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.
I have a question here. Maybe I’m simple minded in this matter, but why can’t the Pope have a centralized Western Patriarchy (what constitutes the present Catholic Church), but at the same time be “First among equals” with the rest of the Patriarchs (The Orthodox Church). All he has to do is to abstain from trying to interfere and to have jurisdiction over the other Patriarchies (and autocephalous Orthodox Churches). They can run their Churches according to Orthodox tradition and the Pope as the Patriarch of the West runs his according to RC traditions.
An example comes to mind. Here in Canada we are a monarchy under the Queen of England, however, she is also Queen of Canada. But we pretty much run our screwed up lefty-country ourselves. She does not interfere in the day to day business of the Canadian government (this goes also for Australia, New Zealand and all other members of the Commonwealth), but all law, etc. is degreed in her name. Why can’t the “universal papacy” be modelled on this situation.
I know this does not address the theological and dogmatical diffrences between East and West, but I am not adressing those here.
This is the way that some in the Catholic Church counsel that “papal primacy” ought to work. The Pope is “First Among Equals” while remaining patriarch of the Church of Rome. From the Orthodox POV, Pope Benedict is still the rightfull patriarch of Rome. How Orthodoxy would respond to a reinterpretation of papal primacy remains to be seen, but the title “First among equals” has historical legitimacy, although how this would work in real life remains to be seen.
Dear Fathr Jacobse et al.:
Only problem is (from the Catholic POV)–the historical record of the first millennium shows the popes exercising universal *jurisdiction,* not mere primacy of honor or a purely honorary first-among-equals thingywhatsit.
No, I’m not saying the full-blown Vatican I papacy emerged whole and intact on the first Pentecost, like Athena from the head of Zeus. No informed Catholic argues for such an a-historical absurdity. But a “pattern of primacy” *is* discernible from early on…and it gathers momentum throughout the patristic centuries.
Moreover, even vis-a-vis the East, this pattern of primacy consists of more than mere “first among equals” or “primacy of honor” status. The early popes resolved bitter disputes that troubled the East; sent delegates to the ecumenical councils (and confirmed/ratified the decsions of those councils); and even occasionally acted proactively to deal with Eastern difficulties. Yea, verily, there were occasions when the pope played a fairly decisive role in saving the East’s theological tush. 😉
It’s certainly true that the pope properly exercises a more direct, immediate jurisdiction in the West than in the East. As Michael Winter argues, after the Schism, some of the powers proper to the pope’s role as Patriarch of the West became conflated with the powers proper to his role as Universal Pastor. In the event of reunion, we would need to disentangle those “strands.” In the event of reunion, the pope’s governance of the East would perforce be more mediate, more indirect, more hands-off. E.g., the Eastern patriarchs, not the pope, would presumably appoint Eastern bishops. And, per the principle of subsidiarity (also operative in the West), the pope would not normally interfere with the East’s affairs unless a serious problem warranted such intervention, or unless an otherwise irresoluble dispute arose between patriarchs, or unless an Eastern hierarch appealed to Rome for intervention.
Nonetheless, the pope’s leadership of the East would still be authoritative, not merely honorary. We’re talking about real authority here–substantive, not empty, authority conferred by Christ Himself.
IMHO, it’s a-historical and unrealistic to expect that the pope will function *merely* as “first among equals” vis-a-vis the East. This minimalist view does not accord with either Scripture or the historical record. Jesus told Peter to feed and tend His sheep and lambs–*all* His sheep and lambs, not just the Western ones. That means the East needs “tending” too–which is why the pope is Universal Pastor. As numerous authoritative Catholic documents attest, the pope’s universal pastorate is an essential, integral part of his role–one that will not be jettisoned, I guarantee. 😀
So, where does that leave us? Darned if I know. 😀 I assume that, following JPII’s appeal in *Ut Unum Sint,* theologians and hierarchs from both communions will eventually iron out some model of papal jurisdiction-in-action that is neither hyper-ultramontane nor unrealistically minimalist. And perhaps, based on this shared vision, some sectors of Orthodoxy will be open to reunion (while others won’t be open until the Eschaton or even thereafter. :D)
Then again, maybe we will be reunited by a miracle wrought through the intercession of the Theotokos, Mother of Christian Unity. Personally, I’m banking on that scenario.
But I can guarantee the Theotokos won’t reunite the Churches based on a pope-as-merely-first-among-equals model–a sort of EP Writ Large. She has too much sense–and too much knowledge of the historical record–for that. 😉
This is agreat blog, BTW.
Diane
Nevertheless the «political differences», and as a catholic educated European citizen, I consider the Orthodox Church as my own Church too.
Caneel, what you suggest is more or less what the Orthodox have been suggesting for over 1000 years. All we have ever gotten in response is “Submit”. Pope John Paul II was certainly more gentle and diplomatic, but I never saw any desire on his part to change the fundamental nature of Papal claims.
I honor many of the saints of the Roman tradition because they transcend theology in their communion with God and love for mankind. However, until the issue of ecclesial authority is resolved, we will remain separated.
The theological issues: The filoque, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallability, Purgatory, the form of the liturgy, etc. could all be worked out eventually once the authority issue is. Until then, trying to align the other theological issues is hopeless and in my view, pointless.
The reason why the Pope can’t simply exercise his authority over the patriarchate of the West/Rome and just leave the other ones alone is because that would undermine the very basis of the Papal office, being that Christ told Peter that he was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church and that He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.
If the Pope were to reject his de jure authority over the entire Church of Christ on earth, it would essentially be considered a rejection of the magisterium that has developed over a millennium. The First Vatican Council didn’t just happen out of a vacuum. It was more like the culmination of hundreds of years of teaching, etc.
To all: I’m adamant about what I am about to say so it may come across as angry, it is really not.
The Orthodox Church is not the church of Roman Catholics. If she were the Church of Roman Catholics, we would be in communion. We are not. I consider it insulting when I am faced with statements such as Orlando’s and a very good friend of mine to the effect, “We are already one Church”. That is not true. A word to the wise. If you want to live in the Roman tradition, that’s your choice, but live there, please don’t go trying to poach and co-opt the theology and Tradition the Orthodox have lived and defended against almost overwhelming tides of oppression and persecution for 2000 years. The Roman ecclesiology, soteriolgy, and theology is drastically different on many different planes. The Patriarch of the West bit is particularly gauling as it implicitly denies all that Rome has taught and struggled for since at least the 9th century. Live your faith and tradition, that is great. Just don’t confuse it with the Orthodox faith and tradition. If you do, you will be living neither.
Is salvation possible through the Roman Church? Since I believe that Jesus can and will save anyone He wishes to save, I have to answer yes, but IMPAO(in my probably arrogant opinion)salvation is in spite of much of the Roman teaching, not because of it.
As Fr. Patrick aptly put it, we don’t miss the Pope, however it seems that a growing number of Roman Catholics miss us. Wonderful! Come join us, just don’t pretend you already have.
Michael: I am Orthodox. That might explain my comment/question.
Jacob: If this would be the final Catholic position, then why are we talking at all? The Orthodox Church has rejected this idea for over a thousand years. For the Catholic Church to just repeat it over and over and hope that the Orthox will someday, maybe fatigued, accept it sounds pretty insane to me (as in: repeating the same thing over and over and expect different results). If there is no movement on this issue, all talk is futile. This was and is the major reason for the schism.
If we Orthodox could not agree with the Catholics on this matter in a thousand years, another two-thousand years will not change this…
What do we mean by greater unity between the churches? This is an important question for Orthodox Christians, because while some forms of greater unity may be desirable, others are not.
Certainly it is important to continue to heal and reduce the historical divisions between the churhes that have festered for centuries. Before his death Pope John Paul II made several important gestures towards reconciliation with Orthodox Christianity and I think it is important for the Orthodox church to respond to them in a warm-hearted and generous manner.
We might be able to particpate in some ecumenical gatherings with the Roman Catholic leadership and explore areas in which we can reconcile our some of doctrinal differences and bring our our theological positions closer together. We might be able to issue some joint statements of faith with them in a manner which emphasizes the solidarity of the two churches on certain issues. We might even be able to designate a church holiday for joint worship employing a hybrid format that incorporates areas of overlapping and common liturgy, prayer and belief.
What Orthodox Christians cannot do is recognize the current authority claimed by the Roman Catholic Pope and adopt, as a whole, all of the theological positions, canonical laws, clerical rules of the Roman Catholic church.
However Orthodox Christianity should respond with it’s own gesture of reconciliation in order to put the ball back in the RCC court and see what further gestures or concessions the Roman Catholic Church is actually prepared to make. There may not be anything further that either church is prepared to concede, but if we at least have removed the old emnity and bitterness, that in itself will be a blessing and a success.
Catholics are saved “in spite of much of the [Catholic] teaching, not because of it” is a comment worthy of Chick Publications and I’m surprised you made it, Michael.
God Bless.
Note 9: Actually, Jack Chick doesn’t think Catholics (along with other heretics like Mormons, Buddhists and Unitarians) can make it into Heaven at all.
To find out how one can make into God’s glory, please say The Sinner’s Prayer© (in English) as stated at the bottom of every tract (which can be obtained by sending a $3 Love Offering to Chick Publications)!
Daniel, I make the comment on Catholic salvation simply because of my experience with so many Roman Catholic friends during my life. So many I have know have severe problems entering into an honest relationship with God because of what they have been taught about Him. Such a state quite probably exists within the Orthodox Church as well, but the teaching I have received from her has been so routinely healing (even from a defective priest) that I haven’t experienced it.
The comment is not in any way to assert that all Catholics are going to hell. That is nonsense. Jesus Christ has not and will not desert the Catholics just because of theology that does not fit with the revealed tradition we maintain nor will He accept all Orthodox into His Kingdom.
However, theology can either make it easier to accept the salvific grace of God or more difficult. My experience, personal and observing others, in comparing Roman and Orthodox theology is that we make it easier, Rome makes it harder.
I am sure that Jack Chick would also include we idol worshipping pagan Orthodox as well.
Hello Michael,
I can’t agree with your statement that RC’s are saved in spite of rather than because of Roman teaching. Maybe teaching’s not even the point. How about their being saved in spite of or because of God’s grace through the Sacraments and in their lives of devotion? I’m thinking this relationship is causal.
I’ve just seen too much that I have to respect in Catholic Spirituality to agree with your assessment.
Thanks,
David
Caneel: The point has been made recently that if nothing is true and everything is relative, then there is no need for dialogue. (I am not remembering where I read that, but it stemmed from all the talk of dialogue that has surrounded Benedict’s election.)
Understanding each other, while not being able to compromise, is still a worthy goal in itself. Orthodox consider their positions to be the right ones and Roman Catholics consider theirs to be the right ones. This is for the moment as God wills it as a stage in our spiritual journey through history.
I agree with Fr. Reardon, for the time being, everything is as it should be for the betterment of Roman Catholics and Orthodox everywhere.
David, God’s grace is sufficient for all of us regardless of how or where we receive it.
Jacob, if neither side is willing (or able) to concede on the papacy, what is the point of talking? However, I understand the fact that both of our churches face a common enemy, militant secular-relativism, and thus should stand together against it. But talk about theology, dogma and re-unification seems to me futile as long as the Catholic Church doesn’t or cannot re-think the whole of the papal claims…
In addition, I think that the Catholic Church at the moment has too much internal problems to even consider re-unification talks with the orthodox. And the Orthodox Church should be careful not to get “contaminated” by the rampant liberalism and turmoil in the Catholic Church. Maybe in another 100 years things will have settled and we’ll talk again… In the meantime, by all means, let’s direct our attention toward the common enemy!
Note 4: I don’t think the form of the liturgy should be a problem in achieving Reconciliation. I’m pretty (thought not absolutely) sure that Rome has had a distinct rite for at least 1500 years, in other words from well before the Schism.
That said, the current Roman Rite leaves a lot to be desired. I’ve been to a Tridentine Mass, which was seemed a spiritually rich experience. However, far too many Catholic churches use overly stripped down masses that leave a lot to be desired. Still, that’s probably more a question of tradition that Tradition.
Speaking of liturgies, I would add that (as far as I can tell) Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the use and nature of icons. Catholics do not celebrate the equivalent of the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Also, a Catholic church I attended with friends (one with a very solid, lower-case “o” orthodox reputation) had the practice of covering up statuary during one Sunday (I forget which; perhaps Catholic readers can comment). The priest explained that the practice was to create a “fast for the eyes” or some such, and admitted that Catholic statuary is primarily aesthetic. Orthodox iconography makes powerful statements about the Incarnation, Transfiguration, and Life to Come, so perhaps this is another area where “dialogue” is needed.
Alexander, the covering of statues and crucifixes was, as I remember, practiced during Holy Week, from Holy Friday to Eastermorning…. during this time the main altar was also “desolate” (that is all altar coverings and adornments were removed) but the last time I heard of it being done was waaaaaay back in the 60th…
Michael,
Surely noone can disagree with what you write, but I meant to assert that it is typically and ordinarily received through the Roman Catholic Church. They articulate a few of their doctrines differently than we do, and they certainly understand ecclesial authority differently than we do. You seem to think that these differences are so great that they have obscured the gospel. I’m saying that a person who is baptized Catholic and lives a faithful life according to Roman Standards is doing pretty good, however tragic it is for me that I’m not in communion with him/her.
The fact that you can find lots of Roman Catholics who do not live faithfully is not an indictment of Roman Doctrine per se. Nor is the fact that hoardes of Orthodox Christians are nominal a defeater for Orthodox Tradition.
David, I have obviously been unclear in my comments. Sorry. I agree with much of what you say in #19. My point is that the teachings and thelogy of the Roman Catholic Church puts unnessary barriers in the way of people seeking to live a humble Christian life and realize salvation. Many of the people in the Roman Church are remarkable.
Does the Roman Church obscure the Gospel? IMO, yes. Her ecclesiology, soteriology, and anthropology depart from much tht is reveal in Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers. Do many of her people live the Gospel in spite of that, yes.
As Christ drew me to Himself I had four choices as to where I would communue with Him: Protestantism, Catholicism, New Age Christianity, and Orthodoxy. I encountered Jesus is in each of those places, but only in the Orthodox Church was the healing, restoration, and resurrection of the sacramental life offered in such an open and free manner.
“Come, taste and see that the Lord is good”. All that is required is to disavow Satan and all his works, accept the undivided Trinity who has saved us (as expressed in the original version of the Nicean Creed), and reject all untruth about God (heresies) ancient and modern. All three of these are on going in my life and in the lives of ALL the Orthodox I know. I have never found such a witness in any other place. The grace of the sacraments and the presence of the Holy Spirit prevades and permeates everything and everyone.
Christ is Risen!
Michael, I think it would help if you could give a concrete example for your assertion:”the teachings and theology of the Roman Catholic Church puts unnessary barriers in the way of people seeking to live a humble Christian life and realize salvation.”
Caneel,
Michael has at least told us that the problem lies with Roman Soteriology, ecclesiology and anthropology.
Michael,
I’m glad you’ve found such an amazing sampling of Orthodox folks! What percentage of our 350 million Orthodox folk world wide do you think would best be described as ‘Nominal’ or ‘Cultural’ Orthodox?
My conversion story is important to me, too, but there are a lot of really inspiring stories of people who have rediscovered God’s grace in the Roman Catholic Church as well.
Perhaps more important, think about the countless saints and martyrs who have died for the Creed WITH the filioque.
As an Orthodox, I have to believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church, and that every other group is to some degree separated from the Church (which is RC’s should believe about their church). To be less firm than that is to buy into some sort of branch theory that couldn’t possibly be right. However, I can’t believe that there’s no Grace at all in the Roman Catholic Church. If I believed that, then I wouldn’t find it scandalous that we’re separated.
Perhaps I’ve been unfair. You never said there was no grace in the RCC, and you never said that people don’t receive God’s Grace through the RCC. It just sounded like that when you said that RC’s are saved in spite of Roman Teaching and subsequently that the Gospel is obscured in the RCC.
How ’bout this: RC faithful receive God’s Grace through the RCC in spite of a few errors in RC Doctrine.
I’m probably not as comfortable calling them errors, and I bet I’d have a shorter list of areas of genuine disagreement btwn us and them, but I’d be pretty happy with the above.
Note 3. Diane, the claim that the Patriarch of Rome exercised jurisdictional authority over the other Patriarchs is a late claim and can’t be substantiated by appeals to history. The Pope has never had jurisdictional authority over the Orthodox Patriarchs, just as he has no juridictional authority over the Protestant communions. The claim only exists within Roman Catholicism.
Caneel & David: Thank you both for pushing me to a more full and complete articulation in support of my belief that salvation for Roman Catholics is many times in spite of their theology, not because of it. As Orthodox, we assert that beliefs have consequences. Beliefs are not just a rational construct that one can compartmentalize without it effecting one’s life and soul.
I recognize that there are many Orthodox who are nominal and social Orthodox at best, but even these are changed and transformed by the presence of the Holy Spirit working through the sacramental life of the Church, even when they don’t even care that much about it. Some of these folk are in my parish.
1st I have never said nor to I believe that there is no grace in the Roman Catholic Church, in fact I have said just the opposite. If there were no grace, there would be no salvation at all.
2nd I am not referring to all of the Roman Church’s teaching currently nor historically.
A more complete explanation, still greatly simplified:
Ecclesiology: The papal claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth divides the Church into an earthly church and a heavenly church and effectively limits the dominion of the Holy Spirit over the earthly church. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, such a belief also tends to separate the human nature of Christ and the divine nature of Christ. Such a belief is heretical. Such a separation also has profound consequences for the Roman Church’s soteriology.
Soteriology: A brief list: Purgatory with its accompanying baggage of indulgences, and the excess grace of the saints. Even without the outright traffic in indulgences of the Middle Ages, there is still the sense that salvation can be bartered for. Grace is not sufficient, the forgiveness of God is not sufficient. At best salvation becomes a legalistic, mechanistic event that occurs if you just do this, then this, etc. Along with the mechanistic nature of salvation comes the belief that the Kingdom of Heaven can only be experienced after we die, a belief that validates the separation inherent in the belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. A belief that is significantly at odds with Orthodox belief, practice, and experience.
Anthropology: A view of man and original sin that approaches and anticipates Calvin’s blasphemy of the total depravity of man. Since grace and forgiveness cannot really penetrate man’s soul, healing and resurrecting him, allowing him into the Kingdom of God, man must live under a constant guilt. The rational mind becomes the only means of reaching out to God.
The Church is left in limbo, not of this world surely, but not really in it either, nor is she in the Kingdom. The sacraments become an artificial, almost magical, clerical tool for intimidation and control.
The result of such teaching in the west gave rise to two intertwined revolts: Humanism and the Reformation. Humanism gives us Descartes’ horrifying dictum: “I think therefore I am” while the Reformation became in large part anti-clerical and anti-sacramental while maintaining the rationalistic frame of reference. Those that rejected the rationalism, the Pietists, became the forbearers of the Christian traditions of today that see hyper-emotionalism as the sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Such a false dichotomy in man gave rise to the mind/heart split which rules much of western Christianity and philosophy today. A dicotomy blessedly absent from Orthodoxy.
In the 14th century, the Holy Spirit raised up a reluctant defender and articulator of the truth as revealed, contained and preserved by the Holy Orthodox Church. That man, St. Gregory of Palamas, showed us the errors of western rationalism and authoritarianism. The differences now are even greater than they were then. When we seek to minimize the differences we deny the life and teaching of one of our greatest saints.
We can, and should, face the differences in love and understanding, because we do hold in common the belief in the reality of the undivided Trinity, the second person of which Incarnated for us and for our salvation in Jesus, the Christ. We can and should work together to witness to the moral and cultural decline in today’s world. We can and should pray for each other that the hardness of our hearts be healed. Nevertheless, we are not one Church at all, nor two lungs, nor any of that. The differences are vast and humanly insurmountable.
I hope this suffices to clarify my statement.
Thank you Michael, that was a splendid explanation. These are (among minor others) the reasons why I am Orthodox today and not Catholic anymore. It took me a looong time “from there to here” and I just wanted to see them spelled out again… 🙂
Thank you very much again
Thanks Michael,
Sorry for being so beligerent about all this, and thank you for taking the time with me. Your view is much more nuanced than I thought at first, and I would have known that if I had read your posts thoroughly enough.
I have to admit that I’m a little uneasy about some very strong claims that you’ve made about ideas, their consequences, and the cultural historical critique involved. I understand that a lot of people way smarter and way more faithful than me agree with you, though. I suspect my instinct may be a minority one…and that’s probably not so good…
Thanks again,
David, it is the weakness of electronic communication to drive out nuance. To get a more comprehensive understanding of my view, pay more attention to the paragraph about what Orthodox and Roman Catholics share, i.e., the common belief in an undivided Trinity, the second person of which Incarnated for us and our salvation. The filoque aside, there is not now, nor ever has been a serious disageement on the fundamnental core reality of Chrisitanity. I cannot make the same statement about Protestants.
In debate, certain parts of ideas get empahsized and the expense of others depending upon the opposition. I find it quite difficult to be reasonalble and balanced about the nature of the division between we Orthodox and the Roman Catholics when I am met with a constant barrage of statements that the very real differences don’t really matter.
I had a brief talk with a Roman Catholic priest over the weekend. He has always been attracted to the Orthodox Church, but has stayed with Rome primarily due to the strength of continuity and tradition he found in the Papacy. As he has had more actual contact with Orthodox reality over the last few years, he finds, to his costernation, that despite not having a centalized form, Tradition in the Orthodox Church is stronger and more vital than in the Roman Catholic Church. He has to decide whether he wants to stay with Rome or follow his heart and come East. He does not know how to resolve the claims by each side that the other is wrong. He is not alone.
I personally feel that quite a bit of the talk about East and West already being one Church, minimizing the differences, pushing for union withour any real foundation, comes from a similar longing as my priest acquaintance. It is easier not to face the tough decision if there is really no difference. Most people shy from confrontation, especially with other people with whom they share a lot of important common ground.
I am sure that I over empahsize both the actual quality and consequences of the differences due to the de-emphasis coming from the West, my son certainly thinks so. His solution is to forget the hierarchy and for Orthodox and Roman Catholic laity who sincerely want unity to get together in small groups, alone if necessary, however it is possible, and pray the Psalms with the offering of praise and supplication they embody as a petition to God for His help to bring us back together. He thinks there is far too much talk about ideas and too little actual supplication to God for His help and intercession. He has a point.
I do not in any way feel that you have been beligerent. It is too easy to fall back on slogans without content as replacement for actual thought. You were quite right to challenge me.
God bless you, Christ is Risen!
#21: “My point is that the teachings and thelogy of the Roman Catholic Church puts unnessary barriers in the way of people seeking to live a humble Christian life and realize salvation.”
I have been Catholic most of my life, and I have never exprienced these “unnecessary barriers” you allude to. For me, Catholicism is more conducive to a deep, fruitful relationship with Christ than any other form of Christianity I’ve encountered.
Fr. Jacobse: With all due respect–and with great appreciation for your blog’s irenicism–I do not see how you can make the claims you make in #24 with a straight face. Perhaps we are reading different historical sources? 😉 😉 Personally, I find numerous references to the Roman See’s universal primacy in the testimonies of the Fathers from a remarkably early period. Even if one manages to ignore, downplay, or explain away Clement’s intervention in Corinth or Ignatius’s reference to “the church presiding in love,” one is hard put, I think, to explain away Irenaeus’s remarkable comment: “With this Church [Rome], because of its superior origin, all other churches muct agree.”
And that is merely the tip of the patristic iceberg. The early popes themselves–including some venerated as saints in the Orthodox calendar–explicitly claimed universal jurisdiction based on key Scriptural texts. (I’m thinking of Stephen, Damasus, Leo, and others.) And Fathers from both East and West agreed with their assessment. (Relevant passages available upon request; I’ll have to look ’em up first, but that shouldn’t take much time.)
Moreover, the early ecumenical councils furnish ample evidence for the papacy’s jurisdictional primacy. Just as one particularly famous for-instance: When Philip the papal legate told the Ephesine Fathers that the successors of Peter had always exercised jurisdiction over Christ’s flock, no one, it seems, disagreed with him; in fact, IIRC, his words were incorporated into the conciliar acta.
I am citing these few examples off the top of my head, but many others can be furnished as well–and I’m more than willing to furnish ’em when time permits. It would require more space than a combox provides to build the entire impressive historical case, of course. Given the limitations of the combox medium, I can but furnish a catena of proof-texts–and one can always pooh-pooh proof-texts, can’t one? 😉 However, I must say, I’ve noticed that those who pooh-pooh proof-texts most vociferously are seldom able to supply anywhere near as many patristic passages in return, in opposition to papal claims or in support of their own ecclsiology. I do not say this with reference to anyone here, of course; I’m not even familiar enough with this blog to make such a pointed statement; it’s merely a general observation, based on previous occasions when I’ve supplied patristic citations showing early acceptance of papal primacy, only to have my evidence dismissed as “proof-texting”–and, all the while, the naysayers themselves provide few or no patristic passages in rebuttal. Sigh. Such is the lot of the papist who hangs out with Orthodox and Anglican cyberchums. 😀 (But I can’t help it; I love youse guys.)
Anyway, getting back to the res: Outside the limited combox medium, of course, much fuller, more detailed historical analyses are available in support of Catholic / papal claims. Some of these analyses are by topnotch scholars and based on considerable primary evidence…so they cannot be easily dismissed or written off. They demand to be taken seriously, at least, even if my poor proof-texts do not. 😉
Bottom line: We Catholics are not total idiots. We would not believe our Church’s historical claims if they were really as flimsy and unsupportable as some folks seem to assume. 😉
Ineed, if the historical case for Catholicism could really be rebutted as easily and tidily as my non-Catholic brethren seem to think, then Catholicism would not have lasted two years, let alone 2,000.
God bless!
Diane
Diane, my comment in #21 is derived from a lifetime of contact with many Catholics some of them quite close friends. I am glad such is not the case for you. My further comments on the specifics is based on a many years of study of history, philosphy, and religious thought. As with all such constructs, it can be easily attacked in many different ways, just as can the idea of Papal Primacy or collegiality. Personally, I find that the whole working of ecclesial authority in both East and West is seriously flawed. Neither classical historical statement is quite correct. In short, we are both wrong, I just find that the Orthodox position is less wrong. There may even be a really good reason why the two different visions have co-existed for so long. How about that for a topic?
Catholics are not idiots, but history is full of many ideas that have no basis in fact or reality being held on to by intelligent people for long periods of time. The human capcity for rationalization is almost infinite. Mere longevity proves nothing about truth.
Dear Michael (#30): Re your many years of study of history, philosophy, and religious thought: May I respectfully suggest that this is no substitute for lived experience of the Catholic Faith? 😀 In my brief perusal of some of the combox comments above, I noticed some caricatures of Catholic beliefs–e.g., of the doctrine of Purgatory–that are far removed from the actual content of the doctrines themselves and from the way Catholics live and experience them. If these inaccurate caricatures actually comprise your picture of Catholicism, then it’s no wonder you reject the Catholic Church. But I suggest you may be rejecting a straw-man–a construct of your own imagination.
Not only I but countless other Catholics have experienced freedom, intimacy with Christ, and spiritual fulfillment through the Catholic Faith. If it were not so, the Church would not be over a billion strong–and attracting new converts every day. At this past Easter Vigil, more than 150,000 catechuemns entered the Catholic Church in the U.S. alone. (IIRC, the number was closer to 160,000.) A church that spiritually enslaves people or erects barriers to their spiritual growth does not attract such numbers, I contend. It certainly doesn’t keep ’em once it’s attracted ’em–yet most of the converts I know are more spiritually content, with a greater sense of being “home,” five, 10, or 20 years after their conversions than at the moment when the chrism dried on their foreheads.
Re your other point: It’s certainly true that many Christians have clung tenaciously to their sectarian confessions despite flimsy historical support therefor. But I would suggest that such historical amnesia occurs far more frequently among Bible-only groups with an aversion to Church history than among Catholics, whose apologetics are steeped in Church history. I contend that, the more one reads in the Fathers, the more support one finds for the papal and Catholic claims. In my experience, it is only by reading very selectively–with a view toward avoiding the most uncomfortably pro-papal passages–that one can maintain with a straight face that papal jurisdictional primacy is absent from the patristic record.
Blessings,
Diane
Maybe this is a silly question, and if so tell me and I’ll go back to my silence, but here goes: When did the Christians in the East start referring to themsleves as “Orthodox” as opposed to Catholics? Please don’t give me the definition of the term, I already know that.
It’s just that, I can understand where the Catholic, i.e, “universal”, Church gets its titular description (and then there’s the “one, holy, catholic, and apostilic” line in the Creed). But it has been on my mind lately, how did the Orthodox, i.e., right teaching, Church came to its moniker.
God Bless.
Note 29. Diane, I am not sure what you mean by “jurisdictional authority.” Again, if “jurisdictional authority” meana that Rome has a claim to administrative authority over the other Patriarchates (and by extension Protestantism), the history shows this never occurred. Rome tried to expand administrative authority, and at times interfered in other patriarchates, but never succeeded in directing the other patriarches in any appreciable measure. (Roman interference in the Slavic lands during the Photios reign for example was a grave problem.) If “jurisdictional authority” means a primacy of honor, the Orthodox could agree to this with certain reservations. The Pope still remains the rightful Patriarch of the Roman Church in the Orthodox understanding.
Remember too that none of the Ecumenical Councils were ever based in Rome.
Diane,
No one that I know considers Roman Catholics to be idiots. The problem with history lies in its interpretation. There are two different frameworks employed. This can be readily demonstrated by the following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon.
“In 449 the council, which was designated by Leo as the “Robber Synod”, was held. Flavian and other powerful prelates of the East appealed to the pope. The latter sent urgent letters to Constantinople, particularly to Emperor Theodosius II and Empress Pulcheria, urging them to convene a general council in order to restore peace to the Church. To the same end he used his influence with the Western emperor, Valentinian III, and his mother Galla Placidia, especially during their visit to Rome in 450. This general council was held in Chalcedon in 451 under Marcian, the successor of Theodosius. It solemnly accepted Leo’s dogmatical epistle to Flavian as an expression of the Catholic Faith concerning the Person of Christ. The pope confirmed the decrees of the Council after eliminating the canon, which elevated the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while diminishing the rights of the ancient Oriental patriarchs. On 21 March, 453, Leo issued a circular letter confirming his dogmatic definition (ep. cxiv). Through the mediation of Bishop Julian of Cos, who was at that time the papal ambassador in Constantinople, the pope tried to protect further ecclesiastical interests in the Orient. He persuaded the new Emperor of Constantinople, Leo I, to remove the heretical and irregular patriarch, Timotheus Ailurus, from the See of Alexandria. A new and orthodox patriarch, Timotheus Salophaciolus, was chosen to fill his place, and received the congratulations of the pope in the last letter which Leo ever sent to the Orient.”
There are at least two ways to look at the above story, which could loosely be called the ‘Orthodox’ way and the ‘Roman Catholic’ way. Let’s look at this story in an ‘Orthodox’ manner.
First of all, the Pope is the most important bishop, and has long been recognized as a court of appeal for other prelates. That is why Flavian appeals to him for help. Notice, however, that the pope’s freedom of action in the East is limited. He could not call a council on his own. Instead, he appealed to the Emperor to do so. Further, the pope could not simply intervene and impose his will in the East. The pope had to play a different role. He had to lead the parties towards a solution. Leading and commanding are two different things. The word of the pope alone was not sufficient to simply solve this crisis. Notice also that the council of Chalcedon accepted the pope’s epistle. The historical implication is that the council could have rejected it, as a later council of the East (the 6th) actually did before deposing Pope Honorius I. This implies a freedom of action on the part of Eastern bishops to agree or disagree with the pope on key questions, and indicates that the word of the pope alone was not sufficient to establish Orthodoxy. Notice also that the pope wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria removed, but could not do so himself. He did not have that authority. Instead, he persuaded the Emperor to remove him. The pope then congratulated his successor. Also, the 28th canon was not accepted by the pope, but the East operated from that point on under its guidance. In other words, it made no practical difference in the life of the East that the Pope didn’t accept the 28th canon of the council that elevated Constantinople.
A Roman Catholic reading the same story might come away with different impressions and emphasize different points. This does not mean that either an ‘Orthodox’ reading or a ‘Roman Catholic’ reading of history is predicated on lies or idiocy. It means that facts do not interpret themselves. We bring to their collection and interpretation a world view which helps us organize our thinking about history.
As a practical thinker, I look at the situation in the following way. Both East and West had an exhalted view of the Roman See up through the 8th and 9th centuries. The Roman See is the first among equals for valid historic reasons, and is the most important bishopric in the entire world. The Bishop of Rome came to see his role, for a combination of historic and theological reasons, in a much, much different light than did the East.
The Roman Church began a pattern of consolidation of power that eventually culminated in the current situation in which only the pope can appoint bishops, rather than local synods. As an Orthodox Christian, I interpret history to say that the pope has gathered too much power until himself, and that this claim to rule directly over the Churches of the East was the fulcrum of the schism. A Roman Catholic can interpret the same history and say the exact opposite.
Here is the view from the Greek Archdiocese of the United States. I think you would agree that it is certainly balanced and not polemically anti-Roman:
“In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).[44]
Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: “If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition.”[45] From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.[46]
In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.”
Dear Glen:
I agree that historical arguments rest partly on interpretation. But not entirely. Facts are also rather crucial. 😀 We can argue endlessly about Why the French Revolution Happened, but no one seriously disputes that it [i]did[/i] happen–or that certain events are associated with it.
Thus, IMHO, the most persuasive case is made by the one who has the greatest command of the facts, the data, the hard evidence, combined with the most plausible interpretation thereof.
(I do not, of course, claim such knowledge or interpretive ability for myself. Far, far from it. I look to my betters for that. More on this later.)
No historical argument is ever conclusive, of course. Christianity itself rests on an historical argument–the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead–which many highly educated people (far smarter than I) find unconvincing. I personally think the historical evidence for the Resurrection is quite compelling, but obviously there are a heck of a lot of people out there who disagree with me, and many of them can outsmart and out-argue me any day of the week. Yet I firmly believe that they are wrong–i.e., that their interpretation of the facts is wrong–and I presume you would agree with me re this. Competing interpretations, IOW, do not necessarily lead to relativism. It is possible to reach a conclusion re which combination of facts and interpretation is most plausible. One still must make a leap of faith–not because fides opposes ratio but rather because fides builds on ratio; ratio can only take one so far; then fides takes one the rest of the way.
You cite one episode in early Church history. Of course, the case for Catholicism is cumulative: It does not rest solely on the episode you cite (although that’s certainly part of it) but rather on a whole series of such episodes which, taken together, show a “pattern of primacy” at work, unfolding with ever more crystalline clarity. To get a good sense of this pattern of jurisdictional primacy, I recommend a still valuable work by a 19th-century convert-scholar, Father Luke Rivington: [i]The Primitive Church and the See of Peter.[/i] It is far from the only solid, persuasive historical argument for Catholic claims, of course, but it’s a particularly good one, because (a) Rivington knew his patristics backward, forward, and in between; and (b) he builds his case in exhaustive–even minute–detail, with recourse to patristic sources many polemicists overlook, including private correspondence. Also recommended: Fr. Stanley Jaki’s provocative little monograph, [i]The Keys of the Kingdom,[/i] which has a particularly intriguing section on the extended tiff between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen. (Among other things. ;))
You claim that the popes’ reliance on the emperors to call councils argues against papal authority. That charge has been answered a thousand times over. No Catholic would dispute the obvious fact that the popes–who are spiritual rulers–were sometimes at the mercy of the secular authorities–in practical, logistic matters, NOT in spiritual matters. Church history records a long, complicated struggle on the Church’s part to free herself from such secular influence–and it is certainly arguable that the Catholic Church ultimately succeeded in throwing off the secular yoke far better than her Eastern brethren did. (Do you really wanna go there? 😉 Erastianism ain;t exactly a comeplling argument inbfavor of Orthodoxy. :D)
Nonetheless, the fact remains that spiritual authority and secular/political authority are two different things. The emperors could call councils, but they couldn’t officially ratify or recognize them as ecumenical. Only the popes could do that. Moreover, as the pre-Schism centuries wore on, the precise mechanism of papal authority became more defined, more crystallized–IOW, the bud unfolded, the DNA was unpacked, the organism developed–so that it became progressively clearer that papal authority trumped that of the emperors in matters pertaining purely to the Church. (Again, it’s complicated–and, of course, it gets much more complicated with the mroe theocratic high-medieval popes…but that’s a whole separate topic.)
You concede that the popes did indeed serve as arbiters, as “courts of final appeal”–which is already more than a mere “primus inter pares” role. In fact, as Rivington shows, early papal authority went beyond mere “court of final appeal”; it was proactive; it involved depositions of bishops and even of patriarchs….
I have to interrupt here, because dinner beckons, but I’ll try to continue later.
In the meantime, I would just like to add one thing for Father Jacobse: I guess I fail to see the relevance of the fact that the early councils convened outside Rome. So did many of the post-Schism ecumenical councils, for that matter. 🙂 So, what does that prove? The early councils convened in the East because that was where the heresies were bubbling. Again, y’all, do you really wanna go there? 😉
More later….God bless!
Diane
Diane –
The Pope never, ever exercised the kind of authority over the Eastern Church that he did in the West. That is a historical fact. You can argue that he should have, but the facts are clear that he did not. The East understood his role differently than he did. That is not to say that the Pope was not important, merely that he was not the Supremem Pontiff that he has become. The historical evidence is clear, by the way, that the Pope did not exercise nearly as complete control over the West as he does today. 100 years ago, synods could still appoint bishops without the Pope. Today, that power has been completely centralized.
As for a ‘court of appeal,’ his rulings had no real force. The Pope tried to help St. John Chrysostom, but the emperor and everyone else in the East simply ignored him. This led to a schism that was eventually healed some years later. In the East, you see, being in communion with Rome was never considered a requirement for salvation. The Pope had tremendous moral authority in the East, but could not simply depose Patriarchs or intervene directly in the lives of the Eastern Churches. When the Pope actually claimed such rights, the Great Schism resulted.
We could debate these questions endlessly. The debate has been going on for 1,000 years already. All the ground has been trodden already. The libraries are full of Orthodox books that refute the Catholic ones you named. Taking the same historical record, each side builds a mirror-opposite case concerning the authority of the Pope.
Yes, some facts are incontrovertible. The French Revolution happened. But what were the most important causes? Was its degneration inevitable? Was it a net triumph or calamity? The ISSUES surrounding the French Revolution are highly contested by historians. That is the same situation with this issue.
The question is – in a reunited Church, what would be the role of the Pope. The Orthodox have already answered that question and provided their view of it. If that view is unacceptable to the Pope, then so be it.
From an assessment of Church history published by Pastoral Review magazine:
“Catholics tend to assume that the development of the papacy has been a steady evolution from Christ’s appointment of Peter as the one who would ‘feed my lambs’ to John Paul II’s world tours and solemn pronouncements on the objectivity of morals or the non-ordainability of women. Most people are vaguely aware that papal authority as we know it was not exercised by the early popes, but the later powers of the popes are assumed by Catholics to have been implicit in the more limited authority the early popes did actually possess. History, alas, is not so simple: the development of the papacy is not in any straightforward sense a matter of the steady unfolding of implicit powers and functions. Authority is never a matter of paper theory or mere status: it is embodied in real powers, and takes its meaning from the exercise of those powers. Yet many of the most characteristic functions of the papacy, like the appointment of bishops, are very recent indeed, and originated less in any scriptural or patristic basis than in the vagaries of history, and in the confusion of roles which were in theory quite distinct.
The medieval papacy also hugely expanded its rights in the appointment of clergy and bishops. Bishops had been locally elected in the early Church, and in the early Middle Ages they had just as often been appointed by kings and princes as by any other method. What went for bishops went twice as emphatically for lower offices, but in the later Middle Ages the papacy gradually captured more and more of these appointments for itself by reserving the right to ‘provide’ or appoint to all benefices whose incumbents died while they were in Rome. This prerogative was steadily extended, and the papal court gradually became responsible for the appointment of huge numbers of clergy. Papal provisions benefited more people than the pope. Fortune-hunters all over the Church besieged the Curia with requests for preferment through the papal machinery, not least the crowned heads of Europe, who discovered that the cheapest way of paying their great servants of state (mostly clerics) was by securing bishoprics and abbeys for them by means of papal provisions. None of this was implicit in Christ’s promises to Peter, none of this had been dreamed of by the popes of the early centuries, yet the idea that the pope was directly ‘in charge’ drew at least as much substance from the contingent fact of his ability to appoint men to jobs all over Europe, as from any theological consideration.
Ironically, it was the steady secularising of Europe which led to a change in papal responsibility in this matter. Secular rulers, anxious to distance themselves from the Church, ceased to want to appoint bishops. The most spectacular shift came in Italy. In November 1870 Italy, formed in part out of the confiscated papal states, passed the Law of Guarantees, to regulate relations between Church and state. As part of the law, the state surrendered any claim to the appointment of bishops. In theory, the pope refused to recognise this law. In practice, however, he tacitly adopted many of the provisions as a working arrangement, allowing clergy to accept the revenues of their benefices from the state, and himself taking over the appointment of all Italian bishops. This was a move of enormous significance. Italy had a greater concentration of bishoprics than any other part of Christendom, and as new territories were annexed to the kingdom, Victor Emmanuel had accumulated immense powers of appointment, greater than those of any other king in Christian history. By 1870 he had the right to appoint 237 bishops. All these appointments now came into papal hands, and not only transformed the relationship of the pope to the Italian episcopate, but shifted expectation about the papacy’s role in episcopal appointments generally.
From now on, there was a growing but quite new assumption that the pope was the right person to appoint all bishops. Paradoxically, the loss of the temporal power of the popes enormously increased papal control not only over the Italian Church, but over the Latin Church more generally. The change took place when Western theology of the local church was weak, when the freedom of the Church over against the state was imagined almost exclusively in terms of papal freedoms. So it is no surprise that the new expectation that the pope would normally appoint all bishops was enshrined in the new code of canon law promulgated in 1917. The overall effect of the code was a massive increase of centralisation. It owed more to the spirit of the Napoleonic Code than to scripture or patristic tradition (scripture is rarely quoted in it), and it canonised as permanent features of church life aspects of the papal office which were very recent developments. In particular, canon 329 declared that all bishops were to be nominated by the Roman pontiff, setting the seal of legal timelessness on a radical extension of papal responsibility which had taken place virtually in living memory.
None of these developments were inevitable, none of them were implicit in the scriptural promises to Peter or the earliest Christian reflection on the Petrine office. This means that much of what we consider most characteristic of the modern Petrine office has accrued to the popes through the merging of distinct functions, and through the vicissitudes of quite recent history. And what comes by historical accident may go by historical accident. The present powers of the popes in such matters as episcopal appointments are open to assessment on grounds of utility, efficiency and theological fitness, and might be changed on any one or all of these counts. It is not obvious that the choice of a bishop for Brisbane, Borneo or Birmingham is best decided in Rome, nor that the wishes of the local churches and their bishops should be ignored when it comes to such choices – as they often are.
In the past, the grandeur of papal claims has been moderated by the brute realities of rival powers. The most exalted prerogatives of the popes often rang hollow because they were impossible to put into force. The pope might claim to be universal ordinary, but the existence of rival legal systems, conflicting rights, the claims of powerful secular rulers, even the sheer length of time correspondence took to get from one place to another moderated those claims, created a system of checks and balances. This was especially so in the Baroque period, when the pinnacle of papal power was symbolised in the sublime vulgarities of the Baldacchino in St Peter’s or Bernini’s collonade, but when papal influence over the Church was in fact being increasingly marginalised by the great powers. Cardinal Richelieu, ruler of France, declared of the pope that ‘We must kiss his feet, and bind his hands.’ Yet the grandiose claims of the popes in the age of the absolute monarchs, however hollow, did help to prevent the churches of Europe becoming imprisoned in national agendas, kept alive the concept of a universal Church which meant more than a mere chaplaincy to universal empire. Without the papacy, Europe might have invented Stalinism three centuries early.”
If the understanding of the role of the Papacy could change so much over time in the WEST, how is so difficult to understand that the East would have had issues with certain claims to papal auhtority?
Two responses, Glen? Ahhhh, I seem to have to have touched a nerve. 😉
It’s late, and I have no time to respond to the whole kit-&-kaboodle. Perhaps tomorrow, if I have time and inclination. Meanwhile, I will briefly comment only on one comment you made at the very outset of your first response. You wrote:
“The Pope never, ever exercised the kind of authority over the Eastern Church that he did in the West. That is a historical fact.”
I’m sorry, but I’m unimpressed by bald, unsupported *assertions* that something is “historical fact.” Assertions are valueless without some evidence to back ’em up. 😉
Having said that, though, I will also say that I think you are attacking a straw-man here. No informed Catholic claims that the early popes governed the East in precisely the way they governed the West. In the West, the popes held an additional office–Patriarch of the West–which granted them more immediate, direct authority over church affairs. (I believe I made this very point in one of my earlier posts. Perhaps you missed it? 😉 😉 I mean, I wouldn’t want you to be caricaturing my argument and then conveniently attacking the caricature, or anything silly like that. Know what I mean? :D)
Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand: While it is indisputably true that papal governance was more mediate and indirect in the East than in the West, it’s nonetheless demonstrable that the pope exercised *real* authority over all the churches, including the eastern ones. He was never merely first among equals, holding only an empty, formal, meaningless primacy of honor.
Patristic quotes galore can be adduced to show this. Stay tuned! 😉
Blessings,
Diane, who wants to make clear that she is here merely to defend her own communion against some inaccurate, unfair things said about it in the posts above….not to diss anyone else’s communion 🙂
Here is an insightful analysis of the historical forces that drove us apart, an article by Prof. John Romanides. A brief excerpt: “The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and even linguistic unity between East and West Romans which survived to the time when the Roman popes were replaced by Franks. Had the Franks not taken over the Papacy, it is very probable that the local synod of the Church of Rome (with the pope as president), elected according to the 769 election decree approved by the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879, would have survived, and that there would not have been any significant difference between the papacy and the other four Roman (Orthodox) Patriarchates.
However, things did not turn out that way. The Papacy was alienated from the (Orthodox) East by the Franks, so we now are faced with the history of that alienation when we contemplate the reunion of divided Christians. By the eighth century, we meet for the first time the beginnings of a split in Christianity. In West European sources we find a separation between a “Greek East” and a “Latin West.” In Roman sources this same separation constitutes a schism between Franks (a confederation of Germanic Teutonic peoples living on the lower banks of the Rhine who by the sixth century AD conquered most of France, the low countries and what is now Germany. ed) and Romans. One detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis for the schism which may be more profound and important for descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side.”
Diane, contrary to all my bloviating there is a lot to be said for the fact that Orthodox and Roman Catholics have fundamental beliefs in common, i.e., we profess the undivided Trinity who has save us. We profess that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Savior fully human and fully divine. That ought to be a tremendous foundation from which to build.
Dear Michael:
Thanks for the kind, irenical words. 🙂 Please forgive me, however, if I’m unimpressed by Fr. Romanides’ mantra about the Evil Franks. I’ve heard it all before, I fear, and I’m convinced it contains more caricature than historical truth.
I was unable to gain access to this forum through most of this day–which was probably a blessing; my Guardian Angel was keeping me from getting embroiled in polemics when I was supposed to be working–LOL! Right now, I’m too exhausted to respond to either you or Glen. But I’ll try to get to it this weekend, if I can. (Lucky you, eh? ;)) Meanwhile, y’all, have a great Memorial Day. Christ has risen!
God bless,
Diane
Diane said, “I’m sorry, but I?m unimpressed by bald, unsupported *assertions* that something is historical fact. Assertions are valueless without some evidence to back ’em up. ;)”
From The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: “The difference between the East and West then was in the first place that the pope in the West was not only supreme pontiff, but also the local patriarch. He represented to Eastern Christians a remote and foreign authority, the last court of appeal, for very serious questions, after their own patriarchs had been found incapable of settling them; but to his own Latins in the West he was the immediate head, the authority immediately over their metropolitans, the first court of appeal to their bishops. So all loyalty in the West went direct to Rome. Rome was the Mother Church in many senses, it was by missioners sent out from Rome that the local Western Churches had been founded. The loyalty of the Eastern Christians on the other hand went first to his own patriarch, so there was here always a danger of divided allegiance if the patriarch had a quarrel with the pope. This would have been inconceivable in the West. Indeed, the falling away of so many hundreds of Eastern bishops, of so many millions of simple Christians, is explained sufficiently by the schism of the patriarchs. If the four Eastern patriarchs agreed upon any course it was practically a foregone conclusion that their metropolitans and bishops would follow them and that the priests and people would follow the bishops. So the very organization of the Church in some sort already prepared the ground for a contrast (which might become a rivalry) between the first patriarch in the West with his vast following of Latins on the one side and the Eastern patriarchs with their subjects on the other.”
Obviously, then, there was a significant difference in how Eastern Christians related to Pope versus how the Western Christians did. The Pope’s authority, such as it was, could not be exercised in any kind of direct role. In fact, when the Pope attempted to do so (even when he was right), a schism was almost always the result. Read below, also from the Catholic Encyclopedia
“Long before Photius there had been schisms between Constantinople and Rome, all of them healed up in time, but naturally all tending to weaken the sense of essential unity. From the beginning of the See of Constantinople to the great schism in 867 the list of these temporary breaches of communion is a formidable one. There were fifty-five years of schism (343-98) during the Arian troubles, eleven because of St. John Chrysostom’s deposition (404-15), thirty-five years of the Acacian schism (484-519), forty-one years of Monothelite schism (640-81), sixty-one years because of Iconoclasm. So of these 544 years (323-867) no less than 203 were spent by Constantinople in a state of schism.”
A cumulative total of 203 years in schism over that time period. If the Pope was considered the Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ on Earth, however did the East manage when it was out of communion with him for over two centuries during this period of time? The answer was given in the first paragraph I quoted. With the patriarchal system in tact, it appears that no one was particularly concerned about not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Had it been a requirement for salvation, I am sure the Easterners would have tried harder to stay in communion. Finally, there is the question of language, also from New Advent Catholic Dictionary:
“When Leo IX (1048-54) wrote in Latin to Peter III of Antioch, Peter had to send the letter to Constantinople to find out what it was about. Such cases occur continually and confuse all the relations between East and West. At councils the papal legates addressed the assembled fathers in Latin and no one understood them; the council deliberated in Greek and the legates wondered what was going on. So there arose suspicion on both sides. Interpreters had to be called in; could their versions be trusted? The Latins especially were profoundly suspicious of Greek craft in this matter. Legates were asked to sign documents they did not understand on the strength of assurances that there was nothing really compromising in them. And so little made so much difference. The famous case, long afterwards, of the Decree of Florence and the forms kath on tropon, quemadmodum, shows how much confusion the use of two languages may cause.”
Peter III of Antioch was unable to understand a letter written by the Pope. How could the Pope possibly exercise any control over the Eastern Church, which he was supposed to have according to Diane, when the Patriarchs of the East DIDN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS LETTERS. It would appear that there would not have been much in the way of supremecy if those over whom the Pope was supposed to be governing couldn’t even understand him.
My point stands. The East understood a different role for the Pope than he came to understand for himself. The life of the Eastern Church unfolded autonomously, with the periodic involvement of, and sometimes conflict with, the papacy.
My point also stands, which you seem to have ignored Diane, that the entire Petrine office evolved in the West over a long span of time. The relationship of bishops of the West to the Pope changed, much less that of the Bishops of the East. The document I quoted was also a Catholic one. The Pope’s authority underwent a gradual strengthening in the West, until today it has culminated in the Pope having sole authority to invest bishops. This absolute power dates only from the early 20th Century.
If the role of the Pope was evolving, then it is useless to trot out Patristic texts in which this or that Church Father advocated standing with the Bishop of Rome. They meant stand with Rome during the crisis about which they were talking. They meant stand with Rome as it exercised its office at the time, in 381 or 415, or whichever other date. How would those same bishops, most of whom were elected by local synods or elevated by the emperor, react to today’s environment in which the Pope exercises sole authority?
That is a difficult question to answer. As for the Franks, the historical record is clear. The Frankish influence had a tremendous impact on the West. The Holy Roman Empire was Frankish. To deny this is as silly as to deny the influence of the Greeks on the East.
Again, from the New Advent Encyclopedia, “Unfortunately, “the Iron Age”, that terrible period of war, barbarism, and corruption in high places which marked the break-up of the Carolingian Empire, followed almost immediately upon this revival. “Impurity, adultery, sacrilege and murder have overwhelmed the world”, cried the Council of Trosly in 909. The episcopal sees, as we learn from such an authority as Bishop Egbert of Trier, were given as fiefs to rude soldiers, and were treated as property which descended by hereditary right from father to son. A terrible picture of the decay both of clerical morality and of all sense of anything like vocation is drawn in the writings of St. Peter Damian, particularly in his “Liber Gomorrhianus”. The style, no doubt, is rhetorical and exaggerated, and his authority as an eyewitness does not extend beyond that district of Northern Italy, in which he lived, but we have evidence from other sources that the corruption was widespread and that few parts of the world failed to feel the effect of the licence and venality of the times. How could it beotherwise when there were intruded into bishoprics on every side men of brutal nature and unbridled passions, who gave the very worst example to the clergy over whom they ruled? Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church.”
Western Europe with the Franks and other Germans around was a rough and tough place.
In any event, it is not the history that first attracted me to Orthodoxy. Being married to a native of Poland, my first exposure to liturgical worship was in the Roman Catholic Church. My wife chose to not remain in the Roman Catholic Church, because the Church in the United States is simply far and away too liberal. It resembles nothing of the Church in which she was raised in Poland. If the intention of having a strong, centralized control of the church was to maintain a standard of orthodoxy, then I would say that the experiment has singularly failed in the case of the United States. As a pragmatic matter, I prefer a church in which a Vatican II is harder to pull off.
In any case, we can argue history for 1,000 years, as has already been done, and nothing will come of it but an interesting discourse.
On practical matters, in my opinion, is where the crux of the matter will turn for me. I respect Pope Benedict as I did his predecessor, but certain issues would have be dealt with before I would want to enter into communion with Rome. First of all, the constant decline in the style and performance of the mass needs to be arrested. I have no interest in Charismatic masses, or any of the other Protestant things creeping into the Catholic Church. The East has always had married clergy. The West did have married clergy, but eventually abolished them. How could our priests live and serve side-by-side with Roman Clerics in the same country, but have different rules on marriage? A reconcilement must occur to insure that the Latin tradition would not overpower the Eastern one.
Also, my children receive full communion in the Orthodox Church. The Roman Church does not provide the Eucharist to children. This would have to be reconciled for me to accept union with Rome. It is inconceivable to me that I could be in communion with Rome, but my children would not be welcome at the chalice in a Latin Rite Church.
For me, living in the United States, these are some of the most pressing issues. They are not so much on the agenda of a person living in Russia, in which unification with Rome would mean little on a day-to-day basis. However, my neighbor being a Uniate priest, I am familiar with the struggle of Eastern Rite Catholics in the United States. The bishops can be quite hostile to married priests, for example. Such practicalities must be ironed out before such a union can work in multi-religious societies like the United States.
I would prefer, of course, to focus more on the future than the past, at this point. Where do we need to go in order to heal the schism? I think I have set forth some of the things I consider important, it is up to others to speak for themselves as well.
IMO, reunification between Rome and the other Patriarchies is no longer a desirable course. Trying to figure out a way to re-unite them sounds something akin to sewing together a Frankenstein monster. They have been separated for too long. It seems better to simply work on figuring out how to co-exist together. In this world, peacefully co-existing is in itself a great feat. It’s something that even the various Orthodox have great difficulty with amongst themselves. When Christ returns in glory, then His Church will be united.
Dear Stephen,
I agree with you. It seems to me most ecumenists are putting the cart before the horse anyway. There is such a high level of political power struggles and Byzantine intrigue just between the various old world Orthodox patriarchates. How can we ever hope to get a world-wide Orthodox consensus for unity with Rome if most of the patriarchates do not trust one another? Remember the EP is not an eastern version of the Pope. Even if he were to somehow reach an agreement with the Pope to restore communion it wouldn’t mean much to the rest of the Orthodox world and would most likely cause a major schism within Orthodoxy. All the patriarchs would have to sit at the same table with the pope and be in agreement. Finally, the clergy and the laity would have to give their “amen” to any agreement on restoring communion. Remember Orthodoxy is not a clerical church like Rome. The hierarchs, clergy and laity all work in synergy when it comes to the direction our church will take.
If we really wanted to make an impact on our materialistic, secular society we should be putting our effort into something more tangible like unifying all the Orthodox jurisdictions into one Orthodox Church of America with an American Synod of bishops and a domestic Patriarch who would be elected by that synod. We could then have one master plan for evangelizing North America instead of jurisdictional competition and infighting. Obviously our political voice would have more leverage in Washington with one patriarch speaking for however many million Orthodox Christians he would be representing. Our voice would be one when speaking to the president in regard to helping our mother patriarchates when they are threatened by Muslims and others hostile toward Orthodoxy. Our patriarch would also be our voice to the government and the media when comes to issues like abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage and all the other issues we face.
Tamara, as nice as your proposal for a united Orthodox Church here in North America, it would not in any way be a panacea. It might very well put additional pressure on the Orthodox Church to “modernize” with all of the garbage that have faced every other Christian tradition in this country with largely devastating results.
Dear Michael,
I have read all of your messages above and admire the way you explain Orthodoxy to those who do not understand.(in fact, I was silently cheering for you as I read your responses.) As a life-long Orthodox Christian of half-Syrian heritage I am still trying to become as articulate as you are in sharing the faith. I now attend an Antiochian parish of mostly all converts so I am an eager student.
I understand your concern about modernization and let me say I am not for anything that would change the faith of the 33 or so generations of Orthodox who came before me. I agree that Orthodox unity would not be a panacea. But I don’t believe it would lead to modernization. I think the Holy Spirit would guide all of our bishops as a Holy Synod. Having a variety of bishops (foreign born, American born, traditionalists, liberal, conservative, etc.) would have the effect of stopping modernization or extremism of every kind. Also, the lower clergy and the laity of North America would be there to voice our opposition to any decisions the synod would make that would take us away from the True Faith. Then we could really get to work on transforming the culture we live in by working together to start missions and evangelizing our fellow-citizens. If we look at the example of the Patriarchate of Alexandria we see one Patriarch with one synod working together bringing Orthodoxy to the Africans using local languages to reach them. It is a successful, tried and true recipe that worked for Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the evangelization of the Rus.
Michael, I actually think we are in more danger of “modernization” with the current divisions in Orthodoxy in this country. Right now, the Orthodox episcopate in this country is divided into a bunch of different synods, which in my mind increases the chances that one of them might go off the rails. After all, there would be a lot fewer other bishops to convince to go along with some bad idea of how to be more relevant. I agree with Tamara, if they were all together, there is more of a chance of the consensus of the synod as a whole putting the brakes on any improper innovation.
Tamara, thank you.
Both you and Mark make excellent points. Your comment especially reminds me of something I have been thinking about in the past few days. In another thread, George Strickland made a post in which he wondered where was the voice of Tradition today in the Orthodox Church since so many of our bishops seem to be shackled to some state governement or other and we do not have a Pope.
For the Orthodox, that voice has often lain with the ordinary people for whom the Tradition is so entwined in their lives that nothing shakes it. We are not as dependent upon priests and bishops to carry the prophetic load of standing against the world as is the Catholic Church.
I may use words better than you think yourself capable, but in your heart and the hearts of your ancestors lies the reason I had a Church to come home to. All of us together, in Communion with Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit are the voice of the Church callling the world to repentance. We are more unified than it appears. It is so easy to forget, yet so central to what our Church is. The recognition first voiced by Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God is the rock on which we all stand. That recognition is the rock that each of us shares in. That rock is not now nor has it ever been the property of one man or even of the bishops alone. We gather around our bishops not for any earthly authority they seem to have, but because to them is given the sacramental office through which the ongoing strength of the Church is Communicated to us all–past, present, and future, alive or dead(in an earthly sense). We are one with each other. We never stand alone.
Christ is Risen!
Dear Glen, et al.:
Before I engage some of the many arguments presented here–a task far beyond my meager strength and skills, of course, which is why I implore the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos, of St. Joseph Patron of the Universal Church, and of St. Michael the Archangel :D–I would like to provide the following link:
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=2
I promised earlier to furnish a sampling of patristic passages supporting the universal jurisdictional primacy of the Roman See; the Internet is awash with sites providing such evidence, of course (along with contextual information), but, for the sake of time and space, I needed a convenient shortcut to a whole big bunch of relevant quotes. This site provides that. It is far from exhaustive, of course, and it’s not presented here as any sort of slam-dunk (there’s no such thing in historiography). But many of the passages it presents are so unmistakably explicit about the unique prerogatives of the Petrine See that they effectively challenge (to put it mildly) the common EO claim that pre-Schism Rome enjoyed no more than an empty “primacy of honor.” 😉
As I said before, the limitations of the combox medium prevent a full, thorough exposition of *all* the primary evidence and supporting arguments for the papal claims. But the fuller story *is* readily available. As we all know, the 38-volumne Schaff edition of the ECFs is available online at several sites. And some classic scholarly Catholic works on the pre-Schism papacy–such as Dom Chapman’s and at least part of Fr. Rivington’s–are also available online.
OK, I’ll post this now before I lose it. (I lost two wouild-be posts here recently through slips of the old typing fingers–I think Old Scratch was up to no good. ;))
I pray that those who insist that the idea of papal jurisdictional primacy is utterly absent from the patristic period will at least peruse some of the patristic evidence gathered at the link above. All the back-and-forth arguments in the world won’t get us anywhere if we’re not so much as glancing at the primary evidence. 😀
Blessings,
Diane
Continuing my previous post…
Dear Glen at al.:
Had I but world enough and time, I would try to answer all your arguments above. But I don’t, so I won’t. 😉 However, I would like to address one particular argument you made, Glen.
You cited the Frankish influence on the medieval Western Church. I think you misunderstood me here. I was not denying that such influence existed. I was simply denying that it was entirely deleterious. *OR* that its effect was to cut off Rome and the West from the Christian Church.
Catholics have often observed that every non-Catholic communion seems to justify its separation from Rome by invoking a Great Apostasy Myth. The exact content of the myth varies. Some groups insist Rome Went Off The Rails when Constantine legalized Christianity. Others say the Great Apostasy occurred slightly later–with Pope St. Leo the Great, for instance. A few claim the Apostasy began within one generation of the Resurrection–by the time of Clement and Ignatius!
The Orthodox, with their superior knowledge of patristics, have a subtler, more sophisticated Great Apostasy Myth. 😀 Leastwise, it seems subtler and more sophisticated in its iteration on the Internet, which is where I’ve mostly encountered your argument re the Evil Franks, Glen.
Like all the other Great Apostasy Myths, though, the EO Myth of the Evil Franks claims that Rome Went Off The Rails–completely, utterly, hopelessly. In its basic lines, IOW, it is like all the other Apostasy Myths. If anything, the EO version of the myth is even more wholesale: It usually claims that the entire *West* went off the rails–not just Rome. 😮
From the Papist POV, there are several problems with this myth (beyond the fact that it’s mythical, I mean;)).
There’s a Scriptural problem, for starters. When Our Lord founded His Church upon Peter the Rock (“thou art Kepha…and upon this kepha”), He promised that the Church so founded would *never* Go Off The Rails. IOW, it was precisely that Church founded upon “Kepha the kepha” which was promised indefectibility: “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Our Lord said nothing about promising indefectibility to the Church of the Five Patriarchates or to the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. He explicitly tied His promise of indefectibility to Peter and to Peter’s office with its unique authority: “And I will give *thee* (singular) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….” (Yes, I know, the other apostles share in the power of the Keys per Matt. 18; but only Peter receives the Keys themselves; our Lord pointedly uses the singular in this very singular logion! ;))
This, I contend, poses a serious problem for *all* the Great Apostasy Myths, including the Orthodox version. If the Church founded upon Peter the Rock and Keyholder (and historically associated with the Roman See) Went Completely Off The Rails at *any* time, then Our Lord was either mistaken or mendacious. Which is scarcely likely, now, is it? 🙂
The Myth of the Evil Franks runs up against another difficulty, too. If Rome and the entire West Went Off The Rails, then this means that only the East has preserved Christian Truth intact during the past millennium. Yes, I know, this is precisely what many Orthodox polemicists claim. But again, it raises some thorny questions. The earliest name for the Christian Church (besides “The Way,” as recorded in Acts) was “Catholic.” Which means “universal.” Which implies a global community transcending any one culture or geographical locus. Which, in turn, reflects the indisputable Scriptural Truth that the Gospel was meant for the entire planet, not just for one chunk of it. Jesus died for everyone in the world–for all people in all places and cultures. “In Christ there is no East or West,” as the grand old hymn puts it. “Go and make disciples of *all* nations,” Jesus told His Ekklesia gathered on the Mount of Olives.
If Jesus meant His Saving Gospel for all peoples and cultures–as He surely did–then is it likely that he would vouchsafe His Truth and Grace only to the East? Is it likely that He would clothe His truths only in Byzantine and Slavic forms? More to the point: Is it likely that He would allow the entire West to Go Completely Off The Rails? Is it likely that this Off-The-Rails West would then produce some of the greatest saints who ever lived and bear some of the greatest fruits–from the great medieval charity hospitals on up to the ministry to Mother Teresa–all supposedly without that Christian Truth vouchsafed (allegedly) only to the East since the Schism?
How does such a picture square with the whole concept of catholicity? In a real sense, how can a communion which sees Rome and the West as Utterly Wrong claim to be the Catholica? What does “catholicity” even *mean* in the context of such wholesale anti-Westernism?
Finally, like all Great Apostasy Myths, the Myth of the Evil Franks is both simplistic and a-historical. ISTM that, in order to make their case, the proponents of the Myth of the Evil Franks must *prove* that Frankish influence so radically altered the Western Church that it was completely discontinuous with the earlier united Church. This is a tall order. If you think you can make this case, Glen, well, all I can say is–good luck to you!
On another, related note: Glen, you cite some of the moral depredations of medieval Western society as evidence that Rome Went Off The Rails through the corrupting influence of the Evil Franks.
Surely you must realize the problems with such an argument? Perhaps, like so many non-Catholics, you confuse impeccability and infallibility? Catholics have never claimed that all the members of their Church–at all times–were impeccable. The personal impeccability of all her members has never been one of the Marks of the True Church. The “Holy” in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” does not refer to the sinlessness of all Catholics throughout all history. 😉
Moreover, as you must realize, an argument from moral turpitude could come right back and bite you. There have certainly been periods of moral laxity and even widespread moral evil in post-Schism Byzantine history. Do you really wanna go there? (I can furnish some examples, if you wish. My husband wrote his doctoral dissertation–in Byzantine history–on Basil II, a/k/a the Bulgar Slayer, and Basil’s immediate successors. I’m sure he can furnish me with grist for my mill, if you’d like some specific examples of moral turpitude in post-Schism Byzantine society. :))
Well, I’m running out of steam, so I’ll wrap up for the nonce. In closing, though, I’d just like to reiterate a point I made in an earlier post, just to forestall more misconstruction of my views or more attacks upon straw-men: *No* informed Catholic believes that the fully developed Vatican I/Vatican II papacy emerged, completely crystallized, on the Day of Pentecost, like Athena popping out of the head of Zeus. There was a gradual development in the Church’s *understanding* of the Petrine primacy–just as there was a gradual development in the Church’s understanding of the Godhead and of the Incarnation (viz. the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union). Development does not necessarily mean change, much less corruption. In the Catholic schema, it means the gradual unfolding of the Church’s *understanding* of the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints. (And yes, the Byzantine East “developed,” too. Development is a fact of life; just ask any mother of a teenager who remembers him as a squirming blob on the sonogram or as a newborn infant.) The original Deposit of the Faith cannot change, but our understanding of it can and does deepen and broaden. Like Mary, the Church “ponders all these things in her heart.” And as she does so, she understands better the intact, inviolable Depositum Fidei entrusted to her. This, again, is simply the way things work. As Frank Sheed put it, you cannot stop people from drawing true inferences from true facts.
Thus our understanding of the Petrine office has deepened throughout the centuries. But it has not *changed* in its essentials.
As JPII put it in *Ut Unum Sint,* the precise ways in which the papacy may operate in a reunited Christendom are open to dialogue and debate. But the essentials of the papal office are non-negotiable. And, as the patristic evidence I provided earlier demonstrates, one of those essentials is universal jurisdiction. (*Ut Unum Sint* speaks of “that authority without which the office is meaningless”–not a direct quote; words to that effect.) This precludes any mere “primus inter pares” role vis-a-vis the East. Yes, in a reunited Church, the pope would govern the East in a far more hands-off, laid-back way than he would the West. But he would still govern it. As Maximos the Confessor (among many others) point out, that’s his job.
OK, I’ve probably exceeded the combox word limit, and I’ve certainly exceeded my energy and ideas, so I’ll get off my papist Soap Box for the nonce. 😀
Blessings,
Diane