Metropolitan Kallistos on Orthodox - Catholic Union

[Rawb]

That seems like quite a negative way to characterize three great churchmen of our day. If you want to be fair then really any high ranking bishop (orthodox or catholic) can just as easily be characterized as a politician.

I characterize them as such because of their attitude towards compromise and their history of, in my experience, disregarding those facts which provide an obstruction to their intended goals instead of dealing with the facts and providing a more solid foundation for their ultimate goal.

For example, His Eminence Metropolitan Ware, in his essay Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ explores the question of Women’s Ordination. He insists that the matter is not closed, and while denying that he is necessarily in favor of it he demands that the question be given further exploration. While a relatively strong argument can be made from his essay that he says this in order to specifically disregard the necessity of borrowing Western arguments against Women’s Ordination (mainly because some of them do not work in an Eastern context) he goes through three necessary debates to establish where we currently stand on the issue. The first debate speaks about the argument against WO from Tradition, and although it seems very clear that that argument alone provides the rational for acknowledging that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy he still insists the question is open.

His Eminence is under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who forbade His Eminence to concelebrate at a certain Russian Orthodox meeting. At first blush the most obvious reason would appear to be because everyone knows the Russians are critical of His All-Holiness’s actions as regards Orthodox-Catholic Union and His All-Holiness doesn’t want those under his authority to get too chummy with the Russians.

In the first example His Eminence disregards the obvious authority from Tradition in order to pursue what he wants to pursue. IMO He’s gotten to be too much of an academic and the adage “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” is holding true. In the second example His All-Holiness is disregarding the opinion of the Russians because they would interfere with what he wants to do.

Politicians.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know much about Bishop Ware beyond having read his introductory book on the EO church, but reading all of Rawb’s exposition makes me really wonder why all of that is necessary. Whatever happened to “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; anything else is from the devil”? It’s one of my favorite Bible verses, actually (if it is right to have favorites in this way). I try to live it, including not pretending that questions that are closed are actually open (or vice-versa), or that we can officially dialogue ourselves into union. I share many of Rawb’s concerns, though I might express them a bit differently. I don’t see the danger so much in having to go to an N.O. mass (though having gone to hundreds of them, I do think that they are generally more awful and debasing than anything), as I doubt Rome would require such a thing. I think that the danger lies in a kind of theological and practical leveling inherent in the ecumenical movement. I don’t know if that makes me anti-dialogue or what, but I know that I don’t see many things as inherently reconcilable even when presented with evidence that they have been seen as so by Orthodox in the past (or in the present). I think that there is honestly a certain amount of politicking involved (which is not always 100% bad, depending) say, for instance, in some of the ways that the OO have accommodated the EO in the inter-Orthodox dialogues. In that example, it’s not the worst thing imaginable as it’s what makes dialogue possible, but it has several disturbing implications vis-a-vis the consistency of OO positions with their own history (i.e., the Tome of Leo is ripped up defiantly and many OO are horribly repressed and slaughtered and now we say “golly gee, what a big misunderstanding we’ve had for the past 1500 years”?! Well then why are the OO expected to hold fast to its Christology and other traditions again?).

 

[hazcompat]

1 Corinthians 19 but I shall be coming to you soon, the Lord willing, and then I shall find out not what these self-important people say, but what power they have.

20 For the kingdom of God consists not in spoken words but in power.

Come Holy Spirit.

I have been educated and edified by everyones words on this matter in many posts. They will be part of the absolution.

Indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus is the answer.

Peace and joy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rawb,

Here’s a perfect example of why I find your approach to dialogue not off-putting in the least. You are actually willing and able to engage in specifics instead of empty generalizations and give reasons for your position that can be a basis for discussion.

In lieu of that, I’d like to discuss some portions of your statement.

For example, His Eminence Metropolitan Ware, in his essay Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ explores the question of Women’s Ordination. He insists that the matter is not closed, and while denying that he is necessarily in favor of it he demands that the question be given further exploration. **While a relatively strong argument can be made from his essay that he says this in order to specifically disregard the necessity of borrowing Western arguments against Women’s Ordination **(mainly because some of them do not work in an Eastern context)

Can you explain what you mean by “Western arguments.” The only justification that I have read about on the matter from official Vatican sources is the witness of Sacred Tradition, which the Church has no authority to contradict. Are you saying that the Eastern position on women’s ordination is different from this? If so, in what way?

His Eminence is under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who forbade His Eminence to concelebrate at a certain Russian Orthodox meeting. At first blush the most obvious reason would appear to be because everyone knows the Russians are critical of His All-Holiness’s actions as regards Orthodox-Catholic Union and His All-Holiness doesn’t want those under his authority to get too chummy with the Russians.

In the first example His Eminence disregards the obvious authority from Tradition in order to pursue what he wants to pursue. IMO He’s gotten to be too much of an academic and the adage “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” is holding true. In the second example His All-Holiness is disregarding the opinion of the Russians because they would interfere with what he wants to do.

Aren’t the Russians in the same boat? Aren’t the Russians even more guilty of this “politicking” because of its pretensions of being the “Third Rome”? Isn’t ecclesiological politicking one of the general problems of praxis (if not theory) that Eastern Orthodoxy admits about itself, for which the proposed Pan-orthodox Council will be called?

There are a some former EO here in CAF who have cited this as one of the reasons they left EO’xy and become Catholic (they became Latin, though). To them, the praxis has become sufficiently disturbing that it reflects on a percieved deficiency in EO ecclesiological doctrine. I guess it is the same with the praxis regarding the Liturgy for those who want to leave Latin Catholicism. The praxis becomes sufficiently disturbing to reflect a perceived deficiency in Latin Catholic doctrine on the Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

Can you explain what you mean by “Western arguments.” The only justification that I have read about on the matter from official Vatican sources is the witness of Sacred Tradition, which the Church has no authority to contradict. Are you saying that the Eastern position on women’s ordination is different from this? If so, in what way?

You may enjoy the work yourself if you can find it. It’s a pretty short read, but of course I don’t know the status of your current reading list.

His primary point is that the teachings of the East should be examined within an Eastern context without an automatic acceptance of the Western arguments developed in the Western context. He feels too often that the Orthodox are relying on Western arguments because the issue of women’s ordination comes to us from the West and has not been really an Orthodox issue.

His exploration of the arguments from Tradition amount, in my estimation, to an almost exact parallel of the argument from Sacred Tradition that I had been taught as a Latin Catholic, so I don’t know why he’s so concerned. The end result of that argument appears to be a very strong condemnation of the notion that women can be priests.

His point about the different approach, however, of the nature of the priest IN the Liturgy does make sense. The Western notion of in persona Christi is not so much an Orthodox idea, where it is taught that the priest lends his hands and tongue to Christ. His Eminence correctly states that the idea of Icon of Christ (not an Icon, but the concept of Icon) doesn’t require a male and that a woman is just as capable of lending only a tongue and pair of hands as a man. (I’m being very brief and am not as eloquent as His Eminence)

Ultimately however his arguments about the difference between the Western “in persona Christi” and the Orthodox idea of “Icon of Christ” amount, in my opinion, to intellectual masturbation (excuse the earthy phrase) because he’s already clearly articulated the teaching of The Church through Tradition that women cannot be priests.

However he wants to pursue the issue, so he ignores the obvious wall presented by Tradition and continues on, ignoring contrary evidence and wrapping everything in doublespeak to make it appear that another way is an option. That is the attitude I meant to encapsulate in the accusation of being a “politician”

The man I will admit is brilliant, and I could listen to him talk for a year and a day, but I believe he’s been spending too much time in academia and letting his hypotheticals and academic questions carry him into unOrthodox areas, which makes me nervous about his participation as a key representative of Holy Orthodoxy in discussions of unity.

Aren’t the Russians in the same boat? Aren’t the Russians even more guilty of this “politicking” because of its pretensions of being the “Third Rome”? Isn’t ecclesiological politicking one of the general problems of praxis (if not theory) that Eastern Orthodoxy admits about itself, for which the proposed Pan-orthodox Council will be called?

Yes, I’ll be the first to admit that the inter-church politics (and I should make it clear that here I don’t mean the doublespeak and intellectual rationalizations that I meant before when I said “politics” but I mean just the diplomatic necessities of dealing with each other) are an inherent issue in our ecclesiology, but I’ll also be the first to admit that I’d rather have the politics than have someone other than Christ be able to deliver the final authoritative say.

I think Roman Catholics are more concerned about other cities utilizing the title “Rome” than we are. We mean different things by it, and in this case it doesn’t mean “having the same honor due to the Pope of Rome”, it means more “being the spiritual center, by virtue of having the most adherents”. Russia can throw her weight around a bit because she has the most members, just as once Constantinople did and once Rome could do.

If you think about it, viewing it the other way would mean that at some point we all thought Constantinople was usurping Rome’s honor, because we did all agree that she was “New Rome”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rawb,

Thank you so much for your responses, and helping me understand what Met. Kallistos meant.

I hope you don’t mind if I pursue some other points for discussion.

The man I will admit is brilliant, and I could listen to him talk for a year and a day, but I believe he’s been spending too much time in academia and letting his hypotheticals and academic questions carry him into unOrthodox areas, which makes me nervous about his participation as a key representative of Holy Orthodoxy in discussions of unity.

I can understand your caution, and you have given good reasons for it. But can one necessarily dismiss his High Petrine understanding, when so many others of your hierarchs share the same POV (e.g., the Ravenna colloquy, the North American consultations, other past common statements on ecclesiology). It seems there are two competing theories here. The High Petrine view that seems to be common among the hierarchy aligned with the EP, and the Low Petrine view that seems to be common among the hierarchy aligned with the MP.

Please assess the following statement: It seems the MP is engaged in a bit of politicking. The MP orbit supports the Low Petrine view to prevent any acknowledgement of the papacy that the High Petrine view is willing to admit. But it is simply a political maneuver to gain for himself the honors and prerogatives that the High Petrine ideal would grant its protos for the Church unviersal.

Yes, I’ll be the first to admit that the inter-church politics (and I should make it clear that here I don’t mean the doublespeak and intellectual rationalizations that I meant before when I said “politics” but I mean just the diplomatic necessities of dealing with each other) are an inherent issue in our ecclesiology, but I’ll also be the first to admit that I’d rather have the politics than have someone other than Christ be able to deliver the final authoritative say.

I’ve come across many Protestants who use that argument. When I was not yet Catholic, it was their usual rhetoric against the hierarchical structure of the Apostolic Churches. At some point, for me personally - and probably other Orthodox who eventually join the Catholic communion - it was a matter of conscientious consistency to realize that one cannot oppose that Protestant argument, while simultaneously supporting it against the Papacy.

I’m not sure if you have debated with Protestants over the matter, and the following question assumes you have (if you have not, just say so, and you don’t have to answer the question): It it is not too personal a question, how do you personally rationalize supporting the use of that argument against the Papacy, while simultaneously opposing that same argument when defending the apostolic hierarchy against the Protestants?

I think Roman Catholics are more concerned about other cities utilizing the title “Rome” than we are. We mean different things by it, and in this case it doesn’t mean “having the same honor due to the Pope of Rome”, it means more “being the spiritual center, by virtue of having the most adherents”. Russia can throw her weight around a bit because she has the most members, just as once Constantinople did and once Rome could do.

I think the concern comes for two reasons:
(1) It attempts to usurp the Primacy of Rome.
(2) It attempts to base Primacy on an unpatristic concept - the number of adherents. The only accepted reason for Primacy on a patriarchal level in the early Chruch was apostolic establishment. Even the East admitted this in its Trullan canons. Prior to Trullo, Constantinople attempted to claim its relative primacy due to geo-political reasons, which Rome refused to acknoweldge (because apostolic establishment was the only acceptable reason, according to the Fathers prior to Chalcedon). But at Trullo, the East finally removed all mention of Constantinople’s political status as the basis for its primacy - instead basing it on apostolic establishment by St. Andrew - which paved the way for Rome’s eventual acceptance of Constantinople’s claims to have the second place in the order of Apostolic Sees.

If you think about it, viewing it the other way would mean that at some point we all thought Constantinople was usurping Rome’s honor, because we did all agree that she was “New Rome”.

Even when she was “New Rome” the only thing granted to her in equality with Rome were her political prerogatives. Even after the “New Rome” was established, the ecclesiastical primacy always belonged to “Old Rome” because she was the cathedra of the two greatest Apostles.

I look forward to your comments - and any other EO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[milidrag]

…
The man I will admit is brilliant, and I could listen to him talk for a year and a day, but I believe he’s been spending too much time in academia and letting his hypotheticals and academic questions carry him into unOrthodox areas, which makes me nervous about his participation as a key representative of Holy Orthodoxy in discussions of unity.

…

This is an interesting perception.

If possible, please elaborate what makes you think he is ‘a key’ representative. Personally, I don’t share that perception, but I might be wrong…

 

[Rawb]

This is an interesting perception.

If possible, please elaborate what makes you think he is ‘a key’ representative. Personally, I don’t share that perception, but I might be wrong…

I just say that because he is generally one of the key speakers at these gatherings. He’s relatively well known in the West, and a lot of the time when a Westerner wants information on an Orthodox issue, Metropolitan Kallistos is the first one they turn to. S’all I meant.

 

[Rawb]

I can understand your caution, and you have given good reasons for it. But can one necessarily dismiss his High Petrine understanding, when so many others of your hierarchs share the same POV (e.g., the Ravenna colloquy, the North American consultations, other past common statements on ecclesiology).

You would be mistaken if you think I “dismiss” the “High Petrine” view (provided I remember what you mean by that, and I think I do).

It seems there are two competing theories here. The High Petrine view that seems to be common among the hierarchy aligned with the EP, and the Low Petrine view that seems to be common among the hierarchy aligned with the MP.

It may be that way. Personally, however, on other issues I tend to side with the Moscow Patriarchate. The OCA is very close still to her Russian mother (perhaps why His All-Holiness is against the establishment of the OCA’s autocephaly), so I am firmly biased with the side of the MP.

When I think about it, I’m somewhere in the middle between the EP and the MP. I believe Rome should have an honor that is backed by an authority of love (no ‘legal’ demands that others listen to him, but they often do out of respect, and no demands that they must obey) but at the same time I in no way trust Rome to act in such a manner, and Rome has violated the necessary trust of such a relationship for so long that, were we to join together again Rome may have to accept a lesser position until that trust has formed again.

Please assess the following statement: It seems the MP is engaged in a bit of politicking. The MP orbit supports the Low Petrine view to prevent any acknowledgement of the papacy that the High Petrine view is willing to admit. But it is simply a political maneuver to gain for himself the honors and prerogatives that the High Petrine ideal would grant its protos for the Church unviersal.

I can see it seeming like a valid assessment of the situation, but personally I don’t believe it. I think the MP really sees very many issues with Roman church and speaks quite bluntly about them. At the same time I think distinctions must be made, I don’t think the categories you’ve set up of “Absolutist, High, and Low” are necessarily the best boundaries for all situations. For example, here in America our local church IS more likely to look to Russia for guidance because we came from Russia. The correct channel of “asking for help” would seem to be our Metropolitan → the Moscow Patriarch → The Pope of Rome (if we were united). In that sense perhaps it’s a “low petrine” view, but the Moscow Patriarch would probably at this point ask help from Rome directly. If we became a Patriarchate, then perhaps we would turn directly to Rome. At the same time ALL of this stems FIRST from our asking assistance from Rome, he should have no authority to interfere with our church without our request, and we would still be under no obligation to accept his advice (though we probably would because we respect him).

From that perspective can you not see that turning to the Roman Pope, were we to be united, would be a very bad idea in the first couple decades (at least) of being united? You don’t put a convert in charge of the whole church. Not that His Holiness would be converting per-se, but he would be having to operate in a new paradigm that it would take him a while to get used to, and until he was comfortable with that he would need to grow into his new position.

I’m not sure if you have debated with Protestants over the matter, and the following question assumes you have (if you have not, just say so, and you don’t have to answer the question): It it is not too personal a question, how do you personally rationalize supporting the use of that argument against the Papacy, while simultaneously opposing that same argument when defending the apostolic hierarchy against the Protestants?

The difference lies in my belief about the ecclesiology of the Early Church. I didn’t mean (and I did say it badly - another reason why I am debating leaving is that I have to say so often “what I mean by that is…”. I don’t express myself well) is that I don’t like the idea that someone other than the local bishop or a synod or ecumenical council has final say. I am fine with that because I believe the Early Church was set up that way. I don’t find, in the Early Church, the idea that Rome has spoken so we MUST obey. I find that many did (and rightly so IMO) but they didn’t HAVE to.

I think the concern comes for two reasons:
(1) It attempts to usurp the Primacy of Rome.

The way I’ve always heard it, is not about “primacy” but about the center of Orthodox spirituality. Who’s going to be sending out missionaries? Who’s going to be establishing monasteries? Who’s going to keep Orthodox alive? Not in the sense that the “New Rome” is suddenly first in honor, but that it is taking on these burdens.

Rome (so long as she is Orthodox) does not ever lose her primacy (well, unless an Ecumenical Council re-ranks the Patriarchates). It’s not primacy in that sense. It’s just the difference between who’s being responsible for the spread and maintenance of Orthodoxy. Where is the ‘real’ center of Orthodoxy. It *is *a geo-political title, absent of the backing that you are (rightly) worried about - it doesn’t come with the Primacy of Honor that is due to the highest ranked Patriarch by virtue of the Councils.

 

[milidrag]

…The only accepted reason for Primacy on a patriarchal level in the early Chruch was apostolic establishment. Even the East admitted this in its Trullan canons. …

Quite interesting. Could you provide a more specific reference? Which canon was it?

 

[milidrag]

I think the concern comes for two reasons:
(1) It attempts to usurp the Primacy of Rome.

The Orthodox believe there is nothing related to ‘usurpation’ there.

 

[Cavaradossi]

On the issue of how it seems that there is a divide between the more ecumenically minded EP aligned churches and the more cautious MP aligned churches, we have to remind ourselves that while there is much optimism on the side of those aligned with the EP, everybody is still aware of the sobering reality that the Catholics and Orthodox are still far from making any sort of real agreement. While the MP and other like minded churches are perhaps a bit extreme in their efforts to avoid dialogue, they, along with other conservative elements in Orthodoxy (like the monks of Mount Athos), are only acting out of their concern to protect the faith.

While outsiders (and even some Orthodox) may look at the intriguing inter-church relationships with a certain amount of horror, they serve a vital role in preserving the Tradition because for each voice of change there are many who will speak out in opposition. It leads to a self-examination of what parts of the Tradition are uncompromisable and what parts of the Tradition are perhaps just matters of opinion. It is a system which we have kept for centuries and it has worked very well for keeping the deposit of the faith safe. With the modern ecumenism movement, Orthodoxy is still making her mind up, one might say, as to how she should participate—if at all—and what exactly should be the exact terms for a severed church to return into communion with Orthodoxy. We should be thankful for the fact that such dissent is possible in Orthodoxy because it prevents the Eastern Orthodox Church from becoming hijacked by one person. If we are to enter into union with Rome (or any other Church), it will have to be with one mind, and even the EP is aware of this. If tomorrow the Ecumenical Patriarch were to announce that we were entering into union with Rome with terms that were unacceptable to the majority of Orthodoxy, he would probably find himself deposed; there is simply no way for him to bypass the conciliar nature of the Church, and for that (as much as it may frustrate those who do not understand the importance of conciliarity) we should be immensely grateful. There will be no false union with Rome; the very nature of Orthodoxy should ensure that.

 

[Rawb]

Beautifully and truthfully said, Cavaradossi

 

[Bluegoat]

Ultimately however his arguments about the difference between the Western “in persona Christi” and the Orthodox idea of “Icon of Christ” amount, in my opinion, to intellectual masturbation (excuse the earthy phrase) because he’s already clearly articulated the teaching of The Church through Tradition that women cannot be priests.

However he wants to pursue the issue, so he ignores the obvious wall presented by Tradition and continues on, ignoring contrary evidence and wrapping everything in doublespeak to make it appear that another way is an option. That is the attitude I meant to encapsulate in the accusation of being a “politician”

I don’t want to be really offensive here, but these kinds of claims are the kind of thing that gives me doubts about modern Eastern Orthodoxy. The idea that the Fathers of the Church and the saints of the Early Church did not expound on the theology of issues even when the position of Tradition was pretty well entrenched is absurd. You can’t read the early Christian writers, including the Eastern ones, and think this.

Women’s ordination is a question that has been raised for many. It doesn’t even really matter why - it is something people are asking about, and so requires a response to help people understand the Tradition. This is what the Church has always done.

Especially when there is the Eastern claim that the work of theologians was not to develop new doctrine, but only elucidate what Tradition taught in the face of challenges or heresies, this seems bizarre. If the East doesn’t need to think theologically when Tradition gives the answer, how can it be that theological thinking is only an elucidation of what is already recognized as Tradition? Under those circumstances, there would never be a need for theology - and yet I think it is clear that is not the case.

When I hear EO people saying that this kind of thinking did not go on, or the similar argument that the OC thinking is always mystical rather than philosophical in character, I begin to think they have fallen prey to a kind of modern Orthodox fundamentalism that has created some rather strange mythologies. I am just confused about how one can actually read theology of the early Church and believe the mythology.

 

[mardukm]

Quite interesting. Could you provide a more specific reference? Which canon was it?

Canon 36:

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[milidrag]

Canon 36:

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.
…

That’s what I initially thought - nothing there about the reasons that you assigned in your interpretation. Is it completely your own makeup, or there are some other RCs who actually brought that argument elsewhere?

 

[mardukm]

That’s what I initially thought - nothing there about the reasons that you assigned in your interpretation. Is it completely your own makeup, or there are some other RCs who actually brought that argument elsewhere?

I’m not aware of what RC’s claim on the matter. All I know is that this canon is different from the analogous prior canons from Constantinople and Chalcedon in that the Trullan canon does not include the geopolitical justifications that the prior canons did. That and the fact that there is no trace of Constantinople being called an “apostolic see” until the 7th century (same as the Trullan Synod). Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[milidrag]

… Coincidence? I don’t think so.

LOL