I would like to know more of these “trivialities.” Maybe my reasons for rejecting Rome are in the same category. I have to say, though, that I can’t think of any reasons off the top of my head strong enough for me to leave my church should it decide to join with the Orthodox.
And to be fair, I think that’s probably true of a lot of Anglicans. But by the same token, I’d push Anglicans harder on the Orthodox question–that is to say, traditional Anglo-Catholics seem to me to have absolutely no reason not to seek union with the Orthodox, and indeed a moral imperative to do so.
Many of the reasons given by Arakaki are also reasons I have long hesitated to seek union with Rome, and have given serious thought to Orthodoxy. But in the end I don’t think they are strong enough. Probably this shouldn’t turn into another Catholic-Orthodox debate thread, but this is an important issue for me, so I’ll go ahead and let the moderators rap us on the knuckles if we get off topic:
- There is no evidence of the Bishop of Rome as the supreme head and infallible magisterium in the early Church.
Loaded language. I think the fundamental question is whether Petrine primacy (i.e., the primacy of one member of the apostolic “college”) is of divine institution (I think it clearly is), and whether this has been passed down through the bishops of Rome (I think historically it clearly has). In other words, I can’t accept the standard Orthodox position that Roman primacy is purely a matter of ecclesiastical tradition. There are Orthodox, like the late Olivier Clement, who hold views of Roman primacy with which I agree. And that’s why if I were Orthodox I don’t think I’d leave–I’d just be one of those evil ecumenical Orthodox about whom the traditionalist Orthodox are always complaining. But for me as a Western Christian to choose Orthodoxy over Catholicism, I’d need to be convinced that Roman primacy is in no sense of divine institution. And I am convinced of the opposite. In light of that, the problems I have with the way Roman primacy has developed are relatively minor. Infallibility is a difficult one, but ironically I’ve been helped by the Orthodox theologian George Florovsky’s article on the authority of Councils (which also refutes the standard Catholic objection that Orthodox don’t have a good way to tell which Councils are authoritative). Florovsky sees the Councils as “charismatic events” through which the Spirit works, rather than juridical bodies which are guaranteed to reach the right result because they are constituted in a particular way or follow a particular process. I think it’s possible to take this approach and apply it to Catholic ecclesiology. The same is true for the oft-repeated (and in my judgment entirely correct) Orthodox claim that dogma is essentially apophatic. Put those two things together, and Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility becomes an apophatic statement that rules out juridical conciliarism (the medieval Western position the RC’s typically attribute to the Orthodox and then proceed to refute) and leaves room for the charismatic office of the Papacy to function under the guidance of the Spirit.
- The Papacy’s autonomy from the ancient Pentarchy violates early Christian unity.
I find that an odd way of putting it. The Pentarchy is clearly an ecclesiastical tradition of relatively late vintage. I am always baffled by the importance some Orthodox seem to put on it. Roman primacy has considerably stronger credentials, I think. On the other hand, there’s certainly a problem historically of Rome being seen as having authority on its own rather than in the context of the communion of bishops and of the Church as a whole. (That’s the most basic problem I have with Vatican I, though as I said above I think Vat I can be interpreted differently.) If that’s the objection then I agree that it’s a strong one–but clearly folks within the Roman Communion, including recent Popes, see it as a problem and are interested in rethinking the doctrine of the Papacy in a way more consistent with early Christian ecclesiology.
- the Papacy’s unilateral insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed runs contrary to the conciliarity intrinsic to the seven Ecumenical Councils.
This has been a huge problem for me as well. (Of course, as Anglicans that’s an odd objection for us to make, since nearly all Anglicans say the Filioque.) I agree entirely that it shouldn’t have been done, and that ideally it should come out. At the same time, I’m not convinced that the Filioque is heretical when understood within the Latin tradition (granted, that wasn’t Arakaki’s argument), and I don’t think “conciliarity” is simply a matter of following certain procedures.
God Bless.