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

Good point, I was thinking about that too. Even among dogmas, there exists a "hierarchy of truth".

So it is like a temporary dogma (i.e., binding at least until the Orthodox come into communion with the West) that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and infallibility? What good is that?

I find it odd that those who come into communion with Rome at the present time need to accept these papal "dogmas" even though they are apparently only contingent dogmas, because the Eastern Orthodox may not be required to accept them when (or if) full communion between the Latin Church and the whole of the East is ever restored.

Based upon the things I have read from Eastern Orthodox authors, and I am not talking about polemicists, makes it clear that they do not accept Rome's claims about itself, either when it comes to universal ordinary episcopal jurisdiction or infallibility, nor do most of them accept the idea that the bishop of Rome is solely the successor of St. Peter (either understood historically or - especially - sacramentally). After all, there is no distinct petrine sacrament; instead, there is simply holy orders.

It seems to me that the hierarchy of truths mentioned by Vatican II is being used improperly, as if to say "some truths are more true than others," or to put it more bluntly "some truths are not as true as other truths." My understanding of the hierarchy of truths is that it only concerns the relationship that exists between the different truths of the faith and not that some truths have to be believed while others are optional (or only have to be believed by those who enter into communion with Rome at the present time). Have I misunderstood the Roman Church's magisterium on this point?

That may be a "good point" to you (and perhaps to others reading this thread), but that is not what I was taught about the hierarchy of truths while working on my degree at Franciscan University.

I found the following quotation from Cardinal Schönborn helpful:

"Cardinal Ratzinger said several times in this context that the hierarchy of truth does not mean a principle of subtraction, as if faith could be reduced to some essentials whereas the rest is left free or even dismissed as not significant. The 'hierarchy of truth', he said, 'is a principle of organic structure.' It should not be confused with the degrees of certainty; it simply means that the different truths of faith are organized around a center." [Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), page 42]

That's what I learned too (and compatible with how I interpreted Utroque's "some dogmas are more essential to our faith than others.").

I wonder, if let's say the ACoE decided that they wanted to enter into full communion with Rome, might this be accomplished without full agreement on e.g. Papal Infallibility? I guess we'd have to wait and see what the pope would say. (But I stress that I'm talking about the whole ACoE, not like the situation a few years ago when a group of ACoE members switched sides.)

Hmm, that is not what I was taught. I was taught that all dogmas are essential to the faith. The hierarchy of truth merely concerns how the truths relate to each other.

Todd is more than correct here.

We needn't try to dissect the Cardinal's views too much (he may have been fishing around for a theme for a new book).

The point is not to "lessen" this or that dogma in terms of its importance. The point is to see if the dogma can be expressed in other frameworks/language without overturning it.

If that is possible, then unity will be possible as well. If it isn't possible, then ecumenism is a pipe dream.

Alex

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.

Perhaps, rather than "more essential to our faith than others" we should say "more central"?

The following quotation is taken from:

The Logic of Doctrine and the Logic of Catechesis: The Relationship between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the General Directory for Catechesis

By J. Augustine DiNoia, O.P.

"An important key to the logic of doctrine, thus to the innate intelligibility of the deposit of faith, is the principle of the hierarchy of truth. The hierarchy of truth refers to the interconnection among the many 'truths' in which the one Truth about the Triune God comes to be expressed in our human way of knowing and speaking. Seen in this light, the 'hierarchy of truth' refers not to the authority or ranking of the different doctrines within the deposit of faith but to their interconnectedness and mutual intelligibility. It is a mistake to understand the hierarchy of truth as a ranking of doctrines that allows us to distinguish so-called essential truths from accidental, and therefore less important truths."

To refer to some dogmas as "more central" would be acceptable - at least based upon what I was taught, but there is no such thing as a "non-essential" or "unessential" dogma. In other words, all dogmas are essential to the faith.

That being said, it appears that Eastern Orthodox Chritsians will have to accept the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church for communion to be restored.

That holds only if the differences between the two sides are merely a matter of words, but my own reading of Orthodox authors indicates that the differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians on the nature of the Church and primacy are substantive, which means that no amount of changes in wording will be able to alter the fundamental disagreement between the two sides. I find it funny that when Roman Catholics try to reword their unique dogmatic formulations in order to make them more palatable to Eastern Orthodox ears the end result is usually the opposite of the intented outcome (e.g., the filioque controversy and the clarifications made to that innovative doctrine at Lyons II and Florence).

Dear Todd,

Yes, both councils made a mess of the whole ecumenical venture, to be sure.

But it is possible to come to agreements where what is already held in common can be underlined as the focus of the unity.

There is no reason why Rome cannot return to the Nicene Creed it itself professed for so very long. Both sides could come to an agreement about a common understanding of "Through the Son" (without, for example, equating it as just another way of saying "and the Son").

The RC dogmas often appear in reaction to movements and ideas that the RC Church confronted in various epochs, but which had little or no impact on Orthodoxy.

At the same time, the "pith and substance" of RC dogma, when stripped of its Latin theological constructs, can be reflected in what Orthodoxy has always held.

I'm too much in pain to go further into that right now.

But Rome needs to start taking steps that its theologians have been committing themselves to at the discussion table. Removing the Filioque from . . . everywhere would be a good first start.

So far, Rome is committed to sending theologians for discussions only . . .

Alex

Personally I do not see how communion can be restored as long as one Church claims that papal supremacy and infallibility (as defined at Vatican I and II) is a dogma, and the other simultaneously denies it (i.e., papal supremacy and infallibility) that status.

The same can be said about the filioque, it cannot both be a dogma and not a dogma at the same time. Either the Roman Church's view that the Son is - with the Father - the cause of the Spirit's subsistent being is true or the Eastern Orthodox affirmation that the Father alone is the cause of the Son by generation, and that He alone - i.e., without the Son - is the cause of the Spirit by procession is true.

Again, it appears that for communion to be restored one or the other side will have to abandon its dogmatic position.