Topic: Pope says Orthodox Church is Defective, Others Don't Even Rate

[lubeltri]

More can be found here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx

Very handy site. Without reading an article I found there, I would have never known that St. Francis of Assisi (to whom I pray) was inspired by the Devil. Phew, dodged that bullet.

[PeterTheAleut]

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.

AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death).  He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.

[GiC]

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.

Our canonists have well defined this issue and while I will confess that we take a rather byzantine approach to the canons (and for good reason, most canons would simply be damaging to the Church and faithful today if applied literally, rather than in a figurative spiritual manner) a valid point has been made, Rome's complete disregard for the ancient councils and canons is manifested in her codification of canon law to the exclusion of several canons and canonical principles. The system was far richer and truer to the traditions of the Church up through the 19th century. It is fortunate that the attempts to codify our canon law have been halted by significant opposition at all levels.

[lubeltri]

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

Your churches ARE considered sister churches. Yesterday's statement even says so. Catholic ecclesiology is of a quite different sort than Orthodox ecclesiology. It is possible in our ecclesiology for the Church's sacramental grace to be operating outside the visible bounds of the fullness of the faith, which (for us) is the Catholic Church. Being true "churches" in the venerable sense of the word, with apostolic succession and true, grace-filled sacraments (and efficacious, too, since blame for the schism rests on people now long-dead), the Orthodox Churches have a communion with the Catholic Churches "so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Here's an excerpt from the new document:

. . . In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"11.

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"12.

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"13, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"16. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches17.

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.

[lubeltri]

AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death).  He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.

Thanks for the info.

[Didymus]

Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.

Could you let us know a little more about this please?

From my understanding, the ancient view was that the Pope of Rome was first among equals.
We could here enter a debate about the positions of the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch but there seems to be enough Christian charity between these now to avoid this sort of debate.

[Didymus]

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.[/i]

As the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is the Successor of St. Peter, does that mean that "the fullness of universality" is realised in the Oriental Orthodox Church?

[lubeltri]

As the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is the Successor of St. Peter, does that mean that "the fullness of universality" is realised in the Oriental Orthodox Church?

This is not the venue for such a debate. Besides, there are probably a dozen old threads on this chestnut already. I will say, though, that our Church sees Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome, as well as Rome's place as the center of the empire, as having special divine significance. Thus the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, is ascribed to Rome, the primatial See of the Church. This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

(this is no insult to Antioch, of course, one of the celebrated Pentarchy, and a patriarchate more ancient than Constantinople)

[Αριστοκλής]

There we go with that 'THE Apostolic See' again...

[Didymus]

This is not the venue for such a debate. Besides, there are probably a dozen old threads on this chestnut already.

You're probably right about that however there is the question here about whether or not The Orthodox Church is defective.

I will say, though, that our Church sees Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome, as well as Rome's place as the center of the empire, as having special divine significance. Thus the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, is ascribed to Rome, the primatial See of the Church. This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

(this is no insult to Antioch, of course, one of the celebrated Pentarchy, and a patriarchate more ancient than Constantinople)

Thank you for this information. I didn't know the Roman Catholic Church saw divine significance in Sts. Peter and Paul's martyrdoms in Rome. Do you see any divine significance in the martyrdom of St. James in Jerusalem as well?

This website:
http://phoenicia.org/syriacs.html refers to "the Apostolic See of Antioch".

A general querry:
As the Pope of Alexandria reigns on the Throne of St. Mark and the Catholicos of India reigns on the Throne of St. Thomas, upon what does the Patriarch of Antioch reign?

[jmbejdl]

This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

There is no 'of course' about it. The fact that Rome was particularly honoured due to the martyrdoms of saints Peter and Paul there we would agree with, the rest, particularly the idea of some divine significance, of what you said is late Roman interpretation built upon that. Even St Gregory the Great referred not to Rome alone as the See of Peter, but Rome, Antioch and Alexandria together.

James

[AMM]

I thought this was a good response:

Vatican's honest position furthers dialogue - Metropolitan Kirill

Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has called "honest" the position of the Vatican published in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating that the Catholic Church is the only Church approved by Christ.

"It is an honest statement. It is much better than the so-called 'church diplomacy'." It shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who heads the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, told journalists in Moscow.

"For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," because "it helps understand how different we are," he said. Basically, the Vatican's current document has nothing new and is in "full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kirill said.

"The Orthodox Church is, according to Apostolic Succession, successor and heir to the old, undivided Church. Which is why everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," the Metropolitan added.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3311

[Peter J]

I thought this was a good response:

Thanks for providing that, Welkodox. I thought it was a great response. (Well, except that I don't see the language "the only Church approved by Christ" in the document.)

-Peter.

[lubeltri]

Nice response. I also like the use of the phrase "approved by Christ." Indeed, you could use the analogy that the Catholic Church considers itself the "authorized" Church, while the Orthodox Churches are "unauthorized" Churches. After all, the only major remaining sticking point for us is an acknowledgement of the actual, not symbolic or honorific, primacy of Roman pontiff, which is what we consider a divinely instituted authority. Orthodoxy, not accepting this, is an "unauthorized" Church in that sense (along with the OO, Polish National Catholic Church, Assyrian Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, and---possibly---some traditional branches of Anglicans and Old Catholics).

[My opinion here:] The sacraments do not stop in such Churches, though they are likely not efficacious for the unrepentent people responsible for the original separation (as they would be for any unrepentant Catholic too). Most Orthodox and most Catholics were, of course, blameless in the division of centuries ago. While their Churches remain, they still receive grace through the sacraments via God's great love and mercy.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Most Orthodox and most Catholics were, of course, blameless in the division of centuries ago. While their Churches remain, they still receive grace through the sacraments via God's great love and mercy.

Very good point. It's wonderful to see that our human frailty cannot stop God from giving his grace to us.

[JSOrthodoxy]

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

Basil

Basil,

I really like this analogy.  Can I borrow it?

Joe

[TinaG]

Please excuse - this is just a test

[The young fogey]

More from me on the matter here.

[lubeltri]

More from me on the matter here.

Superlative analysis. I'm going to put you at the top of my favorites list under "blogs" (next to Father Z; who, incidentally, tore apart Joan Chittister's reaction to the Motu Proprio with delicious relish yesterday).

[AMM]

After all, the only major remaining sticking point for us is an acknowledgement of the actual, not symbolic or honorific, primacy of Roman pontiff, which is what we consider a divinely instituted authority.

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position (and while I agree it's the major issue, I don't think it's the only one).  Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church.  In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith".  Your suggestion for Orthdoxy is really what that means.

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.

[lubeltri]

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church.

Never heard of any of them, but I did manage to come up with some examples of their theology:
Richard McBrien: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/sep1994p14_835.html
Hans Kung: http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/kung.htm ,
http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/religion/rl_dhHansKung.htm
Gary Wills: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19643_1.html

It seems to me that all three of these are well-educated, well-intentioned men who are led astray by their belief that the Church ought to be a medium for social change, that it is something to be used rather than to be conformed to. Interesting articles, all.

I think we'd love to have them in the Church (if they're not already--God alone knows the answer to that). The Church is a place where God works to restore people to Himself (note that I say a place). God is not incapable of transforming anyone. In fact, these men may more easily accept the teachings of the Church since they are obviously so interested in her work on earth. The Church is a place for everyone; God's grace is given to all.

[Peter J]

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position

Well I, as a Catholic, would like to think it's a refutation of the Orthodox position, but I'm a little surprised to hear an Orthodox say so.

 
But seriously, folks ...

Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church. 

I quite agree. I'm not so sure, however, about your conclusion that:

In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith". 

As I've said somewhere else (I think it was in "Which Obstacles?"), historically when the East and the West have reconciled with each other after a schism, each continued to believe that it always had the fullness of faith.

-Peter.

[JSOrthodoxy]

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position (and while I agree it's the major issue, I don't think it's the only one).  Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church.  In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith".  Your suggestion for Orthdoxy is really what that means.

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Since, I am convinced that we will not capitulate, then it is up to Rome to abandon her additions to the apostolic faith and return to Holy Orthodoxy.  Or, we can continue where we are and strive for more respect, kindness, and cooperation.  But, what we need to avoid is the false hope that somehow everything is just based on misunderstandings and we will eventually reunite on some new basis.

Joe

[scamandrius]

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church.

Amen.  You RCs are welcome to keep those guys!  Would you mind if we unloaded a few "Orthodox" on you as well? 

[Veniamin]

Amen.  You RCs are welcome to keep those guys!  Would you mind if we unloaded a few "Orthodox" on you as well? 

I somehow don't think they want GiC...

[GiC]

I somehow don't think they want GiC...

I'm sure I'd get along with the American liberals...but probably wouldn't sit too well with Rome

[GiC]

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate.

[drewmeister2]

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.

Actually, I am not in communion with them, I am with the Old Calendarists.

[GabrieltheCelt]

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate.

 More like the kind of person who needs attention. 

[Nacho]

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin

Dam son...you're one of a kind! 

[Jonas Suender]

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy . . .  ?

Hopefully, it means good fences make good neighbors.

[Peter J]

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate.

Yes, I do find that to be a slightly odd combination. But on the other hand, it might be a refreshing change to have a Trindentine-ist who also wants to return to the old way of saying the creed.

[GiC]

More like the kind of person who needs attention. 

Ah, attention is only half of it...I don't like positive attention, it's boring. Scandal is what I really love, and to be right there fanning the flames and getting to see the looks on people's faces when their entire world view and system of belief is assaulted and turned on its head. And if you're wondering, no, I do not have any respect for the human race (they're all, or at the very least with VERY few exceptions, worthless) and yes, I do have a sadistic streak.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

And if you're wondering, no, I do not have any respect for the human race (they're all, or at the very least with VERY few exceptions, worthless) and yes, I do have a sadistic streak.

And, no doubt, that was said to assault the entire worldview and system of belief of most people here.

[GabrieltheCelt]

And if you're wondering,

I wasn't. 

[GiC]

I wasn't. 

You should know by now that I play to the mob...not the individual. It's amazing how you can twist an otherwise rational person when you threaten them with the façade of the displeasure of their peers.

[Αριστοκλής]

^ A new definition of trolling? 

...or were you talking about the Pope 

[GabrieltheCelt]

You should know by now that I play to the mob...not the individual. It's amazing how you can twist an otherwise rational person when you threaten them with the façade of the displeasure of their peers.

But I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots. 

[GiC]

But I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots. 

It's only circular to those who insist on a nonsensical connection between rationality and worth. It is quite possible for one to be very rational, but utterly worthless. For instance, the fact that one is capable of being subdued by primal fears, whether or not someone actually tried to exploit this, essential negates any claim of rationality, for it is only a conditional rationality...that is to say, they are only rational so long as the weather is fair and all is easy. Also, what use is rationality if it accomplishes nothing? So what if someone is rational if they do not expand the frontiers of knowledge and civilization? They are simply leeches, surviving on what a few worthy people have accomplished.

So who has worth and is deserving of the dignity we diminish by calling it human? Those who rational, and unable to be controlled by propaganda, be it religious or secular, who ignore and overcome their primal fears and desires. AND, who also contribute to human knowledge and civilization in a significant way...a very small number of accomplished scientists, an even smaller number of accomplished industrialists, and an even smaller yet number of artists, writers, etc. In short, only a handful of those people history has judged to be 'great' have risen above 'leech' to become what we idealize as 'human' (though this ideal is far from the reality).

[ytterbiumanalyst]

^
You're so vain. You probably think this thread is about you. Don't you? Don't you?

[GiC]

^
You're so vain. You probably think this thread is about you. Don't you? Don't you?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

"We have heard of the pride of Moab--he is very proud--
         Of his haughtiness, his pride, his arrogance and his self-exaltation.
    "I know his fury," declares the LORD,
         "But it is futile;
         His idle boasts have accomplished nothing.
    "Therefore I will wail for Moab,
         Even for all Moab will I cry out;
         I will moan for the men of Kir-heres.
    "More than the weeping for Jazer
         I will weep for you, O vine of Sibmah!
         Your tendrils stretched across the sea,
         They reached to the sea of Jazer;
         Upon your summer fruits and your grape harvest
         The destroyer has fallen.
    "So gladness and joy are taken away
         From the fruitful field, even from the land of Moab
         And I have made the wine to cease from the wine presses;
         No one will tread them with shouting,
         The shouting will not be shouts of joy.
    "From the outcry at Heshbon even to Elealeh, even to Jahaz they have raised their voice, from Zoar even to Horonaim and to Eglath-shelishiyah; for even the waters of Nimrim will become desolate.
    "I will make an end of Moab," declares the LORD, "the one who offers sacrifice on the high place and the one who burns incense to his gods.
    "Therefore My heart wails for Moab like flutes; My heart also wails like flutes for the men of Kir-heres Therefore they have lost the abundance it produced."

Jeremiah 48:29-36

[Αριστοκλής]

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Sounds like a very good idea.  BTW, is that today for Old Calendarists? I never can remember by how many days we are apart.