East/West Reunification- a consideration

[Tomdstone]

But to turn to the Fathers as a substitute for the living episcopate is mistaken.

Has the living episcopate ever made a mistake or contradicted themselves?

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Has the living episcopate ever made a mistake or contradicted themselves?

Not when it comes to the college of bishops (whether in council or through their president, the bishop of Rome) formally articulating a dogmatic truth.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I’d like to correct myself. Vatican II does have a passage in Verbum Dei that seems to represent some degree of official Catholic sanction for the idea of Development of Doctrine. Here it is in full:

…the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16)

 

[ConstantineTG]

We receive them partially because we’re finite and temporal, and perceive ideas by the way they’re chunked out into words. The apostles were busy folks, and may not have explained every aspect of the mystery to every person to whom they preached. And if they did, the historical record would seem to indicate that some of their listeners got confused.

Revelation doesn’t mean we have received all knowledge and that we know everything about God. God is infinite, thus is not completely knowable to us. What is given in revelation is what we need to know. It is finite. But it is a once-and-for-all revelation. Everything essential is given, thus what the Apostles know should be the same as what we know. Anything beyond that is guesswork. It is acceptable to a certain extent, but it is not doctrine and should never be dogmatized.

I do trust that we got it all from the apostles, although I think it has required looking at different streams of the tradition and comparing them with mature theological reflection, prayer, and reason. I admit that life would be easier if the apostles had already explicitly made all of the connections, but the historical record seems to indicate that that’s not the case.

They did make all the connections. Remember that they have their own culture, their own era of history. What could have been easily explained in one sentence back then would take a book for us to understand today because the understanding of certain terms and phrases are either completely different, or have been entirely lost. A lot of times today we make the assumption that what is said applies to today’s world, but we need to extract the meaning which applies to today’s world, not the scenario which is said in the context of First Century Roman Empire.

If it’s (doctrinal development) accepted, it’s purely on historical/scientific grounds. It seems to make sense of the historical record. If another theory better explains the historical record, I will accept that theory. I have no doctrinal commitment to the ‘development of doctrine’, and, as far as I’m aware, no Catholic does.

The problem is that there are conclusions made based on Scripture which has no basis, other than someone who is deemed infallible and supreme (the Pope) saying that it is the correct interpretation. But if no one else has taught that doctrine from the beginning, how can we be sure that it is indeed the correct interpretation?

The Theotokos may have been clearly taught by the apostles, but it wasn’t clearly apprehended by those who followed them. If it had been, the massive Arian and Nestorian controversies wouldn’t have arisen.

That is not true. Because even after the Seven Ecumenical Councils, we see the same heresies rehashed by the Reformers and those that came after them. Today we have huge denominations which believe in Arianism, Modalism, and other heresies long anathematized. So it does not follow that just because something has been articulated, it means no one will fall into that heresy again. It happens today, it has happened in the past.

May I quote Newman briefly?: 'First then, that the language of the Ante-nicene Fathers, on the subject of our Lord’s Divinity, may be far more easily accommodated to the Arian hypothesis than can the language of the Post-nicene, is agreed on all hands. Thus St. Justin speaks of the Son as subservient to the Father in the creation of the world, Again, the Council of Antioch says that, while “it is impious to think that the God of all is called an Angel, the Son is the Angel of the Father.”

If the Ante-nicene Fathers were vague, unclear or inconsistent on the subject of our Lord’s consubstantiality with the Father, then the doctrine of Theotokos would’ve been inexplicable.

But even if the language is not clear, the teaching clearly is. Scripture itself is so clear that Jesus is God. I don’t see why that would be confusing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think Newman would agree that every ‘development’ has been present from the beginning, and expressed in tentative forms.

Because my bishop, as a successor to the apostles, has the teaching office in the Church and is thus deserving of my confidence.

If I have reason to believe my bishop is mistaken, I can compare his statements to those of the Episcopal College speaking through its president. This is the living magisterium of the Church.

To Catholics, it sometimes seems that the Orthodox have lost their confidence in the episcopacy. This may be because, without emperor or pope, there are few organs that allow the Orthodox bishops to speak in unison as a college.

We still have our synods, and everything prior to the schism was done by synod. It worked back then, it works today. And we don’t really need doctrinal development, if our Saints and Fathers never believed the faith we believe today, then we today are heretics. That is how we see it.

But to turn to the Fathers as a substitute for the living episcopate is mistaken. It is to introduce non-systematic documents, several hundred times longer than the bible, as the principle for interpreting the faith. ‘Soli patres’ is a considerably worse principle than ‘sola scriptura’.

I don’t accuse all Orthodox of this, but it seems not uncommon (at least on the internet).

But that is the only way to know that the tradition we have today is consistent with the faith of our Fathers. My criticism of the Catholic Church is the heavy reliance on Vatican documents, which in my opinion misses a lot of important stuff. That is why, and this is from threads over the last 3 days here in CAF, you get people claiming that the Resurrection has no bearing in our Salvation, or that people theorizing other sinless people being sufficient to die on the cross instead of God himself. Because the focus of Vatican documents have glossed over much of patristic teaching, it has become forgotten. So people now miss the wonderful teachings of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and other important writings over time which contribute to the greater understanding of the faith.

 

[guanophore]

Depends what he means by this. If Eastern Catholic Churches are a model, this means that the Pope controls pretty much every territory around the world except Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Egypt and small sections of India.

Can you explain what you mean by “the Pope pretty much controls every territory around the world”?

The Pope retaining his jurisdiction would mean what I just said, that he controls at least 2/3 of the entire planet.

“Controls the entire planet” in what way?

I know some of the history of Latinizations that were forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. I think that is behind us now, and there is much better understanding and respect for the cultural differences.

There is still a lot of work to do toward unification, but I don’t see B16 as such a “control” freak, nor especially Francis.

 

[guanophore]

 Eastern Catholic Churches are not the model for a united future Church.

Why do you say this? The Eastern Churches have preserved the Apostolic model as much, and in some cases better, than the West.

It seems like a united Church would require that both Eastern and Western “models” (not sure what you mean by that) would need to co-exist in unity.

It is, however, the model in the present schism, and even then it is a developing model.

There is no schism between Eastern and Western Catholics.

What are you referring to as a “developing model”?

 

[guanophore]

Hi Surnaturel, your dialogue is breath a of fresh air here that deals with the present ecumenical efforts than the historical questions and reasons why Orthodox and Catholics can never be united.

Is not this position a denial of the efficacy of Jesus’ prayer?

John 17:20-23

20 "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can you explain what you mean by “the Pope pretty much controls every territory around the world”?

It pretty much means what I said it means. Just think of why ECs need permission to ordain married men in pretty much everywhere in the world. Why? Because it’s Rome’s territory.

“Controls the entire planet” in what way?

Jurisdictional

I know some of the history of Latinizations that were forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. I think that is behind us now, and there is much better understanding and respect for the cultural differences.

There is still a lot of work to do toward unification, but I don’t see B16 as such a “control” freak, nor especially Francis.

They already have the power, it is not something they need to seek, they already have it.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

This will be my last post on doctrinal development, as I think we’re on the verge of repeating ourselves. I’ll leave Constantine with the last word.

**The deposit of faith is immense, and must be ‘unpacked’ over time. ** If we take revelation to be God’s saving work in history, and the fulness of revelation to be the person of Jesus Christ, then revelation is immense. Not infinite, but the world itself couldn’t contain all the books it would take to describe it, as the Gospel of John has it. The apostles knew everything, and handed on everything. But they did not formulate the kinds of propositional statements to which we’re accustomed, and they did not answer questions that had never been asked.

The Church did not fully understand every mystery from the beginning. This is historically demonstrable. Before the homoousion was defined, that Christ was one in being with the Father, many fathers of the Church put forward Christologies that functionally subordinated the Son to the Father (that the Son was an angel, or created before the world, or the highest of all creatures). It was after Christ’s consubstantiality was defined that the notion of two natures arose, to explain the subordinating passages of the New Testament in reference to Christ’s humanity.

Here is Newman on the doctrinal ‘incompleteness’ of the Ante-nicene fathers:

‘Again, the six great Bishops and Saints of the Ante-nicene Church were St. Irenæus, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St. Methodius. Of these, St. Dionysius is accused by St. Basil of having sown the first seeds of Arianism; and St. Gregory is allowed by the same learned Father to have used language concerning our Lord, which he only defends on the plea of an economical object in the writer.[16:3] St. Hippolytus speaks as if he were ignorant of our Lord’s Eternal Sonship;[17:1] St. Methodius speaks incorrectly at least upon the Incarnation; and St. Cyprian does not treat of theology at all. Such is the incompleteness of the extant teaching of these true saints, and, in their day, faithful witnesses of the Eternal Son.’

Another very obvious example is the canon of scripture. Many books that are unanimously regarded as part of the New Testament today were not recognized by the early Church. The Letter of James, the Letter to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse were accepted in the fifth century.

This is what St. Vincent of Lerins, who lived through the early councils has to say. Note that he is commenting on St. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to ‘hold fast to the traditions that we hand on to you’:

'Let that which formerly was believed, though imperfectly apprehended, as expounded by you be clearly understood. Let posterity welcome, understood through your exposition, what antiquity venerated without understanding. Yet teach still the same truths which you have learned, so that though you speak after a new fashion, what you speak may not be new.

I don’t see how there can be any question as to whether the Church develops or not. We can only ask which developments are legitimate, what is their nature, and how do we know.

**The Catholic Church does not ‘make things up.’ **Everything that the Catholic Church teaches, including the distinctively Catholic doctrines, are articulations of the one deposit of faith, given once and for all to the apostles. There is no innovation.

I am utterly convinced that the bishop of Rome’s special charism to care for the internal (doctrinal) and external (unity) integrity of the Church came directly from the lips of the apostle Peter, and that, beginning with the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, it was exercised with the understanding that Roman doctrine could not fail.

The other distinctively Catholic doctrines enjoy similarly deep roots, and any development they undergo does not differ from, say, the development in understanding of the Holy Trinity.

 

[guanophore]

It pretty much means what I said it means. Just think of why ECs need permission to ordain married men in pretty much everywhere in the world. Why? Because it’s Rome’s territory.

Jurisdictional

It seems to me that your perspective is reactionary and excessive. No bishop of the Church has any jurisdiction or territory over the “world”. He has this over Vatican City, but that’s the extent of it.

Even property belonging to the Church can be overrun by anti-Catholic hoardes, the contents stolen and buildings burned to the ground. He does not have the power to prevent this from happening in the temporal realm, anymore than the Orthodox could prevent the Muslims from overrunning the East and oppression the Church. None of the bishops, Catholic or Orthodox, were able to prevent communism from crushing the Church in Russia and slaughtering the clergy.

The discipline of priestly celibacy is a more common practice in the West than the East. The “jurisdiction” over this discipline is solely within the canonical boundaries of the Church, not “the world”.

They already have the power, it is not something they need to seek, they already have it.

I still am confused about what you mean by this. I guess because I see a very big difference between power and authority. Naturally, it is best if those who exercise the authority have appropriate power, and don’t abuse their power. I think we are in agreement that many bishops, over the life of the Church have misused or abused their authority and power. This is a major factor in the Great Schism.

I think I follow the meaning of jurisdiction. I think we would be in agreement that the bishop should have jurisdiction over his own see. That means to govern, legislate, and manage both the pastoral and temporal needs of the bishopric (not “the world”).

But I am not so clear what you mean by “power”.

Do you think it is a appropriate for the bishop to be the final authority on who is to be ordained in his metropolitan?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Surnaturel;10814550]Thanks for your response. I might ask why the Pope retaining his supreme jurisdiction over the West but not having jurisdiction over the churches in the East contradicts scripture?

It doesn’t contradict scripture or sacred Tradition, only the present circumstance is in contradiction to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition. This is the effort the Popes are putting forth to help this present circumstance. But it takes two to be joined to the One.

 

[Tomdstone]

It doesn’t contradict scripture or sacred Tradition, only the present circumstance is in contradiction to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition. This is the effort the Popes are putting forth to help this present circumstance. But it takes two to be joined to the One.

Some Orthodox hold that since Peter was at Antioch before Rome, Antioch should hold primacy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Some Orthodox hold that since Peter was at Antioch before Rome, Antioch should hold primacy.

Peter installed an episcopacy there in Antioch, Peter’s disciple Mark also was made Bishop of Alexandria.

The result of these two apostolic see’s that began by Peter fell into heresy. Yet Peter’s apostolic Church in Rome is the only living apostolic see from Peter that has never fallen into heresy.

The gates of hell came against Antioch and Alexandria and prevailed, the gates of hell came against Peter’s Church at Rome, but the gates of hell never prevailed against her and never will, that is the promise of Jesus Christ.

Before there were any Church’s called Orthodox post constantinople . The world of Christianity always held the Church of Rome from which Peter and Paul became Matryrs, as pre-eminent for all the other church’s are to follow.

The dispute of the Church of Rome’s authority was never questioned by any church or bishop for the first 400 years of Christianity. Until the Church was imperalized from a new captial of the Roman Empire was built in Constantinople.

It is from this later Church history (post constantinople) which Orthodox lay claim to question the authority that Jesus placed upon Peter and His Church.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me that your perspective is reactionary and excessive. No bishop of the Church has any jurisdiction or territory over the “world”. He has this over Vatican City, but that’s the extent of it.

That is not what is said over numerous documents from the Vatican.

I’m not saying about jurisdiction over secular property, I’m talking about Christians (including non-Catholics, as one Vatican document claims).

The discipline of priestly celibacy is a more common practice in the West than the East. The “jurisdiction” over this discipline is solely within the canonical boundaries of the Church, not “the world”.

That is a misconception. Celibacy is common in Orthodoxy, but it is in its proper context (monasticism) and we don’t just force people to be celibate if they are not living as monastics.

I still am confused about what you mean by this. I guess because I see a very big difference between power and authority. Naturally, it is best if those who exercise the authority have appropriate power, and don’t abuse their power. I think we are in agreement that many bishops, over the life of the Church have misused or abused their authority and power. This is a major factor in the Great Schism.

Of course, when a certain bishop tried to impose his power and authority over all

And that is why power and authority is wrong, especially in the context of the Church. Even God who is rightfully authoritative over all, and all-powerful, does not impose power and authority over all. Rather he acts according to His nature, that is love. Bishops are called to be the same, be leaders according to Christ’s love for His Church, not to be authorities and powers over the flock. “Episkopos” means chief servant. They are servants to the Master like us nonetheless.

I think I follow the meaning of jurisdiction. I think we would be in agreement that the bishop should have jurisdiction over his own see. That means to govern, legislate, and manage both the pastoral and temporal needs of the bishopric (not “the world”).

But I am not so clear what you mean by “power”.

Do you think it is a appropriate for the bishop to be the final authority on who is to be ordained in his metropolitan?

Each Church, that is each diocese, should be autonomous from one another. The same way that as people we are autonomous from one another, yet we come together to form the one Church, the various autonomous dioceses come together in communion as the One Church.

Other bishops have oversight only in the sense that they should prevent another Church from teaching false doctrine. That includes making sure the right man is chosen to be bishop, or deposing such bishop if need be. But this is done by council. And other bishops shouldn’t have any kind of power or authority to meddle into the affairs of another Church, the same way people shouldn’t meddle too much in the affairs of other people.

We should see the Church for what it is, a living body, the same way we all are living bodies. The problem today is we see the Church as nothing more than an institution.