The New Orthodox-Catholic Agreement is a Landmark – but There’s a Long Way to Go

The Catholic Herald (UK) ^ | 9/26/16 | Fr. Mark Drew

[marshmallow]

The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue announced a substantial agreement but healing the historic schism still requires plenty of work

As of last Thursday, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church announced that it had reached substantial agreement on the questions of primacy and synodality in the Church. It was described as a “landmark agreement”, and one source asked excitedly whether Orthodox Churches might soon “recognise the Pope”. Has there really been a historic breakthrough in the process towards healing the thousand-year-old schism between East and West?

That the issue is a thorny one is shown by the recent history of the dialogue. In 2007 a meeting of the Commission at Ravenna produced a statement which recognised a historical right of the Bishop of Rome to be considered as protos, first in the order of bishops in the pre-schism Church, while leaving it to future discussions to see how this primacy might be exercised in a future, reunited Church.

The impact of the Ravenna document was somewhat reduced by the absence of the Moscow patriarchate, the largest Orthodox Church, because of an internal Orthodox dispute. In 2014 the Commission met at Amman in Jordan, but failed to reach agreement on the theme of “Primacy and Synodality”. This year, with only of the small Church of Georgia expressing reservations, the group meeting in the Italian town of Chieti has managed to achieve a consensus on the issue.

The document, bearing the full title “Synodality and Primacy during the first Millennium: Towards a common understanding in service to the Unity of the Church”, was released as early as Friday. A perusal of it shows that, while it is of undoubted significance as a stage in the dialogue, it is too early to be ringing the church........

[ealgeone]

The Chieti document unambiguously rejects this simplification of history. It recognises that even in the West the understanding of Roman primacy was the result of a development of doctrine, particularly from the fourth century, and that this development did not occur in the East: “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East…” The East, in other words, rather than reneging on a common heritage, simply never accepted a development it had not been part of.

An interesting read which corresponds with much of how Christianity views when the roman catholic church began...around the 4th century.

Peter was not even the first apostle...IIRC, it was his brother Andrew.

[ebb tide]

It should be said at once that the document has accepted a reading of the first Millennium which is more in tune with the way Orthodoxy has tended to see it than that favoured by Catholic apologetics until recent times. Until such confessional readings of history became unfashionable after Vatican II, Catholics would commonly urge Orthodox to return to the unity of the first centuries from which they were alleged to have gone into schism and rejecting the Roman Primacy which they previously accepted. In line with this view, every sign from the early Church of the East accepting a leading role for the bishop of Rome was interpreted as recognising for him the kind of role he came to play in the post-schism West.

Of course it does, in francischurch. But that's understandable considering the current occupant of the chair.

[Campion]

What church do you think existed in Rome before this mysterious event (which was what, exactly?) in the fourth century?

Here's a hint: they weren't Baptist, and they weren't Presbyterian.

[cloudmountain]

AMAZING that it happened so quickly, by Church standards, that is. Truly amazing...and a GOOD thing.

[ealgeone]

hint...the article is from a catholic magazine...even it recognizes history as it unfolded.

[CTrent1564]

Your reading into what you want to read into. Nobody has ever said that the Roman Primacy as it came to be understood in the 2nd millennium was not part of a Development of Doctrine. This is clearly part of Catholic teaching. The question is what would be the role of the Bishop of Rome in a reunited Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

This document in many ways is sort of confirming what Pope Benedict Emeritus wrote in the 1980’s when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Doctrine of Faith, under Pope John Paul II.

I think there is clear evidence for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which I am not going to rehash ere. However, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting question. Pope Benedict in Principles of Catholic Theology (1987, p.217) notes that when Patrirach Athenagoros met the Pope in 1963 in Phanar by stating “Against all expectations, the Bishop of Rome is among us, first among us in honor, he who presides in love [Ignatnius of Antioch, epistle to the Romans ). It is clear, Pope Benedict writes [then Cardinal Ratziner] that the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Church or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank, of the equal Bishops in the Church and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but does confess a primacy of honor and love might be a formula that recognizes the place of the Church of Rome in the Universal Church.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger noted, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the Doctrine of Primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium (p.199). In other words, the development of doctrine of the Pope can be reconciled into a first millennium model. Pope Benedict said as much 30 years ago and this document seems to pointing to the same idea.

And one more thing, nothing here was said about Protestants. Nobody in the article mentioned protestants at all. This purely a Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogue, you all will continue to do what you do, I am quite sure, if Catholic and Orthodox reestablish full communion.

[ealgeone]

A development of doctrine? Now that's a new take on the topic.

Something the catholic claims to be so clear as the papacy is a "development in doctrine."

[CTrent1564]

Yes, there a development of doctrine, in that understanding of it develops over time. Christology, the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, is a development of Doctrine. In other words, the Church over time came to develop more precise and clear Doctrinal Statements about Christ. Take the Doctrine defined at the Council of Nicea 325 AD, Ephesus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 all reflect a development of Doctrine, not a new doctrine, but as the Church faced challenges to its understanding of Christ, it responded by defining Doctrine, in those days in Creedal formulas, to reject the unorthodox doctrines of Christ.

The Primacy of the Church of Rome is clear, and the Primacy of Bishop of Rome. My previous post clearly indicates that Patriarch Athenagoras stated that. The question is how is that Primacy defined and understood in the a united Catholic and Orthodox Church. That was never, if you want to be honest, clearly defined in the 1st millennium when Catholics and Orthodox were in Full communion.

So can Primacy of the Church of Rome be defined in a way that both West (Rome) and East (Orthodox) agree on the reflects a understanding of the Primacy of Rome based on the mutual experience of the 1st millennium. As I said, none other than Pope Benedict himself said as much back in 1987 and the article linked even makes reference to that point.

[ealgeone]

In 1 John the doctrines of Christ were pretty clear.

[CTrent1564]

ealgeone:

Maybe they are to you, perhaps you are smarter than almost everyone who ever lived. They seemed to not be so clear to the 4th and 5th century Christians, who read and lived the Greek language, which the NT was written in.

Every Heresy that sprung up during that time was due to someone claiming the Scriptures meant X and not Y, etc.

And I agree 1 John is a strong letter than defends the Incarnation of Christ, and suggests and early collision between the late 1st century Church and Gnosticism.

But it does give clear definition to whether Christ was the same substance as the Father, a similar substance, etc, which is what Arianism posited. They started with OT passages that were seen by all the early Church as pointing to Christ. Deut 6:4 as indicating that God is One and That Christ could not be equal to the Father. Another favorite OT passage cited by Arius and his followers was Proverbs 8:22-31 where it reads God “created wisdom” Wisdom in this text was understood to be the pre-Incarnate Christ, so this was taken by Arius and his followers to suggest that Christ did not exist in his Divine Nature from all eternity, in other words, God was not always Father, etc. Some NT passages he used were John 17:3 “Only True God” in reference to God the Father. Mark 10: 18 where Jesus said “Only God is Good”, Arius used that to argue that Christ was not equal to God.

There are other passages, but these will suffice. You will find scriptural arguments over Christological Doctrine related to the Council of Ephesus and CHalcedon as well.

[ealgeone]

So in other words the catholic claim on Peter being the rock upon which the church is built is not supported by history nor the NT.

James was head of the Jerusalem Council...not Peter.

[NRx]

The problem for the most part is not the First Millennium, when the East and West were (usually) in communion with one another. The problem comes in the doctrinal innovations of the last thousand years.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Those are showstoppers. Or in more technical terms they are heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox Church. Any hope of restoration of communion between East and West died on July 18th 1870.

NRx (the Anathematized)

[newberger]

NRx,

You are correct. Even if the dialog agreed on language, without repudiation of infallibility and, more importantly, universal jurisdiction, this isn’t going anywhere fast.

Sometimes, our Roman friends are too optimistic about how close we are. There are many issues yet to be worked out.

I need to remind or Catholic FReepers that even if the Orthodox bishops gave 100% agreement, the laity still has to agree. Orthodoxy is NOT like the Roman church in this regard. If you doubt me, lookup the Council of Florence and the work of St. Mark of Ephesus.

[Campion]

You’re evading the question, which is SOP when the question is a hard one.

[Campion]

So in other words the catholic claim on Peter being the rock upon which the church is built is not supported by history nor the NT.

Pretty sure he never said that, but you see what you want to see.

The Catholic claim is supported by the obvious, plain, and literal interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. You have to go through linguistic contortions which ignore basic principles of Greek grammar to get any other interpretation.

[marshmallow]

Given the complexities of simply getting the Orthodox alone sitting around a table together, as evidenced at the recent Great and Holy Synod, I don't think Catholics are under any illusions about the difficulties involved here.

I think progress will be incremental and the first issue to be resolved will likely be a common date for Easter.

[Jim Noble]

You don’t have to hang out with Evangelicals and Bible Christians for long (twenty years, in my case) to realize that there are hundreds, maybe more, of competing understandings of the “plain words of scripture”. They do all agree that the Bible is inerrant and that scripture is perspicacious, but that hasn’t allowed unity, or semi-unity, of belief.

Now, unlike a lot of Catholic polemicists here, I love these people. They, unlike a whole bunch of “baptized Catholics”, are drawn to Christ, want to walk with Him, and are faithful in doing what they think they are supposed to do, including in many cases corporal works of mercy. Many of our local evangelical churches of 60-90 members support missions directly and are active in the community, with 50% or more members who tithe, while Catholic churches with 600-900 massgoers play Bingo to pay the heating bill because the average per member in the plate is between $1 and $5.

But, they are mistaken in their Bibliolatry. How strong would the Church become if they were in it!

[ealgeone]

Oh your question is an easy one. The ekklesia. The body of believers guided by the Hoky Spirit.

. We do not see the worship of Mary with the prayers to her, the reliance upon her for salvation, the invocation of the false titles like advocate, redemtrix, mediatrix, the immaculate conception, indulgences, cardinals, the papacy, prayers for and/or to the dead, etc.

In other words, no roman catholic church.

[ealgeone]

The Catholic claim is supported by the obvious, plain, and literal interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. You have to go through linguistic contortions which ignore basic principles of Greek grammar to get any other interpretation.

This is almost comical. The catholic talking about twisting the language.