Replies

+Kasper: "The early church developed from local communities. Each was presided over by a bishop; the one church of God was present in each. Because the one church was present in each and all, they were in communion."

P: "I do not think that Cardinal Kasper's assertion is sustainable. While the early church developed in local communities they were not developments of the local communities. The church, arising first in Jerusalem, was not the church of Jerusalem but the church in Jerusalem. The establishment, though early, of individual communities headed by its own bishop was a way for the universal church to address the question of governance and the need of a personal leadership."

The Cardinal's position is unsustainable, but I can't say that yours is much more so. The relationship of the local church to the universal church was recognized virtually from the beginning of The Church.

"You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid." +Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans.

It seems to me that it is crystal clear that the fullness of The Church abides in the local diocese. It is equally clear, by the use of the Greek words for "catholic church", that The Church is indeed "universal" and more than simply the sum of the local dioceses.

"Even without a pope and a central curia the Orthodox would object to a local church introducing a novelty contrary to the teaching and practice of the universal church that would take them out of the communion of faith."

You are exactly right. What +Kasper's earlier remark about regulations bespeaks, though, is the reaction of a hierarch who is the child of a true Revolution, Vatican II. He, and so many others, felt that the Latin Church had been smothered and oppressed by the style and method of governance which developed over many, many centuries in the West. The Protestant Reformation was the first of these revolutions in the Latin Church, but its response, the Counter-Reformation, at least as it played out into the 20th century, resulted in something of an ecclesiastical terror regime. I don't doubt that Vatican II was an attempt to remove that "terror regime", but like the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, things got out of hand. History teaches us that when a successful revolution takes out an oppressive ancien regime, things fly apart. One wonders whether a "moderate revolution" run by "moderate revolutionaries" could ever succeed and sustain its moderation, at least in the short run. +Kasper doesn't understand this. I don't think +Dulles does either. I think BXVI does. Why didn't this happen in Orthodoxy? I think the answer is simple in many ways. Orthodoxy is and has been almost wholly patristic and while there are a vast number of canons (did you know you're not supposed to go to Jewish doctors, or ride in any form of public transportation with Jews?), those canons never took on the juridical character they have even to this day in the West. Similarly, the lower clergy and the laity in the East have always been seen as a check against hierarchal abuse, whether theological or temporal. That isn't the history of the West.

Getting back to +Kasper's remarks on the Curia and the Pope, I do think he's mixing apples and oranges. Like you, without getting into the primacy of the Pope issue, I think it is appropriate to say that the particular church at Rome has a "peculiar" role in the universal church. The whys of this state of affairs has much to do with history. It also has to do with the fact that the Pope is the head of that See, at least from a Latin pov. We Orthodox, of course, feel that the Pope has whatever "enhanced" authority he has because of history and the councils...and the fact that his See is Old Rome.

"One side [Ratzinger] proceeds by Plato’s method; its starting point is the primacy of an idea that is a universal concept. The other side [Kasper] follows Aristotle’s approach and sees the universal as existing in a concrete reality.

This is a false dichotomy. Both the universal church and the local churches have a real existence; the universal church is not a notional universal in the Platonic sense. They are both the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ who is present in both through their individual members."

I don't see the Pope's position as being founded in some Platonic prime either. I do, however, find +Kasper's Aristotlelianism off putting. Its one thing to use the words of pagan philosophy; its quite another to employ its methods and arrive at its conclusions.

The Cardinal's position is unsustainable, but I can't say that yours is much more so. The relationship of the local church to the universal church was recognized virtually from the beginning of The Church. ...

It seems to me that it is crystal clear that the fullness of The Church abides in the local diocese. It is equally clear, by the use of the Greek words for "catholic church", that The Church is indeed "universal" and more than simply the sum of the local dioceses.

I am not sure that I understand your point. Could you please elaborate?

Ultimately these things, if there is a union, must take on a physical reality.

We cannot have a primacy of jurisdiction because it would lead to a massive 'land grab'. Rome cannot own the orthodox churches down the street. Separate but equal and in communion must prevail.

Similarly if in communion (and seriously even now, when most agree that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine are sufficiently similar in terms of salvation), the Catholic church cannot be trying to covert the converted in the Orthodox church (And vice versa). In America we don't see this really. In fact I was originally encouraged to investiage the Orthodox Church in my 7th grade religion class. But there are places where this is definitly occuring.

We can't have and understanding of primacy that leads individual parishes preaching to convert Greeks to the Roman church on the basis Rome is first amoung equals.