Posted on 10/23/2009 7:05:19 AM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict has sure gotten the ball rolling and it seems others want to get into the ecumenical action! Thanks to A Catholic Knight on this one:
True enough, as well as for the Orthodox clergy. Comparative theology is a specialized field. Sadly, on both sides of the divide, there is little true understanding of the beliefs of the other.
However, the way the Orthodox laity keep the hierarchy in check is by long memory. Since very little changes in the liturgy (and, remember, Orthodoxy is governed not by a magisterium but by lex orandi lex credendi), there are at least three, often four generations of believers in the church at any time raised on the same liturgy.
But we were not divided by changes in the liturgy. The complaints that have historically been made by the Orthodox about the Latin liturgy have been made because they never recognized the legitimacy of ancient Latin practices that differed from the Greek. Even taking into account the changes introduced by typical edition of the Novus Ordo in Latin, like the Orthodox, there have been changes but none that changed our theological understanding of the faith expressed in the liturgy. The new translation that you mentioned is an attempted to recover in the vernacular what has always been present in the official Latin version.
No; “apostolic” means a great deal more than what you suggest. It means that the Church is apostolic by character and constitution. The Church is not a DIY project; she SENDS her authorized messengers to proclaim the good news and the sanctify the world through the sacraments. The Church isn’t a polling service asking what the people think they believe.
I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.
One thing is clear from the interview with Bp. Tikhon I posted in #20: in his particular case it is not a bishop driving the flock toward unity, but rather the flock driving bishop Tikhon. Note his comments on “sobornost” as related to lay participation, and the concluding remark about fight for unity being his pastoral practical duty.
“I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.”
With all due respect, R, if you understood Orthodoxy you’d understand why we are discussing this.
BTW, the world is not sanctified through the sacraments. That’s the Latin notion of created grace which was unknown in the first 1000 years of The Church and which Orthodoxy formally rejected in the 14th century after Rome began preaching it as part of the whole indulgences/treasury of merit notion.
“Yes, your typical layman might be able to repeat in a cursory fashion the objections of the Orthodox but how many really understand, or even know, the Catholic positions?”
But the objections are based on the Catholic positions of today. We see them trumpeted here regularly, even today, P by well know Latin posters. Its a matter of submission to the hierarchy and ultimately to the Pope. Orthodox Christians don’t buy that and never did. What happens even here on FR with “conservative” Catholics? Accusations that our ancient ecclesiology, the ecclesiology of the One Church not the feudalistic Frankish ecclesiology of Rome, is Protestant! I suggest that Orthodox Christians understand full well Latin ecclesiology and what at least “conservative” Latins want for us in any reunion.
“Sorry, but this “people’s church” ecclesiology makes no sense.”
No, it doesn’t. That’s not Orthodoxy. Nor is Orthodox ecclesiology a feudalistic creation of the Franks.
All Benedict has to do is assume his historical role of “First among Equals” and it will all come together.
Oh, but for that little contingency, eh?
“All Benedict has to do is assume his historical role of “First among Equals” and it will all come together.
Oh, but for that little contingency, eh?”
Maybe we should all start holding our collective breath. I’m sure it will happen within the next few weeks...! /s
Troparion (Tone 4)
By your profession of faith, O all-praised Mark
The Church has found you to be a zealot for truth.
You fought for the teaching of the Fathers;
You cast down the darkness of boastful pride.
Intercede with Christ God to grant forgiveness to those who honor you!
Kontakion (Tone 3)
Clothed with invincible armor, O blessed one,
You cast down rebellious pride,
You served as the instrument of the Comforter,
And shone forth as the champion of Orthodoxy.
Therefore we cry to you: “Rejoice, Mark, the boast of the Orthodox!”
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Ah, but there's the rub! We hold that the Catholic position is not a feudalistic Frankish invention but the true ancient ecclesiology of the One Church and that it is the Orthodox position that is a later invention.
The truth be known, I believe that both the absolutist view of the papacy of some conservative Catholics and the merely "Primus inter pares" view of the Orthodox are exaggerations. This is a natural tension of the operation of subsidiarity. The U.S. has the same tension in finding the equilibrium between the federal and state governments in federalism. I am hopeful that wiser and calmer minds can find this equilibrium that will not contradict the definitions of Vatican I nor destroy the true authority of the local bishop and local churches. This was what Vatican II attempted to do. For this to happen, however, we must pull back from both extremist claims and extremist fears of abuse by the other.
“We hold that the Catholic position is not a feudalistic Frankish invention but the true ancient ecclesiology of the One Church and that it is the Orthodox position that is a later invention.”
You believe that the non synodal system of the Rome of today is that of the ancient church? Really?
“...the merely “Primus inter pares” view of the Orthodox are exaggerations.”
Do you think that the comments of Met. John of Pergamum relative to primacy and a primus are “exaggerations”?
Where would you get such an idea? The Western model is pontiff+council. Indeed, has not one of the complaints of the Orthodox been that the popes have called "ecumenical" councils while the Church is divided? A study of Western Church history would show a constant use of councils. As a more informal way to work within a synodal system short of a full ecumenical council, Rome has instituted a regular synodal meeting of representative bishops from around the world to discuss matters with the pope.
Do you think that the comments of Met. John of Pergamum relative to primacy and a primus are “exaggerations”
Indeed, not. On the contrary, he is an example of stepping back from extreme positions and looking anew at the question. If I am not misrepresenting his position, it is not a question of is there a universal primacy but how it operates in relation to the local churches:
For the future development of dialogue on this issue, it is of crucial importance that the Orthodox accept that primacy is part of the essence of the Church and not a matter of organization. They must also accept that there must be a Primacy on a universal level. This is difficult at the moment, but it would become easier if we thought more deeply about the nature of the Church. The Church cannot be local without being universal and cannot be universal if is not local.…The exaggerations that I mentioned would be the opinion that Metropolitan John describes as follows:Acceptance of the Roman primacy would depend on whether we agree that the Church consists of full local Churches united into one Church without losing their ecclesial fullness. But this is not a theological “innovation”. Father Congar believed that the papal primacy, in spite of monarchical tendencies prevailing at that time, was exercised within an ecclesiology of communion also in the West until about the sixteenth century, when the papacy succeeded in imposing monarchical primacy on the whole of the West. If that is the case, the return to such an ecclesiology of communion may not be such an unrealistic proposition.
There are some Orthodox theologians, - in the past they were the majority - who attach primacy, every level of primacy, to the organization of Church, and say that what the Pope has asked regarding his primacy does not have a dogmatic content, so therefore it can be relativized. For them primacy is a canonical question not involving the faith. They don’t see any link between primacy and the nature of the Church. For them the office of primate is a matter of the bene esse and not of the esse of the Church.…It is clear that Metropolitan John does not share this position.One of the leading Orthodox theologians, the late Professor Ioannis Karmiris, wrote: «Because of the political importance of Rome and the apostolicity of this Church, as well as the martyrdom in it of the Apostles Peter and Paul and its distinction in works of love, service and mission, the bishop of Rome received from the Councils, the Fathers and the pious emperors – therefore by human and not divine order – a simple primacy of honor and order, as first among the equal presidents of the particular Churches». According to this view, the actual structure of primacies, the primacy of the Roman See included, is due simply to human and transitory factors. This means that the Church could exist without primacy, although she could not exist without bishops or synods, the latter being a reality of iure divino and part of the Church’s esse.
I am glad you found that interview with Met. John. In a few lines it captures his ideas well.
Much as I admire Prof Kalomiros’ writing and generally agree with his thinking, as you probably know, I’m with Met. John on this one. It is extremely important to understand what Met. John is saying and what he is not saying. Primacy does not exist, nor may it be exercised, in a void. It exists only in reference to the synod for which and within which it is exercised, though it is equally important to understand that the synod cannot function, or even exist as a practical matter, without the primus. Thus Met. John observes:
“…the universal primacy of the Church of Rome would mean in the first instance that the Bishop of Rome will be in cooperation on all matters pertaining to the Church as a whole with the existing patriarchs and other heads of autocephalous churches. His primacy would be exercised in communion, not in isolation or directly over the entire Church. He would be the President of all heads of churches and the spokesman of the entire Church once the decisions announced are the result of consensus.” In the article you quoted from, Met. John says essentially the same thing:
“Universal primacy can only function in relation to those who comprise the synod, and never in isolation, that is outside a reality of communion.”
Met. John’s system assumes an ecclesiology which is quite different from that in the West. For Metropolitan John, local churches represent in se the fullness of The Church. Bishops are not individuals but rather the leaders of particular “ecclesia”. It is not bishops who are in communion with each other, but rather these churches and it is to the sees of these churches to whom primacy belongs, not individual bishops at any level.
All of this revolves around the nature and functioning of the hierarchy. For us, “hierarchy is, above everything else, the mutual recognition of persons in their unique, personal qualifications, of their unique place and function in relation to other persons, of their objective and unique vocation within concilliar life. The principle of hierarchy implies the idea of obedience but not that of subordination.” as Fr. Schmemann of blessed memory noted. Beyond that, for us all bishops are fundamentally equal, though some by virtue of their sees exercise some additional authority by reason of varying degrees of primacy, but even that is only exercised within the context of a synod and consensus. Am I incorrect in concluding that this is fundamentally different from the system which has developed in Rome since at the latest the 16th century and which is in many aspects defined by the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I?
Finally, as Met. John is quoted:
“Catholics must take seriously the notion of full catholicity of the local Church promoted at Vatican Council II, and must apply it to their ecclesiology. This means that every form of primacy at the universal level must reflect the local Church and must not intervene in the local Church without her consent. Every local Church, must have the possibility to affirm its own catholicity, in relation to the primacy. For this reason, I repeat, the golden rule for a correct exercise of primacy is the 34th Apostolic Canon.” That canon says:
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and count him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own ‘parish’6 and the county places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”
P, I think, and am told, that Met. John’s position is now pretty much accepted among the hierarchs, even by the Russians, whose previous objections may have been more political than theological. But this position posits an ecclesiastical structure and role for the Pope which is very different from what has developed, indeed, it is ontologically different. How does this get resolved, especially in light of the “Dictatus Papae” mentality so prevalent among large segments of the Latin laity and hierarchy, even here as we have all noted over the years?
The bottom line here is whether you believe what you confess in the Creed. You have avoided that critical point.
This “Frankish church” business is so much rubbish, embalmed political grudges, and simple jealousy. Not that different from this week’s epidemic of papal paranoia. Is there anything more ridiculous than this spectacle of anglican patriots doggedly patrolling the Dover cliffs to spot the papal armada lurking just over the horizon? Or that of those who talk a good game but — finally offered everything and more than they’d asked for — discover that their faith is really more about what they oppose than what they affirm?
I...I’ve GOT it! He’s Father Benedict Groeschel in a mitra!
No?
“The bottom line here is whether you believe what you confess in the Creed. You have avoided that critical point.”
What nonsense is this? Do you doubt for one moment that Orthodox Christians fully mean it when they recite the Creed and have preserved the Creed inviolate, unlike the Latins under the tutelage of the Franks?
I have long said that Christians should stand together. I had in mind Protestents, especially those who already share many things in common with Catholics, like Lutherans and Anglicans. But, welcoming the Orthodox is just as worthy. I rejoice that I see this happening and hope that it does happen quickly. Strength is in numbers and Christians need all the strength we can get in this uncertain and dangerous world.
So far, the only change I've heard articulated is the response to the Priest's blessing. We now say "And also with you." They are changing it to "And with your spirit." Funny thing, when I was a new convert we used to say "Et cum spiritu tuo". I don't know Latin, but I think that that means "And with your spirit." Hmmmm.
Of course, none of my children remember the old form. They were just babies. *sigh*
Another thing that I have noticed, having lived through Vatican II -- the people who are the most incensed with changes in the Catholic Church often are people who never were Catholics, or Catholics who left the faith years before. They get all in a snit about habits for nuns, or dropping Latin, or the priest facing the people, etc., etc., etc. It's as if they resent the church changing liturgical forms so that they no longer match their Hollywood interpretaion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.