Should the Orthodox church be in dialogue with the Roman Catholic one? Yes. Will we reunite? It would take a miracle.
By Fr. Patrick Reardon
Were I to list the thousand reasons why Rome is my favorite place in all the world, most of them would have to do the Eternal City’s long association with Christian history. On those all too rare occasions when I am able to get back to Rome, most of my time is spent visiting the catacombs, the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul, the Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and other sites precious to Christian memory. My personal sentiments about Rome were well summarized by St. Abercius, the second-century Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who had made a pilgrimage to the Eternal City. Later, in the inscription that he crafted for his own tomb, he referred to the church at Rome as “the queen with the golden robe and golden shoes.” Starting with the blood of the Neronic martyrs, there is no city on earth, I think, more deeply saturated in Christian memory.
Surely, then, any Orthodox heart must be saddened when remembering the long and deep estrangement between ourselves and that venerable institution described by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”
Should the Orthodox Church be dialoguing with the ancient See of Rome with a view to our eventual reconciliation and reunion? Yes, most emphatically. Such a dialogue, for such a purpose, constitutes a most strict moral imperative, imposed by the will and mandate of Christ for the unity of His church and, for that reason, neglected at the absolute peril of our souls. The reunion of believers in Christ is not a concern that the Orthodox conscience can simply “write off.”
I suggest that the proper model for such an Orthodox dialogue with Rome was provided by St. Mark of Ephesus, the most unforgettable of the Eastern delegates to the Council of Florence back in the 15th century. St. Mark is best remembered because of his casting the sole dissenting vote against the reunion of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church. At the end, he became convinced that the effort for reunion at Florence would be successful only by an infidelity to the ancient tradition, so he conscientiously voted against it.
Still, St. Mark did not refuse to dialogue and discuss the matter. His fidelity to the true faith did not prevent his taking part in serious theological dialogue with those with whom he disagreed. Even though the Roman Catholic Church was at that time in circumstances indicating great spiritual and moral decline, a decline that would soon lead to its massive dismembering during the Protestant Reformation, St. Mark did not despise Rome or refuse to join his voice to a dialogue summoned to make real that prayer of Christ that we all might be one. Those Orthodox who, like myself, believe that continued dialogue with Rome is a moral imperative, would do well to take St. Mark of Ephesus as their model.
At the same time, we should be under no illusions about the difficulties of such dialogue. Because Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have followed progressively divergent paths for nearly a thousand years, arguably we are right now further apart than we have ever been. For example, it should be obvious that the Roman papacy is the major obstacle to our reunion. Make no mistake–we Orthodox do not miss the papacy, not in the least, because we never had it. Not for a minute did the pope of Rome ever exercise over the church of the East the level of centralized authority he has grown, over the past thousand years, to exercise over the Roman Catholic Church.
In the East, the pope of Rome was simply the senior among his brother bishops, all of whom taught, pastored, and governed the church through local synods and other exercises of consensual adherence, most of them without the slightest reference or attention to Rome except in extraordinary circumstances, and never outside of Rome’s relationship to the Eastern patriarchates.
The current Roman teaching that all doctrinal questions can be definitively answered and settled by an appeal to Rome is not, the Orthodox insist, the ancient and traditional teaching and practice of the apostolic and patristic church. If the ancient Catholic Church really did believe in any doctrine even faintly resembling the current doctrine of papal infallibility, there would never have been any need for those early ecumenical councils, all of them held in the East, which laboriously hammered out the creedal formulations, canons, and policies of the church.
The current papal claims, standard doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church since the defining of papal infallibility in 1870 and repeated most recently by Cardinal Ratzinger’s official Vatican declaration “Dominus Iesus” (released on September 5, 2000), represent an ecclesiastical development radically at odds with the Orthodox understanding of the very nature of the Christian Church as manifest in her ancient life.
The Orthodox “solution” to this problem would be, of course, simply for the pope of Rome to foreswear these recent claims and go back to the humbler status that he enjoyed for the first thousand years of Christian history. Namely, the “first among equals,” the chief and foremost of his brother bishops, within a church taught and governed by the broad consensual understanding of an authoritative tradition.
That is to say, the Orthodox would be delighted for His Holiness of Rome, repudiating what we regard as the errors attendant on his recent understanding of his ministry, to take once again his rightful place as the ranking spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church (a position that the patriarch of Constantinople has held since the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy in the 11th century).
To Orthodox Christians, such a “solution” to the problem would seem very attractive. In fact, however, one fears that it would be no solution at all. Such a weakening of the papacy would be an utter disaster for the Roman Catholic Church as it is currently constituted. To many of us outside that institution, it appears that the single entity holding the Roman Catholic Church together right now is probably the strong and centralized office of the pope.
The Roman Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years has moved toward ever greater centralized authority, and it is no longer clear that she would thrive, or even survive intact, without that authority maintained at full strength. If Rome did not occasionally censure the heretics in that church, just who in the world would do it? Can anyone really remember the last time a Roman Catholic bishop in the United States called to account a pro-gay activist priest, or a pro-abortion nun, or a professor in a Catholic college who denied the resurrection? No, take away the centralized doctrinal authority of Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church today would be without rudder or sail in a raging sea.
If an Orthodox Christian, then, loves his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, he will not wish for a diminished papacy. Indeed, he will devoutly pray for a very strong papacy. Otherwise he may be failing in proper Christian love for those whose spiritual well-being requires this strong papacy. It is a singular irony that our prayers for an effective and vibrant papacy, though motivated by a loving concern for our Roman Catholic brethren, would hardly seem, on the face of it, to further the healing of our ecclesiastical division. However we got into this mess, only God can get us out.
So, let us Orthodox, by all means, engage in dialogue with Holy Rome. But let us also not deceive ourselves respecting the enormous difficulties of the task. The reunion of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seems so utterly impossible right now that it will require a great and stupendous miracle, something at least on the scale of water transformed into wine. Then again, you know, the example itself may give us hope.
SteveB,
Well said. You stated the truth much more succinctly than I did.
I have benefited more than I can say from very patient Roman Catholic friends who have painstakingly disabused me of misconception after misconception about the RCC and its doctrine. I’m sure the process is not complete, but please do not be discouraged. I believe this is the most important part of dialogue on the level of laity. We need to talk to each other so that we can understand each other.
George,
Please hear what SteveB said, even if I was too hot-headed to say it as appropriately as he did. What do you think?
Tamara, thank you for what you said.
Glen, could not agree more.
David Lewis, thanks for what you said. And, by the way, I did send you an e-mail.
David, concerning your comments in post 193.
Just a couple of points:
1. I did not mention RCs in the post. I talked about people from the West.
2. My entreaty to get people to visit an Orthodox Monastery was not meant to be condescending. If you actually READ my post, I merely state that the Orthodox life is a prayerful life which, in order to be understood, must be LIVED and EXPERIENCED. There was no egotism intended.
David as an aside, I have some personal anecdotal points to raise (and please note this is not meant as a “rant”:
As far experiencing Catholicism, I attended a Catholic boys high school run by the Jesuits for 4 years. Apart from the excellent academic education, I can honestly say that I never connected spiritually with the Catholic “mass” and moreover, I felt that it lacked reverence and sanctity. I felt that the masses were “made up” as they were going along, and appealed more to the temporal needs of the laity (in this case the students) rather than being a true reflection of the worship of God.
(For the Orthodox, the main point of the liturgy is not necessarily to bring God to earth but for man to meet God in Heaven. The liturgy is meant to raise the worshipper from the temporal existence to partake mystically in the divine.)
I remember when I first started at the school, we were invited to partake in the “Easter Liturgy”. I was quite interested to see what was going to occur and kind of expected that the liturgy would include a Latin Rite mass to mark Easter Wednesday. I was mightily disappointed however, when the Jesuits decided to put on an EASTER PLAY instead of actually WORSHIPPING God at Easter! It was a song and dance extravaganza in the middle of Passion Week about some social worker from the 1930’s called Jesse Christopher! Obviously metaphorical , but it completely missed the point of the importance of liturgical life and the true meaning of Easter.
I would also state, that after having been at a prestigious Catholic School for four years, I was NEVER ONCE taught Catholic doctrine and never did the allegedly super-educated Jesuits but once say, “this is what we Catholics believe”. Religious Education classes was all about moral and ethic questions and philosophical pursuits rather than studying the bible and living the word of God. Oh, and ofcourse being a “man for others” just like St Ignatius Loyola.
Many of my Catholic friends (who are “good Catholics”) that attended the same school from primary school, are today no more knowledgeable about the fundamentals of Catholicism for having been to that school for what it fundamentally means to be a Christian!
Please understand that this is not meant as a criticism, but rather as an observation.
Dear Glen,
you wrote: “As a condition of this union, I would expect changes would occur in the Liturgical life of both Roman Catholic and Orthodox parishes. In effect, I would expect that an entirely new Rite would probably emerge that would be found in the United States and possibly Western Europe.
This Rite does not have to be based around the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Roman Catholic Church has a perfectly valid liturgical history from which to draw.”
What you describe for unity with the Roman Catholic Church is my worst nightmare. Our Orthodox theology is intertwined within our divine services. We would lose the theological truths held within our hymns and prayers in order to develop rites and services to satisfy everyone’s desires. Remember our hymns and services were not created in a short time span. Saints of the stature of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great developed our services. And other saints, such as St. Romanos the melodist and St. Andrew of Crete developed our system of hymnography. Even an illiterate peasant from centuries ago understood the theology of the church as long as he attended the services. He sang and prayed his beliefs as he gazed up at the icons which also contained many theological truths. I think part of what some may not understand is the reason the Orthodox Church has such a strong unity of faith is because all the of churches have preserved our Holy Tradition through the liturgical services and cycles despite the fact we do not have an administrative head like the pope. Frankly, I feel the reason the Roman Catholic church is so fragmented with modernist services and loss of tradition is because the church has relied on one man in the form of the pope to govern and hold everything together. This dependence on one man to preserve Catholic tradition is obviously not working well because otherwise we would not be hearing the complaints from our Roman Catholic brothers who have described the liturgical abuses and the loss of reverence they have experienced during their mass. I almost wonder if the reason they desire unity with us is to recapture what they have lost over the last thirty or so years. Lets be honest…how many of us Orthodox Christians spend our Sunday coffee hours discussing how we wish we could unify with the western Christianity? I have no illusions that any kind of superficial unity with Rome would only cause more problems for them (liberals vs conservatives) and schisms for us.
For the reasons I mentioned above I would never trust the fate of my church to one man in the form of a pope. Besides that, foreign hierarchical administration was unknown to the church during the first 15 centuries of Eastern Christianity. Local synods governed local communities. The governance set-up we Orthodox Christians have in the west is very uncanonical with no precedence from the past to support its continuation. The many problems we have had here from overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions is due to our mother patriarchates trying to govern us from afar. What we Orthodox Christians need in this country is ONE local synod of bishops with a Patriarch who is selected from within their ranks. Frankly, I am more concerned about Orthodox jurisdictional unity in this country than I am about uniting with the west. Lets work with our friends, the Roman Catholics and Protestants, when it comes to proclaiming our unified beliefs to the secular world on issues like abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc. and spend the rest of our time strengthening administrative unity with our Orthodox brothers and sisters so that we can be a much more powerful witness to those in our country who are looking for Christ.
Tamara, I echo your wish that we spend our time discussing Orthodox unity based on the Orthodox Tradition. The first step would be to find some way to strengthen the Patriarcate of Constantinople so that she would no longer feel compelled to keep hold of the Greek Archdiocese in this country just to stay alive.
However, I also need to mention that there are two Western Rite Orthodox liturgies, both were commissioned and blessed by then Bishop Tikon, later St. Tikon the last Russian Patriarch before the long Soviet night fell. One of the rites is based on the old Tridenten (sp)Mass but in English, the other based on the old Book of Common Prayer. Both of these liturgies have roots in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but are not identical. Western Rite priests can co-celebrate with Eastern Rite priests and vice-versa. In fact, we have a Western Rite mission parish that is headquartered in our Cathedral Chapel. The priest and the congregation are converts from an Episcopalian church who came to us after the ordination of Eugene Robinson. We all celebrated Pascha together with our bishop, His Grace Bishop Basil.
St. Tikson saw the future of an Orthodox America founded on Orthodox Liturgical worship, but also saw that all of the liturgies would not be identical.
One of the problems that has put pressure on the liturgical practice in RC parishes is the sheer number of congregants and the paucity of priests. One RC priest I know pretty well serves up to 6 masses on Sundays just to accomodate all the people. Of course, for us that is impossible even if we did shorten the liturgy because cannoncially we are only allowed to serve one liturgy a day at the same altar.
We Antiochians have a semi-autnomous local synod made up of six diocesan bishops and Met. Phillip. We are now largely self-governing. I was however quite disappointed that one of our new bishops was put in Pittsburg, PA where Bishop Maximos of the Greek Archdiocease is. By all rights, we should be under the Russian Patriarch since it was the Russian missionaries who first brought Orthodoxy to the Americas. However, due to the lingering wounds of the communist oppression that is simiply not an option now. Yet despite the outward disunity, we have a tremendous unity of faith because we all celebrate the same liturgy.
One comment of the role and authority of Orthodox bishops. Originally, they were elected by their local parishes and served the congregations much as priests do today. I don’t know how long that lasted, but that does illustrated the pastoral and sacramental role of the bishop rather than the administrative role.
Well, I rambled a bit, I hope its not too confusing.
Dear George,
Okay, you never mentioned RCs in your post, but this whole thread, starting with Father’s article, has been about talks of reunion with the RCC. Aside from that, saying what you said about ‘The West’ is just painting with too broad a brush. The West is not all the same. The most significant part of the west does not teach what you attributed to the West.
As to your story. I am really saddened by such stories. They make me sad the same way that I am saddened by stories of Orthodox failures to teach our faith to our young. The Jesuits who did you and the others such a temendous disservice will answer for their infidelity to their calling…
But you can’t make your point with anecdotes any more than I can make my point with anecdotes. You can tell me about bad Catholics, I can tell you about good ones. And I did offer some anecdotes, if only to point out that it’s not ALL bad over there, that they’re doing some great things and making some progress. But they’re still just anecdotes.
So lets talk doctrine. You didn’t address SteveB’s question. Was your claim about the west only about protestants? Do you agree that Rome’s teaching on the Eucharist is not so far away from ours?
Tamara,
As I have said before, I would be very, very concerned about unity with Rome. You are right, of course, as Orthodox we spend our time at coffee hour talking about unity among Orthodox jurisdictions. Unity with Rome almost never comes up in a parish setting. I won’t say it is the farthest thing from most Orthodox minds, but it is definitely not at the forefront.
In any event, that is the topic of conversation here. As Michael Bauman commented, there are already ‘Western’ style liturgies in use that are blessed by the Orthodox Church. I don’t care for them, truth be told, but I do visit a local Western Rite parish on occasion because the priest is a personal friend. The fact that these Rites exist, however, point to the fact that it is possible to have Orthodox faith and worship without necessarily having to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy of St. Basil, or the Liturgy of St. James.
At one time, both East and West were a united church. In 800 A.D., for example, a Christian from the East could have freely communicated in any Western parish. That meant that both East and West had valid sacraments, belief, and liturgies, even though language and style may have differed.
If, and this is a big if, a union could be established that would be true union, then I think that we Orthodox would have to be flexible on certain matters that really are purely stylistic. For example, is an Iconostasis necessary? Well, not really, since Western Rite churches don’t have one. Is it a good idea? I think so, but would I refuse to worship in a church that had an open altar? Well, no I wouldn’t since I worship in one now on occasion that doesn’t have one.
Another example would be the Holy Week services. The Stations of the Cross is a service that dates back before the schism and is celebrated in Western Rite churches. Couldn’t it be universally celebrated?
Of course it could. If you go into many Roman Catholic Churches you will see statues of St. John Chrysostom. The Eastern Rite Roman Catholics use his liturgy, so the RC considers it valid. At least one of our Greek Services, the Paraklesis, was actually written by a Pope.
Okay, I’m rambling a little, but my basic point is that I think we could retain all of the essential elements of the Orthodox faith, and probably entire Orthodox services, but come to an understanding with our RC brothers and sisters that would permit full union. A full union that would spawn an authentic American Christian culture.
If it isn’t possible then it isn’t possible. I am only saying that I would hope that we could at least look at the idea seriously before dismissing it. Part of looking at this idea would be to stake out those elements of liturgical worship that must be there, regardless of language or exact wording (I’ve put down part of that list already, but there is more I am sure), and to also outline those things which are specific to the East (Iconostasis) that are not required. Catholics can do the same thing, though I expect that their list of ‘must-haves’ will be a lot shorter. Since the RC has Eastern Rite parishes, everything we do is already approved of by the Vatican. The reverse, however, is not the case.
As for the power and position of the Pope, I assume that a future union of the Orthodox and RC would lead to greater conciliarity, even within the Patriachate of Rome itself. The United States needs a synod of Bishops that really functions as a synod in the Orthodox model. While I believe the Orthodox model of ecclesiology is superior to that of the RC, I also understand that need for the Pope as a symbol to the world. Witness the billions of people who watched the Pope’s funeral on TV. I think that shows that the Pope fills a void that needs to be filled, though his day-to-day authority needs (from our standpoint) to be modified.
A couple of simple points and questions that I would like to throw out to the general audience:
1. The Orthodox Church believes that it is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. Correct?
2. The Orthodox Church proclaims, (through various Ecumenical Councils, patristic writtings and texts), that sanctity, deification/theosis and salvation can only found through the Orthodox Church. Correct?
If we believe the above two statements as Orthodox, a simple question comes to mind: (and now the practical problem….)
If salvation and deification can only be found through the Orthodox Church, then in the event of union, would the RCs be willing to disavow each and everyone of their “saints” since Schism? (Since all Orthodox teaching points in the direction that no heretic or schismatic can attain theosis because they are cut off from the Church of Christ and the Holy Spirit is withheld from them.)
If we agree to keep the RC “saints” post union, are we not saying then that, whether you have Orthodox doctrine or RC doctrine (truth vs herectical belief) that at the end of the day “its all just the same” and that our forefathers were in error for having so steadfastedly held to the Truth?
With all humility I humbly request some answers on this point.
Here is an article heading from Reuters I believe
“Sainthood bid opens for John Paul”
OK. If the pope is infallable and the Vicar of Christ, etc., shouldn’t sainthood be automatic? How can he be infallable, have “ex-cathedra”, his word is God’s, etc. and not be a saint?
The Catholics seem to have backed themselves into a corner. This alone shows me that they themselves do not believe their own dogma.
Califander,
Saints commit mistakes. So not committing mistakes can’t possibly be a requisite for sainthood. Need examples?
Furthermore, you are mistaking the office of the Papacy with the individual.
Misconceptions about the dogma of Papal infallibility are common even among Catholics. I’ve already explained it on this thread, but I’d happy to do it again. The pronunciation “ex cathedra” does not apply to anything the Pope says, and it doesn’t mean that the man is infallible. It’s a last instance in questions of Faith. It could very well apply, say, to the condemnation of heretical doctrines.
And if it�s our dogma, of course we believe it.
George,
The Orthodox Church, and by that I mean the Patriarchs bound to the Byzantine Imperial Court, had already been is schism with Rome before. It lasted some decades, and it ended. And there was union. And both sides accepted everything the other one had to offer.
From a theological point of view, it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 or 1000 years. It is possible to solve the schism because it has been done before. If you claim it would be impossible to do so, both sides would already be in error before the great schism. What is, of course, impossible.
For example, the Arian heresy was well accepted on some places but declared heretic by the Pope. There was schism. The Pope was right, and the schism ended.
In 404 an action by the Byzantine Emperor caused the Pope break off communion with the East. The Pope was right. The Eastern Patriarchs recognized this, and there was union.
In 482, another Byzantine Emperor tried to solve the problem between the Church and the monophysites. The Pope rejected it. The pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantiple. Schism again. A different Byzantine emperor accepted this in 519. Once again, Union.
If it’s impossible to solve a schism, go argue about 404 and 484.
There’s more.
The Schisms was not immediate. In fact, it took more than a century to be complete. This means that, for some time, there were Orthodox Churches in union with Rome and in schism with Constantinople. But they were accepted back. Something you claim is impossible.
Besides, I have already pointed you to this document, found on the very anti-Catholic and anti-Ecumenic “Orthodox” website that claims reunion is possible. Are those Bishops heretics? Who is right, your or them? Read the document and deny it if you must.
Alas, the author of this text, Fr. Patrick Reardon, says union is possible, even if unlikely. I think he’s right.
Re comment 208:
George, I’m a pretty new Orthodox Christian, but I think your second point might be too strongly stated. The Orthodox I’ve encountered do seem to be open to seeing folks from other traditions (e.g. CS Lewis) as examples, on one level or another, of sanctity. The attitude I’ve encountered as to what/where is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church seems to be “I don’t know what isn’t, but I do know what is.” Still, my experience is limited. I’d appreciate any responsible correction.
Re comment 209:
Califander, I think that Catholics would argue that the charism of infallibility conferred on a Pope by virtue of his office is separate from the personal characteristics of holiness and union with God that are requisite for sainthood. That is to say, that the Holy Spirit guards the Pope from error in teaching whether he is as an individual a good man or a bad man. That at least is my understanding of how they see things.
George,
Since we’re engaging in sylogisms, here’s another:
1. The Saints are a part of the Church. We are in communion with them, we worship with them, say it however you like, they are part of the church.
2. The two churches are reconciled.
therefore.
3. The saints above are reconciled too.
I realize I’m just making up this argument, you can ignore it if you like.
I personally doubt that there are any schisms in heaven. I don’t think that the walls we’ve built down here make it up that high.
And I don’t believe that there are no saints outside the Orthodox Church. Of course we can’t officially commemorate them, and I can’t see the hierarchs canonizing anyone outside the faith, but like Mark said, just because we can’t say that their are doesn’t mean we have any right to say that there aren’t. You’re treading some dangerous ground, my friend. Do you really know where the Holy Spirit is not?
Salvation is found in Christ. Be careful about absolutizing the Church, since no created paradigm can define it given that life in Christ is existential (dynamic), not static.
Remember that, for example, St. John Chrysostom was exiled by other Bishops. Time proved Chrysotom correct and the other Bishops wrong. At the time however, it was not as clear as it is today. Remember too that Arius was a Bishop.
The life we draw from the Tradition is given to us by those who heard the Gospel and walked in it. This is preserved for us through the Tradition but it is only heard if we too walk in Gospel that they walked. Apart from that the truth remains unaccessible — no matter how much we think we might understand it.
George,
The Orthodox Church, and by that I mean the Patriarchs bound to the Byzantine Imperial Court, had already been is schism with Rome before. It lasted some decades, and it ended. And there was union. And both sides accepted everything the other one had to offer.
From a theological point of view, it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 or 1000 years. It is possible to solve the schism because it has been done before. If you claim it would be impossible to do so, both sides would already be in error before the great schism. What is, of course, impossible.
For example, the Arian heresy was well accepted on some places but declared heretic by the Pope. There was schism. The Pope was right, and the schism ended.
In 404 an action by the Byzantine Emperor caused the Pope break off communion with the East. The Pope was right. The Eastern Patriarchs recognized this, and there was union.
In 482, another Byzantine Emperor tried to solve the problem between the Church and the monophysites. The Pope rejected it. The pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantiple. Schism again. A different Byzantine emperor accepted this in 519. Once again, Union.
If it’s impossible to solve a schism, go argue about 404 and 484.
There’s more.
The Schism was not immediate. In fact, it took more than a century to be complete. This means that, for some time, there were Orthodox Churches in union with Rome and in schism with Constantinople. But they were accepted back.
Something you claim is impossible has already happened multiple times.
Besides, I have already pointed you to a document (comment 177) found on the very anti-Catholic and anti-Ecumenic Orthodox website that claims reunion is possible. Are those Bishops heretics? Who is right, your or them? Read the document and deny it if you must.
Alas, the author of this text, Fr. Patrick Reardon, says union is possible, even if unlikely. I think he’s right.
Califander said,
“OK. If the pope is infallable and the Vicar of Christ, etc., shouldn?t sainthood be automatic? How can he be infallable, have ?ex-cathedra”, his word is God?s, etc. and not be a saint?”
Infallability does not imply impecability. For example, the Holy Spirit moved Caiaphus to speak prophecy when he said it was better for one man to die for the people than have the whole nation perish. Caiaphus was certainly not a saint.
Mark AC and SteveB,
Thank you for your clarifications. As a Protestant convert, I still have confusion with the whole Papal Authority issue.
Like, “Who died and made you God?” kind of reaction!
I have no difficulty with the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church but I have serious difficulty with the “Authority of God” being dictated by an office and a personality.
Califander,
It is possible that a large part of your difficulty with the papacy is due to misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about papal authority. I think that your post 217 hints at such a misunderstanding. You refer loosely to papal authority as the authority of God being dictated by the pope. I think this view assumes that the Catholic Church attributes far more to the pope than actual Church teachings.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal authority is better described as protection from error than anything you have suggested. The Catholic Church does not claim that the pope is inspired or even that everything he says is correct. The only teaching similar to what you are suggesting is that the pope under very tightly defined conditions is prevented from proclaiming falsehoods as definitive teaching.
Based on the reading I have done, I believe that the only time that this authority was positively used was in proclamating the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
I understand that the Orthodox have great issues with this Catholic Church teaching. However, misunderstandings of the actual teachings make reconciliation that much more difficult.
Delance, RE your post #215. Your historical statements while not entirely inaccurate are simplistic and leave out much of what happened. They make it sound as if the Pope were running everything. Just not so.
Point 1: the Arian Heresy was fought against by not only the Pope, but the Cappadocian Fathers and St. Anthanasius as well. They were the real leaders in the fight. It took two Ecumenical Councils to settle the question. For you to say “For example, the Arian heresy was well accepted on some places but declared heretic by the Pope. There was schism. The Pope was right, and the schism ended”, is historic reductionism at its worst. Yes, several Popes participated and the Roman See remained faithful to the true tradition but please get your history correct.
Point 2: 404 A.D. I’m not sure which schism you are referring to. There was one after the 1st Council of Nicea over the proclamation of that Council that Constantinople had equal rights with Rome. Rome objected, excommunicated not only the Patriarch of Constantinople, but many others as well. That schism ended when Rome agreed to a different understanding of the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This schism was clearly not anything like you state it, but if you are referring to a different event, please clarify.
Point 3: The Monophysite heresy was support and promulgated by an Emperor in an attempt to make the Empire stronger. The heresy was condemned at the 5th EC which took place in Constantinople. The pope, Virgilus was a participant, however the decision of the Council took a long time to be accepted in the west but was eventually confirmed by a series of Popes essentially giving in to the decision of the Council. As a side point: one of the main ideas fought against at that Council was The excess use of Hellenic ideas to explain Christian concepts which can reach a point of destroying the unity and uniqueness of the revelation given once and for all in Christ Jesus. From the standpoint of Orthodoxy and many excellent Orthodox scholars and theologians, it was the re-importation of Hellenic ideas to explain Christian concepts by the Scholastics that led to the theological difficulties we experience between East and West today.
In short, your view is quite skewed and not at all supported by actual history. You also leave out the Photian Schism in the 10th century caused by the repeated attempt of Popes to illegally depose St. Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople. That schisms ended by an abject apology by the Roman Pope for the actions of his predecessors. The classic work on this schism was written by a Roman Catholic who honestly examined the historical record and the intertwined theological disputes and reluctantly concluded that the Pope was wrong on almost all counts.
Note 219. I need to look this up, but I don’t recall that the Patriarch of Rome was involved with Nicea at all. In fact, I don’t think there were any Western bishops present, or if there were just one or two (realizing of course that -East -West may be an arbitrary distinction for that time period).
Re #218: SteveB says:
****”The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal authority is better described as protection from error than anything you have suggested. The Catholic Church does not claim that the pope is inspired or even that everything he says is correct. The only teaching similar to what you are suggesting is that the pope under very tightly defined conditions is prevented from proclaiming falsehoods as definitive teaching.
Based on the reading I have done, I believe that the only time that this authority was positively used was in proclamating the doctrine of the immaculate conception.”*****
I find it interesting that the only Papal Authority used was to proclaim the Immaculate Conception. This, as I understand it, the Orthodox view as heresy. The Theotokos was not born with the impossibility of sinning, but that, rather, she chose not to sin. (Which brings another conflict of belief, because Orthodox do not believe in the concept of Original Sin, either.)
Therefore, Papal Authority under your definition and used in your example, does, in fact, proclaim falsehood as “definitive teaching”.
Which is one of the reasons why I have a problem it.
Regarding Papal Authority…It has been stated in this thread, that Papal Infallibility is only really invoked when a Council is unable to resolve a particular problem, and the Pope as last resort invokes Papal Infallibility in order to resolve the issue. (loose paraphrase)
Whilst on the face of it, this statement seems ok, I have the following issues with it:
1. Is the concept of papal infallibility based in scripture?
2. At the first apostolic synod, did the Apostles not invoke the Holy Spirit to assist them in resolving any issues? Did they not reach compromise and consensus between them without the need to defer to a single authority.
3. Does not the concept of papal infallibility, to solve a pressing spiritual/theological issue, expressly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit which is meant to guide the Church as a whole? Consider the miraculous way in which the 1st Ecumenical Council and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils were resolved ie, the miracle of St Spyridon and the St Euphemia respectively.
4. Papal infallibility was never previously invoked in relation to the 1st to the 7th Ecumenical Councils, and they resolved their issues through the Holy Spirit, so why the novel invention?
In an attempt to better understand the RC position, I would really like to have some answers. (Please note, that this is not meant as a ‘dig’ at the RCs. I’d just like to understand where you’re all comming from on this issue.)
Michael,
You completely missed the point on 219. What I was trying to do is demonstrate that schisms are not impossible to solve, like it was claimed here. You can either agree or disagree with that assertion, but I humbly ask you not to ignore it.
And I think I did demonstrated it, since it has happened before, and this view is consistent with Orthodox positions.
Instead of nitpicking historical details, what I’d be happy to do on a different occasion, I wish we could just agree on the major point. Or that at least those who disagree could answer to the objections of 215.
After we have resolved this issue, I’d be happy to talk about Church History, a subject I have great interest.
“1. Is the concept of papal infallibility based in scripture?”
I refuse to debate any argument based on Sola Scriptura.
“3. Does not the concept of papal infallibility, to solve a pressing spiritual/theological issue, expressly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit which is meant to guide the Church as a whole?”
No, because the pronunciation ex cathreda is done as the leader of the whole Church. Furthermore, its not meant to be an isolated position, but the statement of something that has always been true.
#218 Califander says
I find it interesting that the only Papal Authority used was to proclaim the Immaculate Conception. This, as I understand it, the Orthodox view as heresy. The Theotokos was not born with the impossibility of sinning, but that, rather, she chose not to sin. (Which brings another conflict of belief, because Orthodox do not believe in the concept of Original Sin, either.)
Therefore, Papal Authority under your definition and used in your example, does, in fact, proclaim falsehood as ?definitive teaching”.
———————————————————-
The doctrine of the immaculate conception does not say that Mary was incapable of sinning. It only states that Mary was free from original sin at her conception.
The difference between the two is obvious when you consider Eve. Eve was created without original sin. However, she was capable of sin and in fact sinned.
Michael,
You completely missed the point on 219. What I was trying to do is demonstrate that schisms are not impossible to solve, like it was claimed here. You can either agree or disagree with that assertion, but I humbly ask you not to ignore it.
And I think I did demonstrate it, since it has happened before, and this view is consistent with Orthodox positions.
Instead of nitpicking historical details, what I�d be happy to do on a different occasion; I wish we could just agree on the major point. Or that at least those who disagree could answer to the objections of 215.
After we have resolved this issue, I�d be happy to talk about Church History, a subject I have great interest.
1. Is the concept of papal infallibility based in scripture?
I refuse to debate any argument based on Sola Scriptura with an Orthodox.
3. Does not the concept of papal infallibility, to solve a pressing spiritual/theological issue, expressly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit which is meant to guide the Church as a whole? No, because the pronunciation ex cathreda is done as the leader of the whole Church. Furthermore, its not meant to be an isolated position, but the statement of something that has always been true.
George (222),
1. Is the concept of papal infallibility based in scripture?�
I refuse to debate any argument based on Sola Scriptura.
3. Does not the concept of papal infallibility, to solve a pressing spiritual/theological issue, expressly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit which is meant to guide the Church as a whole?�
No, because the pronunciation ex cathreda is done as the leader of the whole Church. Furthermore, its not meant to be an isolated position, but the statement of something that has always been true.
George,
I don’t have the knowlege to really respond to your questions 2-4. However, with regard to biblical support for papal infallibility see the following articles:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Delance:
1. How is asking for scriptural support Sola Scriptura? My understanding of Sola Scriptura is solely scripture; in other words scripture and nothing but scripture.
2. Any schism that you would choose to talk about is talking about church history. Specifically, the particular schisms that you mentioned were definitely in Church history.
3. So, Michael was simply looking at Church history to prove his point.
4. And you were looking at Church history to prove your point.
5. I saw no problem with your opinion of church history.
6. I saw no problem with Michael’s opinion of Church history. I do, however, agree with what Michael says.
7. If you would choose to follow your own logic, one could easily come to the conclusion that your historical points were “nitpicking historical details.”
8. What I believe has been said on this blog about unity is that worldly means will not work and that for unity to happen God had to get involved. Again this is my opinion. If I am wrong please correct me.
9. I also posted my idea for starting the process to unity: “…we need to pray for a miracle. However, to try to deal with primacy or any other issue, right now, is only going to lead to mud-slinging. What I believe needs to happen right now is to pray for the unity of the Faith which does not require immediate problem solving. It does require individuals from both Catholic and Orthodox backgrounds to get together and use whatever prayer form that can be agreed on, which goes beyond loving each other. (IMO, the psalms are a very good place to start.) If prayer is done properly, especially in this kind of situation, the entire mess will be given up to God. Once that happens, Catholics and Orthodox will be able to talk about issues like primacy, or anything else for that matter, without hiding behind arguments that people on both sides have been recycling ever since the schism happened.”
10. I believe that you are using your opinion of papal infallibility as a smoke screen to hide behind so that you can avoid other people’s opinions. Also you can, from behind this smoke screen, lash out at others’ opinions without fear of being wrong.
11. I am not saying that I don’t have smoke screens that I hide behind. I may not even realize what they are but I know that I do have my smoke screens that I feel comfortable behind.
12. I would disagree with your statement that schisms have been solved. I do not believe that they have been solved.
13. I do not have enough experience to respond any further to the schism thing.
14. What is your “major point” that you want us to agree on?
228 Garrison Bauman,
1. I might have overstepped a little, but since Papal Infallibility is considered to be such a wrong thing by our brothers, I assumed this is where the argument was headed. If I was wrong I apologize.
2. Yes.
3. He didn’t make a point (see bellow). Even if he is correct about Church History my major point remains.
4. Yes, but the details don’t change anything.
5. Thanks.
6. Same with me.
7. My point (see bellow) remains the same on either version
8. I didn’t see a consensus, but I generally agree with what you just said.
9. Sounds reasonable.
10. My original post had nothing to do with Papal infalibility, the two topics got confused. It’s probably my fault, because I replied about two different subjects on a single post.
11. Uhm. Didn’t quite get this one.
12. But if the first schism was not solved, then the second one, not to mention the current one, could not exist, because there would be no communion to break.
13. it’s either possible or impossible. If you don’t know, it’s possible.
14. The point is that it’s possible to solve a schism. In speacial the schism between East and West. And that it has been done before. And this view is historically and consistent with both sides. And that if it is impossible, we should be talking the first one.
There are two issues here: 1) the rise of the Papacy that parallels the rise of the Magisterium in the Roman Church; and 2) the concept of “infallibility” that is attributed to the Papal office.
The latter is a phenomena that parallels the concept of the infallibility of scripture found in the Protestant church. Both ideas arose around the late nineteenth century as a reaction to the increasing liberalization of European society.
When we hear that “infallibility” is a new concept (historically it is), we tend to think that any criticism of the concept is an attack on the veracity of either scripture, or in the case of Catholicism — the papal office. We assume that infallibility equals truth. Even the critics of Christianity operate from this premise, ie: if you can show a contradiction in scripture, the entire edifice ostensibly crumbles.
The real question we need to ask is if truth and infallibility are the same thing.
I agree with Garrison, btw. The Papal claims need scriptural support.
Delance: Schisms. There is a difference between being healed and being solved. On one level you are correct. The schisms you mention were solved in an immedidate practical sense, but IMO never really healed. The one from 404 over rights afforded to Rome and rights afforded to Constantiople kept bubbling up over the next 600 years like an incurable infection. There is a direct link between the schism of 404 and the Great Schism we are in today.
The Monophysite schism after Chalcedon is still with us today.
The Photian Schism I mentioned was entwined with the burgeoning (at the time) controversy over the filioque (sound familiar?).
Also your embedded idea that the Pope just seemed to wave his magic staff and “poof” all was made well just isn’t ture. The attempts to heal the schisms, unsuccessful though they proved to be involved the whole Church over decades. What healing there was came as the result of the work of councils, not the edicts of the Pope.
Since the Papal claims are at the foundation of the current schism, my original objection does not seem to me to be “historical nitpicking”.
Fr. Jacobse or Michael
Where can I find an article or essay on the Orthodox understanding of the crucifixtion (yes, a rather big topic). Also it would have to be written at a lawperson’s level. Can you refer me somewhere?
Let me hunt around. It might take a few days. I’m out of town until Thursday for a family vacation.
Fr.Jacobse
No hurry, next time you run across an essay or article on the topic, it would be fine if you would just post the link.Thank you.
Missourian, the book I would recommend is St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. The Crucifixion cannot be taken out of context as a separate event, but must be considered in the context of our Lord’s Incarnation and Resurrection. The book does not use a lot of church jargon and the translation was quite well done. The entire book encluding the introduction by C.S. Lewis and the translator’s preface is only 96 pages long. The book is also one that you can read, then read again and again. I have read it three times through completely and each time a more full and deeper understanding was revealed.
One concept that one must keep in mind: from an Orthodox understanding death is not a punishment sent by God, but the inevitable result of turning away from God. Death is Satan’s work and domain and is wholly un-Godly. As you read St. Athanasius, keep that in the back of your mind.
Note 235 Thanks Michael
I’ll drive in and see if I can swim. May take me a while to get through it. Thanks.
NOte 236 Make that “dive” in and “see if I can swim.”
Need sleep.
Dear Orthodox Christians, I am a Roman Catholic Christian, and I found your site tonight and I was saddend. We as Catholics & Orthodox Christians need to look at our common ground. We both make the sign of the cross, celebrate commuion, have crosses on and in our churches, and many more. I celebrated Mass in a Byzantian Catholic church, and received commuion the same way as YOU do. I belive that that is the only way for commuion. I have gone to RC churces with no statues, but icons instead. I embrace all 22 Catholic Rites, Latin Mass, and I want to embrace the Orthodox church to. You see Christ made one church, but man has divided it up. I would have no problem having a screen between the people and the Alter & Icons. My RCC has changed alot since 1962 and that was a sad mistake for us. I feel that with the Orthodox church help, we can bring it back to the center and start reuniting Our churches together. Caneel had a good point #1. It’s like this, I live in Texas and I visit you in Iowa. I respect your laws and break bread with you, but I still live in Texas. Commuion is the key to Our answer. We belive that the bread & wine is True body & blood of Christ. We Should not bicker about what our brothers are not doing, but praise what they are doing like us.You put your left shoe on first, I put my right shoe on first. We are still brothers the same. So many Protestantis churches have no crosses, nor commuion, they put Mary down. The Roman Catholic Church is Your Brother in Christ, Do not hate us because of things in the past. After all we are all men & women in this world. I am in Your corner for reuionifacation, but PLEASE do not blatinly badger my church for I never had or will ever badger the Orthodox Church. That is a non Christian thing to do
Robert, a very kindly worded post. I wish I could reply in a happier way. I would carry your analogy of states that are united a little further. As it was explained to me years ago, the Orthodox have an image of the Bishop of Rome that could be compared to the Speaker of the House in American federal government. He runs meetings, starts and stops things, calls things to order. However, when it comes time to vote on government matters, he has *one* vote as everyone else does. He doesn’t veto every other vote, or cast the one ovte that counts. If the Pope were to no longer be for the Roman Church effectively Bishop of Earth, we would be a good deal further down the road. — Bob Koch