www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Heart of Mary

FrDeaconEd,
The IC dogma is a supposed revealed truth by God. A divine revelation no different than the belief in the Trinity. According to Ineffabilis Deus, I guess I am self-condemned and ship-wrecked in the faith. Perhaps along with St. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Bernard. However, these three are cannonized Saints of Rome who opposed the IC. However, Eadmer and Dons Scotus who were IC proponents are not Roman Saints. Ironic! During the Middle Ages we read about
how the Dominicans and the Fransicans argued about it. Indeed, the doctrine was late-coming and caused much disputes. It was not a legitimate development of the expression of the doctrine but a change in the substance of theology. Would it be honest to say that the Virgin is exempt from being human? Did She undergo theosis or not?

I quote St Epiphanius of Cyprus,
"There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify her beyond what is proper."

Dear Mirfsem,

I take it from your post you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I would be a poor person to defend this matter, as I am not anywhere near an expert on it and don't make frequent reference to it in my life. It has been my experince that the vast majority of Byzantine Catholics accept it at least as a Latin characterization of a universal truth. Therefore, we have no objection to it as a hallmark of most Byzantine Catholics is that all that is taught by the Greek and Latin Catholic Churches are reconcilable.

as to your points to wasyl, asking "whether or not Rome forces Byzantines to observe Latin traditions incompatible with Orthodox spirituality.", I would say the answer is no, and here I must disagree with my sister Dolores. The forced part is an easy no. The
incompatible" part is more nuanced. various devotions spring up in various parts of the world and spread as they do. We Byzantine Catholics have every right to be committed to our liturgical renewal and therefore wary of latinization. However, it is not a fact that simply because a particular devotion sprang up in one part of the world, it is inappropraite for any other part of the world, culture, nation or patrimony. I have never participated in a Benediction serive, but I assume this is a latinization incompatable with the Byzantine Church. on the other hand, I beleive devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus is quite compatable with Byzantine spirituality, and will go on for some legnth on this topic if you would like. I would say the same for the Stations of the Cross, a reverse latinization - i.e. a Byzantine-Melkite devotion that the Latin Church adopted and then further spread to churches of the Byzantine-Slav patrimony.

Kurt

Glory to Jesus Christ ! Glory forever !
StuartK
Vladimir Soloviev maintained that belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God was compatible with Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox in communion with Rome agreed adressing Mary as " Our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God (Bogoroditza) who had no part in Original Sin, " at the Synod of Petrograd 1917. Such is the official teaching of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church.

While the aforementioned prayer might be verbally innovative it expresses Orthodox teaching. It safeguards Orthodoxy against those who do not fully grasp the role of the Mother of God in the Mystery of Salvation.

Doulos of Fatima,
The IC dogma was an unfortunate influence on the Russian Orthodox Church. People in those days did not know any better like Vladmir Soloviev. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is not under its influence or its persuasion. The western churches belief about Original Sin was a departure from Apostolic Tradition. Caught under the sway of Blessed Augustine whose influence helped in the creation of dogmas like the IC. Dogmas like the IC do not safeguard Orthodoxy. It would and should have been the other way around but that was never the case. To make unfounded claims and to pretend this furthers the role of the Virgin Mary in our salvation is unnecessary and a stumbling block. If the Seven Ecumenical Councils believed that the IC Dogma was paramount they would have said so. You have St Thomas Aquinas arguing against it in the tenth century! Just because the Ecumenical Councils did not say or mention the IC Dogma does not make it permissible to believe in as well. The basis of the IC Dogma rests on the distortion of Original Sin. Why don't you people get the story of Original Sin corrected and then we might look at a whole authentic picture!

>>>While the aforementioned prayer might be verbally innovative it expresses Orthodox teaching.<<<

We disagree.

\>>>It
safeguards Orthodoxy against those who do not fully grasp the role of the Mother of God in the
Mystery of Salvation.<<<

Utter and presumptuous nonsense.

You may hold whatever theologumenon you want, but do not pretend that it is safeguarding Orthodoxy's understanding of the Theotokos, which, if you will forgive my own inpertinence, is in no need of protection from anyone or anything. A very good case could be made that it is the West's mariology that needs preservation from an overly maudlin, sentimentalized and excessive piety.

Khaled,

You wrote: "Can any one explain the difference between Byzantine and Latin understanding of original sin?"

Elias: I don't think anyone can since we all have to agree firt what constitutes Byzantine or Latin thinking. Since many are still somewhat fuzzy whether they are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" or "Byzantine Rite Catholics" or "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Church" or "Uniates," we will be arguing and fighting over the details till we find ourselves in hell. Then it would be too late.


Elias, not the Monk



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 10-18-2000).]

Doulos,

Soloviev was right about the IC and Bishop Kallistos (Ware) agrees: one can accept it in the Orthodox Church. I agree with Stuart, however, about the prayer:

Many Russian Byzantine Catholics pray the following: "Most Holy Theotokos, conceived without sin, save us!"

Many Russian Byzantine Catholics do? Sorry, but I can�t imagine the zealously Orthodoxophile ones at St Michael�s in New York doing that.

You mean well as you are learning how to be Orthodox in communion with Rome (an art and a rough road that has meant ostracism, a kind of martyrdom, for Catholics who�ve been serious about it), but you don�t need to come up with innovations like the above to �prove� you�re still Catholic! Stuart is right: add nothing, delete nothing, change nothing to your Russian practice. The Russian Orthodox usages are all you need.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

StuartK

The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos is not a matter of opinion. It is a defined dogma of the faith. No matter how you twist and turn you cannot deny this fact.

Now if you want to discuss the role of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodox Spirituality that is a different question. We can dicuss the iconography, the office, hymnography, pious prayers, etc. I believe that the above prayer served the Orthodox quite well in their controversies with the Protestants in Poland. I also believe that the deep veneration shown to the Mother of God by the Orthodox in comunio with Rome/Byzantine Catholics and by the Orthodox will help to bring the East and West together in the future. Don't you?

Doulos of Fatima,
You are correct when you stated that "The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos is not a matter of opinion. It is a defined dogma of faith." According to Catholicism it is not a matter of opinion. However, Byzantine Catholics turn it into an theological opinion. However, you are not correct to say that there is a role of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodox Spirituality. It simply is not true. You are making a caricature of Orthodoxy. This certainly is not acceptable.
Question: where is the unity of the Faith between these two churches? One church says it is a dogma and the other says it is an opinion? I would not be surprised to hear excuses and revisionist thoughts on the subject.

>>>The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos is not a matter of opinion. It is a defined dogma of the faith.
No matter how you twist and turn you cannot deny this fact.<<<

Again we come down to the matter of definitions: precisely what IS a dogma. In the patristic understanding of the word, "dogma" was reserved for those beliefs absolutely essential for salvation; i.e., matters pertaining to the nature of God, the nature of Christ, and the economy of salvation.

Now, in the course of time, the Latin Church has gotten very sloppy in its use of the term, "dogmatizing" just about everything under the sun, including particular useages of the Latin Church. It is now widely recognized that much of what Roman Catholics consider "dogmas" are in fact no such thing, but merely particular doctrines of one particular Church. And, as the pope has repeatedly stated, it is important to separate the historically and linguistically determined particular expressions of doctrine from the underlying TRUTHS which doctrine is supposed to express.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception is predicated on specific assumptions about human nature and original sin that are particular to the Latin Church. Those assumptions are not particular to the Eastern Churches. Hence that which makes immaculate conception necessary in Latin theology is not present in Eastern theology. Moreover, the ramifications of immaculate conception are not necessarily consistent with the Eastern understanding of human nature and original sin, and from that, with the Eastern understanding of salvation as a process of theosis.

Therefore, if we, as Byzantine Catholics, are to remain true to the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition, we need to recognize that many of the so-called dogmas of the Latin Church are actually just particular doctrines, necessary within the matrix of the Latin Tradition, unnecessary and possibly incompatible with the Byzantine Tradition.

In keeping with Pope John Paul II's exhortation to look beyond the formulaics of doctrine to the underlying Truth, it would be sufficient for both sides to say that the Theotokos was preserved from sin throughout her life, and leave the details of how this was accomplished to each Tradition as part of its INNER life. After all, the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent issued a very detailed "dogma" regarding the real presence which is entirely wedded to the Latin hylomorphic understanding of the sacraments, the acceptance of which by Eastern Christians would undermine the entire foundation of Eastern theology. And so, for some reason, the Latin Church does not press upon us a profession of its "dogma" of the real presence.

So many problems can be avoided in this way. It would have been best had the Latin Church not used the word dogma in such a sloppy manner, but it has, and now it is a matter of separating the dogmas from the mere doctrines.

>>>Now if you want to discuss the role of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodox Spirituality that is a
different question. We can dicuss the iconography, the office, hymnography, pious prayers, etc.<<<

You are making a Western distinction between theology on the one hand and spirituality and liturgy on the other. In the Byzantine Tradition, theology flows out of liturgy, not the other way around. What we pray is what we believe, and insofar as the immaculate conception is not found in our liturgy (indeed, the Ukrainians and Ruthenians in the US are the only Byzantine Catholics who actually moved the Conception of the Theotokos to the same day as the Immaculate Conception), it is not sustained from within the Byzantine Tradition itself. That is why, if one wants, one may accept immaculate conception as a theolgoumenon that explains the manner in which Mary was preserved from sin. But it is not the only way, and, in my opinion, not nearly the best way, either.

>>>I also believe that the deep veneration shown to the Mother of God by the Orthodox in
comunio with Rome/Byzantine Catholics and by the Orthodox will help to bring the East and West
together in the future. Don't you?<<<

I agree. However, as was brought out at the third Orientale Lumen Conference, the theme of which was "Mary, Mother of God and of the Church", it is absolutely necessary to recognize that all of the Traditions, Eastern and Western, have their own ways of venerating the Virgin, and that each is equally legitimate. Therefore, no good purpose is served by Roman Catholics trying impose their understanding of Mary on the Eastern Churches, nor by the Eastern Churches attempting to impose their understanding upon the Roman Church. In this area, I am sure Mary herself would not wish to see her children squabbling, nor would she want one of her families trying to impose its way on her other families.

I forgot to mention this story, which was told by Protodeacon Lawrence Cross of the Russian Catholic Center in Melbourne.

Deeply involved in ecumenical affairs, he had to explain to his Irish Catholic mother about these Orthodox people with whom he was spending so much time. And he provided her with a detailed history of the separation of the Churches, and the differences between them, and the steps being taken towards reconcilliation, until her eyes glazed over.

When he finished, she looked at him and asked,

"These Orthodox, do they love Our Lady?"

"Yes, mum. Probably more than we do".

"Well, it's all right, then".

StuartK,
I really enjoy much of what you have to say most of the times. You replies tend to be detailed and interesting.
Question: We all desire Eucharistic unity. There are preconditions as you know to Eucharistic unity: the unity of the Faith. How is it possible to have unity of the Faith between the Roman catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? We know Uniatism is false or any type of submission. Would you dare to propose to ignore the Unity of the Faith and jump right into Communion? Would you recommend a compromise on behalf of Orthodox or Roman Catholic theology? How would you propose to unite the two Churches with these differences of perception?
How would you go about telling Rome that the Immaculate Conception is not an essential dogma for salvation? Would Ineffabilis Deus undergo some sort of revision since it was proclaimed under ex cathedra? Would the West maintain the Augustinian notion of Original Sin? Don't you think the understanding of Original Sin must be placed in the proper perspective before unity of the Faith?

P.S. I like your story of the Irish catholic woman since it was once asked of me by an Irish woman. I was kind of caught of guard but then I realized she had no awareness of Orthodoxy or that her own church was Orthodox.

Dear Stuart,
You make some very interesting points with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I think that you are right to say that the Orthodox in communion with Rome ought not to be bound to any teaching which would demand of them a reformulation of their fundamental doctrinal beliefs. On the other hand, I wonder if enough thought has been given to what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually states. Please allow me to clarify.
In Eastern teaching, original or ancestral sin is viewed as bringing about corruption and death along with the tendency to sin. Western teaching agrees with the above but adds to it as the formal element of original sin (i.e., that which makes it to be sin) the privation of sanctifying grace. This latter effect of the fall is sometimes called the "stain" of original sin. It is a positive way of speaking about a reality which is in itself a negation. Now the definition of the Immaculate Conception states merely that from the first moment of her existence and through the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Lady was preserved from the stain of original sin. The meaning here is clear. The grace of the Holy Spirit was with her from the very beginning. The doctrine of the IC as stated here would have meaning whether we viewed the privation of grace as sin or not.
The doctrine does not state, however, that she was freed from corruption and death, nor that she was free from the tendency to sin. We believe indeed that she was given grace to overcome all sin in her life, but this does not mean that she did not have to struggle against temptation like the rest of us.
If then we take original sin to mean what it means in the east, we will say that our Lady was conceived and born like the rest of us, subject to corruption and death. Western theology could easily agree with this without altering its teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
If, on the other hand, we understand original sin primarily as the privation of sanctifying grace as in the west, then the question becomes: was our Lady ever outside of the grace of God? Did Satan have control of her for any moment of her life? More and more in the west, this became unthinkable.

Does this clarify matters at all?

Ed

Robert S,


�We all desire Eucharistic unity. There are preconditions as you know to Eucharistic unity: the unity of the Faith.�

Elias: It is odd that the old stand-by orthodox rule of �lex orandi, lex credendi� was in that order and not the other way around.

Will East and West ever agree on the particulars? Jaroslav Pelikan, a recent convert to Orthodoxy, mentions how many of today�s �ontological disagreements� were already common during the last few Ecumenical Councils, and no one made it a point to enter debate or challenge such particularness in faith when they had the chance. Usually, such particular expressions become an issue of ontological difference when their exists strife first. Was such ontological differences ontologically different before the existence of any strife between the churches? Many have compared the relations between East and West to a divorce of irreconcilable differences. Whereas before how the toothpaste tube was squeezed was NOT an issue, now because of a falling out, their now exists two mandatory truths on how to squeeze the tube of toothpaste. How can one test the unity of faith? How can it be regulated? Eucharistic unity is easier to measure. We share a common cup and give God glory and praise together as a family, not as enemies within God�s kingdom.


�How is it possible to have unity of the Faith between the Roman catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? We know Uniatism is false or any type of submission.�

Elias: How did Stephen, Paul, Peter and James keep their unity of faith?


�Would you dare to propose to ignore the Unity of the Faith and jump right into Communion?�

Elias: The Antiochian Orthodox and the Melkites in the Middle East have done just that. Since the Orthodox and Catholics keep the Great Divorce going, it has been the �little churches� (marriages between Orthodox and Catholic spouses) which are teaching the �big churches� (ecclesial jurisdictions and communions) about LOVE. Those who look for proof of unity before a life of unity are like those who demand a pre-nuptial agreement. Thank God our churches look at marriage as �covenants� and not �contracts.� A covenant recognizes that the two parties are not equals. No vows. No pre-nuptial agreements. No proof of purchase labels. St. Paul mentions the similarity between the love of a woman and man to the love of Christ and the Church (Ephesians). LOVE is the answer; not polemics over alleged ontological differences. This is why the Melkite bishops can profess Orthodoxy.


�Would you recommend a compromise on behalf of Orthodox or Roman Catholic theology?�

Elias: Let�s investigate whether conciliar �compromises� were made between the Antiochian and Alexandrian factions at the Ecumenical Councils. What is being said in the recent joint Christological Statements between the various communions? It is recognized that different theologies can exist without contradicting each other over the essential truths. Even in practical areas of discipline, the Vatican II Council stated that the �contrary� practice of married priests were �valid.� Contrariness does not necessarily imply one of the two parties being wrong.


�How would you propose to unite the two Churches with these differences of perception?�

Elias: We have to investigate once more how Stephen, Paul, Peter and James kept unity despite their differences. When disagreements came up they united in council. What is preventing the Orthodox and the Catholics from having an Ecumenical Council to discuss the Role of the Papacy and these other issues?


�How would you go about telling Rome that the Immaculate Conception is not an essential dogma for salvation?�

Elias: The fact that Byzantine Catholics celebrate the Feast of St. Anne�s Conception (without being obligated by Rome to celebrate the Feast of the I.C.) already makes that explicit. We �Uniates� are proof that one can still remain a Catholic and NOT consider the IC �dogma� essential. It�s not in our Typicon nor are there any stichera sung in its honor. Like the East, we Byzantine Catholics stick to the more �bible�-based feasts and not the �dogma�-based feasts (i.e., Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Corpus Christi, etc.). What transpired in the Economy of Salvation � as portrayed in the scriptures � constitutes for us the �essentials.� The East doesn�t even have a Feast of the Theotokos. We have feasts in honor of the Theotokos (i.e., Nativity, Presentation, etc.) but not one in honor of this dogmatic proclamation by an Ecumenical Council. We can see that we don�t feast-ize the nature of the Theotokos. How she by-passed Original Sin and how she was �bodily� assumed into heaven is not necessary for salvation. Now � the fact that God became man and died and was buried and resurrected bodily IS necessary for salvation. All of the Ecumenical Councils were tied one way or another to the NATURE of Jesus Christ � even Ephesus. The fact that Eastern Christians in the Catholic Communion hold on to this orthodox approach clearly shows (1) one can still remain in communion with Rome and (2) Rome can accept such unity. Personally, I think Rome is slowly turning East more than the East is turning West. If the Filioque was so �essential� for salvation, then why does the Pope of Rome omit it on the Feast of Pentecost?


�Would the West maintain the Augustinian notion of Original Sin? Don't you think the understanding of Original Sin must be placed in the proper perspective before unity of the Faith?�

Elias: That is assuming the West has reached a proper perspective of Augustinian notions or that Augustinian notions are �proper.� When I read the Karl Rahners and Yves Congars of Roman Catholicism, I hear faint echoes of Eastern thought. When many biblical scholars are basing their exegesis on the Septuagint, their remains hope. What is becoming a problem are the more vocal converts to Roman Catholicism who become Apologists. They carry many biases with them into Catholicism where the East is not a factor in their published works. How much more apologetic can one get if the East was used to support their cause? I think they are too busy fighting Western non-Catholics to be concerned about us. Converting to Roman Catholicism (Crossing the Tiber) was a big hurdle for them; accepting the full gamat of Catholicism (those living on the other side of the Bosphorus) is another hurdle). There is nothing like being accused of being a heretic by another Catholic! The same is happening within Orthodoxy. Both groups of converts are bringing with them their former hostilities from their Catholic vs. Protestant days. We just have to sit patiently for them all to �get it.� Till then, lets have a Hot Toddy and share a few jokes in the waiting room.

Elias, not the Monk

>>>I really enjoy much of what you have to say most of the times. You replies tend to be detailed and interesting.<<<


Dear Robert,

Thank you very much for your kind words. I truly appreciate them, especially as we have some very fundamental differences of opinion.

>>> Question: We all desire Eucharistic unity. There are preconditions as you know to Eucharistic unity: the unity of the Faith. How is it possible to have unity of the Faith between the Roman catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? We know Uniatism is false
or any type of submission. Would you dare to propose to ignore the Unity of the Faith and jump right into Communion? Would you recommend a compromise on behalf of Orthodox or Roman Catholic theology? How would you propose to unite the two Churches with these differences of perception?<<<

Here, I think, we need to think very carefully about what we MEAN when we say "unity of faith". Do we mean "uniformity of faith", in terms of expression and emphasis, or do we mean unity of faith in Christ, on the essential elements the divine mystery of salvation?

If we mean the former, then we have, perforce, taken the integrist position: the faith is a seamless garment that must be accepted as a whole--theology, liturgy, spirituality, doctrines, disciplines, even ecclesial useages. This approach, which emerged towards the end of the first millennium, was really fostered by ignorance of other Traditions than by a reasoned assessment of those Traditions. It is an approach that says, in essence, the way in which MY particular Church does things and expresses itself is normative for all Christians; all who diverge from our practices are at best heterodox, at worst, heretical. This approach makes no distinction between something truly essential, like profession of the divine and human natures in Christ, or the consubstantiality of the Trinity, with things which are tangential, even trivial (historically, the list includes leavened vs. unleavened bread, bearded vs. unbearded priests, the cut of the tonsure and other nonsense). The temptation to go this route has been very strong in both Churches from time to time, and both have transgressed in this direction.

Judged that way, the Churches never had, and never could have, unity in faith. There has always been diversity of practice and expression, which sometimes extended to matters that today we consider to be "essential" ; e.g., Orthodox objections to the Latin understanding of original sin on the one hand, and Latin objections to Orthodox regulations governing divorce and remarriage on the other. It is most interesting to note that during the period leading up to, and immediately after the separation, neither of these seemingly "important" issues was ever raised as a bone of contention by either side, even though both were well aware of the differences of expression and practice. One can only conclude that even when the Churches were drifting apart, enough good will existed on both sides to allow for legitimate diversity of opinion.

Problems emerge when one side or the other attempts to impose its own particular practice or belief on the other, or when one side or the other unilaterally labels a belief or expression of its own particular Church to be a "dogma" of the faith. In this regard, the Catholic Church has to bear the majority of the blame, and I think that if you were to converse with informed Catholic theologians, they would concede as much to you. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church, in its own ineffable way, has tried to come to grips with its tendency to "dogmatize" anything and everything done in and by the Latin Church. Indeed, it had no choice, once it accepted an "ecclesiology of communion" together with the Decree on the Eastern Churches. For if the Catholic Church really IS a communion of particular Churches, each with its own particular Tradition which is its by right and not by dispensation, then clearly the Latin Church cannot impose doctrines and dogmas formulated by and within the Latin Church upon them, without invalidating or repudiating its own ecclesiology.

Therefore, we have the premise of a "hierarchy of truths", which is just a backhanded way of saying "not all dogmas are created equal"--or, more straightforwardly, not all dogmas are dogmas at all.

This amounts to a de facto devaluation of many Latin dogmas into the realm of particular Church doctrines. A dogma, after all, is a statement of faith to which ALL Christians must agree; it is, in effect, a way of determining who is in, and who is outside, the New Covenant. If the Catholic Church really held that all of its "dogmas" were really dogmas, then it would have to follow the path of the pre-concilliar Church--to whit, all those outside of the Roman Catholic Church are heretics, outside the Church of God, and their sacraments are devoid of grace. The old 1917 Code of Canons said this quite plainly, but the Catholic Church has already rethought its position in the light of the Second Vatican Council, and taken a more nuanced approach. Thus, e.g., one can still be a Christian even though one does not believe in (a) purgatory; (b) papal infallibility; (c) immaculate conception; and (d) almost all of the second millennium "dogmas". The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church as a communion of true "particular Churches", which have within them the fullness of the Church of God, and are entirely sufficient for the salvation of their adherents. The Decree on Ecumenism states bluntly that the Orthodox Church possesses real orders and sacraments, and that the celebration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church "builds up the Church of God".

Clearly, something very significant has changed here, and neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has quite managed to come to grips with it.

But what I think it entails is that the Catholic Church is acknowledging that those doctrinal issues it determined on its own, during the centuries of separation, are not and cannot be binding upon Christians outside of the Roman Catholic Church (and here, I speak with painful precision, meaning the faithful of the particular Church of Rome). Or, as Cardinal Ratzinger has steadfastly maintained since the 1970s, the Roman Church cannot impose, as a precondition for communion, any more concerning the Roman primacy than was accepted and lived by the Church in the first millennium. By extension, that applies to all the other doctrines "dogmatized" by the Roman Church in the intervening centuries as well, for all that was done was done in the understanding that the Bishop of Rome, speaking as head of the Church of Rome, spoke for the entire Church of God.

In return, Ratzinger asked that the Orthodox Church accept as legitimate developments within the Latin Tradition those practices which have become normative within the Roman Catholic Church.

This way leaves a tremendous opening for establishing a modus vivendi--a practical unity of faith. We agree on the common patrimony of the Fathers, accepting all that they accepted, and ignoring all that they ignored. Certain particular practices of each Church are accepted by both as legitimate expression of faith within two particular Traditions. Thus, e.g., the Orthodox would accept as a legitimate expression of faith within the Latin Tradition the doctrine of purgatory and the practice of indulgences. The Latin Church in turn, would understand and accept the Orthodox conception of salvation through theosis, and would not attempt to impose its own particular soteriology upon others. Similarly, different teachings regarding the sacrament of marriage would be treated as what they were in the first millennium--differences in ecclesial discipline. The Latins could prohibit remarriage after divorce, the Orthodox would allow it.

This brings us to the one and only real sticking point, which is the nature and exercise of primacy within the Church. Having accepted on principle that the Orthodox need not accept any more than was accepted in the first millennium, the Catholic Church must be prepared to accept less than was "defined" in Pastor Aeternus; the Orthodox for their part, must be prepared to recognize the historical reality of primacy as it existed in the first millennium, and grant to the pope more than a mere titulary honor (I have written at some length, here and elsewhere, about what "primacy of honor" meant in the first millennium--suffice it to say that it meant a lot more than the pope as ecclesial "Lord Mayor of London"). The Orthodox Church must therefore think through for itself what it means by primacy, and how it applies at the level of the universal Church. The writings of Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos can provide a useful starting point.

Thus, the papacy turns out to be the nexus on which all turns. And the question must be asked: are differences of opinion about ecclesiastical administration and jurisdiction "matters of faith" on which there must be unity; or are they linked to the human aspect of the Church, on which there will always be a degree of disagreement (as there was throughout the first millennium). A lot of Catholics obviously believe that the papacy is a central element of faith. Many others do not.

I believe that the papacy is a ministry of service to the Church, that primacy is at the service of the Church, and the Church not at the service of primacy. Thus, when primacy becomes a stumbling block to the unity of Christians, it is the way in which primacy is defined and exercised that must change. This is, in effect, what the pope said in Ut Unum Sint. So far, I haven't seen anybody, on either side, take him seriously enough.

You speak of uniatism and submission. You are quite right to look upon the former as a sin, and the latter as having no place in a true communion in the Holy Spirit, for the Church submits to none but Christ, the True High Priest, our Lord and Savior. Uniatism is a complicated phenomenon, rooted in a particular time and place, complex political relationships, and a particular way of conceiving the Church. While the Latin Church was indeed responsible for setting up some of the unia as a means of absorbing Orthodoxy through a policy of divide et impera, many of the unions were in fact indigenous movments led by Orthodox priests and bishops seeking a way out of the untenable situations in which their local Churches found themselves. You may fault them for bad judgement, but not bad faith; and if the unions did not work out as they had envisaged, that, too, is an accident of history as much as a deliberate act of the Roman Church.

The Roman Church has abjured uniatism as a method of reunion. Indeed, it has stopped using the term reunion altogether, and speaks now of reconcilliation and the reestablishment of communion in the Holy Spirit. The question for Orthodoxy should be, "How sincere is Rome in its assertions?"

I think that the desire is there, but that old habits of thought and action die hard. Remember, as late as 1971, the Orthodox were the "dissident Orientals", schismatics at best, heretics at worst. I am reminded of Lord Raglan in the Crimean War, who, havng spent 20 years fighting Napoleon, kept referring to his allies as "our enemies, the French".

According to the Decree on the Oriental Churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches are not merely ritual adjuncts of the Roman Church. They have, by right, their own hierarchies and Traditions; they are supposed to be self-governing Churches. That they are not is partly the fault of the Roman Curia, partly the fault of our own bishops, who have not internalized the teachings of the Decree, and refuse to act like bishops of self-governing Churches. Their attitude has transmitted itself to enough of the presbyterate and people that change of mind will be a gradual process. But, ultimately, and with Rome's urging, we are supposed to become fully Orthodoxy in thought and word and deed--partakers of the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition. At some point, this means that there must be an explicit clearing of the air, for as you point out, there must be unity of faith if there is to be real communion.

Rome asks the Eastern Catholics to be true to the fullness of their Tradition, in liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline. There will, therefore, come times when this runs up against differences in the Latin Tradition. Rome has not given any guidance to the Eastern Catholics in this regard, and the result has been confusion. But as Eastern Christians, we derive our theology from our liturgy, and as we purify our liturgy and dispose of latinizations, our thinking and our piety becomes more fully Eastern. The result is an emerging de facto acceptance that Eastern Catholics are not obligated to accept Latin expressions of doctrine as normative for them. In other words, the kind of "live and let live" approach to differences in expression and practice (but not in the substance of the faith) to which I referred earlier will govern the relationship between the Latin and the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The unity of faith which is needed for communion, then, is actually very close, as long as one makes the distinction between what each side believes as opposed to how each side expresses what it believes.

In my opinion (with which others may differ) once both sides recognize that each celebrates the true Eucharist, that what sits on the Holy Table is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ, then unity of faith exists. For there is only one Chalice, and those who drink from it are united to Christ, and to all others who partake and have partaken from the Chalice in faith. That is the insecapable logic of Ignatios of Antioch's Eucharistic ecclesiology. If you agree that what I receive is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, and I agree that what you receive is the Body and Blood of Christ, then we are mystically united even if we are canonically divided. Furthermore, both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches allow for oikonomia in Eucharistic sharing. That is, under certain conditions, a member of one Church may receive the Sacrament from a member of the other Church. But not on a general basis. But this is illogical, for the grace of the Eucharist is not something that can be turned on and off like a lightbulb. If you allow some to receive, under special circumstances, then you must allow all to receive, under general circumstances. For it is the same Eucharist for all.

I personally believe that the bar for reception should be set fairly low, asking the one really important question, which Christ asked of his Disciples: Who do you say I am? Those who profess Christ, and who acknowledge the true nature of the Eucharist, should, with proper preparation be allowed to receive. That, I think, opens the way for communion between not only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches as well.

As Orthodox Christians, we believe that the Eucharist is spiritual nourishment; unlike earthly food, it digests and transforms us; taking it into ourselves, it turns us into itself, makes us more like Christ. Sharing the Eucharist, therefore, will bring us closer to Christ, and bringing us closer to Christ, it will necessarily bring us closer to each other.

That said, I fully recognize the difficulties that this approach entails, and I do not expect it to be implemented overnight, nor do I expect that many people will accept it even in principle. In fact, I do not believe that anything man tries to do on his own will facilitate the reconcilliation of the Churches. That event, I am convinced, will require the direct and active participation of the Holy Spirit; and it will happen only when the Spirit wills, and all are willing to cooperate with Him.

In Christ,

Stuart