www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Thoughts on pan-Eastern ecumenism

I haven't been active on here or anywhere for some time, and have certainly not been writing. I have, though, just put up a new post, and would welcome your thoughts, either here or on the blog.

https://priestofthechurch.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/act-of-communion-act-of-will/

Father bless!!

It may be that few remember the "stick analogy." One can easily break a stick; one cannot break a whole handful of sticks bound together.

We are entering a world that is increasingly hostile to the Christian Faith and its practice. We can see that in the U.S. in our current presidential contest. One candidate says that the Churches must be forced to abandon long-held beliefs on abortion, same-sex marriage, and a whole host of leftist/secularist positions. This one also wants to bring the full force of the government down on those who resist. Local governments are also doing preemptive moves in this direction against medical professionals in several jurisdictions.

We stand apart at our own peril.

"Both sides in this case might well bang on about the filioque or papal authority, or whatever – which I am sure is very entertaining – but none of which is of any real consequence when it comes to the question of communion."

Splendid! When, then, will the Catholic Church stop insisting on Papal supremacy as a dogma?

Polemics aside, I am not sure what you mean by Rome 'insisting on the dogma or papal supremacy'.

I am not trying to defend Rome; she doesn't really need me to do that, BUT aside from the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I, which I think the former Cardinal Josef Ratzinger explained well enough to satisfy a number of theological objections, papal supremacy is more of a behaviour than a dogma.

It is this sort of thing that I am trying to argue in that piece. I really don't think that sweeping assumptions about theological positions are all that helpful in genuine ecumenical conversation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping assumptions." The language of Pastor Aeternus seems fairly explicit and clear to me. There is very little room for assumption or inference when it says, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." If you are saying the aforementioned teaching is no longer dogma for Rome, that's good news. Otherwise, it seems like wishful thinking to sweep it under the rug as lacking any real consequence on the matter of communion.

Ah yes. As naive as it may seem, I must admit to forgetting about Pastor Aeternus, and not taking account of it.

Having said that, I do it because there seem to be - at least on some fronts - two coexisting realities in Rome: the documentary, and the lived.

What I mean is that, in fact, Rome documents and articulates her every thought. At the same time, she does not necessarily live by every word she utters. So, for example, how could she set out Pastor Aeternus, and that decree that 'nothing should be required of the Orthodox in ecumenical discussions that was not shared in the first millenium'?

In other words, it is as if Rome recognises on a deeper level that (at least some of) her decrees are not universally, and at all times, applicable.

Sometimes, Rome asserts herself with the kind of authority described in the quote you have provided, and sometimes she doesn't. At the same time, I think that the Eastern Churches are sort of left on their own to decide how to take what Rome says.

It's normal for a government, secular or ecclesial, with sweeping powers to be selective in the exercise of those powers. Constant pervasive micromanagement is unnecessary, wasteful, and exhausting. This reserve in exercising power, however, is not the same as its relinquishment.