Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Eastern Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 09/09/2006 3:04:19 PM PDT by Calvin Coollidge
This was not what I had planned on posting today but when I stumbled on it I thought it was worth putting up. I have also CCd this to the Catholic forum since they are part of the topic of this essay. Fr. Hopko is a well known and respected theologian. He is also somewhat controversial at times. I do not agree with some of the things in this essay. But I do think he makes a powerful point (if perhaps he belabors it a bit much), when he points out that we can hardly be expected to work towards unity with Rome when we can't get our own house in order. I also think he tends to ignore the serious ecclesiological and theological issues that divide East from West. He mentions a few in passing, but moves on rather quickly. In fairness Fr. Hopko did publish in another essay his take on what an Orthodox Papacy might look like in the modern world. It's worth admitting that while I often see essays that tell Rome what it must do for communion I think this is the first one (from our side) that has addressed what we might have to do. In closing I will say that his points about forgiving past grievances are totally true IMO.
Ping
Probably not, actually. The Eastern rite synods appoint their bishops, currently, and the Holy See just recognizes their election.
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman
church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and
that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and
immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly
and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical
subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith
and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the
church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of
the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme
shepherd50. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart
from it without endangering his faith and salvation. This power of the supreme
pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal
jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles
by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular
flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs
is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St
Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour
is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it
is denied to none of those to whom honour is due."51 Furthermore, it follows
from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole
church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to
communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that
they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. And therefore we
condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the
supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it
should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what
is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government
of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of
the civil authority.
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs
the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful52, and that in all cases which fall
under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment53. The
sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not
subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment
thereupon54. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that
it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical
council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of
supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but
also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church
dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part,
but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his
is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over
all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
From the Canons and Decrees of the First Vatican Council
Eastern Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
This is a wonderful article; thank you for posting it!
As a Roman Catholic parishioner in an Eastern Catholic Church, there are some 'corrections' , or perhaps these are simply misunderstandings, in the above text.
First of all, the Holy Father is pope of the Catholic Church - west and east, which includes the Roman Catholic Church. There are 22 different Catholic Traditions, including Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian.
Fr. Hopko gets bonus points for acknowledging 'attachment to liturgy' as a stumbling block. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression from some of my Orthodox friends here at FR that their respective churches fear Vatican imposition. This has been a problem in the past, where well intentioned representatives from the Vatican burned the liturgical books of certain Eastern Churches (I speak here of my Maronite Catholic family which went along in order to remain faithful to the Magisterium). Much has changed since then. We now have the example of the Anglicans who re-united with the Vatican, on the stipulation they could retain their liturgy, derived from the Book of Common Prayer. The agreement was concluded with the understanding that certain aspects of their liturgy needed to be updated to bring it into conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium. This is also true of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church which reunited with Rome during the past century. Some of us were truly blessed to witness their liturgy, live on EWTN.
As for 'unleavened bread' and 'confirmation as a separate ritual', the majority (if not all) of the Eastern Catholic Churches have restored 'chrismation' along with the Sacrament of Baptism. There are also certain Eastern Catholic Churches that use unleavened bread - no problem whatsoever. Married clergy? All of the Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests, while some strongly encourage celibacy, for practical reasons.
My impression is that Father Hopko has not yet fully explored the Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome. Should he do so, he would gain great insight into how eastern theology blends perfectly into the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches, like their Orthodox neighbors, fall under the leadership of a Patriarch.
I treasure this photograph of Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Peter Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, meeting with Pope John Paul II. He serves not only as Patriarch of the Maronite Church but also as Cardinal. Following the death of JPII, (then) Cardinal Ratzinger called upon Cardinal Sfeir to organize and lead the 'Novendiale Mass' for all the Eastern Catholic Churches. Naturally, the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would open the door for a future pontiff, from the (former) Orthodox Churches. What a glorious celebration that would be!!
"Can't say as I have ever been particularly enamored of Fr. Hopko. I always get the feeling that he can't accept the fact that the OCA never lived up to the dreams of its original tomos of autocephally, that all the other Orthodox jurisdictions in America would fade and we'd all become part of a Moscow oriented OCA."
First of all, the Holy Father is pope of the Catholic Church - west and east, which includes the Roman Catholic Church.
Well that's the Roman position. It is not the opinion of the Orthodox. We of course believe that we are the Catholic Church in its entirety. In the first millennium it was customary in both the East and the West to refer to the Church as Catholic and the faith as Orthodox. Hence correctly speaking we are Orthodox Catholics.
There are 22 different Catholic Traditions, including Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian.
On a personal note I am aware of the Eastern Rites since it was a stop off for me on my road to Orthodoxy.
Fr. Hopko gets bonus points for acknowledging 'attachment to liturgy' as a stumbling block. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression from some of my Orthodox friends here at FR that their respective churches fear Vatican imposition.
That would be accurate to a degree.
This has been a problem in the past, where well intentioned representatives from the Vatican burned the liturgical books of certain Eastern Churches...
This was not limited to the Maronites. And even today efforts by Vatican bureaucrats to extend the blessings of the Vatican II liturgical reform to the Eastern Rite churches have not gone unnoticed though so far they have not enjoyed much success.
We now have the example of the Anglicans who re-united with the Vatican, on the stipulation they could retain their liturgy, derived from the Book of Common Prayer.
That's not entirely accurate. The Anglican Use is not a rite and permission for its use is up to the local ordinary. Its application thus far has been quite limited. It is true that a handful of former Anglican clergy who entered into communion with Rome have been re ordained with a dispensation for their being married. Some of them have been allowed to use the so called Anglican Use liturgy. But there is no provision for this being a permanent arrangement. There are no Anglo-Catholic seminaries or bishops and there is no one training priests in the Anglican liturgical rites.
The agreement was concluded with the understanding that certain aspects of their liturgy needed to be updated to bring it into conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium. This is also true of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church which reunited with Rome during the past century.
What parts of our liturgy do you anticipate will need to be updated? It has worked quite well for us I think.
As for 'unleavened bread' and 'confirmation as a separate ritual', the majority (if not all) of the Eastern Catholic Churches have restored 'chrismation' along with the Sacrament of Baptism. There are also certain Eastern Catholic Churches that use unleavened bread - no problem whatsoever. Married clergy? All of the Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests, while some strongly encourage celibacy, for practical reasons.
These are not minor issues, though they are not beyond resolution. I think that it is in the matter of ecclesiology that you will find the problem. That is where the rubber is going to hit the road. Many of the claims of the papacy are simply not going to be accepted by Orthodoxy. I would suggest reading Fr. Hopko's other essay on the papacy for some ideas about our concerns. I don't agree with all of it. But many of the points he raises are serious issues. That article is linked in my #1 above.
My impression is that Father Hopko has not yet fully explored the Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome. Should he do so, he would gain great insight into how eastern theology blends perfectly into the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches, like their Orthodox neighbors, fall under the leadership of a Patriarch.
I think Fr. Hopko is aware of the existence of the non Latin Rite churches in communion with the Pope of Rome. In fact I will go out on a limb here and say he probably knows more about them and their history than either you or I. That's just an educated guess based on his background though. The history of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates is not a source of good feelings for Orthodox. since most of them were erected by the papacy to draw off Orthodox Christians and to challenge the authority of the Orthodox Patriarchs. It was a serious and very un-canonical intrusion upon the rights of the Eastern Churches (the real ones) which has been a source of ill feelings for a long time. The so called Unia remains a stumbling block to the restoration of communion not an aid to that end.
Naturally, the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would open the door for a future pontiff, from the (former) Orthodox Churches. What a glorious celebration that would be!!
I think that the word "former" in front of the word "Orthodox" is quite telling about where we are both coming from. Orthodoxy is the faith of the undivided Church of the first millennium. You see Orthodoxy as something to be abandoned or made to conform to the Roman Church's magesterium (the end result would be the same). We see the process as not one of reunification but of the restoration of communion based on the return of the Latin Church to Holy Orthodoxy. In that future situation the Pope of Rome would again claim his place as primus inter pares among the Orthodox Catholic Hierarchs of the world.
But it would be without most of the theological baggage of the last thousand years that has cropped up in the west. The canons of the First Vatican Council especially are heresy to Orthodox Christians. This doesn't mean we don't want to revive the undivided Church of the first thousand years AD. Any Orthodox Christian who says he does not want that is in need of some serious spiritual counseling. But we believe that we are the Church. We don't see ourselves as a part of two halves. Orthodox Christianity is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ whole and complete. And you believe the same thing to be true of your church. That creates a problem.
Herein is the great tragedy of the present situation. There are for the first time in a thousand years honest people in both churches who are looking at each other and saying "How did this happen? This is not what God wanted." But the reality I think is that it has gone beyond the point of no return. Trent was a massive blow to any hope of reunification because of the theological innovations it codified. But IMHO the final nail in the coffin was Vatican I. That's a show stopper. The language in those decrees (see #3 above for one example) is flatly heretical to us. And it is so crystal clear that it just leaves no room for wiggling and parsing words. In so many ways our churches have grown apart. Your theology is now heavily based on the medieval scholasticism of Aquinas and Augustine, which is so inimical to Orthodoxy. This is true of your Eastern Churches too. They may have retained the outward forms of Eastern worship. But they are Roman Catholic in faith. In faith, ecclesiology, spirituality, and theology we have grown apart so far that we can't just put things back they way they were. Patriarch Bartholomew probably said it best when he noted that our two churches have become ontologically different.
You quote the fathers in an effort to support the papal monarchy. We quote the fathers to disprove it. We will never agree. If Rome agreed to anything even resembling Fr. Hopko's terms laid out in the other essay I linked it would cease to be the Roman Catholic Church. For us to restore communion with heretics would be to cease to be Orthodox. "Reunion" would mean that one or the other of our churches would wind up with the word "former" in front of its name. That is why I believe that absent a miracle of God there will never be a restoration of communion. And I weep with the angels because of it.
Fr. Hopko saddens me. His heart seems to be in the right place, but his head seems to working over time to make up for it. Linus was the first bishop of Rome? Surely an Orthodox mind isn't so desperate for rationalizations for division that he's bought into the fundamentalist argument that Peter actually did go to the long abandonned ghost city of Babylon instead of Rome?
And then there's statements like this:
>> If Rome would say it was not there originally, that the way it was explained was not right, we now can agree on certain aspects – I think the Orthodox would have to say, “OK, let them keep it” rather than insist that every last church in Portugal drop the “filioque” before we can have unity. <<
I don't think Rome DOES say it was the Filioque was there originally; if it does it means the entire content of the argument that I've ever heard was 100% Orthodox-created straw man. But what does he mean that Rome would have to acknowledge it "isn't right," for the Orthodox to permit churches in Portugal to keep it? That churches in Portugal can profess it to be truth, as long as the Vatican professes it to be a lie?
And who in Rome ever said that the Eastern Orthodox would have to have unleavened bread, communion in one kind, a celibate clergy, or communion from a reserved sacrament? Other Catholic rites don't have these? Could the Orthodox priest possibly be that ignorant to not know that? Or does he make an issue out of the differing practices to suggest that Rome must become subordinate to Constantinople? "Last among equals," if you will.
>> Well that's the Roman position. It is not the opinion of the Orthodox. We of course believe that we are the Catholic Church in its entirety. In the first millennium it was customary in both the East and the West to refer to the Church as Catholic and the faith as Orthodox. Hence correctly speaking we are Orthodox Catholics. <<
I think you misunderstand. When it is declared that the Pope is pope of the entire Catholic Church, East and West, in this context, by East is meant the other patriarchies in union with Rome.
>> This has been a problem in the past, where well intentioned representatives from the Vatican burned the liturgical books of certain Eastern Churches... This was not limited to the Maronites. <<
To be fair, the Maronites' books were not burned by force from the Vatican, but, rather, out of Maronite zeal for unity. It's a subtle distinction when considering the righteousness (or, perhaps, more accurately, lack thereof?) of the representatives, but a major one when considering the effects of liturgical differences in the future. Far more relevant is that the general policy of the Vatican is to accept theologically valid liturgy.
Please, you well informed Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, keep this thread going.
It has been a personal pain in my heart that we aren't one as our Lord would have it.
What a light to the world we would be if we were ONE.
As I read these responses, I am learning much about our Faith.
God bless all of you, with charity and love.
Orthodox ping. Might be worth a look, gang.
This is an excellent article, and he is right on target about trying to seek out the essentials (on which no compromise is possible) and put the other things to the side.
He also makes a good point about the fact that internal unity is something that the Orthodox Church has to achieve first. Much of Orthodox disunity is the result of historical political situations, since the Orthodox churches were often much more subject to local governments than was the Catholic Church, whose leader and "main office," so to speak, was not in the same country as its "branch offices" and hence were a little freer. This freedom had to be fought for constantly and there was often great friction between temporal rulers and Catholic authorities; Henry VIII was essentially the first Western European monarch who permanently drove out Rome and made the State the head of the Church for his own purposes. But for historical reasons, one being the fact that many Orthodox churches found themselves fighting for their existence in suddenly Muslim countries, the Orthodox Church was never really able to assert its independence from the State, with the result that a lot of simply national rivalries carried over into religious life and are particularly reflected in the US, where all these national groups have to coexist and have contact with each other.
Hence the Orthodox Church in the US has a golden opportunity to unite and become the model for Orthodox unity - for doing what Fr. Hopko said, that is, sorting out what is essential from the massive accumulation of historical (but destructive) inessentials.
You don't have to be Roman Catholic to believe that; it's pretty much tautological. How can the schism end if nobody on the Orthodox side has the authority to end it? (And by "nobody," I'm not necessarily talking about a single individual.)
And proposing that Rome simply surrender is completely unrealistic, and also illogical. (Is the Pope going to infallibly define for the whole church that he has no authority to infallibly define anything, and no authority outside the See of Rome? If we simply adopt the Orthodox model of authority, nobody on our side has the authority to end the schism either! You can hardly expect the Pope to exercise Papal authority in declaring that no Papal authority exists.)
Supposedly, y'all do have a "command structure" that can make "binding decisions" ... an ecumenical council. However, any attempt (by whom?) to call such a council to discuss reunion would no doubt split the Orthodox, and any reunion settlement arrived at would no doubt split you further.
And we haven't yet considered whether such a settlement would cause a schism on the Catholic side of the aisle. (It likely would.)
Perhaps the first step is to agree that neither the absolutist Orthodox position (the local bishop is the fullness of the church, and nobody has authority over him) nor the absolutist Catholic position (the Pope exercises full and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, and has authority over every bishop everywhere) are tenable models for a post-schism church.
It's a mess. At least we're talking about the mess, but still: Come, Lord Jesus.
hello people,
As some of you might kow, im holder of Balkan Ping list, I live in Serbia and from Serbian-hungarian origin.
I live in Vojvodina, northern province of Serbia, where, although predominantly papulated with Serbs, also some 200,000 catholic Hugarians live. so far, inspite of all wars, pretty good relations between Ortodox and Catholics exist. so, as a man basicaly torned towards politics I cant enter in some religion discussion, due to the fact that im no expert in field of religion. I would like just to comment on Ortodox-catholic life in Serbia and customes concerning that life.
There are many mixed marriages, basicaly they are not even called that that is how much they are common in Serbia. Yet, there is a custom that when Catholic-Ortodox couple get married, some of them go to both churches to be wedd, in Ortodox and catholic in same day, also they baptise their children in both churches also in same day. some belief is among peoplethat both rituals must be respected if your parents are Catholic and Ortodox or babtism would not be concidered "true" and "right". So, my father, laso was baptised in both churches and some of my friends were wedd in both churches. I never saw that a person is both Catholic and Ortodox in same time, but people that are "Double-baptised" are commonly celebrating both Catholic and Ortodox hollidays, and later, upon them is will they declare themselves as catholics or Ortodox, yet even then, they and their famillies respect both customs. Also, when Serbian girl marries to catholic, she usualy brings hers family Saint-protector Icon into husbands house, and that is very unusual that women celebrates saint-protector, so, catholic home, accept an Ortodox custom. Even if that is not a case, Catholic family accepts Ortodox feasts and hollidays even in most modest manner, and young wife is even expected to prepare special dinner for Ortodox hollidays. Same thing goes when Catholic girl marries into Ortodox family, she brings catholic feasts and hollidays and she is also sxpected to prepare dinners or feasts on those days.
Anyway, that is laics wiew on Ortodox-Catholic agenda, even in small part of the world like Serbia is.
You've described just the way I was brought up with an Irish Catholic father and a Greek Orthodox mother.
Thanks for your comments. You have largely confirmed my own reservations. A couple quick points...
You don't have to be Roman Catholic to believe that; it's pretty much tautological. How can the schism end if nobody on the Orthodox side has the authority to end it? (And by "nobody," I'm not necessarily talking about a single individual.)
Supposedly, y'all do have a "command structure" that can make "binding decisions" ... an ecumenical council. However, any attempt (by whom?) to call such a council to discuss reunion would no doubt split the Orthodox, and any reunion settlement arrived at would no doubt split you further.
Assuming the major issues were overcome and we reached a point where we could live with the other differences (it needs to be remembered that there were differences between east and west before the schism) I can see several ways the schism could be ended. The two most likely would be either a Great Council of the Church or a gradual restoration of communion by some of the Orthodox Churches (they would have to be major ones to be taken seriously). The Schism did not start in 1054 (contrary to common belief). It was a slow motion divorce that took place over centuries. The 1054 schism was a local one between two patriarchs that did not even extend to the faithful subject the other. Hence Latins still communed in Constantinople and had their churches there. And Greeks still communed in Rome. Most Eastern Patriarchs remained in communion with Rome until the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. If there was a real breaking point that was probably it. But even after that there were local synods that had communion with Rome off and on for another couple of centuries.
A Great Council has been in the planning for several decades and much speculation exists as to the reasons for its not being convened so far. As for who can call it, in the absence of and Orthodox Emperor or the Patriarch of Rome the Ecumenical Patriarch is almost universally acknowledged to have that power. All major decisions in Orthodoxy have caused minor schisms. There are just some people for whom the word "new" is the same thing as "heresy." But we will deal with that if and when we get there. We generally all agree on the important things even if sometimes throw furniture at each other when we discuss calendars. :-)
And proposing that Rome simply surrender is completely unrealistic, and also illogical. (Is the Pope going to infallibly define for the whole church that he has no authority to infallibly define anything, and no authority outside the See of Rome? If we simply adopt the Orthodox model of authority, nobody on our side has the authority to end the schism either! You can hardly expect the Pope to exercise Papal authority in declaring that no Papal authority exists.)
Yep. That's pretty much what I think I covered in my last post. I am less concerned with who can call a council than I am with getting to the point where the council will be able to do anything.
And we haven't yet considered whether such a settlement would cause a schism on the Catholic side of the aisle. (It likely would.)
Rome has had the same problem we have had. Everything you have done in Council has been challenged by splinter groups. The so called "Old Catholics" from Vatican I and the various uber Catholic Traditionalist schismatics you have running around since Vatican II are the evidence. I never knew +John XXXIII was really a Jew and a Free Mason secretly bent on destroying your church until I was enlightened by one of the "True Catholic" web sites. Lord Have Mercy!
Perhaps the first step is to agree that neither the absolutist Orthodox position (the local bishop is the fullness of the church, and nobody has authority over him) nor the absolutist Catholic position (the Pope exercises full and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, and has authority over every bishop everywhere) are tenable models for a post-schism church.
That's probably a good suggestion. I have often said that we Orthodox have been very good at pointing out what Primacy is not. Possibly out of our often knee jerk hostility to all things papal. For primacy clearly does mean more than just the right to sit at the head of the table or be the first one in a procession. It was thus in the early Church. The problem is that your Church has backed itself into a corner with the decrees of Vatican I. Those decrees are so crystal clear in their wording that I don't see anyway to parse the language or pretend they mean something other than that the Pope of Rome holds an immediate and absolute jurisdiction over the ENTIRE CHURCH and every bishop is subject to him. Add onto that the decree regarding the infallibility of the Pope independent of the Church and a council and we have what I have already characterized as a showstopper. Hence my deep pessimism.
Lest I end this post on such a gloomy note, it should be mentioned that this month representatives from Rome will be meeting (in Serbia!) with high ranking representatives of many of the world's Orthodox Churches to discuss this very issue (the Primacy of Rome). And in recent months we have seen a marked warming of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and Pope of Rome to the point where +Alexei was actually saying very nice things about +Benedict XVI. Who knows what may happen? All things are possible with God.
A very concise and realistic reply.
My thoughts exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.