different Church to have primacy could help heal the divisions afflicting the worldwide communion of Churches by overcoming the mistrust of Rome among the Orthodox and of Constantinople among Roman Catholics.

I have never said that the Roman Church is on "life-support"; instead, I have merely pointed out that Rome is not doing a good job of keeping its own liturgical house in order. I suppose liturgical disarray is to be expected when a bishop - by a simple swipe of a pen - replaces a centuries old liturgical tradition with one concocted by a committee of scholars.

The Oriental Orthodox have a third view, which varies among those who view the Pope as "Reesh Patriarch" to those who view the Pope of Rome as Todd has stated. The Syriac Canons do give deference to the Pope of Rome, specifically, and to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch as well.

I am not opposed to showing deference to the bishop of Rome, but showing him deference is not the same as saying that he has authority (i.e., in the sense promoted by Roman Catholics). Moreover, showing deference to the bishop of Rome is not something - as far as I can tell - required by divine revelation.

Postscript: Historically the pope has not always been shown deference, e.g., the case of Pope Vigilius comes to mind. Heck, popes have not always shown deference to their predecessors in office as the Cadaver Synod proves.

1. No serious Orthodox denies that Peter was first among the Apostles and was given a specific ministry by Christ to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith.

2. Nobody denies that, historically, the Church has seen the Petrine Ministry as resident in the Church of Rome.

3. Both historically and canonically, Rome was and remains the Church with priority, that presides in love.

4. Since no one disputes the reality of the Roman Primacy, the only matter that remains to be resolved is how that primacy is defined and exercised.

5. A close reading of history shows that the Primacy held by the bishop of Rome was much more than the Orthodox would like to think, or that the Latin Church likes to claim. Both will therefore be disappointed with the resolution by which communion is restored.