Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Cavaradossi]

So reading from Vico’s post, the Latin understanding of the title “Vicar of Christ” dated back to the eighth century, which was pre-schism, no?

So is this an example of an ontological difference between East and West, and yet they still got along anyway?

The East and Rome often had strained relations during the first millennium as well. They possibly weren’t even aware that the title was being used.

 

[dzheremi]

This is a good point, I think. It is important to consider how difficult communicating in general was in earlier times, such that famous Coptic historian Aziz S. Atiya can relate the following story from as late as 1860 regarding the Western “discovery” of the Copts:

Though they were not unknown to medieval and early modern travelers from Europe, Western Christendom appears to have lost sight of the Copts until 1860 when a Presbyterian mission came to convert them to Christianity, and the Coptic archbishop of Asiut asked them the rhetorical question: “We have been living with Christ for more than 1800 years, how long have you been living with him?”

If such a thing could happen in 1860, imagine how much harder it would’ve been to effectively communicate over a thousand years earlier!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, because that’s not what I pointed out. I wrote “you cannot really say ‘sure, we think differently, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily heterodox’, if, yes, your doctrine is heterodox.” The key here is the if, which is not an element that would be there if I were just assuming that Rome is heterodox just because it’s Rome.

Oh, I know you’re not assuming that. I know you’ve had a lot of experience with multiple churches and have done your homework. I was referring to the “ontological difference” claim, as used in discussions such as this one.

I’m not hoping to accomplish anything. I’m attempting to expound upon an idea that I think, if carefully considered, can help Catholics better understand where the Eastern Orthodox are coming from.

Okay, I see. I do think you’re doing a good job of that.

Mardukm is wrong. There is a reason why the Coptic Catholic Church is tiny. 90+% of Copts do not accept such things as Mardukm must accept to be in union with Rome. It is fitting to remember that even the first errant bishop to lead the Coptic Catholics, Anba Athanasius of Jerusalem, eventually thought better of his move and went back to Orthodoxy.

Well, I’ve never been an Oriental Christian - neither by upbringing (as he is), nor by conversion (as you are). So I have no personal experience to judge by.

All I can do is look at claims’ specificity and logic.

Within the context from which you extracted it, it is a sensible and immediate illustration of our differences on an everyday level. If Roman Catholics (and not just “scrupulous” ones, but theologians and others, too) preoccupy themselves with questions that the East doesn’t even think to ask, what does that tell you? They have very different mindsets. That’s all.

No, the ones who respond in the manner I described say pretty much what *you *just said. That they say, “This question doesn’t matter” doesn’t make them “preoccupied” with the affair any more than you are for saying the exact same thing.

This remark is raised over and over again. What does it mean? As CopticChristian noted, whatever it means cannot be deduced from the EP’s speech: the EP merely makes the claim, then discusses Orthodoxy; there is no explicit contrast to Catholicism.

Requests for clarifications, get stubborn insistence, with ostensible support by resorts to limited personal experience. But never an explanation.

Well said.

I think dzheremi has done a better job than most at attempting to provide substantive explanation when pressed. But the exact meaning of the EP’s claim remains suspiciously nebulous.

If a person were to cautiously limit their remarks to their own experiences, fine. But to make such a claim as though it a general truth is wrong and falsified by other experience - as noted time and time again on such threads.

Exactly.

This doesn’t seem to faze them, though.

Reference to the EP’s remark is often made by those who wish to assert some great divide between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. That point might be made in a number of ways, some of which might even be true. But this remark is typically cast aloft as its meaning and implications were self evident and beyond subject to being proved. We never get - no matter how often we asked any cogent discussion on substance, meaning, validity, or proof.

That is my impression as well.

I would say it is an East / West issue, because Eastern Catholics would - more often than not - agree with Eastern Orthodox on matters of theology, spirituality, liturgy, discipline, and ecclesiology. So it is not really a Roman Catholic versus Eastern Orthodox issue.

Well said.

IMO the comments of the Ecumenical Patriarch referred to in this thread, in general, are either largely misunderstood or repeatedly misinterpreted. The EP repeated these sentiments in other venues, including in a speech delivered at the Orientale Lumen conference in Istanbul. His comment on ontological differences was intellectually honest - the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are organized and governed in different manners. This comment was offered by a faithful servant of God as an honest observation and assessment, yet some have interpreted it to be an indictment on ecumenical dialogue.

In Internet discussions, eastern Orthodox Christians often use it as “an indictment on ecumenical dialogue.” It is principally this use of the quotation that leads to western Catholics’ misunderstanding it.

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense - we are different in the manner you say:

The “ontological differences” referenced here are indeed real and largely ecclesiastical, relating to matters of governance. The Catholic Church has become a highly evolved centralized government, whereas the Orthodox Church has become a moderately evolved decentralized government. Rarely are the pros and cons of each fairly discussed and portrayed, and rarely would anyone in the debate recognize that both models have merit and have contributed in their own way to the preservation and propogation of Christ’s Church and its faithful.

Exactly. If this is what “ontological difference” means, then I understand. Also, if this is what it means, then the way Orthodox apologists online often toss the quote around is indefensible.

If communion were restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, ecclesiastical organization would no doubt have come to resemble something at least mildly dissimilar to both communions’ current manner of functioning.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If communion were restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, ecclesiastical organization would no doubt have come to resemble something at least mildly dissimilar to both communions’ current manner of functioning.

Agreed! I think it is clear that the Holy Father remains very open-minded in this regard. We can hope and pray that some of the great minds and spirits behind the current, long-running Orthodox/Catholic dialogue can, with grace and wisdom, develop a model that would be acceptable to all.

At least one such group has already made an attempt: SCOBA - Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future

Christ is risen!

 

[dzheremi]

No, the ones who respond in the manner I described say pretty much what *you *just said. That they say, “This question doesn’t matter” doesn’t make them “preoccupied” with the affair any more than you are for saying the exact same thing.

I think this is being misunderstood. Again, the point isn’t to pick on “scrupulous” Catholics (as though there are no similarly preoccupied Orthodox), but to show how the differences in mindset, way of life, and belief often naturally lead to such situations, e.g., Roman Catholic belief in St. Mary’s immaculate conception. Now, it would be hard to see how you could connect this belief to “scrupulousness” (or, as an RC, say that this doesn’t matter), but you can quite easily connect it to RC understanding of “original sin”, which is not a concept that is understood or accepted in the East as it is in the West. So we can see from this example how the West begins with a belief that the East does not entertain (Original Sin), which pushes them farther from the East as more doctrines are accepted in relation to the original not-accepted belief. This is more what I mean: Due to differences in belief and philosophical approach to the Christian religion, the West entertains questions that the East would not even think of.

So it’s not really a matter of scrupulosity, but the actual philosophical/doctrinal underpinnings of our faiths – why we believe as we do (or not), and how we put those beliefs into practice in living our Christianity (what we do). As with the previous example regarding the “vicar” language, what we believe and how we live it has real consequences and a real impact on how we relate to another.

 

[Apotheoun]

I think this is being misunderstood. Again, the point isn’t to pick on “scrupulous” Catholics (as though there are no similarly preoccupied Orthodox), but to show how the differences in mindset, way of life, and belief often naturally lead to such situations, e.g., Roman Catholic belief in St. Mary’s immaculate conception. Now, it would be hard to see how you could connect this belief to “scrupulousness” (or, as an RC, say that this doesn’t matter), but you can quite easily connect it to RC understanding of “original sin”, which is not a concept that is understood or accepted in the East as it is in the West. So we can see from this example how the West begins with a belief that the East does not entertain (Original Sin), which pushes them farther from the East as more doctrines are accepted in relation to the original not-accepted belief. This is more what I mean: Due to differences in belief and philosophical approach to the Christian religion, the West entertains questions that the East would not even think of.

So it’s not really a matter of scrupulosity, but the actual philosophical/doctrinal underpinnings of our faiths – why we believe as we do (or not), and how we put those beliefs into practice in living our Christianity (what we do). As with the previous example regarding the “vicar” language, what we believe and how we live it has real consequences and a real impact on how we relate to another.

Well said!

To expand on your example: The Western view of “original sin” gives rise to the theory of the “immaculate conception” as a way of protecting the Virgin Theotokos from a perceived personal contamination, and as a consequence of this theory Western theologians eventually embraced and affirmed the idea that the Theotokos was impeccable (i.e., unable to sin). All of this is of course quite foreign to the Eastern Christian tradition.

 

[Apotheoun]

I’ll grant that the emphasis and the underlining theological constructions differ between the East and the West…but is the idea that the bishop is an icon of Christ really fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bishop is a vicar of Christ?

An “icon” must have a likeness to its prototype, while a “vicar” does not need to possess this quality.

Moreover, the words “icon” and “vicar” are not synonyms. An “icon” participates in the reality of its prototype, while a “vicar” does not participate in the reality of the person he is substituting for in the same way. To put it simply: Icons are not substitutes for a person who is in fact absent.

 

[Apotheoun]

So reading from Vico’s post, the Latin understanding of the title “Vicar of Christ” dated back to the eighth century, which was pre-schism, no?

So is this an example of an ontological difference between East and West, and yet they still got along anyway?

It is quite likely that the East knew nothing about the 8th century Western innovation of calling the pope the “vicar” of Christ. In ancient and medieval times it often took several hundred years for information to pass between East and West.

 

[twf]

Well said!

To expand on your example: The Western view of “original sin” gives rise to the theory of the “immaculate conception” as a way of protecting the Virgin Theotokos from a perceived personal contamination, and as a consequence of this theory Western theologians eventually embraced and affirmed the idea that the Theotokos was impeccable (i.e., unable to sin). All of this is of course quite foreign to the Eastern Christian tradition.

Really? As a Latin I believe that Our Lady could have sinned but, with the aid of God’s grace, chose not to. She is the prototype of the Church and of all saints - she is not a separate species. I have never come across this teaching and do not believe that the Church teaches this. Can you back that up?

 

[twf]

An “icon” must have a likeness to its prototype, while a “vicar” does not need to possess this quality.

Moreover, the words “icon” and “vicar” are not synonyms. An “icon” participates in the reality of its prototype, while a “vicar” does not participate in the reality of the person he is substituting for in the same way. To put it simply: Icons are not substitutes for a person who is in fact absent.

Apotheoun - if you read through my two posts in this thread on the topic you’ll see that I applied your description of an icon to my understanding of the term vicar, almost word for word in a few cases. I emphasized the role of the bishop as a servant who participates in the reality and ministry of Christ, whom he represents. What evidence do you have that the Latin use of vicar corresponds to the definition you’re giving it? Latin theology is very clear that Christ gives a share of, a participation in, His own divine life and priesthood to His ministers and it is for this reason that the bishops are called vicars. It is Christ who works through and in the bishops…when the bishop says “This is my body”, it is Christ speaking, when the bishop says “I absolve you”, it is Christ speaking…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Really? As a Latin I believe that Our Lady could have sinned but, with the aid of God’s grace, chose not to. She is the prototype of the Church and of all saints - she is not a separate species. I have never come across this teaching and do not believe that the Church teaches this. Can you back that up?

Exactly.

…as a consequence of this theory Western theologians eventually embraced and affirmed the idea that the Theotokos was impeccable (i.e., unable to sin).

As twf said, I do not believe Catholic teaching - or western theology - considers the Theotokos unable to have sinned.

 

[Celticnovice]

This is a good point, I think. It is important to consider how difficult communicating in general was in earlier times, such that famous Coptic historian Aziz S. Atiya can relate the following story from as late as 1860 regarding the Western “discovery” of the Copts:

If such a thing could happen in 1860, imagine how much harder it would’ve been to effectively communicate over a thousand years earlier!

The East knew about the filioque though…Scholars (including Bishop Kallistos Ware) also tell us that the east/west schism took place at a later date than 1054. So that means both sides remained in union even longer despite this difference.

Also, there were Latin diaspora communities in the East and Byzantine diaspora communities in the west during the middle ages.

This is the only point I’m trying to make…some ontological differences are not barriers to unity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is the only point I’m trying to make…some ontological differences are not barriers to unity.

I agree.

 

[Apotheoun]

As twf said, I do not believe Catholic teaching - or western theology - considers the Theotokos unable to have sinned.

I have a collection of texts from Catholic theologians going back to the 19th century who affirm that Mary, because of her divine motherhood and immaculate conception, possessed moral impeccability, but not metaphysical impeccability, and they hold this to be the common teaching of the Western Church at least since the time of the Scholastics.

Here are a couple of texts from Catholic theologians - the first from the late 20th century and the second from the late 19th and early 20th century - worth reading on the subject:

"Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of His human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because He was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.

Concretely this quality may be identified with perseverance in grace as regards grave sin, and confirmation in grace for lesser sins. In either case, however, her incapacity for sin differed radically from that of Christ. Where His was based on the fact that He is a divine person, hers was an added prerogative. It was absolutely necessary that He could not sin, since God is sinless. It was a free gift of God’s mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor."

Fr. John Hardon
The Catholic Catechism
(New York: Doubleday, 1981)
pages 159-160

“Impeccability maybe either metaphysical or moral. Metaphysical impeccability belongs exclusively to God, whereas moral impeccability may also be enjoyed by creatures. It is enjoyed, e.g., by the angels and saints in Heaven. God is impeccable because He is absolutely and infinitely holy; Christ, in consequence of the Hypostatic Union; the angels and saints, by virtue of the beatific vision of the Godhead which they enjoy. How are we to conceive of the impeccability of the Blessed Virgin Mary? It is quite obvious that her impeccability must differ specifically from that proper to God and the God-man Jesus Christ. Here is not a divine attribute, nor is it conditioned by or based upon a personal union of divinity with humanity. It cannot be a result of the beatific vision, because Mary during her sojourn on earth was a wayfarer like ourselves and did not enjoy beatitude. Comparing her impeccability to that of the angels and saints and to that of our first parents in Paradise, we may define it as an intermediate state between the two. It would be asserting too much to say that the Blessed Virgin was capable of committing sin like our first parents; and too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now, in consequence of the beatific vision. In what, then, did her impeccability consist? We are probably not far from the truth when we assume that God gave her the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin. Together with her freedom from concupiscence these two graces may be regarded as the proximate cause of Mary’s impeccability. For its ultimate cause we must go back to the higher and more comprehensive prerogative of her divine motherhood. God owed it to His own dignity and holiness, so to speak, to bestow the grace of perfect perseverance and confirmation in grace upon her from whom His Divine Son was to assume human nature. This idea is aptly illustrated by ‘the woman clothed with the sun’ whom St. John visioned in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The analogy between Mary’s impeccability and that of her Divine Son would seem to render this theory all the more acceptable, though we must, of course, never forget that the impeccability of Christ is based upon the Hypostatic Union of Godhead and manhood, whereas that of His Mother rests merely upon the grace of divine motherhood.”

Fr. Joseph Pohle
Dogmatic Theology VI
Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God
(St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1916)

 

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun - if you read through my two posts in this thread on the topic you’ll see that I applied your description of an icon to my understanding of the term vicar, almost word for word in a few cases. I emphasized the role of the bishop as a servant who participates in the reality and ministry of Christ, whom he represents. What evidence do you have that the Latin use of vicar corresponds to the definition you’re giving it? Latin theology is very clear that Christ gives a share of, a participation in, His own divine life and priesthood to His ministers and it is for this reason that the bishops are called vicars. It is Christ who works through and in the bishops…when the bishop says “This is my body”, it is Christ speaking, when the bishop says “I absolve you”, it is Christ speaking…

I did read your posts, but the etymology of the word “vicar” does not support your contention. Priests and bishops as icons of Christ are not substitutes for Him, and so the use of the word “vicar” is inappropriate in connection with them. Bishops can be said to be successors and even “vicars” of the Apostles, because they (i.e., the Apostles) are not omnipresent as Christ is, and that is why the older usage of “vicar” in regard to the pope, i.e., calling him the “vicar of Peter,” is better than the more modern Western usage of that term (i.e., vicar of Christ).

 

[Apotheoun]

It is Christ who works through and in the bishops…when the bishop says “This is my body”, it is Christ speaking, when the bishop says “I absolve you”, it is Christ speaking…

Although Eastern Christians do not believe that the words of institution consecrate the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ in the way that the Western Scholastics taught, that is ultimately beside the point, because the priest or bishop in the Eastern tradition does not speak those words in place of Christ who is held to be absent (i.e., as His vicar), but as His icon signifying His ever abiding presence in the liturgical synaxis.

Finally, as far as the formula of absolution is concerned, the East does not use the same formula as the Roman Church, and so once again the priest or bishop is not acting as a vicar - i.e., as one standing in for Christ who is in fact absent - but instead acts as a witness to the penitents confession, which is made in the presence of Christ’s icon. The words used in the Byzantine Greek tradition make it very clear that Christ, and not His earthly minister, is the one who forgives the penitent. The Byzantine Slav tradition emphasizes this notion as well, but does add a latinized absolution formula that in some ways mimics the form used in the Roman Church.

 

[Apotheoun]

Really? As a Latin I believe that Our Lady could have sinned but, with the aid of God’s grace, chose not to. She is the prototype of the Church and of all saints - she is not a separate species. I have never come across this teaching and do not believe that the Church teaches this.

The idea that Mary could sin was certainly not what I believed as a Roman Catholic, and nor was it what I was taught when I studied Mariology as a part of my MA in theology at Franciscan University. Mary - according to both the Scholastics and the more recent theologians of the Roman Church - is held to possess moral impeccability, and this doctrine is founded upon her divine maternity and her immaculate conception.

Can you back that up?

I have posted two helpful quotations above, but if you would like I can post more, because I have over twenty references to Mary’s impeccability from reputable Catholic theologians from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, including one theologian who was secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Paul VI.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Although Eastern Christians do not believe that the words of institution consecrate the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ in the way that the Western Scholastics taught, that is ultimately beside the point, because the priest or bishop in the Eastern tradition does not speak those words in place of Christ who is held to be absent (i.e., as His vicar), but as His icon signifying His ever abiding presence in the liturgical synaxis.

Finally, as far as the formula of absolution is concerned, the East does not use the same formula as the Roman Church, and so once again the priest or bishop is not acting as a vicar - i.e., as one standing in for Christ who is in fact absent - but instead acts as a witness to the penitents confession, which is made in the presence of Christ’s icon. The words used in the Byzantine Greek tradition make it very clear that Christ, and not His earthly minister, is the one who forgives the penitent. The Byzantine Slav tradition emphasizes this notion as well, but does add a latinized absolution formula that in some ways mimics the form used in the Roman Church.

One Orthodox theologian I’ve read held that the term “Vicar of Christ” as applied to the Pope is not acceptable to the East on the same grounds as you sir have laid out (with your usual scholarly precision). Moreover, he said that if it could be shown that Christ is absent from His Body which is His Church, then and only then could the pope or a bishop be seen as being His “vicar.”

Alex

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Interestingly enough, I’ve read in several places recently (including in a reputable Catholic study bible) that the word “steward” would more closely and faithfully convey the intended meaning of Peter’s role, as the symbolic references used by our Lord all relate to management of a household in a manner consistent with similar biblical references and common usage of the time. Among the primary servants, it was the steward of the household who held the keys. The steward was seen as the most senior of the servants. The master of the house, of course, was always present and clearly in charge of the household, but would entrust much to his steward in the management of household affairs.

FWIW …

 

[Vico]

Although Eastern Christians do not believe that the words of institution consecrate the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ in the way that the Western Scholastics taught, that is ultimately beside the point, because the priest or bishop in the Eastern tradition does not speak those words in place of Christ who is held to be absent (i.e., as His vicar), but as His icon signifying His ever abiding presence in the liturgical synaxis.

Finally, as far as the formula of absolution is concerned, the East does not use the same formula as the Roman Church, and so once again the priest or bishop is not acting as a vicar - i.e., as one standing in for Christ who is in fact absent - but instead acts as a witness to the penitents confession, which is made in the presence of Christ’s icon. The words used in the Byzantine Greek tradition make it very clear that Christ, and not His earthly minister, is the one who forgives the penitent. The Byzantine Slav tradition emphasizes this notion as well, but does add a latinized absolution formula that in some ways mimics the form used in the Roman Church.

Given in 1912 by Orthodox Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny:As to the doctrine concerning Holy Communion the Anglican Communion has no settled view. The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ’s authority to consecrate is “transmuting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His “all-pure Body” and “precious Blood” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that “the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted” (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) “Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

And from Metropolitan Anthony (Krapovitsky): 2. First Prayer of Absolution: O Lord God of the salvation of Thy servants, gracious, bountiful and longsuffering, who repentest of our evil deeds, and desirest not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live: Show Thy mercy now upon Thy servant N., and grant unto him (her) an image of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and deliverance, pardoning his (her) every transgression, whether voluntary or involuntary. Reconcile and unite him (her) unto Thy holy Church through Jesus Christ our Lord, with Whom also are due unto Thee dominion and majesty, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

1. Second Prayer of Absolution: May our Lord and God Jesus Christ, through the grace and bounties of His love towards mankind, forgive thee, my child, N., all thy transgressions. And I, His unworthy priest, through the power given unto me by Him, do forgive and absolve thee from all thy sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0834/_PO.HTM

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolution