One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

239 thoughts on “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”

1. IMO, most of the issues you all are arguing about is getting away from what Fr. Reardon was saying. Granted all of said issues are important to talk about because they are important issues. However, constantly bickering about issues that neither side is going to change on is pointless. Instead we ought to talk about what we actually agree on. For example: the triune nature of God, as well as the various moral social issues such as abortion that we agree on. I don?t believe that we are in communion with each other, which makes praying together for healing difficult. However, I think that we should pray together where we can, e.g., the psalms. If we don?t bring God into the picture more than I feel that He is the hostility can?t and won?t stop. IMPAO (in my probably arrogant opinion)

2. Post 49 – Diane,

   Primacy of honor is not all ’empty.’ Who said that? You need to actually engage what someone, such as myself, is saying. The bishop of Rome has always been the single most important bishop in the Christian Church. He will probably always be the single most important bishop in the Christian Church. You keep putting up this straw man argument that somehow the Orthodox argue that the pope was irrelevent in the pre-schism church. That is completely false. The only argument put forward was that the Pope was not capable of direct action in the East as he was in the West. His attempt at deposing patriarchs, for example, almost always produced a Schism, even very early on. He did not exercise the kind of day-to-day control of the Church which Roman Catholics believed was his due.

   But none of that is really relevent today. The question is – how should his authority play itself out on the ground in the 21st Century?

   Again – the Petrine office has undergone substantial changes. These changes were documented by me using ROMAN CATHOLIC sources. For example, I hate repeating myself on this but you force me to, direct and sole appointment of Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church has only been part of the Pope’s duties since the early part of the 20th Century. There are additional examples that abound concering the centralization of the Papacy as a center of power, but that alone suffices to prove my point.

   Forget the patristic texts. All such a text does is prove that a certain father approved of the way the Pope’s office functioned at THAT TIME IN HISTORY. Since the Papal office does not function the same today as it did in 381, 485, etc., they mean little in evaluating whether or not the Papal office, as currently functioning, is a good thing or a bad thing.

   Forget the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Forget all of that, as none of that is in anyway helpful to the dialog at the current time. As I have said before, I have a handful of issues which to me are pressing and would require clarification.

   Among these:

   1) Full communion for children, including infants.
   2) Baptism, chrismation, and first communion happening at the same time.
   3) Married clergy as a fully embraced option.
   4) Correction of the currently ‘stripped down’ Latin Liturgy.
   5) Ending Eucharistic ministry. Only Ordained Deacons or priests should be allowed to distribute the host.
   6) The election of bishops through local synods as is the practice in the East, rather than direct selection by the Pope.

   These are my big issues at the current time. Prior to unification, we would have to either see the Eastern practices adopted into the Roman Catholic Church, or we would have to have assurances that the Eastern practices in ‘mixed’ countries such as the United States would be allowed to continue separately from the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

   If there were a danger that unification with the Pope would cause Eastern practices to be suppressed in the United States in favor of Western practices with which I do not agree, then I would strenuously oppose the entire process.

   Clear enough, Diane?

3. Glen makes some very good points. Secondly, I reiterate (for the third time), that the Pope of Rome never exercized jurisdictional authority over the the other Patriarchs, regardless of Rome’s modern claim that he possesses this authority.

   In fact, under Pope John Paul II, a quiet effort was being made to redefine Papal authority to conform to early Church practice, where the Roman Patriarch would exercize a primacy of honor — a universal pastorship of sorts (which I would argue Pope John Paul fulfilled quite well) — and away from the notion that Diane advances of a jurisdictional claim over the entire Christian population. If Diane’s claims were accurate, the first efforts should be made toward the Protestant communions anyway, since Rome lost them 500 years ago. From the Orthodox point of view of course, Rome broke from the other Patriarchs (a jurisdictional definition of Roman supremacy was one of the causes) rather than vice versa.

   My hunch is that Pope Benedict will continue the course set by John Paul II. I see it in the efforts made towards the Protestants and Orthodox to form an alliance of sorts against secularism. This approach is a far cry from Roman ideas as recently as 100 years ago.

4. Note 50. Diane, there is no “great apostasy myth” in the Orthodox refutation of Papal Supremacy. Don’t read the Orthodox critique through the lens of the Protestant Fundamentalist critique of Rome. I’ve already indicated that in the Orthodox view, the Pope of Rome is certainly the rightful Patriach of the Roman Church. I have also indicated that he posseses a primacy of honor. I don’t recall anyone here mentioning anything about a “great apostacy.” Be careful not to reverse the paradigm since a reversed paradigm suffers from the same flaws as the original.

   There are problems though. Papal supremacy (already mentioned), papal infallibility (the counterpart to the Protestant infallibility of scripture) which was a reaction to the liberalism in western society at the time, the Immaculate Conception (the primacy of Augustinian anthropology), among others.

5. Does the Roman Patriarchate still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Its not a minor thing to make something up about God. The Orthodox witness is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not also the Son. Even though that addition may have been added contextually to fight a certain heresy, to say now that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit is somehow a “lesser” member. That would be akin to blasphemy. If Rome still upholds this addition, then it seems that not only is Rome portraying a different Church, but also a different God than the witness of the other Patriarchates.

6. 6) The election of bishops through local synods as is the practice in the East, rather than direct selection by the Pope.
   –
   For as long as the Pope is not selecting Orthodox Bishops, I don’t see how the way the Catholic Church selects its Bishops is a problem.

7. Re Elevation of Bishops:

   Currently the Pope has no say in the election of bishops of the Orthodox Church. Even in a reunified church, it is doubtful that the Pope would seek to dominate the selection process in traditionally Orthodox lands. Most of the Uniates in traditionally Orthodox lands (Eastern Rite in communion with Rome) use the Eastern Rite, and have only minor differences with the Orthodox Church – most notably communion with Rome. These Christians would go about their lives with little direct impact.

   However, the situation of ‘mixed’ areas such as the United States and Western Europe is very different. Here there is great potential for one Rite to dominate the others. To get a sense of how this can play out, it is instructive to look at the experience of the ‘Greek Catholics’ from the Ukraine who immigrated to the United States and brought their Uniate Church with them:

   “The Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in Canada and the United States were founded primarily by Ukrainian emigrants and their children from Galicia who were discontent with the situation of the Greek-Catholic Church (the name then used for the historical Uniates and present-day Ukrainian Catholics). The hostile reception that many Roman Catholic clergy gave the Greek-Catholics, the demand that church properties be controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the attempts to have Polish and other Roman Catholic clergy serve the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics, as well as the Vatican order permitting only unmarried clergy to serve or be ordained greatly disturbed the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics who began arriving in the 1870s in the U.S. and the 1890s in Canada. After the arrival of Greek Catholic bishops (1907 in the U.S. and 1912 in Canada) tensions did not abate, in part because of the desire of newly arrived bishops to take full control of parish life and to have a decisive voice in community life.

   The struggle for Ukrainian independence during the years 1917-1920 hastened the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness in North America. In Canada, the Ukrainian intelligentsia, many of whom had been educated in Canada, came into conflict with the Greek-Catholic bishop, and led the movement to establish the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church of Canada in 1918. In America the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. was established in 1920.”

   The situation today for those ‘Greek Catholics’ who have remained in communion with Rome is not much better. Seminarians attending Roman Catholic seminaries are expected to be celibate, even though they can attend seminary back in Ukraine and then serve as married priests in the United States. Among clergy, the Greek Catholics are treated as second-class citizens in many respects, a fact that I would be happy to document to anyone’s satisfaction.

   The future can’t look like this in the United States if we expect the Orthodox to remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Either the issues such as child communion, married priests, liturgical forms, election of bishops, and more are clearly spelled out, or there can be no union. It is pointless to declare unity only to revert to schism within a decade or two over these unresolved points.

   If history is our guide, then once the Roman hierarchy is in charge, a significant ‘Latinization’ occurs. This even has happened inside Ukraine, as Pope John Paul II actually sent the Uniate Church there five Latin Rite bishops to serve in the early 90’s. This was contrary to the wishes of the people, but furthered Vatican aims at the time. (I love John Paul II, but that doesn’t mean everything he did was always perfect.)

   Continued and honest schism is better than a cosmetic union that will only fall apart on the ground anyway.

8. The Filioque

   Stephen, I differ from you, in that I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. Perhaps that is because I do not understand the Orthodox position on the Filioque.

   Here’s where my thinking is on this subject: If I accept the Orthodox assertion that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, doesn’t that make the Son a “lesser member” of the Trinity? Because it seems to say that the Father keeps some things from the Son. But how would that be possible since the Father and Son – and Holy Spirit – are all One? So if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why doesn’t it also proceed from the Son?

   I’m also wondering, if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well as the Father, how I should understand John 20: 21-23 – So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

   Maybe this all turns on how one defines ‘proceed’.

   Does anyone have links on the debates among the Church Fathers on this particular matter? I think that would be very helpful.

   God Bless.

9. Trinitarian theology is one of those items on which we should all follow the Missourian’s course of action, i.e., don’t debate on ideas in which we have no background.

   The essentials of Trinitarian theology were forged and articulated by great and wise men throughly trained in the classical Greek language and mode of thought. The Latin and English languages are sledge hammers compared to fine surgical instruments by contrast.

   The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was not new and had been discussed at some length by the Fathers. When they made their decision to articulate the relationships within the Trinity, they choose to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

   The Bishops of Rome who initially addressed the controversy rejected the Filioque as being both inappropriately interpolated into the Creed and untrue teaching–the Orthodox position. It was not until serveral hundred years after the intial introduction that the Pope approved the Filioque. Despite Diane’s protestations to the contrary, the approval seems to be due in large measure to the presence of a Frankish army near the Vatican at the time and the undisputed fact that the Frankish king wanted the Filoque inserted in the Creed for political leverage against the East. The Frankish court soon after condemned the East as heretics because they did not use the Filioque.

   Thankfully, there is a hugh gulf between holding heretical thoughts and being a heretic–since we all hold heretical thoughts to some degree or other. I doubt that in practical terms for Orthodox/Catholic diaglog or common action the Filioque makes any difference.

10. Daniel,

    I believe you make a good point that it depends on the definition of “proceed”. Fr. John Romanides points out that if one understands “proceed” in the right way, then it does not conflict with the Creed:

    ‘When used as “cause”, like in the Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. When used as “mission”, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father and the Son as denoting the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.’

    http://www.vic.com/~tscon/romanity/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm

    I’m not sure, though, in which sense of the word “proceeds” the Roman Patriarchate currently holds.

11. Daniel,

    I think the primary problem has always been that the Filioque was an alteration to the Creed as established at the Council of Constantinople about which the Eastern bishops were not consulted. A change to the Creed was supposed to require a Church Council. This was not done. Instead, the Filioque simply ended up, after a somewhat tortured history including Frankish politics, becoming the standard in the West.

    According to the New Advent Catholic Dictionary, here is the synopsis of the history:

    “It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papel advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).”

    Again, the above is from a Roman Catholic source. When the Pope, for example, participates in a ceremony with the Eastern Church at which the Creed is recited, the ‘filioque’ is always omitted.

    Based on the fact that it was a late addition to the creed that occurred without the blessing of a council (the only change so introduced), based on the fact that it was initially resisted even in the West by the Popes, and based on the fact that even Popes recite the Creed minus the filioque – I’d have to say that this shouldn’t be a big deal at all.

    It should be possible for the West to table this and possibly deal with it in a Church Council in which all sides could be present to discuss and debate the relative merits. Then, if a Church Council changed the Creed (which has been done in the past), I don’t think any of this will amount to much. I think what infuriated the Eastern fathers was the unilateral nature of the actions of the West in changing the accepted form of the Creed.

    By the way, the ‘omission’ of the Filioque was listed as one of the grounds of excommunication level at the Patriarch in 1054.

12. Upcoming Topics

    Michael, I have a couple of legal topics that I am interested in pursuing but they take some research and real thought. I don’t have time for that right now. Maybe in a couple of months I will submit an essay on the impact of international law on the American legal system and how international law can be used to advance political positions inside the United States. (no promises!!) Fr. Jacobse could then decide whether the esssay was appropriate to post on this site.

    I have to keep studying to pass the patent bar (argh, groan, tear hair, bang head against wall…..) I do enjoy reading everyone’s comments and I frequently copy and save the articles that Fr. Jacobse posts. I hope that we at the site are not taking too much time away from his parish.

13. “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
    John 15:26

    15:26 While, with respect to God’s work in the world, the Son will give or send…the Spirit…from the Father, with respect to His divinity, the Spirit originates or proceeds from the Father alone: The Spirit receives His eternal existence only from the Father. In conformity with Christ’s words, the Nicene Creed confesses belief “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By contrast, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (3:16). The source, the fountainhead, of both is the Father.

    “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
    John 3:16

    From the Orthodox Study Bible (New King James Version)

14. 62: Good Luck Missourian! I look forward to debating Judge Brown’s misguided enthusiasm for Lochner v New York (1905) with you at a more relaxed time in the future.

15. Going back to Fr. Patrick’s piece, he suggests that Catholic – Orthodox union would take a miracle. In other words, it would have to come from God alone. However, the apparent insistence of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit originates by procession from both the Father and the Son indicates that Orthodox and Catholics actually worship a different God, at least as portrayed by their Creed. How then can the Orthodox and Catholics even think about union if they cannot agree on their God?

    From what I can gather, in order for the Pope to entirely withdraw Rome’s position on the filoque, this action would necesitate renouncing Papal infallibility and dogma. If union is ever to happen then, may it be out of a desire for repentance and Holiness rather than a lust for power, a desire for empire building, or even this strange new crusade labeled “the defeat of secularism”.

16. Father Jacobse wrote: “…I reiterate (for the third time), that the Pope of Rome never exercized jurisdictional authority over the the other Patriarchs, regardless of Rome?s modern claim that he possesses this authority.”

    Well, sure, Father, you can reiterate that as often as you like. I repsectfully suggest, though, that reiteration doesn’t make it true. 😀

    I can furnish evidence of the early popes arbitrating disputes between Eastern hierarchs (including patriarchs) and definitively resolving doctrinal questions that were troubling the East. Can you, in return, furnish hard eveidence that the popes never did such things or that other patriarchs never acknowledged Rome’s authority?

    We can only go by the extant primary evidence we’ve actually got. It does no good to try to explain away that evidence as mere rhetorical hoo-hah (as some do)–and then argue from silence after conveniently dismissing or downplaying or explaining away the available evidence!

    So, let’s both address the primary evidence…and then see how your third-time-reiterated assertion holds up.

    Va bene?

    God bless,

    Diane

    P.S. Father, I didn’t realize you were based in Naples. My snowbird dad (from Massachusetts) lives there. What a lovely city! My kids are enamored of it–they want to go to Ave Maria University just so they can be in sunny Fla. Hah! Not the best reason….

17. Father Jacobse, one more thing: My reference to the Myth of the Evil Franks was a direct response to an earlier post by Glen. Just to clarify.

    I have also heard similar arguments from other Internet Orthodox.

    To be quite frank (no pun intended), I often find that the contra-Catholic arguments of less irenical Orthodox (present company excepted, of course!) come straight out of the fundamentalist playbook. This seems particularly true on the Internet. But then, we can’t extrapolate any conclusions from the wild world of the Internet, can we? 😉

    God bless,

    Diane

18. Stephen: I find your posts almost amusing in a rather sad way. Do you seriously believe that either JPII or Pope B16 suffer(ed) from a “lust for power”? And what on earth do you have against a struggle against secularism? (Scratching head here.)

    Blessings,

    the befuddled Diane

19. Diane,

    I am sensing frustration with you on the part of not only myself, but other Orthodox on this blog. You are not dealing with anything substantive that any of us are saying. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am not some anti-Roman fundamentalist. I don’t believe that most everyone else on this site is either. We are a sympathetic crowd when it comes to Pope Benedict XVI (for the most part.)

    When someone states something you don’t approve of, you call it unfounded and label it an assertion. If it is documented, particularly by Roman Catholic sources, then you ignore the evidence presented or question its validity. At the same time, you are stuck in this endless series of assertions predicated on claims that no one is making.

    For example, “Can you, in return, furnish hard eveidence that the popes never did such things or that other patriarchs never acknowledged Rome?s authority?”

    Who said that the Pope never did such things? That is not what I have said, nor Father Hans. All that has been said is that the Pope did not exercise the kind of immediate jurisdiction over the East that he did over the West.

    The Catholic catechism of 1917 explicitly understands that the structures of East and West were very different:

    “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 ? such as would have been inconceivable in the West.”

    Certainly Popes such as Gregory saw themselves having supreme authority over the East. Of course, most of them time when the actually tried to exercise that authority a schism erupted, so the question is did the Eastern Patriarchs believe that the Pope had such immediate authority? That I believe is a definitive no.

    Further, I have documented over and over again how the authority of the Pope increased in the West over time, until reaching its current form. You choose, of course, to ignore this, even though all sources for this information were Roman Catholic. The Papacy functions differently today than it did in 381 or 471 or any other date in the past. That is a fact that is easy to document based on Roman Catholic sources.

    I have, several times, simply tried to move the conversation off the topic of historical primacy onto the subjects that are most pressing for your Orthodox neighbors in the 21st Century here in the United States. You don’t seem interested in discussing those topics, such as communion for infants and children, but rather seem to keep getting stuck in a loop over what you perceive as our anti-Roman attitudes. Do you want to explore what the Orthodox really need to feel comfortable in a union with Rome, or do you want to argue history?

    Finally, you have dismissed anything any of us might have to say about the Franks or the relation to the Roman Catholic Church and their empire. Despite documentation, you state that it is all a work of our feverish imagination or Internet hoaxes. The below is from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the forgery known as the “Donation of Constantine.” It gives picture of the imporance to which the Franks gave the place of the Papacy and the Western ‘Roman Empire’ against that of the East:

    “The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.

    The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the “Constitutum”. The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his “Decretum”, but it was soon added to it as “Palea”. Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæµ³ Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole “Constitutum”, both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery.”

20. Diane, since you have rejected any basis for the schism which has been offered here historical, theological, and experential, what do you see as the reason?

21. Diane: my apologies, the Orthodox in the past have been tempted to eschew dogma and seek union with Rome based, arguably enough, on a “lust for power” or a desire to maintain an empire or culture at the expense of dogma. This comment was meant more for the Orthodox.

    “A struggle against secularism” is not necessarily a good thing. Certainly various pagans and other religions may also stuggle against secularism. Its also expected that both the Catholic and the Orthodox should struggle against secularism, but ultimately, each is really struggling in favor of their own dogma. This is not a means toward union. It seems naive to ignore that reality.

22. Note 66. Diane, your definitions are changing. “Arbitrating disputes” is not the same thing as “jurisdictional authority.” Nor has anyone stated that Rome has no extra authority. In fact, the Orthodox have made it quite clear that the Roman pontiff can claim a status of “first among equals”; a claim you characterized as “empty” upstream, but one that your offering of the historical evidence fits quite nicely.

    I reiterate again (for the fourth time), that no historical evidence exists that Rome posseses jurisdictional authority over the other Patriarchs. Yes, you are correct that reiteration alone does not make the claim true. Yet the only historical evidence you have supplied supports my reading of history — which is why I keep reiterating the point.

    Maybe we need some clarification on the term “jurisdictional.” The term means administrative authority, the power of the Roman pontiff to govern patriarchates other than his own. Rome does not have this authority. Remember, the only Patriarchate making this claim is Rome (although the claim was modified in practice by John Paul II). Remember too, that none of the Ecumenical Councils before the Great Schism were based in Rome.

    If you mean something else by this term, the only term that would fit the historical evidence is “primacy of honor” or “first among equals.”

23. Diane,

    While you are addressing Michael’s question, you might want to peruse the following site: newadvent.org. The Catholic Dictionary has a good article on the Schism and outlines the causes of it. It is written from a Catholic point-of-view and is somewhat strident, but I think that it does justice to the underlying problems. Among these were the different structure of the Eastern Church with its independent Patriarchs and, also, the differences in liturgical structure, liturgical practice, and language which became more and more pronounced over time.

    What you may not be aware of, for example, is that as Orthodox Christians our children receive communion from the time of the baptism. Our infants and children are communing members of the body of Christ. At the same time, our priests are permitted to marry, the form of liturgical worship has been preserved more fully than in the Roman Church, the laity receive both bread and wine as a matter of course, there are no Eucharistic ministers, and bishops are elected by local synods.

    These are major stumbling blocks to union, since we have to be assured that a union with Rome will not result, in the United States, in our children being excommunicated or our seminarians forced into celibacy. These are real, practical differences that must be dealt with in order for us to be a real, unified church. You can keep arguing over the pre-schism Church if you would like, but that isn’t going to go very far. You don’t seem interested in what we have to say on the subject, and I doubt you will persuade anyone of the verity of your beliefs on the papacy’s universal supremecy as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church.

    Rather, I would suggest that we deal with the differences that are going to be the hardest to overcome. For me, that is the problem that, in a unified church, if I choose to attend Mass at a Roman Church – would the priest offer the host to my 5 month old and my 3 1/2 year old? If not, then is my family really in communion with Rome? How could my child be in communion with Rome in one church, but not admitted to communion in another?

    For a discussion of this, see the Catholic Encyclopedia under Communion of Children were the following information is found: “It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. Among others St. Cyprian makes reference to the practice. In the East the custom was pretty universal, and even to this day exists in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not so general. Here, moreover, it was restricted to the occasions of baptism and dangerous illness. Probably it originated in a mistaken notion of the absolute necessity of the Blessed Eucharist for salvation, founded on the words of St. John. In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor who alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day.”

    These kinds of problems are the more pressing, rather than a discussion of the ancient causes of the schism. These issues will have to be addressed for us to live together in harmony, not so much a re-hash of the ancient texts.

    One last thing, concerning the Franks and their kingdom. You seem very dismissive of the idea that the Franks and their interplay with the Papacy had any effect on history. Here are some key points from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the forged documents, “The Donation of Constantine.” Judge for yourself, based on this incident and many others, how much impact the Franks and the Papacy had on the development of Western Europe and Western Christianity:

    “The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter.

    The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.

    At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cæ²µlarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his “Decretum”, but it was soon added to it as “Palea”. The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative.”

    Diane – trying to ‘prove’ that the Frankish empire had no impact on the Papacy and its historical development is a lost cause. You can chalk it up to Internet conspiracy theorists, but that just doesn’t wash. I can keep coming up with examples from Roman Catholic sources, such as above, that show the influence of the Empire on the Papacy, including the Avignon period, for example. I don’t really know how you would plan to dispute such evidence that is so clearly historical that it is included in official Roman Catholic publications.

    One last thing – you might want to address my point that direct appointment of all bishops is a power that only devolved onto the Pope in the early part of the 20th Century. In a reunited church, would the Papacy expect to extend this right to all bishops, or would we revert to the process existing before the 20th Century in which bishops were selected in the West in a variety of ways?

24. Note 70. Stephen writes: ““A struggle against secularism” is not necessarily a good thing. Certainly various pagans and other religions may also stuggle against secularism. Its also expected that both the Catholic and the Orthodox should struggle against secularism, but ultimately, each is really struggling in favor of their own dogma. This is not a means toward union. It seems naive to ignore that reality.”

    Stephen, it appears you don’t understand what secularism really is. Pagans cannot struggle against secularism. Their religious outlook has no means to identify secularism as secularism. In fact, secularism can only be defined as such in a Christian culture, and one definition of secularism could include the “repaganization of Christian culture” (such as the rise of Nazism which was really the old Teutonic myth in modern dress, for example).

    And no, a struggle against secularism is not merely a struggle in favor of dogma. Ideas have consequences. Some ideas are better than others, and other ideas are very destructive. You have to look more deeply into these questions. Robet P. George’s book “A Clash of Orthodoxies” is a good start. If George is too dense at first, try C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man.”

25. Diane,
    Lust for Power. I don’t know if either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict suffers from that disease in an excess amount. However, given the fact that for at least 1100 years the experience of the Orthodox East with the Roman West has been one of attack, attack, attack with the stated attempt to force us to submit to Roman rule, Stephen is correct to be suspicious. I am sure you do not read the history the same way.

    The whole conversation, if that is what it is, over unity began with a strong push by Pope JPII back in, I believe, the 1990’s. It coincided with most intense comradeship between JPII and Pat. Bartholomew. My wife and I were getting almost weekly invitations from one Catholic family with whom we were and are quite close to participate in some Catholic function or other. Being good and sincere Catholics, they were consciously acting on the Pope’s stated desire for re-unification and the full court press was on. Our friends backed away when I politely told them that even if Pat. Bartholomew declared union, few other Orthodox would follow and the only result of such an action would be another schism. The wife simply said, “That’s not good” and the matter was dropped between us.

    I am thus brought back to another one of my points, i.e., most of the pressure for re-union has come from the West. In my talks with my many Catholic friends and acquaintances who are interested in the matter, a clear reality emerges. A primary reason for the re-union quest from a Roman standpoint is due to a feeling that something is missing from their faith. They see the missing piece in the East and really would like to have it too.

    I cannot be any more specific than that because the feeling is expressed in unspecific ways. The feeling is nonetheless real. I’ve seen it in the numerous Roman Catholic priests who come to our Holy Week services so that they can experience, in their words, a “real Holy Week”. I see it in those lay Catholics who have become Byzantine Rite because they long for the richer, fuller liturgical experience that also allows their children to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. I see it in the anguish of a Catholic priest who is trying to decide whether to become Orthodox because he sees the strength of Holy Tradition within our communion and feels that despite the Pope, such Tradition is weakening in the Roman Church. I see it in the renewed appreciation for and use of Byzantine icons in the West. I am sure my experience is not unique or isolated. I am equally sure you will deny its validity.

    We Orthodox can and should learn from the manner in which the Roman Catholics stand up so forth rightly on matters such as abortion appreciating the moral leadership of the Pope. That in no way means that we have to or should submit to direct Papal authority. The spiritual heritage of Roman Catholicism is profound, full of great beauty and grace. To this outside observer, however, I have seen so much of that beauty and grace systematically stripped away and denied in my lifetime that I am saddened and perplexed. I can only imagine what many of those within the Roman communion must feel.

26. Michael, is Diane really rejecting any basis for the schism in these exchanges? Or is she simply arguing against the idea that all blame for the schism resides with the Catholic Church? As I read the responses to her I see a trend that, from the Orthodox perspective, Eastern Christians are blameless for the splitting of Christianity’s two lungs.

    Pope John Paul II showed us the attitude we must all take on these matters. While I don’t have exact quotes, I do believe that JPII seemed to be asking forgiveness for the split between the Christian East and West. He was the one who went to the Christian East with, figuratively speaking, hat in hand, attempting to heal the centuries of division. For his efforts he was often met with charges of being the anti-Christ, a heretic, or engaged in some kind of flock stealing. Some Patriarchates outright refused to meet with him.

    It strikes me that we would all benefit by a much humble attitude in these discussions. The Catholic Church seems to have made some advances in discussions of reunion because, as exemplified by JPII, they are asking themselves, “What did we do wrong, and what can we do in the future to make things right.” It would be nice to see the same attitude from those in the various Orthodox Patriarchates and especially among the Orthodox laity.

    Then I read a comment that the Catholics do not even worship the same God as Orthodox, and I realize that Fr. Reardon is absulutely correct. It will take a miracle for reunion between the Christian East and West, becaues we are all, in the end, a bunch of stinking, rotten, lousy, miserable sinners.

27. Daniel – “He was the one who went to the Christian East with, figuratively speaking, hat in hand, attempting to heal the centuries of division.”

    Pope John Paul II was a wonderful leader, a great man, and a great saint. I think, if anything, he went too far in apologizing for the past. No one alive today is responsible for the sack of Constantinople in 1204. The pope at the time even died of shock upon learning what had happened to the greatest city of Christendom.

    The Eastern and Western Churches grew apart. That is the reason for the schism, they ceased to understand one another. There is blame enough for both sides.

    The question needs to be – what is in it for the Orthodox if we heal this division? This question must be balanced against – what will we be risking? As I have made clear, in the United States and Western Europe we will be risking an awful lot. Father Reardon doesn’t hate the Pope, consider him the anti-Christ, or have a stake in the the ancient claims and counter claims about who is responsible for the schism. But neither is he an advocate for unification with Rome.

    It is possible to consider reunion with Rome too risky at this time, but not hate the Roman Church. As I have said, much would have to be decided that would entail large compromises on the part of the Roman Church for me to be happy in a full-union with the Pope.

    As Michael stated, many Roman Catholics have discovered the Byzantine Rite. The Roman Church, then, is in a position in which in some parishes it precludes children from the chalice, but in others it welcomes them. In some parishes a married priest officiates, in others a strict celibacy is required. The Roman Catholic Church is divided against itself on such matters in parishes which are often separated by mere miles.

    All of this would have to be ironed out practically before reunion could occur. The Orthodox are not going to compromise, so the give will have to be from the Roman Catholic side.

28. Note 74: Fr. Hans, the distinction between what is “sacred” and “profane” seems to be understood by other cultures and religions. For example, Islam seems to see itself in a struggle against secularism, or that which is “profane”. The ex-Soviet state, which attempted to make “secularism” sacred, suppressed not only Christianity, but also other religious groups, including other pagans. Were not those suppressed pagans struggling against a “secular” state?

29. Note 76: Daniel, I have to emphasize that only “as portrayed by the Creed” do the Orthodox and Catholics worship a different God. Only God really knows who worships what.

    As mentioned before, there is an Orthodox understanding of the filoque, and I believe this was presented at the Council of Florence in the 15th century in hopes of Orthodox union with Rome. Unfortunately, that understanding was flatly rejected by Rome at the council, and the rejection has become Papal dogma. It seems that for Rome to completely do away with this Papal dogma concerning the filoque, it would now require also giving up on Papal infallibility. The Vatican seems to realize now that this dogma is problematic, but it seems to be a bit of a catch 22.

30. Dearest All:

    I apologize in advance. I cannot even read all these responses, much less answer them. All sorts of stuff is being thrown at me–from claims that Catholics want reunion only because we feel like we’re missing something (so much for that silly “that all may be one” stuff:D) to invocations of the Dread Donation of Constantine. I can’t help wondering whether some people (ahem, ahem) have even remotely considered the possibility that their objections just *might* have come up before–oh, once or twice or a thousand times–in contra-Catholic polemics. A simple Google search should readily show you that the more outre’ objections have been answered a bajillion times over. 🙂

    Anyway, for lack of time and energy, I will confine myself to several statements by Father Jacobse (whom, BTW, I thank and commend for his defense of the propriety of Christian cobelligerency against aggressive secularism):

    “Diane, your definitions are changing. ?Arbitrating disputes? is not the same thing as ?jurisdictional authority.? Nor has anyone stated that Rome has no extra authority. In fact, the Orthodox have made it quite clear that the Roman pontiff can claim a status of ?first among equals”; a claim you characterized as ?empty? upstream, but one that your offering of the historical evidence fits quite nicely.

    I reiterate again (for the fourth time), that no historical evidence exists that Rome posseses jurisdictional authority over the other Patriarchs. Yes, you are correct that reiteration alone does not make the claim true. Yet the only historical evidence you have supplied supports my reading of history ? which is why I keep reiterating the point.”

    Father, my terms may have changed–I am not always a precise writer, especially in combox comments–but I assure you my definitions haven’t. I contend that the pre-Schism popes not only settled disputes between bishops and/or patriarchs (which is significant in itself) but also (a) ratified the ecumenical status of ecumenical councils; deposed heretical bishops and patriarchs; and, in general terms, “exercised judgment,” as the papal legate Philip put it.

    One of the most eloquent witnesses to papal jurisdictional primacy comes from the so-called Arabic Canons.

    Yes, these canons are not part of the original Nicene Canons. But they undoubtedly date from the patristic period–no later than the fifth century, I’m told. Moreover, they indicate what a fairly large sector of Eastern Christianity thought, at that time, about the papal role. IOW, they furnish important primary evidence, of precisely the sort historians seek when they’re trying to determine what a given society or culture believed on a given subject. Obviously, if the Arabic Canons had been part of the original Nicene Canons, they’d have even greater weight. But the mere fact that they date from the patristic period and exerted considerable influence in the East gives them a heck of a lot of weight as indicators of the 4th- and 5th-century Eastern attitude toward Rome.

    Indeed, the Arabic Canons were deemed so important in their own day that they were incorporated almost word for word in the ancient Armenian and Chaldean Nomocanons and in the ancient collections of the Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Melkite churches.

    Here is the relevant passage from the Arabic Canons:

    “Canon XXXIX.

    Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

    Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.”

    The last few sentences are the key ones, needless to say. Similar claims also appear, of course, in the works of the patristic popes themselves–and AFAIK we do not have one shred of extant evidence that either East or West ever launched a wholesale rebellion against these papal claims. Surely if Popes Damasus, Leo, et al., had been perceived as power-hungry usurpers by their orthodox contemporaries, we would have some evidence of that fact? But we don’t. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, those popes are venerated to this day on the Orthodox calendar.

    Moreover, when claims of universal jurisdictional primacy appear in papal and other patristic writings, they are presented as simple facts, enshrined by venerable tradition and supported by the canons. Thus Pope Gelasius I writes in the fifth century: “The Apostolic See has frequently had occasion, as it has been said, by ancient custom, even without any previous council, both of absolving those whom a council had unfairly condemned and of condemning without the presence of a council those whom it ought to condemn….The canons…ordered [the Roman See] to give judgment relative to the whole Church but itself to have recourse to the judgment of none.”

    If there was a massive outcry against Gelasius’s statements, I’ve never heard of it. 🙂 And he is by no means the only patristic writer who explicitly makes these claims.

    Re the papal role in deposing heretical hierarchs: I think the Council of Ephesus furnishes a pretty good example.

    Before the Council of Ephesus convened, Pope Celestine deputized St. Cyril of Alexandria to act there “in our stead and place with power (exousia).” The pope commanded Cyril: “You will deliver this sentence [at Ephesus] with the utmost severity, that within ten days counted from the day of your notice, [Nestorius] shall condemn in a written confession his evil teaching, and promise for the future to confess the faith concerning the birth of Christ our God which both the Church of Rome and that of your Holiness and the whole Christian religion preaches….And let him know that he is altogether removed from our body. We have written the same to our brothers and fellow-bishops, John, Rufus, and Flavian, whereby our judgment concerning him, yea, rather the divine judgment of Christ our Lord, may be manifest.”

    When the Council Fathers met at Ephesus, they declared their union with the “holy head,” Pope Celestine, and they deposed Nestorius, “being necessarily impelled hereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy Father and colleague, Celestine, Bishop of Rome.” Later Nestorius himself complained that Pope Celestine was the prime mover in his ouster: “It was the Bishop of Rome who was exercising the direction of the plotting of the Council of Ephesus against me.”

    I dunno, Father Jacobse. That sure sounds like more than mere primacy of honor to me. 😀

    Other examples can be readily furnished of the patristic era’s growing awareness of the universal jurisdictional primacy of the sucecssors of Peter.

    On another note: I do think that those who believe the current pope is ready to jettison the idea of universal papal primacy are quite mistaken. For one thing, the doctrine of the primacy is de fide; it cannot be jettisoned, by definition. For another thing, *Ut Unum Sint* makes abundantly clear that nothing essential to the papacy can be altered, and that universal jurisdictional primacy is indeed eseential to the papacy. In a reunited Christendom, the popes would govern the East very differently from the way they’d govern the West–but they would certainly govern. It wouldn’t be heavy-handed micromanagement–not by a long, lonnnng shot!–but then, it’s not that now, not even in the West, despite he pope’s role as Patriarch of the West.

    Anyway, I’ve run out of steam again, and I must get to bed. I’ll try to dig up some more historical evidence tomorrow. Rivington is a great source, but unfortunately he analyzes entire historical episodes in great detail, and it’s kind of hard to type all that stuff into a combox; at the same time, though, leaving stuff out truncates the argument and vitiates the force of the evidence. Oh well. 🙁

    BTW, Father–I always feel funny arguing with a priest. 😮 And presumptuous and hubristic, too. I hope you will understand that I am simply trying to defend my Faith–which necessarily involves making some counter-claims to those made here–and that I bear no one here the slightest ill-will.

    Blessings,

    Diane

    P.S. Glen–In a reunited Church, I think I can safely say, no one would force you to forego paedocommunion or other Eastern practices. JPII asked the Eastern Catholic churches to recover their Eastern heritage. Pope Benedict is just as committed to this. We do not want to Latinize y’all. Really!! (Some of us don’t even want to Latinize ourselves–LOL.)

31. I rarely post here, usually being content to read, but I must ask, if the folloing is true:

    “On another note: I do think that those who believe the current pope is ready to jettison the idea of universal papal primacy are quite mistaken. For one thing, the doctrine of the primacy is de fide; it cannot be jettisoned, by definition. For another thing, *Ut Unum Sint* makes abundantly clear that nothing essential to the papacy can be altered, and that universal jurisdictional primacy is indeed eseential to the papacy. In a reunited Christendom, the popes would govern the East very differently from the way they?d govern the West?but they would certainly govern. It wouldn?t be heavy-handed micromanagement?not by a long, lonnnng shot!?but then, it?s not that now, not even in the West, despite he pope?s role as Patriarch of the West.”

    Why are we even bothering to talk to the Roman Catholic Church re. the possibility of reunification? It will simply never happen. I would certainly head for the nearest TOCR church if the Romanian Patriarchate agreed to such a papal primacy as, I’m sure, would most of the lay people in (Romanian) Moldova. What, then, is the point? At this stage it truly looks as though a miracle is the only thing that could unite us.

32. “At this stage it truly looks as though a miracle is the only thing that could unite us.”

    If we don’t believe in miracles, what’s the point of uniting?

33. Are terms “union”, “unification”, “full union” and “communion” interchangeable? Perhaps if we do away with the que questions about jurisdiction, and concentrate on the issue of communion, things could move forward.

    If the Catholics use the Filoque, but no Orthodox or Byzantine Rite Catholics are required to, would it be such an obstacle to communion between the churches?

    What I’d like to emphasize is that the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is already happening, and it is a great thing on itself. We are closer know than we have been for a long time. There is a schism, still, but it’s not a good thing.

    Secularism is everywhere. The beacon of truth, that was once Revelation, now is either a an obsessive fixation with the scientific method or the relativist logic of political correctness where everything is valid for as long as it has nothing to do with Christianity.

    Now would be a good time to stand together, communion or not.

34. Re 80: Given the experience of the Greek Catholic Church in the United States, forgive me if the comment about not wanting to ‘Latinize’ Eastern Rite Christians does not allay my concerns. Of course, Diane, there is abundant documentation concerning the founding of the Ukrainian Orthodox outside of communion with Rome and the reasons for it having taken place. I am sure, however, that you would discount all of it. Prior to speaking for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church as to how they would deal with Eastern Christians in the United States, you might want to check with them first.

    Indeed, Catholic writers have answered all points a bajillion times, as you put it. So have Orthodox writers. This subject has been raked over the coals repeatedly on both sides, and to no more avail than here. Given the different framework applied to the historical documentation, there will be no agreement.

    For example, the Pope was not able to depose Nestorius on his own. A council was required. You will say the council acted in the name of the Pope and on his authority. I will state that the council made its own decision, and that Cyril was the prime mover behind it all. And around and around we go.

    Then, of course, there is the little matter of the 6th council deposing Pope Honorius.

    This is pointless, however. Since we will all simply talk past each other all day.

    I have a suggestion, why don’t you at least deal with the issue that the Pope currently appoints all bishops, but that is a recent power dating only from the early 20th Century. When talking about micromanagement, I think this is a prime example. This authority could have easily resided with synods, as in the East, rather than in the Papacy.

    Also, I would expect from you Diane, at least a bare modicum of respect. Your comment about the ‘dread Donation of Constantine’ is highly insulting. The attitude you take is that if something bolsters your position, then it is correct. If it does not (for example the linkage of the German Emperors to the position of the Papacy, as shown by the forgery of the Donation), then it is laughed off and treated by you with derision. Even if the source documentation was Roman Catholic, by the way. I realize that you are probably not an academic writer, but if you wish to engage in serious debate, then such behavior is not appreciated.

35. There is an interesting posting related to this discussion over at Touchstone’s Mere Comments weblog. I suggest folks take a look.

    Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea has an interesting quote on this subject that I suggest everyone take to heart, “Although we have to be faithful to our own traditions, we also have a chance of moving forward in fellowship if we’re more spiritual and less diplomatic.”

    More spiritual and less dipomatic – sounds like much better advice than, “Why should we even talk to these people.”

    God Bless.

36. Note 80. Well, sure, if the Arabic canons were included Nicea, they certainly would have more weight, but the point is that they are not. I suppose you could find some Arian canons too, but the fact that they exist doesn’t make Arianism true.

    In any case, Glen posted good comments about historical interpretation. The Roman case for Roman jurisdictional primacy is historically exhaustive, not doubt about that, but contextually lacking in the Orthodox opinion. Again, no real primacy was ever exercised, which is an entirely different argument that Rome never asserted primacy. Rome asserted primacy — all the time in fact. Again, from the Orthodox point of view however, the codification of primacy as theological dogma is a relatively recent development necessitated by a lost legitimacy after the Roman break from the remaining Orthodox Patriarchates in the Great Schism. You won’t agree with this obviously, but understand that even Rome is subject to the criticism of others.

    As for your comment: “On another note: I do think that those who believe the current pope is ready to jettison the idea of universal papal primacy are quite mistaken. For one thing, the doctrine of the primacy is de fide; it cannot be jettisoned, by definition.” — no one ever suggested that the pope is ready to “jettison the idea of a universal papal primacy.” What was suggested was that the Pope is ready to redefine the notion of a jurisdictional definition of univeral primacy into a pastoral one. This might surprise you, but it is already happening. My hunch is that Roman leadership knows that the idea of jurisdictional primacy (the notion you defend) is historically conditioned and ultimately unsustainable as dogma.

    You are right of course that by definiton Rome cannot retract dogma. What Rome does, however, is redefine them. The “Immaculate Conception” is a case in point. Check you history. You will find that the dogma was promulgated by a quandry created by an exclusive reliance on Augustinian anthropology, ie: if original guilt is passed genetically “through the loins”, then how could Christ be free of this guilt since He was born of a human woman? The resolution was to retroactively apply the “merits” of Christ to Mary at her conception, hence the “Immaculate Conception.”

    Today however, since Augustine has fallen out of favor, no mention of original guilt or retroactive merits, etc. are even mentioned. Instead, the rationale for the dogma has been rewritten.

    These rewritings frustrate the Orthodox a bit too, but the point is that the doctrine of primacy can remain even as the theological rationale gets rewritten. My assertion that a rewritting of the doctrine is possible (in fact even occuring) has no bearing on your point that the doctrine is not retractable.

    In any case, I admire your zeal, but my sense is that you are a bit surprised that the objections to papal primacy are more than the unlearned arguments of anti-Catholic polemics. There is more to the argument than what you were taught.

37. Note 78. The “pagans” (if indeed there were any in Soviet Russia), were struggling against death. “Sacred” and “secular” can’t exist a viable distinction within a pagan construct. In fact, resisting the death of the tyrant would be no different than resisting death imposed by, say, a hurricane or flood, in the pagan vision.

38. Fr. Hans, I think a pagan might see the hurricane or flood as sacred, but then see the tyrant as profane. My understanding of paganism is that there usually would be a distinction. Pagans seem to have an almost inherent understanding of humanities’ role as priest on earth. Their “sacred” rite and ritual provides for them a framework of reality and meaning. Life apart from that rite and ritual would be considered empty, meaningless, false, and secular. This seems to be in part why the early Christians were labeled as “athiests” by the pagan Romans, and their lives were also considered meaningless.

39. Father Jacobse: I think you may have missed my point re the Arabic Canons. I’m married to a Harvard-trained erstwhile historian, and, through him, I have a tiny bit of exposure to the historical method. From what I’ve observed, historicans consider primary evidence valuable to the extent that it sheds genuine light upon the thinking of a particular society at a particular time. The source document may be famous or obscure; if it accurately represents the thought of Group A during Priod B, then it is grist for the historian’s mill.

    The Arabic Canons certainly meet this criterion. The fact that they were not part of the Nicene Canons means they do not play an authoritative role in the *religious* life of many Christians today (although they *are* in the collections of some Eastern communions). But that does not in any way vitiate their usefulness as an hisorical document reflecting the thinking of the East re the papacy circa the fifth century. This may not matter to the denizens of this blog, but I can assure you it matters to historians. 😉

    Moreover, I would contend that your remark about “Arian canons” is off the mark and unfair. Arian canons would by definition be heretical. Is there the slightest evidence that the Arabic Canons were ever regarded as heretical by the undivided Church? If so, could you produce this evidence? Thank you in advance!

    Of course, the Arabic Canons are far from our only extant source shedding light on the East’s early regard for Roman primacy. But their explicitness makes them especially valuable.

    Other equally explicit witnesses can be found, too—Maximos the Confessor and Theodore the Studite spring to mind. Of course, in my experience, non-Catholics anxious to discount the evidence for the papacy routinely try to explain away–somehow–each pro-papal patristic passage. The “explaining away” rationales vary widely. We hear everything from, “Such-and-such a Father didn’t really mean it; he was just engaging in rhetorical excess,” to “So-and-so wrote that only because he was under duress,” or “So-and-so was only trying to suck up to the pope for reasons of political expediency.” (Never mind that all these explaining-away attempts seem to reduce to a mind-reading exercise, without the slightest scintilla of supporting evidence.) After a while, though, the explaining-away begins to look like a pattern, IMHO, and not a very pretty one. I mean, maybe one can explain away one or two patristic pro-papal passages as insincere, but *all* of them? *All* the pro-papal patristic passages, spanning seven or eight centuries–*all* the result of political pressure or rhetorical hooey? What are the odds of *that*? 😉

    But I digress…..

    Re context: I confess I do not quite know what you mean. Context is difficult to provide in combox comments because of space limitations, but it is supplied in detail in works of apologetics and scholarship by respected Catholic scholars ranging from Dom Chapman to Hans Urs von Balthazar. Perhaps we should consult their works before announcing that context is missing from papist arguments. 😉 😉

    As we all know, extant patristic evidence re the papacy is relatively scanty and somewhat fragmentary. Historians of all persuasions must do some piecing together of the evidence and a certain amount of educated speculation. Nonetheless, we do know *something* about context–the evidence isn’t *that* fragmentary–and IMHO the context we *do* have tends to support and reinforce the pro-papal case. (This comes out in Rivington’s book, for example.)

    (My husband’s erstwhile specialty, Byzantine history, also suffers from a relative paucity of extant primary evidence, compared with, say, modern European or American history. Nonetheless, there is enough evidence available so that historians can draw plausible conclusions…and this is also true, I contend, with the history of the pre-Schism papacy.)

    Re your argument re the Immaculate Conception: This is one of the most astonishing arguments I’ve read in a while, I must confess. 😉

    To begin with, I think you have been seriously misinformed. The Catholic Church has never adopted–wholesale–the Augustinian view that Original Sin was transmitted through the sex act. I am *very* fuzzy on the details, but I seem to recall that this aspect of Augustine’s doctrine was in fact explicitly rejected. I’ll try to find references for this. Meanwhile, I can confidently assure you that, as a Cradle Catholic taught by nuns in the dread pre-VCII era, I was *never* taught that Original Sin was transmitted by sex, like an STD. 😉

    Moreover, I dispute that it has become unfashionable to talk of Original Sin. You will find a full discussion of Original Sin in the Catechism, for instance. And my own pastor, who’s rather Augustinian, has also been known to mention it now and then. 🙂

    Today, Saturday, is the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary–and I can guarantee that, at many Masses and in other pious contexts worldwide, “Original Sin” will come up. 😉

    So, I’m sorry, Father, but I think your objection here is a non-starter. We may not have any idea how Original Sin is transmitted–“it’s a mystery,” as those apophatically inclined 1950s nuns used to say–yet it nonetheless remains true that (a) there IS such a thing as Original Sin; and (b) it is transmitted somehow. 😉

    As for me and my house, we’ll stick with the Church’s solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Coneption, which is infallible and hence irreformable. Personally, I also give my allegiance to the Most Pure Theotokos herself, who told 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous, on March 25, 1858, “Que soy l’Immaculada Concepciou”–and thereupon corroborated her words by performing countless miraculous cures, many of them attested by rigorous scientific investigation. (BTW, Bernadette’s body remains completely incorrupt to this day. Just a nice fact I thought I’d throw in there. ;))

    Blessings,

    Diane

    P.S. Father—I’m still at a loss as to what your point may be when you note that the early councils didn’t convene at Rome. To put it bluntly: So what? The Councils of Basel, Florence, and Trent didn’t convene at Rome either. :0 Where does it say that councils must convene at Rome before Rome’s primacy can be validated? 😉

40. Diane, you are correct on the historical use of primary sources. However there are two additional aspects one must be quite aware of when constructing or critiquing any historical analysis: 1) Care must be taken to avoid anachronistic readings of the source material and therefore the context, and 2) the assumptions the historian brings to the selection of material and the interpretation. Both of these factors play a much more important role in the final historical picture that is constructed than the facts themselves. Given the inherently strong assumptions involved in any attempt to re-construct the history of the Schism, any historical interpretation is invalid at the beginning as to proof of the truth of the matter. They are worse than useless when discussing any attempts at re-union. History is a poor descriptor of spiritual reality or truth except in the most general of ways.

    IMO, the Schism was finalized by two particular historical events, one political/economic, and the other theological/spiritual. The first one was the Sack of Constantinople. Regardless of the reasons, causes or extent of the act, it did cement in the minds of the people of the East the separation between Rome and the East that nothing else up to that time had done. The second one was approval by the East of the theology of St. Gregory of Palamas in the 14th century as opposed to the Scholastic Theology gaining hegemony in the West.

    There is not the space nor do I have the expertise to give a clear exposition of the difference that St. Gregory pointed out, but the differences are profound and deep. As long as those differences exist, there is no possible chance for re-union as we will always be two separate Churches.

    I can only describe what my experience of life in the Orthodox Church is and assert that my experience is neither special nor unique. In fact, the usualness of my experience is testified to by many. I can also say that in all my years of looking for and being lead to Christ, I found nothing at all similar in the West, Catholic or Protestant a fact that caused me to reject Christianity for much of my life.

    Life in the Orthodox Church is a synergistic theophany of love that is shared with the community of believers, seen and unseen, in accordance with the Holy Tradition of the Church. The heart of our Tradition is the kenotic offering of God Incarnate. As we participate in the theophany of the Church, we are transformed in love, suffering, and forgiveness by God’s ineffable Grace. God changes us so that we may return to full life in His Kingdom–a Kingdom that is both here and now as well as elsewhere and to come. Our Bishops are central to the life of the Church as they have the God given sacramental and pedagogical authority within the Church. Their essential equality comes from the sacramental office for it is through that office that heaven and earth are united and the reality of the Church revealed and maintained. Since all Bishops have an identical sacramental authority, one cannot be higher than another. The essential equality of all believers and the effectiveness of the Church in earth comes from the ontological reality that we been cleansed of sin in Baptism and have received the Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Each individual will express that gift in a unique and special way, if we are acting in humility, obedience and purity. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, a Church that is united across eternity. No man is or can be head of the Church. Since we are all fallen, sinful people in need of redemption and forgiveness, we often do not reflect the truth of the Church in our dealings with one another or with others. Nevertheless, the reality of that truth was evident to me the first time I experienced Orthodox worship, it has only grown since then.

    The testimony I have received from almost every Roman Catholic I have met in my life as well as the historic and experiential testimony has never once revealed to me a Roman Catholic Church that is anything like what I know the Orthodox Church to be.

    Diane, you might know better than I why the testimony I have received has been so poor. I can only speculate and my speculations to not reflect well on the Roman Catholic Church or her teachings, especially the office of the Papacy. By that statement, I mean no disrespect for the daily strivings in faith that you or any other Roman Catholic undertakes. I honor anyone who honors Jesus Christ in his life. Nevertheless, I do not want, will not seek and would only accept re-union with Rome after enormous changes on your part. I am not alone in my sentiments. I, for one, would just like all the talk about it to stop since most of the talk ends up becoming insulting and demeaning to both sides. Then we can turn our efforts to working together where we can, in faith and love.

41. Note 89. Diane, let’s stick to your original thesis: Rome has jurisdictional primacy over all of Christianity. This particularly Roman claim finds no acceptance in the non-Roman churches. For that reason, your assertion that historical evidence must be read within a context that proves the thesis true might make sense to a Roman Catholic, but carries no authority for the Orthodox or Protestant. For that reason, the claim that the existence that the Arabic canons confirm a jurisdictional authority in the early Church makes as much sense as
    arguing that canons sympathetic to Arianism confirms the legitimacy of Arianism.

    As for Augustinian anthropology, you need to study it more. Note that I did not say the sex act was purloined (although this idea was dominant in Catholic thinking for centuries), but that the guilt of orginal sin was passed “through the loins” (quoting Agustine here). As for the Immaculate Conception, my explanation may sound fantastic to you, but then you may not have been taught your entire history. THe Immaculte Conception has a dogmatic grounding, although the modern rationale has abandoned Augustinian dogma completely, and thus moves into an abstract piety.

    Having said all this, I still think you are confused about precisely what kind of authority you think the Pope possesses. You say jurisdictional authority, but you offer no real evidence that such authority ever existed, apart from some quotes by writers arguing that some sort of authority ought to exist. Remember, the dogmatic codification of papal authority as jurisdictional authority over both the Orthodox and Protestant churches is a relatively recent development.

    What exactly do you mean by jurisdictional authority? Please, no quotes. Just your definition.

42. Note 88: Fr. Hans, what I’m getting at is: if the Catholic and Orthodox can’t agree on a sacred vision of God, then how can they really agree on what is secular?

    If the Pope invites the Orthodox to join forces in battling “secularism”, then its really the Catholic version of what is secular and based on the Catholic version of what is sacred. Such an invite seems to be sort of a back door way of trying to get the Orthodox to participate in the Roman Catholic vision. Admittedly, if the Orthodox were more powerful than the Catholic, then we would probably do the same thing. Its an interesting tactic, but it sidesteps the real problem. It seems to focus on the social symptoms of secularism, such as widespread abortion, instead of the actual theological sickness, as portrayed by the Papal dogma surrounding the filoque.

43. Stephen:
    What do you mean by “sacred vision of God”? Also, I do not agree that the Catholics and the Orthodox believe in different Gods. I believe rather that we have a different way of expressing our relationship with God: “We have the same God but before him we are different men, unable to agree as to the nature of our relationship with him.” Quote from Vladimir Lossky’s book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Vladimir Lossky got that form Fr. Congar’s,who is a Catholic priest, book The Divided Christendom. On a completely different note to all: until both Catholic and Orthodox are really willing to listen to the issues that they have with each other without automatically taking refuge behind smoke screens that have been there for centuries nobody will get anywhere. I do think that Fr. Reardon is right; it probably will take a miracle to bring the Catholics and Orthodox completely together. I believe that we as Christians, no matter Catholic or Orthodox, must fight the social moral decline in this country. Therefore, if both Catholics and Orthodox agree that something must be fixed: why then can we not work together to take care of what ever it is? I am not saying that doing that would be easy, and all of us in both corners would have to come out from behind whatever smoke screen we are hiding behind. However, I am saying that it is possible to work together on issues that we both think are a problem that needs fixing without bickering on what we do not agree on. I do not have all the answers, shoot, I may not have any answers, but this is what I see.

44. By “sacred vision of God” I’m trying to refer to the witness of the Orthodox saints and of the Creed regarding the Holy Trinity. There are many different ways of expressing or not-expressing this, but we have to examine if one expression actually makes the same reference as another. We would probably agree that the God of Islam and of Orthodox Christianity are different. Its not just a matter of wording. These two “visions of God” do not refer to the same “God”. The same could be said of Mormons, Jehovah Witness, etc. I’m not saying that Catholics and Orthodox actually believe in different Gods. I don’t know that. Without a doubt, many of my Catholic brethern are closer to God than I am. Just like the Good Samaritan, they put me to shame. However, I believe that an honest examination of the Catholic and Orthodox Creeds will show that they do not make the same reference to God.

    Garrison, you suggest that Orthodox and Catholics should work together to fix social/moral problems. Let’s use abortion as an example. Would you also be in favor of working together with Muslims and Mormons against abortion? I’m not trying to equate Catholics with either group, but to point out that in the battle against something profane, the solution is to embrace that which is held sacred. For the Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, and Orthodox, stopping abortion ultimately means converting to their faith.

45. Note 90: “I do not want, will not seek and would only accept re-union with Rome after enormous changes on your part.”

    Well, so much for any “chance of moving forward in fellowship [as long as] we’re more spiritual and less diplomatic” as desired by Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea.

46. Daniel, just because I don’t want re-union does not mean fellowship cannot exist. In fact, IMO, more real fellowship would be found if we just drop the idea of re-union altogether. We can be good and genuine friends without trying for a marriage.

    How much easier it would be if we could just ask for explanation of the differences we have without any defensiveness that our cherished beliefs would have to be altered or dropped when we reunite. We might then be able to really listen to one another, learn from one another and gain strength from one another.

    I really believe that is one of the points Fr. Patrick was trying to make.

    In any case, we Orthodox have a tremendous amount of work to do getting our own house in order. If the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem are to survive, they need a lot of help. If we are to come together and express the unity of faith we actually have, we have to untangle the jurisdictional webs. How can we even begin to think of re-union with Rome.

47. Dear Daniel,

    I think most Orthodox Christians (OCs) would agree with Michael’s thoughts on why we would not desire reunion with the Roman Catholic Church unless the RC church made significant changes.
    Why can’t we have fellowship and work with the Roman Catholics without communion?

    Most of us (OCs) feel we do not lack anything doctrinally or spiritually for salvation or that we are only breathing with one lung. And I would like to echo my agreement with Michael in regard to the theology of St. Gregory of Palamas. He taught us that Orthodox theology is a science of the healing of man. Here is a quote from SAINT GREGORY PALAMAS AS A HAGIORITE by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos.

    THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TEACHING OF ST. GREGORY PALAMAS

    In our days there are many editions of the works of saint Gregory Palamas, as well as many studies relating to his life and teaching. This is God’s special blessing to our time. For although St. Gregory lived in the 14th century, he has a great deal to say to our time, because, as we know, the same philosophical, theological and even social currents which prevailed in his epoch also predominate in our own. The 14th century has features in common with the 20th. That is why the discussion which went on between St. Gregory Palamas and the philosophers of that time are of considerable interest now. He has much to teach contemporary man.

    We shall be able to establish the great importance of St. Gregory Palamas for Orthodoxy, that is for the triumph of the true faith, in monasticism and on the Holy Mountain.

    1.For Orthodoxy

    We can see quite clearly the great significance of his teaching for Orthodoxy on the important question of epistemology. When we say epistemology we mean the knowledge of God and, to be precise, we mean the way which we pursue in order to attain knowledge of God. The situation in St. Gregory’s time was that Orthodoxy was being debased; it was becoming worldly and being changed into either pantheism or agnosticism. Pantheism believed and taught that God in his essence was to be found in all nature, and so when we look at nature we can acquire knowledge of God. Agnosticism believed and taught that it was utterly impossible for us to know God, just because He is God and man is limited, and therefore man was completely incapable of attaining a real knowledge of God.

    In the face of this great danger St. Gregory Palamas developed the fundamental teaching of the Church concerning the great mystery of the indivisible distinction between the essence and energy of God. We must underline that this is not the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas alone, but of the Orthodox Church, and therefore this theology cannot be called Palamism. Many fathers have referred to the distinction between essence and energy. We find it in the Bible, in the first Apostolic Fathers, in the Cappadocian Fathers, and especially in Basil the Great and that great dogmatic theologian of the Church, St. John of Damascus. St. Gregory Palamas, with his outstanding theological ability, developed further this already existing teaching and put forward its practical consequences and dimensions.

    It is very characteristic that this distinction began to be noted in discussions about the Holy Spirit. The Calabrian philosopher Barlaam maintained that we could not know just what the Holy Spirit is, especially His procession and His being sent by the Son. In the face of the danger of agnosticism St. Gregory Palamas taught that the actual procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is a different thing from His being sent by the Son. Thus while we do not know the essence of the Holy Spirit, we do know His energy.

    All spiritual life is a result and fruit of the energy of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the saint taught, we cannot participate in God’s essence, but we can know and participate in His energies. As the great dogmatic theologian St. John of Damascus teaches, we can see His three unions: union in essence, of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; union in substance, in the Person of Christ between the divine and human natures; and union in energy, between God and man.

    In this way St. Gregory preserves the true teaching of the Church. If in the time of Athanasios the Great, men doubted the divinity of Christ, in St. Gregory’s time they had doubts about God’s energies. They said that His energies are created. Therefore in the dismissal hymn of the saint we sing: “Illuminator of Orthodoxy, supporter and teacher of the Church, spiritual beauty of the monastics, irrefutable champion of the theologians…”.

    go to this site to read more:http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b16.en.saint_gregory_palamas_as_a_hagiorite.01.htm

48. Diane,

    The Arabic Canons are actually forgeries. It’s not that they don’t carry as much weight because they weren’t included at Nicea, it’s that they shouldn’t carry any weight at all. Here is part of an article from Catholic Culture (a Roman Catholic source):

    “That the False Decretals contain material that supports papal claims does not prove that the bishops of Rome played any part in their manufacture. Forgers often mix actual events, widely-known facts, and personalities into their work in order to improve a document’s credibility. One cannot presume the subject matter of a forged document easily or necessarily reveals the identity or the agenda of its true author. The spurious “Arabic Canons” of Nicaea, which call the pope the “head and prince of all patriarchs,” are more explicitly pro-primacy than are the genuine canons of the council of Nicaea. These spurious canons were written not in the West but in the East. If this fact had not been known widely, anti-Catholic apologists might have added the Arabic Canons to their list of alleged Roman forgeries.

    By Webster’s reckoning, the False Decretals were written in 845. Pope Nicholas I (858-867), the first pope to quote them, did not begin his reign until thirteen years and three pontificates later. These facts suggest the False Decretals had been in circulation and had obtained credibility before Nicholas I used them. If they had been intended to advance Roman claims of authority, one would expect that they would have made their Roman debut centuries earlier than they did. Regardless, the long-held opinion of scholars, including Dollinger?who is the main source for Hunt, Webster, and De Rosa on this matter?is that the False Decretals were written in France, not Rome.”

    France? What – the dreaded Franks again!

    When discussing Orthodox saints and their appeals to Rome, it is instructive to actually look at the entire case. St. John Chrysostom was deposed by the Synod of the Oak. He appealed to everyone who would listen, including Pope Innocent. The Pope was (rightly) convinced that St. John was innocent and should be vindicated. So what did the Pope do? The only thing he could do. He summoned a Synod of the West which ruled that the charges against St. John were groundless.

    The Pope then appealed to the Western Emperor for help. The Western Emperor started a tiff with the Eastern Emperor, who promptly ingored all pleas on behalf of St. John. A schism erupted that lasted decades. It was finally ended due to a combination of factors. Among these were the popular acclaim of St. John among the people of Constantinople, the death of his successor, the need of the Empire to ‘move on’ and the need to finally patch things up with Rome. Primary in the decision to rehabilitate St. John was definitely not some idea that the Pope had to be obeyed. That is abundantly clear from the sources from the other patriarchates who were in schism with Rome over this.

    The Pope did the right thing. St. John is our father among the saints, and thanks be to God that the Pope stood up for him.

    On the other hand, the Pope was in no position in the 4th Century to exercise direct jurisdiction. He couldn’t simply issue a Papal declaration and order things. He had to lead, to cajole, to persuade. In short, he had to be a pastor, not a monarch.

    Pick up a bio of St. John Chrysostom written by a scholarly source, and you will find confirmation of these events.

49. Daniel,

    Look at this from a practical standpoint.

    Suppose some Sunday morning, after re-union with Rome, my wife and I decide to take our family to a Roman Catholic Mass. We’re now in communion with Rome, so we decide it is time to be one big happy family and attend the Roman Catholic Church 1 mile from our house.

    We go in. My son asks me why the building has almost no artwork. In fact, it’s a modern church that is plain enough to be a community center in a poor neighborhood. I patiently explain that this is a Roman Catholic Church, and that the sacred art he has taken for granted his whole life appears to be optional.

    Mass starts with a lively pop tune involving power guitars. My son asks me why he has been to church every single Sunday for his entire life and has never heard anything like this. I explain to him that in the Roman Catholic Church, music of all kinds is used, but that in Orthodox Churches, usually only singing and chanting are found.

    Am I feeling at home? Is this really ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’ from my perspective?

    Wait, it’ll get better. The time for the Eucharist comes. I take my 3 year old and my 5 1/2 month old down to the altar. We avoid the lines served by Eucharistic ministers, since my wife and I will not accept communion at the hands of anyone who is not a deacon, priest, or bishop. (My son would probably ask why people wearing street clothes are giving out communion, a sight he has never seen before. That will be a ‘teachable’ moment for sure.)

    We zero-in on the line served by an actual priest. When we get to the chalice, I hold up my son to receive. The priest looks at him and says, “He’s too young.”

    I patiently explain that my son was raised in the Eastern Rite, and that he has been fully communing for almost his whole life.

    What will the priest do? Offer my son the Eucharist? Probably not. He will simply tell me he can’t, in the Latin Rite my son is not worthy to receive. “Come back in a few years,” he’ll probably tell me.

    My son, of course, will start crying, since he has never been refused the chalice and has been taught that taking communion means being with Jesus. Now a priest, an authority figure that he has been told is the guide to the truth, has just told him that Jesus isn’t for him, but only for those old enough to appreciate him.

    At that point, my family will probably leave, never to visit a Roman Catholic mass again.

    Daniel – all this talk of unity and re-union is just so much hot air as long as the scene I just described is possible. Even if we were officially united, unless some serious changes took place on the Roman Catholic side, I would never attend a Roman Catholic Church.

    Who cares about technical unity if the reality is that we continue to live separately anyway? That was the kind of condition that gave birth to the schism in the first place. Better to live together as friends and comrades, rather than to attempt such a union of opposites.

50. Note 98: Glen, with all due respect, aren’t you making an inordinate fuss over aesthetics? I appreciate and prefer a sense of high art to folk-masses and suburban lodge architecture, but isn’t this just that … a preference? Some church experiences are more conducive to prayer/reflection than others, depending on the person. You must take into consideration that some people simply find the Orthodox (and traditional RC) treatment of the service as completely impersonal, cold and distant.

    As far as Communion, where in Scripture does it say that women are forbidden from touching the Eucharist? Where did this come from and why are they “unworthy”?

    Like I said, I completely relate to your disdain for the “hippy culture” that seems to have crept in to mainstream church aesthetics, but there are plenty of churches that maintain a more cerebral and contemplative atmosphere.

Comments are closed.