Weigel on Catholic/Orthodox Disunity

Over at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, EPPC senior fellow George Weigel examines the dismay of Orthodox monks on Mount Athos in northern Greece at recent overtures toward conversation by Pope Benedict  XVI to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The issue for the monk, Weigel notes, was not any papal statement or initiative but the Ecumenical Patriarch's reception of them as though the Pope actually were "the canonical Bishop of Rome." In this, Weigel sees an illustration of Orthodox/Catholic tensions that are not as easily overcome as it might seem to some Catholics, and certainly to some of us who are on watching from the outside of both groups.

Weigel writes:

I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of Catholics around the world whose confession of Catholic faith includes, as a key component, "I am not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople."

The truth of the matter is that, outside historically Orthodox countries and certain ethnic communities, the thought of how one stands vis-à-vis the Patriarch of Constantinople simply doesn't enter Catholic heads. Perhaps that's a problem, but it's nowhere near as great an obstacle to ecumenical progress as the conviction in some Orthodox quarters that non-communion with Rome is a defining characteristic of what it means to be "Orthodox."

1054, it now seems clear, was not a date-in-a-vacuum. Rather, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were the cash-out, so to speak, of a drifting-apart that had been going on for centuries, driven by language and politics, to be sure, but also by different theological sensibilities. Are those two sensibilities necessarily Church-dividing? The Catholic answer is, "No." But that is emphatically not the answer of Mount Athos, and of those Orthodox for whom the Athonite monks are essentially right, if a bit over-the-top.

All of which suggests that John Paul II's dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.

Comments

[Matthias]

Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.

Oh boy. "Islamist pressures?" I bet they never thought of that. Probably those poor benighted Orthodox in the eastern Mediterranean have no idea just how dangerous Islamic expansionism could be. Thank goodness they have western intellectuals willing to lecture them about this.

But I'm afraid they won't listen, nay, not even if the Ottoman armies should reach the very gates of Constantinople itself.

[Michael Martin]

No need to get so snarky, Matthias. The monks on Athos have a reputation for being snarky when it comes to Rome. You should know that. Patriarch Bartholomew, on the other hand, has a reputation for being a good Christian. You should know that. It saddens me deeply that so many Orthodox clergy view *any* communion with Rome. The people, in general, don't seem to be as bitter; and most of the Orthodox I know aren't bitter in the least--save for the two or three Orthodox converts from Protestantism who still haven't outgrown their anti-Catholic bias. Some of the Orthodox clergy I've encountered, however, take bitterness to a whole new level. And bitter about what? None of us living now had anything to do with any of the problems that plagued our churches in the past, yet we are still charged with the crimes. "You sacked Constantinople!" No, I didn't. It's like saying all Catholics are Nazis because Hitler was Catholic. This attitude is unhealthy. It is also anti-christian. This bitterness must please the evil one greatly.

[Michael Martin]

Oops, I meant to write "It saddens me deeply that so many Orthodox clergy view *any* communion with Rome as a move towrd heresy."

[DGP]

Matthias has a good point. The millennium just past was not kind to the Orthodox, and yet they consistently and wholeheartedly have recoiled from even minor compromises to Rome, machinations of their princes and bishops notwithstanding. Despite the return of aggressive Islam (Was it ever far gone?), things are looking up for Orthodoxy: The Moscow Patriarchate hopes to resurge to dominance over the East, and Turkish Muslims are increasingly impeded by Euro-ambitions and a stubborn secularism. Why cave now, when there's new hope, after enduring all the humiliation of the past 1000 years?

The pressures on Rome are at least as great. Yes, for the moment we have the population and its benefits -- the money, the scholarship, political experience across a broad spectrum of cultures. But the scandal of Christian division festers deep within the wounds with which the West is afflicted. The abraded faith of Enlightened Europeans, the bleed to designer Christianities in the Americas and Africa -- these are wounds that won't heal as long as East and West refrain from common witness. Moreover, Rome in all her ivory splendor knows this truth, and her knowledge was no small part of John Paul's eagerness.

Of course, even in his eagerness, John Paul never imagined that Christian unity could be anything other than a work of the Holy Spirit. What are two lungs without the breath to fill them? And the Holy Spirit has been known to work wonders. For him, "unlikely" has little meaning.

Still, I suspect Mr. Weigel is right, and true communion is a long way off. I say this not so much because of the hardness of some Orthodox hearts -- though that, too, is part of the story -- but because an East-West union would have the feel of cheap grace. Were the USSR to collapse in one generation, and the Schism in the next, would it not seem to be simply the death of the East, and the earthly triumph of the West? The Holy Spirit has no need for this kind of victory. Let there be Christian unity, but let it bear witness to the saving Lordship of Christ. Let it blossom through the fervent prayers of faithful Christians; let it bear fruit in the galling humility and sacrificial love we Christians should harbor for each other. Thus will Christian unity be more than the cold caution of a couple negotiating their pre-nuptial agreement, but a true consummation of love after the pattern of our crucified and risen Lord.

[Stuart Koehl]

Weigel's first error is treating the Holy Mountain as a monolithic entity. In reality, it is a community of many autonomous monasteries, which have a variety of perspectives on the ecumenical dialogue with Rome. It is unfortunate that the most vocally opposed--who in many cases fall under the category of "hyper-Orthodox" and deny communion with a range of canonical ORTHODOX Churches for a range of silly reasons, get the most press. Squeaky wheel and all that. It is also foolish to think that Athonites represent the majority position within Orthodoxy, which is also very difficult to categorize. Attitudes towards Rome in Ukraine and the Middle East, for instance, will differ significantly from those held in Moscow and Greece. Even in the United States, you will find a tremendous diversity of opinion, ranging from that of His Grace Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos (UOCA-EP), who is very open to dialogue, to His Grace Metropolitan Tikhon of San Francisco (OCA), who pretty much sees the Pope in the same way as Ian Paisley (and no coincidence that Tikhon Fitzgerald was an Orangeman before he became Orthodox). I would say the great majority of Orthodox have tremendous respect for the Bishop of Rome (if he's not canonical, why haven't the Orthodox ordained one of their own to the See?), particularly due to the work of John Paul II in opposing Communist oppression in Eastern Europe. The hierarchy may erect barriers, but the people (on both sides) yearn for unity.

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, Wiegel is also wrong in assuming that the Athonites monks are "clergy". In fact, most of them are unordained lay monastics. Relatively few Orthodox monks are ordained, which makes them different from a number of Roman Catholic religious orders.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Still, I suspect Mr. Weigel is right, and true communion is a long way off. <<<

When it comes, it will not be through our efforts, but through the descent and grace of the Holy Spirit. And it will come in a totally unexpected manner. And it will not come from the top down.

[Stuart Koehl]

I might also add that when Wiegel writes: "The obverse is not true. I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of Catholics around the world whose confession of Catholic faith includes, as a key component, "I am not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople."", he is being somewhat disingenuous. Every Orthodox Christian is aware of the Roman Catholic Church; every Orthodox Christian knows about the Pope of Rome. Rome is the 900-pound gorilla, impossible to ignore; even when trying to be helpful, it is still quite dangerous.

On the other hand, most Roman Catholics don't think much about Orthodoxy, may not even know what the Ecumenical Patriarchate is (heck, most of them don't even know there are Eastern CATHOLIC Churches, let alone Eastern Orthodox ones). For them, it isn't an existential issue. The Pope says, "Be friends with the Orthodox", and most Roman Catholics say, "OK, Holy Father. Um, who are the Orthodox?"

However, there is a sighificant body of Roman Catholic opinion, on what may be called the "traditionalist" side, that does not agree with the ecumenical dialogue, and which rejects the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism. To them--and I have met a number--the Orthodox are not "Sister Churches" (a term they reject out of hand: the Church of Rome is THE Church), but rather "schismatics" or "dissident Orientals". They see the Vatican's rejection of proselyization of the Orthodox as truckling with heresy, which is why many of these people also fund missionary activities in places like Russia and Ukraine that cause no end of problems for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

This, by the way, does not cover the Lefebvreites of the SSPX, whose ranks include an order called the "Transalpine Redemptorists", and SSPX "Eastern rite" organization that not only poaches on the Orthodox, but also on canonical Greek Catholics.

[Michael Martin]

Amen, Stuart. I share your suspicions of the so-called "traditionalist" movement. Ultramontanism all over again.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>1054, it now seems clear, was not a date-in-a-vacuum. Rather, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were the cash-out, so to speak, of a drifting-apart that had been going on for centuries, driven by language and politics, to be sure, but also by different theological sensibilities. Are those two sensibilities necessarily Church-dividing? The Catholic answer is, "No." But that is emphatically not the answer of Mount Athos, and of those Orthodox for whom the Athonite monks are essentially right, if a bit over-the-top.<<<

Finally, Weigel is wrong in stressing 1054 as some sort of terminus ad quem in East-West relations. In fact, at the time, nobody saw this as a definitive split, and there continued to be extensive ecclesiastical contacts between the two halves of the Church. The Patriarch of Antioch, Peter III, for instance, remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople, and nobody thought the worse of it. Eastern and Western Christians, for the most part, were considered to be part of the same Church, if unfortunately not sharing ecclesiastical communion at the moment. It had happened before, and no doubt people felt in time the breach would be healed.

Two other dates suggest themselves as being "definitive". The first would be 1204 and the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The descration of Hagia Sophia, the looting of the city, were seen as acts totally beyond the pale, "worse than the Saracens" according to Byzantine chroniclers. The hard feelings generated by this act, as well as the elevation of a Latin patriarch in the city, led Eastern Christians to conclude that the Church of Rome considered them NOT to be fellow Christians.

Despite which, communion between Greek and Latin Christians continued wherever these two groups lived in the same place, such as Cyprus, where Orthodox priests and bishops were known to walk in Corpus Christi processessions with their Latin counterparts. Intercommunion was common, because it was continually denounced by hierarchs on both sides--a sure sign that the practice continued and was visible.

The second date is 1724, the year of the Melkite Schism in the Patriarchate of Antioch. For nearly a century, the various Patriarchs of Antioch had either covertly or overtly been in communion with the Church of Rome. In 1724, Constantinople attempted to impose a Greek candidate for the office (as head of the Rum Millet, the Christians living in the Ottoman Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate ran all Christian Churches in Turkish territory). But the Arabic-speaking Christians of Syria and Palestine objected, and put forth their own candidate. To obtain support for his claim, this candidate offered formal ecclesiastical submission to Rome, which was accepted. This direct challenge to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch struck at the heart of his secular as well as ecclesiastical power, and the reaction was severe. It is only at this point that the Orthodox begin rebaptizing Latin Christians converting to Orthodoxy. And penalties for intercommunion were established and enforced. Despite which, however, intercommunion continued both in the Middle East, the Ukraine and Romania--in part because of proximity of the two communities and their isolation from episcopal authority, and in part because of the Ottoman marriage laws, which required the wife to take the faith of her husband.

[Matthias]

MM - you're right, I shouldn't have been snarky. I apologize. And I now offer a completely non-snarky, non-saracstic observation:

When Weigel says "Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean," he is being rude, obnoxious, and offensive in the extreme.

Weigel must know that the Orthodox have reconsidered their relationship with Rome in light of a truly desperate need for aid from the west on several occasions. Rightly or wrongly the Orthodox ultimately refused to make any theological compromise in exchange for aid. The consequence of those decisions is that Byzantium is in ruins and large portions of the Orthodox world, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, have lived under Islamic rule for centuries.

To offer the carrot of aid now is offensive, to expect it to be welcomed is idiotic.

Had Weigel only omitted that one sentence I might have been able to offer a cogent response to the rest of his article, but this one remark just demolishes any credibility he might have as a critic of Orthodoxy.

[Kyralessa]

"Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean."

This strikes me as a remarkably unaware statement. Islamist pressures have been much stronger at times in the past than they are now. Such pressures led to reunion councils in the past: the Council of Lyons in 1274, and later the Council of Florence in 1438-1439. Pressed by the Turks, in 1439 a number of Orthodox bishops agreed to recognize the Pope as the head of the Church, and to recognize the filioque and Purgatory as valid doctrine.

Only one bishop refused to sign the accord; that bishop who would not compromise his Orthodox faith is now known as St Mark of Ephesus. Many of the other bishops later repudiated their signatures. The Orthodox people as a whole rejected the council. Not long after, the Turks conquered Constantinople.

If even in such dire straits we Orthodox were unwilling to compromise our faith, why would we be willing to do so now? The monks of Athos differ from the rest of us Orthodox in degree, perhaps, but not in kind; we are all the guardians of the faith, and we are not willing to accept false doctrine for the sake of unity.

[Michael]

I talked to a number of Catholic Byzantine rite priets about relationships between the general Catholic and Orthodox worlds. They seem to be of the opinion that much in Orthodoxy has not forgiven Catholics for past events. And the recent Yugoslav war with the American backed assult by Croatia is a good example. They also told me that there is a current notion that Orthodoxy represents a clean, non-legalized, quiet lane for Apostolic tradition and that people like "Crunchy Con" are attracted to. But they told me the Orthodox tradition has its own problems and priestly sins and it would be a big mistake to not understand this.

These old things die hard.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Weigel must know that the Orthodox have reconsidered their relationship with Rome in light of a truly desperate need for aid from the west on several occasions.<<<

Actually, Orthodoxy didn't, the Byzantine Empire did. At both Lyons and Florence, the initiative lay with the emperors and their entourage, dragging the Church in their wake. The ability of the imperial government to strong-arm the Church hierarchy (through its ability to appoint and depose) allowed the emperors to impose settlements on the hierarchy; in both cases, these settlements were extremely one-sided, given that almost all the cards were in the hands of the Latin Church. In the case of Florence Ferrara, a prominent Catholic historian and theologian labeled the settlement "ecclesiacide".

It is one of the great strengths of Orthodoxy, though, that the hierarchy cannot dictate to the faithful in this way. For any fundamental development in the faith to be accepted, it must be received by the entire Body of Christ, and in both of these cases, the settlements accepted by the bishops were rejected by the bulk of the people, and especially by the monastics, which meant that, no matter what was said in the halls of power, the agreements of Lyons and Florence could never be implemented at the grass roots.

We may disagree about the wisdom of this. It was certainly against the short-term interests of the Byzantine state, but the Byzantine state was not the Orthodox Church. I tend to think that, whatever the motivation for doing so, rejection of both Lyons and Florence was correct, in that both were essentially the submission and subordination of one Church to another, and not the acceptance of true communion in the Holy Spirit.

Even Rome has come to see it that way, and does not demand or want such submission from the Orthodox. Pope Benedict himself wrote at length about what both Orthodoxy and Catholicism need to do to attain true unity, and what surprises many is how little is required from both sides.

[Kyle Eastwood]

Stuart,

Your history knowledge seems very impressive both here and in the Irish thread. I would assume you know of some good books that cover Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism history and relations. Would you make a few recommendations to a guy that knows practically nothing about the subject.

[cantemir]

The problem is that most contemporary Catholics see the split as political and most Orthodox see it as theological and ecclesiological. Therefore, few Orthodox are willing to assent to the Catholic positions on theological issues, and there will be no intercommunion.

Frankly, any Catholic fondly imagining that Ahmad and Rashid are going to scare Orthodox into accepting the filioque is deluding himself.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Would you make a few recommendations to a guy that knows practically nothing about the subject.<<<

I'm going out shortly, but I will compile a bibliography of Catholic, Orthodox and independent sources which will be of use.

Stuart

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The problem is that most contemporary Catholics see the split as political and most Orthodox see it as theological and ecclesiological. Therefore, few Orthodox are willing to assent to the Catholic positions on theological issues, and there will be no intercommunion.

Frankly, any Catholic fondly imagining that Ahmad and Rashid are going to scare Orthodox into accepting the filioque is deluding hims<<<

The problem is a great many Orthodox have little or no idea of what the Catholic Church truly believes and teaches, and so spend most of their time chasing polemical phantoms that no longer exist.

Cantemir illustrates the point by his gratuitous invocation of the Filioque clause, exhibiting little or no recognition that the Catholic Church more than a decade ago conceded this point to the Orthodox in the "Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit" that was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fatih. It states explicitly that the uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople is the only "universally binding symbol of faith". It also ignores the reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have not used the Filique liturgically since 1995 (at the latest).

Cantemir might also be interested in knowing that the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops is presently putting the finishing touches on a decree that would remove the Filioque from the English translation of the Creed, "in order to bring liturgical usage into line with the teaching of the Church".

This is merely illustrative. Many Orthodox are still trying to make cases based on medieval scholastic theology that was never a formal part of Latin doctrine, and which has, in any case, been superseded by later teachings. This would involve such issues as original sin, purgatory, "transubstantiation" and most of the other divisive (but peripheral) issues that informed Catholic-Orthodox polemics in the past.

David Hart, a noteworthy Orthodox theologian and Touchstone contributor, has noted that one of the factors that contributes to disunity is ignorance of each other's traditions. Speaking directly to the Orthodox at a lecture I attended, he strongly recommended that they actually take the time to learn what the other Church teaches and believes, instead of relying on third-hand polemical sources for their information. This is good advice to be taken in both directions.

[Nick]

Transubstantiation is divisive but peripheral? Really? Not being Catholic I can't contest that but its more than a little shocking considering Western history.

[David Gray]

>This is good advice to be taken in both directions.

This would even be good advice to be taken regarding Reformed and Lutheran Christians.

[Christopher]

In response to Michael Martin post #2 who says

"No need to get so snarky, Matthias. "

How else to respond to such tripe?? Where has Weigel been? Does he really understand so little of the history of the Schism? No wonder the Catholic speak of "two lungs" sounds so hollow to us Orthodox - with men like Weigel leading the charge, who needs the Devil?

[Christopher]

"who in many cases fall under the category of "hyper-Orthodox" and deny communion with a range of canonical ORTHODOX Churches for a range of silly reasons, get the most press."

Ouch. Good thing we have "Eastern Rite" Catholics like Stuart here to keep us "hyper-Orthodox" in line ;) Shoot, with ecumenism like this, I be the healing of the Great Schism is only a few days off…;)

[Christopher]

Stuart,

Responding to your last post, perhaps you should openly disclose your own work in this area (particularly with the uninformed asking you for book references). I say this because your perspective is informed but highly biased. Simply put, you believe there are no doctrinal differences between the two Churches. That however is a minority opinion, mostly coming from activist ecumenists such as yourself. Needless to say, the great body of the Faithful of the Orthodox Church, the monks, and even most of the non-westernized clergy/bishops believe otherwise (and here I am tempted to say "knows better").

IF (and that's a big IF) the Latin church is in the middle of theological revolution (as you argue), then we will have to wait for it's open repentance of Vatican one and two before any real discussion between the Orthodox and Latin's can even begin.

Also, if David Hart (whom I respect) believes the same as you (no substantial theological/doctrinal differences) could you please provide a reference?? I would LOVE to read this for myself...

[Michael Martin]

Christopher,

Matthias admits he was being snarky, but I have a feeling, right as you are, you never will. By the way, are you a cradle Orthodox or a convert?

[Michael Martin]

>>>How else to respond to such tripe??<<<

Well, with Christian charity might be good for starters.

[DGP]

[Sigh.] How quickly these conversations devolve to, "Vote for my tradition!"

That being said, devolution is sometimes necessary, as the only way to solve a more complicated problem. So since I already criticized Weigel above, I now add my stump speech: See how often those who deny the legitimacy of any supreme ecclesial authority implicitly usurp that authority for themselves! The monks of Athos, who with other Orthodox have denounced Roman supremacy as a reduction of communion to legalism, now make themselves adjudicators of the canonical status of the Roman See and perhaps even of Constantinople's hospitality. In a subsequent post, we read of the PCA's anathema's against those who appear to dissent from the would-be Ecumenical Council of Westminster. Even within this post, Christopher dares to speak for "us Orthodox" in matters (such as the "both lungs" analogy) where there is plainly no unanimity now or among the holy Fathers.

Newman was onto something when he chose to speak of the inevitability of the development of an infallible teaching authority with universal jurisdiction. There's got to be something to it, if those who most vigorously deny it are most likely to imitate it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Transubstantiation is divisive but peripheral? Really? Not being Catholic I can't contest that but its more than a little shocking considering Western history.<<<

The doctrine of transubstantiation is divisive because it attempts to impose one particular MODE of theological expression on other Churches to whose Tradition it is alien. It does not address the substance of Christian dogma, which is Christ's sacramental presence in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is the attempt by one particular Church (the Church of Rome) to explain the "how" of something that we of the Eastern Christian Tradition accept as a Great Mystery not succeptible to human explanation.

We accept that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood. We believe this is accomplished through the descent and grace of the Holy Spirit--and that is as far as we are willing to go. Which is why "transubstantiation" is not taught in the Eastrn Catholic Churches. More to the point, it is hardly taught at all in the Latin Church, since the categories applied are now seen as being more philosophical than theological.

That is why today even the Latin Church teaches that the entire Eucharistic Prayer (what the Eastern Churches call the Anaphora) is a single consecratory action, without any particular decisive moment at which the elements are transformed. This was, in fact the view of the Fathers, to which the Latin Church is now returning. It is this belief that allows the Catholic Church to accept the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari by both the Chaldean Catholic and Assyrian Church of the East, even though this oldest of all Liturgies still in common use lacks an institution narrative.

Under the Scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation, this would not be a "valid" Eucharist, since according to the doctrine, the elements are transformed when the priest utters the words of institution. However, you'd be very hard pressed indeed to find any document from the first millennium that would make such a claim. Yet this belief was pressed on the Eastern Churches for centuries, and the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist was called into question by the refusal of Orthodox theologians to accept the Scholastic definition.

Thus, the entire issue of transubstantiation was peripheral, even irrelevant, since the Orthodox did not deny the sacramental presence of Christ. And it was divisive because it created an attificial impediment to Christian unity.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Where has Weigel been? Does he really understand so little of the history of the Schism?<<<

The question, rather, should be where have YOU been, and why do YOU understand so little of the history of the schism?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Also, if David Hart (whom I respect) believes the same as you (no substantial theological/doctrinal differences) could you please provide a reference?? I would LOVE to read this for myself...<<<

Dr. David Hart spoke at the Orientale Lumen Conference IX in June 2005. Proceedings with his presentation are available through Eastern Churches Publications, Fairfax, VA. If you prefer, you can get a cassette or CD of his speech through the same source. I was there, and heard him with my own ears.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>IF (and that's a big IF) the Latin church is in the middle of theological revolution (as you argue), then we will have to wait for it's open repentance of Vatican one and two before any real discussion between the Orthodox and Latin's can even begin.<<<

Herein we see the fundamental difference between the Latin and Orthodox Churches.3

Latin Approach: "We may not always be right, but we are never wrong".

Orthodox Approach: "Never explain, never apologize".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ecumenical Council of Westminster<<<

Well, nobody invited ME!

[David Gray]

>Well, nobody invited ME

You're a bit young...

[DGP]

>>Latin Approach: "We may not always be right, but we are never wrong".<<

I love it! More to the point, I want to reuse it! Did you come up with this yourself, or are you quoting some other wit?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I love it! More to the point, I want to reuse it! Did you come up with this yourself, or are you quoting some other wit?<<<

The first is my own, with regard to the Latin Church (though I have heard something similar imputed to the Central Intelligence Agency--draw your own conclusions). The second, regarding the Orthodox Church, was told to me by no less an authority than Bishop Kallistos of Deiocleia. Actually, he uttered the second phrase, to which I responded with the first. We thought that summed up matters very neatly.

[DGP]

>>The first is my own, with regard to the Latin Church (though I have heard something similar imputed to the Central Intelligence Agency--draw your own conclusions).<<

I suppose every gigantic bureaucracy suffers from a similar malady. I reluctantly concede it's not really a distinctive quality of the Latin Church. However, as the Latin Church is arguably the largest bureaucracy outside the Chinese Empire, we may still lay a special claim to "We may not always be right, but we're never wrong."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However, as the Latin Church is arguably the largest bureaucracy outside the Chinese Empire, we may still lay a special claim to "We may not always be right, but we're never wrong."<<<

Like the Chinese Emperors, you, too, can claim the "Mandate of Heaven".

[luthien (the adverb addict)]

>>>By the way, are you a cradle Orthodox or a convert?<<<
Most likely a convert; we have a certain well-earned reputation for overzealousness.

>>>The second, regarding the Orthodox Church, was told to me by no less an authority than Bishop Kallistos of Deiocleia. Actually, he uttered the second phrase, to which I responded with the first. We thought that summed up matters very neatly.<<<
It comes close, but not quite. The fundamental difference between East and West is this. Roman Catholicism is an organized religion. Orthodoxy is, as the bumper sticker says, disorganized religion at its finest-to quote an Orthodox priest speaking about chrismation "The oil of chrismation washes away the gene of organization."

[DGP]

>>Like the Chinese Emperors, you, too, can claim the "Mandate of Heaven".<<

The parallels are frighteningly extensive. I imagine that apart from some concepts like "grace" and "salvation," which still surface from time to time in the Latin Church, being a Catholic feels very much like being a resident of Imperial China, or even communist China. Yes, the communists have grown more free-wheeling of late, but only about twenty-odd years after the Catholics did the same thing.

[Christopher]

"Even within this post, Christopher dares to speak for "us Orthodox" in matters (such as the "both lungs" analogy) where there is plainly no unanimity now or among the holy Fathers."

Actually, I was only speaking for us "hyper-orthodox" (as Stuart label’s those who don't take his view :). It is true we reject Rome's use and connotation of the term, or the sometimes problematic definition you will find among certain the liberal educated Orthodox (many American seminary professionals, for example).

[Christopher]

"Well, with Christian charity might be good for starters. "

Come now, don't you think Wiegel ought to know better? Are we not being just a little bitsy sensitive here?

[Christopher]

"Dr. David Hart spoke at the Orientale Lumen Conference IX in June 2005. Proceedings with his presentation are available through Eastern Churches Publications, Fairfax, VA. If you prefer, you can get a cassette or CD of his speech through the same source. I was there, and heard him with my own ears."

I might. However, you did not answer the question. Given what you say is True (that he argued for greater understanding), did he assert the same thing that YOU assert, namely that there are no doctrinal\theological differences between the two churches?

[DGP]

>>Actually, I was only speaking for us "hyper-orthodox" (as Stuart label’s those who don't take his view :). It is true we reject Rome's use and connotation of the term, or the sometimes problematic definition you will find among certain the liberal educated Orthodox (many American seminary professionals, for example).<<

Then I think you illustrate my point nicely. I can understand discussion and even disgreement, but if you are speaking merely for some subset of Orthodoxy, are you in a positon to "reject" something like this? Doesn't the term imply that the proposal has already been judged, found wanting, and disposed of? Haven't you already begun to assume the mantle of authority in precisely the juridical manner that Rome is said to have wrongly assumed it?

[Bob Gardner]

This question was posed by Christopher to Stuart:
"I might. However, you did not answer the question. Given what you say is True (that he argued for greater understanding), did he assert the same thing that YOU assert, namely that there are no doctrinal\theological differences between the two churches?
My question to Christopher is where did Stuart state there where no differences? What he did caution against were the polemics on both sides, "The problem is a great many Orthodox have little or no idea of what the Catholic Church truly believes and teaches, and so spend most of their time chasing polemical phantoms that no longer exist." There is a difference.

[Christopher]

Bob,

Stuart has explicitly stated (on several occasions here at mere comments) that there are no doctrinal differences between the two churches, though I think you are correct in that he has not stated it (yet) on this thread. I don't disagree with him (or Hart, or others) that both "sides" should understand each other to the fullest extant possible. However, Stuart (and those who agree with him) goes farther and takes a certain position that I would argue the majority of Orthodox would reject - that the doctrinal differences (filoque, for example) are not real differences at all, but part of "One Big Misunderstanding". SO, yes yes, there is a difference. However this difference is only the beginning of his view.

Notice that those who disagree with him (on this thread it is monks on Athos who are denigrated as "hyper-orthodox" and "get too much press") are said to be lacking in understanding...

[Christopher]

DGP,

Not sure where you are going with this. It seems you are saying that if you disagree with Rome, then by the very act of disagreement one "assume(s) the mantle of authority". So, by disagreeing with Rome one by necessity to take on Rome's errors?!??!?

What would you argue if I were to disagree with my wife? That I take on her "mantle of authority", because I assure you that is not the case....;)

[Christopher]

"The problem is a great many Orthodox have little or no idea of what the Catholic Church truly believes and teaches, and so spend most of their time chasing polemical phantoms that no longer exist."

Again, a rather harsh judgment on certain Orthodox who have tried to figure out what exactly it is Catholic Church truly believes. Hopko and others have noted that much of Catholic Doctrine really does seem to be in flux, or in a "revolution" as I put it. Purgatory for example. Stuart would have us believe that this rather dynamic situation has landed squarely on the place that would leave Rome and the Orthodox with no substantial disagreements or differences.

I am of course skeptical. I don't think we can say where it is Rome will end up. Just as likely, it will end in an Vatican III where even MORE peculiarly Catholic doctrine is proclaimed. Rather than speculation, for me it is much more interesting to ask why it is that Rome has been on this path for the last 125 years or so. Again, I am skeptical that it is of the Spirit - more likely part of Rome's reaction to moderninity. Seems like Fr. Patrick Reardon wrote about this not to long ago...

[Kyralessa]

See how often those who deny the legitimacy of any supreme ecclesial authority implicitly usurp that authority for themselves! The monks of Athos, who with other Orthodox have denounced Roman supremacy as a reduction of communion to legalism, now make themselves adjudicators of the canonical status of the Roman See and perhaps even of Constantinople's hospitality....Newman was onto something when he chose to speak of the inevitability of the development of an infallible teaching authority with universal jurisdiction. There's got to be something to it, if those who most vigorously deny it are most likely to imitate it.

Do you really think there's no difference between stating one's view and asserting that that view is completely authoritative and infallible?

I'm not aware of any Orthodox, from our bishops on down, who wouldn't consider him/herself open to correction. Pace Newman, we Orthodox simply don't have an "infallible teaching authority" as such. What we have is sources of authority (Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, the service books) that take precedence over our own whims.

Which, I would imagine, could be said of the Pope as well; as I understand it, papal infallibility is a fairly limited thing.

[DGP]

>>Do you really think there's no difference between stating one's view and asserting that that view is completely authoritative and infallible?<<

Yes, of course, infallibility is a limited thing. And yes, of course, you are permitted to disagree with your wife, or with the Pope, or your fellow Christian. What you would not normally be permitted as a matter of Christian love would be to *reject* their faith, were you not assuming the responsibility (and hence authority) of judging them and making judgments for others.

The difference between disagreement and rejection probably touches on another line of thought here, about doctrinal differences. There are many points of theological disgreement between the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, but we nevertheless habitually say that there are no doctrinal differences -- an odd way to put it, but I understand it to mean that our different formulations of the faith do not at any point alienate us.

Admittedly, the distinction between disagreeing and rejecting can be subtle, but there are biblical and patristic precedents, and I think it's important.

So might your wife. :-)

[DGP]

>>I may do so anyhow, but some assurance of stability and solidity and purity would be greatly appreciated beforehand by this wandering soul.<<

Alas, Mr. Glisinski, your assessment seems largely accurate. If there is any assurance to be had, it won't be found the in the inherenty stability of the earthly Church or the purity of her members or leaders.

When compared with the storms of sin and stupidity, not even the barque of Peter looks very seaworthy, nor her captains very reliable. It's tempting to rouse the Man sleeping at the gunwhale and ask him if he knows what he's doing.

[DGP]

That is to say, the only truly enduring reason for becoming Catholic (or anything else, for that matter), is love for the Lord.

There are many reasons to think the Lord wills our unity through union with Rome. It may be that "stability and solidity and purity" may be the marks for which the Lord requires you to search, but in my experience these don't seem to be his top priorities when it comes to electing Christians or their leaders.

[Christopher]

DGP says:

"The difference between disagreement and rejection probably touches on another line of thought here, about doctrinal differences. There are many points of theological disgreement between the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, but we nevertheless habitually say that there are no doctrinal differences -- an odd way to put it, but I understand it to mean that our different formulations of the faith do not at any point alienate us."

Who is the "we" (as in "we" habitually say)? As I understand it, those who argue this line are a rather narrow and modern species of "educated" orthodox (some would say "liberal" or "westernized" or "too much Latin influence", etc.). In other words, just the type of activist 'ecumenist' I was talking about. Perhaps you could reference some sources. Even Bishop Ware (not known for his 'traditionalism' or "hyper-orthodoxy" as Stuart would put it) admits in his "the Orthodox Church" the fact that it is mostly westernized Orthodox who hold this rather cozy view of Catholic doctrine. Me thinks you might be presuming to speak for others, assuming a 'mantle of authority' of some sort...perhaps you should ask your wife…or somebody’s wife… ;)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am of course skeptical. I don't think we can say where it is Rome will end up. Just as likely, it will end in an Vatican III where even MORE peculiarly Catholic doctrine is proclaimed. <<<

Vatican II was originally intended by John XXIII as a unity council. It was impressed upon him, however, that there could be no rapprochement with the Orthodox until there had been substantial reform within the Catholic Church itself. Thus, in matters theological, liturgical and ecclesiastical, the Catholic Church turned back towards the patristic consensus, moving substantially closer towards the Orthodox position as a preparatio evangelium for communion.

In theology, there was a renewed emphasis on the Holy Spirit, a revision of the Catholic understanding of the procession of the Spirit, and an acceptance of a divergence of positions regarding expressions of Trinitarian theology reflecting the diversity that existed in the patristic era. In Christology, the revised Mariology of the Catholic Church, diminishing the exalted position that Mary had achieved in some Latin circles and stressing Mary's unity with her Son, her role as perfect disciple, and as intercessor before His throne. The doctrine of the immaculate conception was seen as one of many acceptable expressions of Mary's sinlessness, while, of course, the doctrine of her Assumption had been part of the Orthodox patrimony centuries before it came into the West. The revised liturgical calendar suppressed the plethora of Marian feasts to focus on the Great Feasts centered on the redemptive action of the Incarnation.

In ecclesiology, Vatican II made monumental changes by, in effect, rejecting a trend that had begun in the 12th century and culminated in the Council of Trent, i.e., of seeing the Church of God as co-terminous with the Church of Rome. Whereas Trent held an exclusionist ecclesiology, in which there was only one true Church, outside of which were only heathens, heretics and schismatics, Vatican II recognized that the Church of God "subsists in" the Catholic Church, that the Catholic Church was in fact a communion of Churches, AND THAT TRUE CHURCHES COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME. This was, in fact, a rollback to the period before the schism, and it was recognized as such by the Orthodox observers at the Council. The Catholic Church would no longer view the Orthodox Church as "dissident Orientals" or aggregations of schismatics in need of repentence (which, by the way, seems to be how Christopher views Catholics), but as true Sister Churches, equal in grace and dignity, separated soley by a lack of full communion.

Internally, the Catholic Church began a shift from a monarchical to a conciliar model of governance, much influenced by Orthodox concepts of koinonia or sobornost. That this has not led the Catholic Church to adopt fully the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church should not surprise: throughout history, the Latin West held a different conception of how the Church should be governed than did the Byzantine East--and note that the Byzantine model is not the only one that prevailed among Eastern Churches: the Patriarch of Alexandria enjoyed and continues to enjoy a degree of power and authority which even the Pope of Rome does not have, yet the Orthodox do not complain about Shenouda's "papism". The Armenians and the Syrians have their own forms of ecclesiastical governance, yet these, too, do not arouse the ire of people like Christopher. Yet the Catholic Church does not immediately switch to an Eastern Orthodox model of governance, and he is appalled. Oh, well.

That the Catholic Church at least acknowledges the need for conciliarity to balance primacy, and has moved in that direction, should count for much. That more progress has not been made is unfortunate, but what, precisely, should we expect? You can't turn an aircraft carrier on a dime, and you can't radically alter the ecclesiology a Church has held for close to a millennium.

Many, if not most Orthodox theologians have acknowledged and welcomed these changes. Some--including significant names--have even gone so far as to say that there are few if any outstanding theological issues. Most Orthodox authorities concede just one substantive issue, which is the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, and the definition and exercise of primacy that goes with them.

There is a division among Orthodox theologians as to whether this is a simple matter of Church governance, amenable to resolution through compromise; or whether this is an ecclesiological issue that goes so deeply into the conception of Church that fundamental truths are at stake. That is an area open to debate and discussion. As is the definition and exercise of primacy within the Church.

Pope John Paul II recognized this fact, and in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, invited the Orthodox to work with him to find a definition of primacy and a modality for its operation that would be acceptable to all and beneficial to the Church.

Unfortunately, this the Orthodox appear singularly unwilling to do. For centuries, the unwavering demand was that papal primacy be put on the table. Now that it's on the table, they flinch from it like Superman from kryptonite. Asked to state what form of primacy would be acceptable to them, Orthodox leaders are mute. Some are willing to say what is unacceptable, but a positive definition eludes them.

This, I believe, is caused by the deep ambivalence the Orthodox have regarding the state of their own ecclesiology, which, if viewed objectively, is at least as uncanonical as that of the Catholic Church. Time and again, Orthodox theologians have been willing to state what is NOT acceptable, but get strangely mute when the time comes to make a positive suggestion.

We had a conference on primacy and conciliarity, and all the Orthodox speakers could agree on only a limited number of points:

1. There is no consensus on what constitutes primacy in the Church.

2. The Orthodox Church is greatly in need of a nexus of primacy that has real moral authority.

3. The natural and historical place for that primacy is the Bishop of Rome.

4. The manner in which primacy is exercised by the Bishop of Rome at ths time is unacceptable.

5. We cannot agree among ourselves on what is necessary to make it acceptable.

6. Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34 seems like a good jumping-off point for further discussion.

Oddly enough, this is pretty much the same place where Metropolitan John of Pergamon came out in his most recent book on the primacy, which I recommend you read.

[Scott Pennington]

I am breaking my own rule about no longer posting on non-Orthodox websites, but in light of the subject matter I felt moved to comment. I have written a couple of letters on Mr. Weigel's comments and the response of an Orthodox bishop/chancellor to them.

I wish my fellow Orthodox would just follow Orthodox teaching on this subject and lay strivings for "unity" aside. I mean no disrespect to Catholics or Protestants here in what follows, but it is the Orthodox teaching and I will try to say it as charitably as possible.

Mr. Weigel speaks, quite validly from his perspective, as a faithful Catholic in his view of Orthodoxy and the Athonite monks. He speaks of "separated brethren" and "two lungs" and his commentary exudes the air of "Shouldn't you really be reconcilled to Rome? Why be so obstinate?"

I'm not going to go into great detail about the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy. However, suffice it to say, the Orthodox Church, to this day, considers herself to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We still believe that there can be no schism within the Church, only schism from the Church. We do not consider the Roman communion to be part of the Church. All that Rome need do to be reconciled is for its clergy and laity, piecemeal or collectively, to make an Orthodox confession.

I am deeply skeptical of everything ecumenical because of the compromises involved. For example, either Rome believes that there is no salvation outside the Church or not. Either Rome believes that communion is the crown of theological unity or not. Rome's actions in allowing limited intercommunion with other churches, including the Orthodox Church, does not encourage me but rather the opposite.

The loosening of doctrine that accompanies ecumenical ventures is troubling. I would greatly prefer that Rome persevered in its pre-Vatican II attitude. If at some point Rome is willing to say, openly and decisively, that it has been wrong for a millenium in its differences with the Orthodox then that, of course, would be welcome. However, many Orthodox, myself included, would just prefer to persevere in our faith and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, we desire unity, in truth. We have no reason to doubt the truth as we have received it. I consider it deeply unfortunate that there are so many Orthodox who, for reasons unintelligible to me, long for communion with Rome to the point that they are eager to put the substance of the faith on the negotiating table. If they are not, why not just be Orthodox, continue a faithful witness, and let those who have ears to hear our message convert?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We still believe that there can be no schism within the Church, only schism from the Church.<<<

Those who speak of "still" believing there can be no schism within the Church, only schism "from" the Church engage in a very selective reading of their own Church history.

Interesting, though, that it's usually the Orthodox converts who are so hot and bothered to keep the schism going. Makes one wonder if they converted "from" something rather than "to" something.

[Christopher]

"Interesting, though, that it's usually the Orthodox converts who are so hot and bothered to keep the schism going. Makes one wonder if they converted "from" something rather than "to" something."

This is often thrown around as a phsycological motive for not agreeing with the "hyper-unity" crowd (trying to come up with a term here, for we have been branded "hyper-orthodox" ;). I think this is the second time it has come up on this thread. Of course, those old monks on Athos might be a bit surprised to learn that they are converts, and "hot and bothered" at that!! Interesting is it not, the similarity of this explanation to pop-psychology? Why where would the enlightened hyper-unitied(sp?) be without his (Freudian) education...;)

[Matthias]

"Interesting, though, that it's usually the Orthodox converts who are so hot and bothered to keep the schism going. Makes one wonder if they converted "from" something rather than "to" something."

I believe it is primarily western Orthodox converts who are forced to confront the claims of Rome. Your average Russian, Greek, or Serb churchgoer hasn't much reason to think about Rome. But those of us who converted to Orthodoxy from western traditions pretty much have to seriously examine Rome's claims before deciding to swim the Bosphorous instead of the Tiber. And then after converting we are more or less constantly challenged by friends, relatives, neighbors etc. on the question of why we chose this exotic foreign form of Christianity.

So generally we have much more reason to be well informed about the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and to have stronger convictions in that respect, than other Orthodox do.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course, those old monks on Athos might be a bit surprised to learn that they are converts, and "hot and bothered" at that!! Interesting is it not, the similarity of this explanation to pop-psychology? Why where would the enlightened hyper-unitied(sp?) be without his (Freudian) education...;)<<<

A surprising number of Athonites really are converts--either former atheists from Eastern Europe, or from other Christian confessions, or merely from lapsed/cultural Orthodox families. Nothing spectacular there: zeal comes with conversion, it takes an act of will to leave something or enter into something new as opposed to staying where one is. I ought to know, of course, since I think my wife and I are the only adults I have met who were baptized into the Byzantine Catholic Church without any prior Christian attachments or compulsion of marriage.

Looking at the backgrounds of Islamic militants, especially those emerging from Western Europe, one does not find this kind of inordinate zeal coming out of observant families, but from second or third generation children of immigrants whose parents are well-assimilated and rather lax in Islamic observance. Returning to Islam, they embrace the most rigorous form as being the most complete repudiation of their former lives.

Read the lives of the Desert Fathers, and see how often this pattern repeated itself in them.

Also, Christopher, it would do you well to consider why the Orthodox Church considers both Ignatios and Photious to be saints. Orthodoxy has always held rigorism and humanism in dynamic tension, pulling back at all times from either extreme. The Athonites have their job; men like Archbishop Vsevolod, Metropolitan Nicholas of Emissa, Kyr Kallistos, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, and Patriarch Ignatios have theirs.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And then after converting we are more or less constantly challenged by friends, relatives, neighbors etc. on the question of why we chose this exotic foreign form of Christianity.<<<

"Because it's way cool", is my flip answer. In either case, one should be able to defend one's faith in positive terms, rather than in comparison or opposition to some other confession. "I am Orthodox because I reject Roman Catholicism" doesn't really provide much of a foundation for growth in faith.

[Scott Pennington]

I'm not sure why it is assumed that I demonstrated excessive zeal in my above post. Every church believes (hopefully) that it bears the truth. I was pointing out the contradiction of stating that a church maintains the truth and then putting doctrine on the bargaining table. If doctrine is not on the bargaining table, then why all the fuss? Can't we just impress each other with our witness of good deeds and allow that one or the other is right, as is, and not get into the splitting the difference mentality. It strikes me as putting unity above truth.
To put a finer point to it: If Rome truly believes in its papal claims then they aren't going to be on the table. If Orthodoxy truly believes in conciliarity and that the papal claims are invalid, and this is an integral part of the faith, then what is to be gained from these discussions? One is right, the other wrong. For each communion to maintain its respective integrity it must keep its own faith. I just don't want the Great Schism to be settled by diplomats who are not particularly interested in truth, just unity.

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart Koehl wrote,

"Because it's way cool", is my flip answer. In either case, one should be able to defend one's faith in positive terms, rather than in comparison or opposition to some other confession. "I am Orthodox because I reject Roman Catholicism" doesn't really provide much of a foundation for growth in faith.

Mr. Weigel made a similar point which may betray some misunderstanding. I will try to explain. We Orthodox believe that the highest authority within the Church is the Ecumenical Council received by the faithful. Since we don't have any clear basis for the papal claims in the Fathers and the seven councils of the Church do not speak to these claims, it is not part of our faith. It really isn't a matter of saying, "I'm Orthodox because I reject Roman Catholicism's papal claims". It's more like, "I'm Orthodox and, when confronted with Roman Catholic claims, I reject them because they are antithetical to Orthodox teaching. Rome is not of much concern. It is not the center for us. We do not live in reaction to it. We view Rome as having split from us. The only concern I, being Orthodox, have is not with Rome's internal development or machinations. It is with the Ecumenical Patriarch treating a heterodox bishop with canonical honors. Alas, this his not His All Holiness's first canonical faux pas. Of course, we make no claims of infallibility for him, either in his pronouncements or actions.

[DGP]

>DGP: "...There are many points of theological disgreement between the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, but we nevertheless habitually say that there are no doctrinal differences...."

Who is the "we" (as in "we" habitually say)? As I understand it, those who argue this line are a rather narrow and modern species of "educated" orthodox (some would say "liberal" or "westernized" or "too much Latin influence", etc.). In other words, just the type of activist 'ecumenist' I was talking about. Perhaps you could reference some sources.<<

With careful reading, you'll note that I adjusted the line of thought here. I wrote of the Latin and Eastern *Catholic* Churches, and refrained from speaking about what the Orthodox may or may not teach.

>>Me thinks you might be presuming to speak for others,...<<

I am indeed, and as a priest of the RC Church, I have a license (albeit limited) to do so.

>>...assuming a 'mantle of authority' of some sort...perhaps you should ask your wife…or somebody’s wife… ;)<<

Yes, I assume authority. In my case, however -- unlike some of my interlocutors outside the RC Church -- I do not speak as if I had authority, the legitimacy of which I deny among others. I do not speak because I have assumed authority by and for myself, but can speak with authority because I speak in the name of a higher authority, whom I regard as quite legitmate and who has authorized me so to speak.

[Gina Mosko]

the Patriarch of Alexandria enjoyed and continues to enjoy a degree of power and authority which even the Pope of Rome does not have, yet the Orthodox do not complain about Shenouda's "papism"

Stuart, please explain. I think you overstate, and greatly. I am in the Coptic Orthodox Church and I do not see that Pope Shenouda exercises any authority that another Orthodox patriarch would not. He appoints bishops, consecrates churches, teaches and serves the liturgy... he does not do so in magisterium. And as the Coptic Orthodox teach against the Roman teaching on the papacy, it is hard to fathom where you get that she supersedes Rome in it.

"Nothing divides us but communion" is a big "but."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, please explain.<<<

Historically, and from Ante-Nicene times, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who like the Bishop of Rome employs the titel "Pope", governed his patriarchate in a manner different from that employed by the Church of Constantinople. He could, and did, appoint directly all the bishops in his territory, something the Pope of Rome did not begin to do until the early 20th century. He could exercise universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over any parish in any diocese in his territory, something the Pope of Rome did not canonically claim until Pastor Aeternus of 1870--and something which he seldom invoked in any case. He could also unilaterally depose his bishops, something which the Pope may have the theoretical canonical authority to do, but which he has seldom exercised. In short, the Pope of Alexandria was a Pope in the commonly understood manner, long before the Pope of Rome ever dreamed of such a thing.

In contrast, within the Church of Constantinople, bishops were elected by the Metropolitan synods, and ordained by three or more bishops within their metropoltian province. That appointment might be ratified by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but he did not pick the candidates or select from their number. The Metropolitans of the Church of Constantinople, in turn, formed the standing synod of the Great Church. They would select the Patriarch by providing the Emperor with a list of three candidates, from whom the Emperor could either pick one or select an outsider not on the list. The Synod, of course, could reject the imperial nominee if he was unsuitable (and they had enough gumption). The new patriarch would then be installed by the Synod (or actually ordained bishop and installed, if he was not already of Episcopal rank). The Patriarch of Constantinople could never unilaterally depose a bishop; that requried an act of the Synod, and could be appealed, in any case, to the Emperor or ultimately, to the Bishop of Rome (under the canons of the Council of Sardica, 342).

The Pope of Alexandria, therefore, had much more real "power" within his Church than ever did the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Church of Alexandria was never quite as "synodal" or "conciliar", either. Scholars have pondered why, most recently looking into the prevalence of gnosticism in that are in the second century AD, which was only suppressed with difficulty in the time of Clement of Alexandria. Certainly, both Athanasius and Cyril ran their patriarchates as though they were mere dioceses, talking over the heads of their bishops, especially to the numerous ranks of the monastics, who in many ways served as the patriarchical "shock troops" (and I mean this in a very literal way--Egyptian monks were notorious for being in the forefront of any theological riots that might break out between the Patriarchs and those who disagreed with them, whether they be Arians, Origenists, Nestorians, Diphysites or whatever.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We Orthodox believe that the highest authority within the Church is the Ecumenical Council received by the faithful.

Actually, that's pretty simplistic, verging on caricature. The ultimate source of authority for Eastern Christians of all stripes (including Catholic) is Holy Tradition, of which the acts of teh Great Councils are merely one part (you would also have to include Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, various collections of canons, and above all, the Liturgy of the Church, as all being part of an integral matrix of authority. Saying "Ecumenical Councils" are authoritative is too reductionist. Moreover, it is never clear at the moment whether a council will be received as ecumenical or not; the process of reception might take a good many years, and may be quite gradual as individual Churches subscribe over time to its teachings.

>>>Since we don't have any clear basis for the papal claims in the Fathers and the seven councils of the Church do not speak to these claims, it is not part of our faith. It really isn't a matter of saying, "I'm Orthodox because I reject Roman Catholicism's papal claims". It's more like, "I'm Orthodox and, when confronted with Roman Catholic claims, I reject them because they are antithetical to Orthodox teaching. <<<

But are they intrinsically antithetical, or are they amenable to interpretation in such a way as to make them compatible. For instance, the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is rapidly gaining momentum. You would think a schism that has lasted half again as long as the Catholic-Orthodox schism, and over something apparently as significant as the two natures of Christ, would leave very little room to maneuver. And yet there have been a whole series of agreed theological statements in which both sides concede that the differences which so long divided them are in fact more apparentl than real, temrinological rather than substantive. Both, in fact, profess the same things about the human and divine in Jesus Christ. Yet some subscribe to Chalcedon and later councils, and the other so not.

With regard to papal prerogatives, there is a very long and complex history with which you are familiar not at all. In fact, various papal claims have come up in the acts of the Great Councils, though there has long been disagreement between Rome and Constantinople as to how they should be interpreted.

But that is neither here nor there. You, in fact, treat Tradition as though it was static, as though the breath of the Holy Spirit no longer flows within the Church. Tradition is dynamic, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through all the members of the Body of Christ. We were sent the Paraclete to free us from the Law and lead us into all truth. That means, when an issue arises with which the Church has not dealt before, there are ways for it to do so. The exercise of oikonomia is one example at the level of the local bishop. The regional or general council is another way of addressing new issues. To say that the Papal claims are not found in the acts of the Great Councils (which is not exactly true, but let that slide) is to say that the corpus of Holy Tradition is closed, that no new Councils can ever add their wisdom to the Seven. That means the Church is dead, preaching the dead faith of the living, by its descent into "traditionalism" ("How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb? Change? We NEVER change!).

If the issue of papal claims has not been addressed, then the way to address them is not be saying, "It isn't here, therefore it can never be here", but by doing precisely what the Church has always done when confronted by a radical challenge: convene a meeting of all the bishops from around the world, to meet, pray, debate and, if possible, come to a unanimous conclusion ("so that unanimity in the Holy Spirit might be revealed for the greater glory of the Trinity"--Can. Holy Apostles 34).

This, unfortunately, the Orthodox seem unwilling to do, even though, if they were to meet with ALL the bishops, they might find a much more sympathetic response than they think. Basically, it comes down to the fact that too many Orthodox are afraid.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>With careful reading, you'll note that I adjusted the line of thought here. I wrote of the Latin and Eastern *Catholic* Churches, and refrained from speaking about what the Orthodox may or may not teach.<<<

The Eastern Catholic Churches teach what their Orthodox counterparts teach.

[Gina Mosko]

Stuart: In order to carry your rhetorical point, viz. the patriarch of Alexandria being "more Catholic than the Pope," you'll need to show him trying to exercise authority over the churches of another See, let alone universally. Beyond that, what you refer to as the sweeping powers of the Coptic Pope are, I believe, also more theoretical than exercised in truth, and in any case refer to polity rather than establishing dogma. Not quite up to the Roman Pope, despite the similarity in titles.

[Christopher]

DGP,

I did not know you were a Catholic priest! If you mentioned this I missed it. Perhaps if I was a more regular poster here at Mere Comments I would have known this.

Still, I think your point has been lost (at least on myself) in all this. First, you disagree with me on the basis that I was speaking for all Orthodox using some sort of Roman "mantle of authority". Are you still doing that? Don't answer, it's probably not worth any more discussion!

[Christopher]

Stuart says:

“But are they intrinsically antithetical, or are they amenable to interpretation in such a way as to make them compatible. For instance, the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is rapidly gaining momentum… And yet there have been a whole series of agreed theological statements in which both sides concede that the differences which so long divided them are in fact more apparentl than real, temrinological rather than substantive…”

Right, it has all been one Big Misunderstanding, until the enlightened early twenty-first centaury seminary professionals got together and “reinterpreted” all these long, confusing words. Turns out we were saying the same thing after all!!! Gosh, how could we have made such a Big Mistake?

“With regard to papal prerogatives, there is a very long and complex history with which you are familiar not at all.”

Yea Mr. Pennington, who do you think you are? Have you not heard the Elite have already reconstructed and reinterpreted all this for us? Get back in line you obstinate Orthodox!...;)

“You, in fact, treat Tradition as though it was static, as though the breath of the Holy Spirit no longer flows within the Church.”

Mr. Pennington, you stagnate little piece of unthinking Traditionalist! Pipe down back there or we might have to call you a “hyper-orthodox”. Don’t you know you are to follow your betters, no matter what?!?!

“Basically, it comes down to the fact that too many Orthodox are afraid.”

Ahhhhh, NOW I get it. Shoot, with Catholic ecumenists like these, it’s only a matter of days before Rome beats us back into the fold…Um, I mean…We accept the TRUTH of our Uniate brothers and Sisters…Um, I should not have said that, what I mean is...before we repent of our errors and return to Rome…I mean, uh oh, better go ask one of the ELITE what I mean – perhaps they will indulge my Orthodox ignorance and explain it all away…Uh, gosh, better shut up now….YOU TOO MR. PENNINGTON!!!!....:)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart: In order to carry your rhetorical point, viz. the patriarch of Alexandria being "more Catholic than the Pope," you'll need to show him trying to exercise authority over the churches of another See, let alone universally. <<<

There is the little matter of St. Cyril of Alexandria attempting to depose Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople. Alexandria habitually interfered in the activities of other Churches, most notably that of Antioch, simply because Cyril and his successors did not understand or agree with the exegetical school of that other city. The reason the order of precedence set in the canons of Chalcedon placed Alexandria behind Rome and Constantinople was specifically to clip the wings of the high-flying Archbishops of Alexandria, who took the part of their title that says "And all the East" very seriously.

Shenouda III (whom I admire a great deal) does not interfere (much) in the activities of other Churches, simply because Alexandria is more concerned with its own survival than anything else. it does, from time to time, insert itself into the doings of the Ethiopian Church and its appenages. Early in history, though, the Patriarchs of Alexandria considered themselves heads of the Syrian Jacobite Churches and tried to exercise jurisdiction over them.

In the same way, inter alia, that the Ecumenical Patriarch effectively ran the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, first under Byzantine, then under Ottoman rule. And the interference of the Church of Constantinople in the affairs of the Armenian Apostolic Church ought to give pause to any Orthodox who wants to complain about the attempts of the Church of Rome to "latinize" other Churches. There is such a thing as "byzantinization", and the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem employ the Byzantine rather than the Coptic and Syrian rites is proof of that fact.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Gosh, how could we have made such a Big Mistake?<<<

Might it not be that man is fallible, his comprehension limited, his soul subject to disordered passions, not the least of which are pride and vainglory? And could it have a little to do with. . . SATAN?

[Stuart Koehl]

I'm slightly amused and bewildered by the apparent willingness of determined anti-ecumenists to post on the web site of an avowedly ecumenical magazine.

[Ethan Cordray]

Ah, Stuart, but as SMH has pointed out, Touchstone is something of a "gloves off" ecumenical project. We've all gathered 'round the same table, but we can still have the occasional food fight. :-)

[Scott Pennington]

I certainly appreciate comments in my defense.

I'm not going to get into another sad, pointless debate about this stuff. I posted, against my better judgment, chiefly to ask my Orthodox brethren if ecumenical dialogue is a good idea at all.

My last comment did reference Mr. Koehl's posting, but my purpose was to point out that he and Mr. Weigel were projecting their Catholic centeredness onto the Orthodox in suggesting that we define ourselves in opposition to Rome.

As to arguing the merits of each side's postition on the Great Schism, I have no stomach for that. I am, of course, aware of my Church's adherence to Holy Tradition. But the operative disagreement between Rome and the Orthodox centers around authority. That is why I stated that the highest authority within the Church is an Ecumenical Council received by the faithful. Yes, Holy Tradition is composed of Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, liturgy, iconography, etc. But when it comes to "who says so?" in matters of interpretation, we have one answer and Rome has another. I am also aware that Rome finds support for its papal claims in the pre-schism history of the Church. I don't find these arguments persuasive.

As for the rest of the criticism directed against me, I'm indifferent to the point that no defense is necessary. I have never been particularly concerned with what Catholics think of the Orthodox. I work with Catholics, Protestants and Jews every day. We don't discuss religion.

[DGP]

>>The Eastern Catholic Churches teach what their Orthodox counterparts teach.<< [STUART KOEHL]

I didn't deny that. I was only trying to avoid unnecessarily stoking yet another dispute.

>>First, you disagree with me on the basis that I was speaking for all Orthodox using some sort of Roman "mantle of authority". Are you still doing that? Don't answer, it's probably not worth any more discussion!<< [CHRISTOPHER]

Maybe not. (Actually, as much as Mr. Koehl is amused by "anti-ecumenism" here, I'm impressed by the civility of the conversation so far.) In any case, I wasn't disagreeing with you *on that basis,* but only trying to make a limited argument from retorsion -- namely, that some critics of Roman juridical supremacy can't be taken too seriously, as they seem to arrogate to themselves the very manner of authority they describe as "usurpation" when exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

From where I sit as a convert to Roman Catholicism, this pattern of behavior appears to be duplicated over and over among various Protestants and even some Orthodox. (Witness the pontifications attributed to Athos.) If you don't see this pattern in you're own writing -- well, I suppose I'm willing to concede that I was stretching my interpretation of your words in order to make my point. For that, I apologize.

[DGP]

>>I work with Catholics, Protestants and Jews every day. We don't discuss religion.<<

How very, very sad. This is a compelling argument for ecumenism.

[Scott Pennington]

"How very, very sad. This is a compelling argument for ecumenism."

Please elaborate on what about this fact causes you sorrow.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But the operative disagreement between Rome and the Orthodox centers around authority. That is why I stated that the highest authority within the Church is an Ecumenical Council received by the faithful. <<<

I agree to a certain extent that the issue is indeed authority. But I reiterate that your statement that the "highest" authority within the Orthodox Church is an ecumenical council is far too simplistic, even (dare I say it?) "Un-Orthodox". Tradition is the highest authority within the Church, and Tradition extends far beyond the Ecumenical Councils (of which I agree there are presently seven, no more and no less).

Your argument, in fact, is an example of what Nicholas Lossky called "the pseudomorphosis of the Orthodox mind", i.e., a tendency to mirror Latin arguments and Latin methodologies, rather than confronting issues in a truly Orthodox manner. Meyendorff called it the "intellectual captivity" of the Orthodox Church. Either way, it's a reflexive reactionism: Latins say A, Orthodox invert the statement and say "Not A". Latin doctrine says the transformation of the elements occurs at the words of institution, you claim it's at the Epiklesis--and forget the fact that the Fathers did not hold with either belief. Latins claim that the Orthodox dropped the Filioque from the Creed (a foolish and easily disproven assertion), you turn around and say they dropped the Epiklesis from the Roman Canon (another equally foolish assertion). Rome says the Pope is the ultimate source of authority (actually, Rome doesn't, but they you would have to study Catholic doctrine, and that would give you a headache--I know it gives me one), you have to say that it's really the ecumenical council. And forget the fact that Orthodoxy does not engage in such reductionist gibberish.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How very, very sad. This is a compelling argument for ecumenism.<<<

By including Jews, you are confusing ecumenism with inter-religious dialogue. Ecumenism refers to that no-holds barred argument that occurs within the family when the in-laws and drunken Uncle Stan are invited over for Thanksgiving Dinner.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ah, Stuart, but as SMH has pointed out, Touchstone is something of a "gloves off" ecumenical project. We've all gathered 'round the same table, but we can still have the occasional food fight. :-)<<<

So the Lutherans are tossing bratwurst at the RCs, who retaliate with corned beef and cabbage, some of which hits a Methodist, who flings some jello salad in their general direction, but brains a Baptist, who brains an Orthodox with a fried chicken drumstick. But he's busy throwing halushki at me, and I'm throwing the same stuff back at him. Unless we decided to switch to baklava and dolmathes.

[Stuart Koehl]

I should have mentioned that the Anglicans would never be so rude as to throw food, but they deeply deplore the fact that we are drinking out of the finger bowls and using the salad fork on our entree. And swilling down the fish course with beaujolais nouveau.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Witness the pontifications attributed to Athos.<<<

When the members of one particularly notorious monastery hung a banner from their walls reading "Orthodoxy or Death!", it did not refer to the Pope of Rome, but rather to the Ecumenical Patriarch for his support for the new calendar. Orthodox food fights are always the most amusing of all.

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart, you actually suprised me with something you've written. Most of it is the standard pablum and psyche warfare bs, but I was unaware that the Roman Catholic Church taught that there have been only seven ecumenical councils:

"the Ecumenical Councils (of which I agree there are presently seven, no more and no less)."

It was my understanding that the RCC considered that it had the authority as The Church to convene ecumenical councils and had done so many times, the latest being Vatican I and II.

I learn something new every day.

[Scott Pennington]

"By including Jews, you are confusing ecumenism with inter-religious dialogue."

I assume your criticism is directed against BGP. I didn't say that dialogue with Jews was ecumenical. He wrote that the fact that I didn't discuss religion in my work dealings with Catholics, Protestants and Jews caused him some inexplicable sorrow and somehow commended ecumenical dialogue.

[Ethan Cordray]

Good gravy, Stuart, now you've got me thinking that I should determine my ecclesial loyalty based on the projectile potency of their ethnic foodstuffs!

I fear the RC's would likely win, having such a diverse arsenal, ranging from tacos to pierogies. The Lutherans might have an ace in the hole, though -- I hear the UN considers rotfisk a weapon of mass destruction.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I assume your criticism is directed against BGP. <<<

Correct. Ecumenism (which I support when it does not degenerate into sloppy agape) should not be confused with inter-religious dialogue (which can seldom be anything other than sloppy agape).

[Gina Mosko]

There is the little matter of St. Cyril of Alexandria attempting to depose Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople.

*sputter* Here he can be forgiven, no? :) The Ethiopian Church was only granted autocephaly recently, so any "interference" was exercise of proper jurisdiction.

I'm slightly amused and bewildered by the apparent willingness of determined anti-ecumenists to post on the web site of an avowedly ecumenical magazine.

I don't know if I am this, but one thing I appreciate about Touchstone is the unwillingness to pooh-pooh real differences. The reluctance to do what it seems some commenters here are implying- "if only Z were not so stubborn/ uninformed/ western/ eastern/ beset with converts/ more beset by Islamists (!), they would see the light and become Y."

We in the OO have our own problems with the Holy Mountain, though I do hope that I see reunion among OO and EO in my lifetime. Barring a miracle (and those do happen now and again), I do not see communion with Rome for either OO or EO in that time frame.

[Scott Pennington]

"I agree to a certain extent that the issue is indeed authority. But I reiterate that your statement that the "highest" authority within the Orthodox Church is an ecumenical council is far too simplistic, even (dare I say it?) "Un-Orthodox". Tradition is the highest authority within the Church, and Tradition extends far beyond the Ecumenical Councils (of which I agree there are presently seven, no more and no less)."

You are sincerely confused by something I wrote and I should clarify because it may be my sloppiness which has given you this impression. The question of authority I had in mind was the power to state what the faith is. You are correct to state that we follow Holy Tradition and it is the "highest authority" in the Church. Indeed, it is the only authority in the Church. All else flows from it. But in speaking of disputes about interpretation within the Church, it is an Ecumenical Council which has the authority to settle the question. Context is everything.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It was my understanding that the RCC considered that it had the authority as The Church to convene ecumenical councils and had done so many times, the latest being Vatican I and II.<<<

Since at least 1974, there has been a de facto admission within the Vatican that the second millennium councils are not ecumenical precisely because they never included the Christian East, generally did not address issues pertinent to them, and were not received by them. Thus, when Pope Paul VI in 1974 referred to the Second Council of Lyons not as "ecumenical" but merely as a "general council of the Church in the West", it was something of a watershed event. The process of "relativizing" these councils has continued apace (Florence, for instance, is widely regarded as being a flawed council and not binding because it was a blatant attempt by Rome to subjugate the other Churches through coercive means).

The entire "canon" of Roman Catholic "ecumenical councils" is something of a red herring in any case, since the list was compiled by Rombert Bellarmine in the 17th century for anti-Protestant polemical purposes. In so doing, he introduced a number of errors; e.g., he counts as the "8th Ecumenical Council" the Anti-Photian Synod of Constantinople in 869-870, rejecting the Photian Synod of 879-880, even though the latter repudiated the former, and was ratified by Pope John VIII. See Francis Dvornik's seminal "The Photian Schism", as well as "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy". They are out of print and hard to find, but worth reading.

By the way, RCs hate it when I do stuff like this. They probably don't like it when I point out that the Council of Constance contradicts the Council of Florence. The former says that a general council is superior to the Pope (which is how it ended the Great Western Schism); the latter says that a Pope is superior to a general council.

In any case, in yet another example of convergence, Catholic theologians now accept that "reception" is the defining characteristic of a truly "ecumenical" council, and that a priori criteria cannot be used to declare any council "ecumenical" in the absence of reception. They have yet to come to grips with the implications this has for Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.

[Scott Pennington]

"We in the OO have our own problems with the Holy Mountain, though I do hope that I see reunion among OO and EO in my lifetime. Barring a miracle (and those do happen now and again), I do not see communion with Rome for either OO or EO in that time frame."
- Gina Mosko

I assume OO stands for Oriental Orthodox. Yes, I too hope for reunion in the coming decades between our churches. It seems we're down to differences of semantics which hopefully can be resolved.

As a practical matter, all the hubbub about Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue really doesn't matter in the slightest. The Church of Russia is now the big boy on the block within Orthodoxy and they wish to lead a revitalized, muscular Orthodoxy for their own reasons.

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart, if what you wrote above about the development of Catholic doctrine since 1974 is true, and I don't have any strong reason to doubt it, then we Orthodox should just shut up and let you Catholics slowly change your religion to Orthodoxy.

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart,

Upon further reflection, is not the type of development you refer to above, regarding the downgrading of RCC ecumenical councils, a scandal to the Catholic faith? I mean, since Vatican I the RCC has been under the impression that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals that his pronouncements are infallible. He has exercised this power since that time to establish dogma. Don't take this the wrong way, but does it not trouble Roman Catholics that their church is behaving as if it's just making it up as it goes along?

This goes to my earlier point about the dangers of ecumenism. If I were Catholic, it would cause me to doubt the truth of my faith if there were such a turnabout. "Is not the Faith that which we have always been taught? Why would they say this if the former story were true? What will truth become next?"

For the sake of the souls of the faithful, I would hope that neither your church nor mine will morph the faith into something which contradicts what has always been taught. Who could believe then? Better for each of us to go on believing that one is right and one is wrong, separated, then for each church to morph in a self-contradictory manner so as to kill the faith of all.

[DGP]

>>Please elaborate on what about this fact causes you sorrow.<<

It's a cold love among the followers of Christ when they can't talk about him.

>>By including Jews, you are confusing ecumenism with inter-religious dialogue.<<

Yes, yes, how tiresome of you. I wanted to make my point about ecumenism, but was not in a position to edit "Jews" out of Mr. Pennington's original list. I could have started an entirely new line of discussion about how Jews should be accounted here. After all, it's not so simple: At least in Latin thought, Jews are not described as people of a religion contrasting with Christianity.

>>By the way, RCs hate it when I do stuff like this. They probably don't like it when I point out that the Council of Constance contradicts the Council of Florence.<<

Actually, we Latins have lots of trickses ups our sleeveses when dealing with potholes like these.

>>In any case, in yet another example of convergence, Catholic theologians now accept that "reception" is the defining characteristic of a truly "ecumenical" council, and that a priori criteria cannot be used to declare any council "ecumenical" in the absence of reception. They have yet to come to grips with the implications this has for Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.<<

Um, this is misleading. Note the use of the term "theologians." There is considerable disagreement about this even among theologians, and Mr. Koehl's position does not adequately express an authoritative take on the subject.

Nevertheless, Mr. Koehl is correct to point out that a Latin understanding of these Councils and their authority is not intended to rule out a very different Eastern approach to the same topic. "We're not always right, but we're never wrong." :-)

[Christopher]

"we Orthodox should just shut up and let you Catholics slowly change your religion to Orthodoxy."

Agreed. However, it must be stated, that Stuart is an ecumenical activist and has one perspective - other Catholics (and Orthodox, etc.) are not nearly so rosy on the direction of this Catholic revolution, nor it's depth. It's depth is the really important thing. Why now? How long will it last? When is the next revolution? Does doctrine really "develop"? etc. etc.

Notice that yet again those who disagree with this sort of ecumenism (or simply Stuart's view of things) are branded "anti-ecumenists". Here I am thinking of the obscure conferences and gatherings by "educated" seminary professional types, who set to work on re-re-interpreting terms to meet the felt need of the moment, produce long "statements of position", and walla - Big Mistake is rectified. I wonder if the Spirit has something to do with the fact that dozens and dozens of people actually READ these statements. Ok, I exaggerate, but it's at least a half dozen :)

Touchstone is one ecumenical project I support - as others pointed out, we don't have to spend our time here re-re-re-interpreting...

[James A. Altena]

"Time and again, Orthodox theologians have been willing to state what is NOT acceptable, but get strangely mute when the time comes to make a positive suggestion."

Isn't that the quintessence of apophatic theology? :-)

Excuse me now, but I must throw out some beaujolais noveau that the butler ordered by mistake. He's been given notice, of course.

[James A. Altena]

The butler also mis-spelled "nouveau" in the previous post. He is losing his final two weeks' pay for this infraction. [Who says Anglicans can't have backbone and hold the line when faced with a crisis? :-)]

[Mark Krause]

I've read many of these posts, but not all of them. The problem with Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism is that Catholics don't care about the serious differences that separate us. The simply assert that there are none and encourage us to get together and accept the authority of the Pope. The Orthodox Church will never accept the Latin innovations to the faith. The apostolic model of authority was collegiate, not monarchial. There are SERIOUS DIFFERENCES between what the Eastern Church and the Western church believes. Look at the differences between St. Augustine and the Capedocian fathers. Look at the differences between Aquinas and St. Maximus. We operate off radically different philosophical paradigms. If one wants to see these differences, look at the blogging battles between Catholics and Orthodox at the blogs: Energetic Procession, and Pontifications. If anyone denies the radical differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology than they are just ignorant. Furthermore, we affirm the infallibility of no man, only the church. We affirm that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible and not open to revision by the Bishop of Rome. THe Orthodox church has kept the same doctrine, free of innovation since the time of the Apostles. Until Rome recants of the last thousand years of innovations, especially papal supremacy and infallibility, there will be no unity between the Latins and the Orthodox Church.

[Christopher]

"There are SERIOUS DIFFERENCES"

Mark, mark, have you not heard? A simple re-interpretation, a twist of emphasis, a selected and agreed upon connotation - that is all you need. Then you can have your cake and eat it too: Unity without compromise, and Doctrine with as many "modes" as is necessary. To deny this route would to allow the 'sadness of dis-unity' to continue...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But in speaking of disputes about interpretation within the Church, it is an Ecumenical Council which has the authority to settle the question. Context is everything.<<<

I would disagree even with this clarification. Throughout history, the Orthodox Church has employed various means of resolving ecclesiastical and theological disputes. There are only seven Ecumenical Councils because only the issues they addressed were seen as serious enough to warrant summoning bishops from "the whole world" to deal with them. And those issues were really just two: what was the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity; and what was the relationship between the human and divine in Jesus Christ (even the Seventh Council, which dealt with iconoclasm, addressed it as a Christological issue).

But most other issues were decided in other ways. For instance, the decision of a local council could be adopted as precedent by other Churches, entering into their collections of canons. The Orthodox Church dealt with the Eucharistic controversies of the 11th century in this manner, convening two synods in Constantinople that decisively put the issue to rest (without the fancy philosophical footwork of the Fourth Lateran Council half a century later).

Or, through inspired preaching and teaching, the works of one school of thought would gradually win over any dissent. Internal discussions among the Pentarchs usually sufficed to end inter-ecclesial disputes, as long as all five Churches remained independent.

Ultimately, and in accord with the canons of the Council of Sardica, any decision could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome, and many were, as a manifestation of his auctoritas as head of the Church with Priority.

Finally, one needs to consider that the Orthodox Church found little reason to rule definitively on most issues. The Fathers were widely tolerant of divergent opinions on range of matters, so long as these did not impinge upon the handful that they considered to be "dogmatic" (a term so loosely used in the Latin Church that it has lost most of its meaning). Thus, Basil the Great could hold that God would deal with all men according to their deeds, while Gregory of Nyssa was speculating that God would somehow save all mankind. The key was knowing what was an acceptable theologumenon, and what was not, and above all, not pretending that a theologumenon, even if held by a large portion of the Church, was in fact an official doctrine of the Church that could be imposed upon others against their will.

The principal sin of the Papacy in the Second Millennium was precisely that: believing that its own particular speculations, its own method of theology, its own mode of theological expression, were both normative and the only correct ones, which it had an obligation to impose on all (that obligation itself coming from a Roman theologumenon about the role of the Bishop of Rome as sucessor to Peter). Rome is coming to terms with that fact and stepping back somewhat from the arrogance of its former position.

But for its part, Orthodoxy, especially from the Fall of Constantinople, has likewise come to see its own way of theologizing, its own modes of theological expression, as both correct and normative. Over the course of the last thousand years, it has repeatedly attempted to impose those modes on other Churches, in the same way that Rome attempted to impose itself on Constantinople. Ask the Armenians. Ask the Copts or the Syrians.

The sad fact is, there is a large segment of Orthodox opinion that cannot conceive of any legitimate mode of theological discourse, or even any legitimate liturgical rite, that is not explicitly Byzantine. And that is very sad indeed, because a Church that is exclusively Latin or one that is exclusively Byzantine, cannot have any pretense of ecumenicity, no matter how ancient its lineage.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Look at the differences between St. Augustine and the Capedocian fathers. <<<

To the best of my knowledge, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nanzianzen, Basil the Great and St. Augustine were all in communion with one another.

And, to quite Dr. David Hart once more, "If you want to know what Augustine says, read Augustine, not the second hand opinions of some dyspeptic Greek" End quote.

[Bobby Winters]

Weren't James the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector in communion too? Perhaps the only reason some folks look like they are going in opposite directions is because they are approaching Christ from opposite sides.