The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[mardukm]

Yes, we do not separate the Pope from the Church. The problem is that when the Pope speaks unilaterally, we believe he speaks for the entire Church. This will never be accepted by the Orthodox.

The underlying problem with that perspective is that the Pope never actually speaks unilaterally. A personal prerogative is not equivalent to a unilateral prerogative. It is my personal prerogative to drive, but there are moral and legal laws that demand I do not use that prerogative unilaterally, without consideration of anything else but my own say-so. Same with the Pope. It is a gross misinterpretation to think that just because dogma and canon law says the Pope has a “personal prerogative,” then this means that it is a “unilateral prerogative.” The Church does not work that way, the Church has never worked that way, the Church will never work that way. Our Lord HImself said, “where two or three are gathered, there I am in their midst,” stated in the specific context of resolving conflicts between brethren. Collegiality is part of the divine constitution of the Church that not even the Pope can contradict.

We believe that the Pope is the Church in the sense that lack of communion with him is to be outside the Church. So the dilemma remains the same.

I don’t believe that, and I’m surprised to read that coming from the pen of a professed Eastern Christian. The reason we deem unity with the Pope as essential is because of the Faith he represents. We must be united in that Faith and thus we are united to the Pope. It is not the other way around. You show me just one official Catholic source that states that the Pope does not need to adhere to and serve Sacred Tradition, and I will believe your opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps to a certain and disturbingly high level on the Catholic side, that is true, yet the current Pontiff and his predecessor of blessed memory have expressed sentiments otherwise and clearly indicated a willingness to consider the matter with open minds and hearts. I admittedly wonder from time to time whether or not that will carry over into the next Papacy, and could not honestly discount that concern.

We’ve all heard versions of what you are saying. To paraphrase, the standing presumption with respect to the lay Catholic view is that the Orthodox simply agree to submit to the Pope and all will be just as well, with no difference to them (other than perhaps there being more “Eastern Catholic Churches”). The standing presumption of the lay Orthodox view is that the Pope will become Patriarch of Rome and primus inter pares, and all will be just fine as long as the Churches can be equal yet separate, with no difference to them.

Yet, both presumptions completely disregard the true meaning of Communion. I do think based on all that we can see from the publicly disclosed work of the Joint Commission that Church leaders on both sides clearly recognize this.

You might be right, I’ve not read anything definitive from either of the last two Popes on how they see unity (I haven’t really looked either though), the only thing I’ve really seen from the hierarchy is a statement made by a cardinal that a user was posting here about a month ago which seemed to indicate a very western view of Communion.

 

[mardukm]

Actually the interpretation of that phrase is more nuanced than you give it credit. The Relatio by Gasser as spokesman of the Deputation that wrote the formula of infallibility at Vatican I - given before the Council Fathers voted - and therefore expressing what the Deputation meant when it used the particular language it chose, is instructive. Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the Relatio) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the aspects of collegiality and community as follows:

"We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

**Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. **(11)" emphasis added
Here is a site for the Relatio matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html

My favorite line from the Relatio as far as this issue is concerned is this:
“It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the consensus of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its Head is the rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Julia_Mae]

It’s clever that you say that, because that seems to be the challenge behind the challenge (and infers a bit of circular logic that exists, yet needs to be overcome).

You quote the document well in that regard, focusing on the phrase “sharing fully in Eucharistic communion”. This implies (from Orthodox speak) changes in ecclesiastical structures on both sides, Catholic and Orthodox, to conform to more of a first millenial model but in modern context. It’s likely not simply a matter of “diluting” the Papacy - it is suggested that the notion of “local churches” would have to be re-examined, as well.

Okay. So, I’m not very well-educated about this, but I want to say something. Maybe not what you wanted, but it seems to me we are nowhere. By that I mean that neither side will ever give up their position on Papal supremacy as long as the Vatican exists. So, barring a rather cataclysmic volcanic event, what if we just decide to ignore it all and simply move forward to: sharing fully in Eucharistic communion.

Why shouldn’t we? I believe I’ve read that the Orthodox don’t believe in transubstantiation. But that’s okay because most RCC don’t either, they can’t. I’ll give you a $100 if you can randomly select 10 people from a Sunday Mass and even one of them can give you a coherent explanation of what transubstantiation means or is. I can’t. Don’t care. Jesus said: “This is my body” and I believe Him. Literally.

Now - do the Orthodox? If the answer is “yes” then we have no impediments I can see. I believe I read that the “official date” of the Great Schism is whenever a bunch of Eastern Bishops walked out of a Council after the Pope, without consulting anyone, simply stuck the filioque into the Creed. I realize there were other issues and it had been coming on for a while, but let’s take that moment just before the eastern Orthodox Bishops got to their feet - at that time, wasn’t the Eucharistic communion as valid in Constantinople as in Rome?

Did you change it? Did we?

I have this great idea. Let’s just start going to each other’s churches and receiving the Sacrament and let Christ handle the whole thing. Then the theologians can keep arguing as long as they want, it makes 'em so happy after all, and we’ll just plan a damn picnic.

BTW, I’m really really sorry some Roman Catholic homicidal moron went and killed a bunch of you. This kind of stuff is so appalling. So what say? If we share Christ, all the rest is commentary.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually the interpretation of that phrase is more nuanced than you give it credit. The Relatio by Gasser as spokesman of the Deputation that wrote the formula of infallibility at Vatican I - given before the Council Fathers voted - and therefore expressing what the Deputation meant when it used the particular language it chose, is instructive. Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the Relatio) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the aspects of collegiality and community as follows:

"We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

**Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. **(11)" emphasis added
Here is a site for the Relatio matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html

I don’t see how that last paragraph you bolded is anything but a fancy way of nuancing the fact that ex cathedra statements do not require the consent of the Church to look as if they do require the consent of the Church. The argument in fact rather reminds me of enlightenment theories of the governed giving implicit consent to the government. The Pope, so the argument goes, already has the consent of the Church by virtue of his office as the temporal head of the Church. And so using these two assumptions, that the Church cannot fall into error, and that the body cannot be separated from the head, it therefore can be concluded that the head can never fall into error in while defining something in his capacity as head. But this does nothing to temper the statement that a pronouncement of such nature by the Roman Pontiff is irreformable not by the consent of the Church. In fact, it complements its meaning, showing that the existence of the body is merely a necessary condition for the head to have its power, but that the consent of the body is not necessary in any sort of instrumental fashion.

 

[TEPO]

Okay. So, I’m not very well-educated about this, but I want to say something. Maybe not what you wanted, but it seems to me we are nowhere. By that I mean that neither side will ever give up their position on Papal supremacy as long as the Vatican exists. So, barring a rather cataclysmic volcanic event, what if we just decide to ignore it all and simply move forward to: sharing fully in Eucharistic communion.

Why shouldn’t we? I believe I’ve read that the Orthodox don’t believe in transubstantiation. But that’s okay because most RCC don’t either, they can’t. I’ll give you a $100 if you can randomly select 10 people from a Sunday Mass and even one of them can give you a coherent explanation of what transubstantiation means or is. I can’t. Don’t care. Jesus said: “This is my body” and I believe Him. Literally.

Now - do the Orthodox? If the answer is “yes” then we have no impediments I can see. I believe I read that the “official date” of the Great Schism is whenever a bunch of Eastern Bishops walked out of a Council after the Pope, without consulting anyone, simply stuck the filioque into the Creed. I realize there were other issues and it had been coming on for a while, but let’s take that moment just before the eastern Orthodox Bishops got to their feet - at that time, wasn’t the Eucharistic communion as valid in Constantinople as in Rome?

Did you change it? Did we?

**I have this great idea. Let’s just start going to each other’s churches and receiving the Sacrament and let Christ handle the whole thing. Then the theologians can keep arguing as long as they want, it makes 'em so happy after all, and we’ll just plan a damn picnic.

BTW, I’m really really sorry some Roman Catholic homicidal moron went and killed a bunch of you. This kind of stuff is so appalling. So what say? If we share Christ, all the rest is commentary.**

. Hahaha.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Obviously you are misinterpreting that because the dogma itself states right before that excerpt you quoted that the infallibility exercised by the Pope is simply “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed.” Your interpretation that it is something other than the infallibility of the Church, or apart from the Church is not in line with the dogmatic Decree itself nor of the intentions of the Fathers who wrote the Decree.

I’m not sure where you are getting your information. I don’t know of any official Catholic sources which attach the keys to the charism of infallibility (the keys are normally attached to the prerogative of Primacy). But I have read confused non-Catholic arguments that make that connection between the keys and infallibility. Maybe you are reading non-Catholic sources for your information about the Catholic Faith?

But I don’t want to derail this thread to a theoretical/theological discussion on the infallibility.

BLessings,
Marduk

Now it is you who is slicing and dicing. Let’s bring out the entire text, shall we?

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

While you are correct that the character of infallibility is on the Church, it is only the Roman Pontiff who can wield it. So same banana. It is a unilateral power. And to say that personal and unilateral are two different things is just polemics. How do we know where one begins and one ends? If 10 bishops say the Pope is heretic and the Pope says he is not, who do we believe? If the Pope then declares said heretic belief to be ex cathedra, who are we to contradict? Thank God that infallibility never existed at the time of Honorius.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, after a good start, we have drifted off topic …

Is there anything to add about the formal dialogue and what it means in terms of real effort to mend the separation?

 

[jwinch2]

Nearly two years have passed since the second of two plenary sessions devoted to the subject commenced, yet nothing official has come out on this subject.

Wasn’t there another video floating around of Met. Kalistos Ware speaking on the discussion of the Papacy similar to the one posted by the OP?

I could swear to watching that several months back but can’t seem to find it since then.

Peace,

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wasn’t there another video floating around of Met. Kalistos Ware speaking on the discussion of the Papacy similar to the one posted by the OP?

LOL! I tried to find it before posting the OP. Perhaps it will soon surface!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Wasn’t there another video floating around of Met. Kalistos Ware speaking on the discussion of the Papacy similar to the one posted by the OP?

I could swear to watching that several months back but can’t seem to find it since then.

Peace,

I think I have seen the video you are referencing. It is not specifically on the papacy, but on the concept of primacy.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, after a good start, we have drifted off topic …

Is there anything to add about the formal dialogue and what it means in terms of real effort to mend the separation?

Sorry, I was quite seriously trying to address your op. There’s no use to do the same things over and over and expect a different result. Ergo: we are nowhere. Does anyone really see any possible resolution? I was quite serious in my proposed solution. And I’d really like to know the answers to my questions:

Is the Eucharist the Eucharist in both churches? Do the Orthodox think we are eating bread and drinking wine? Does the RCC think this of the Orthodox? How is this not the first issue to settle? Once it’s settled, why would anything else be a true impediment?

 

[jwinch2]

I think I have seen the video you are referencing. It is not specifically on the papacy, but on the concept of primacy.

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome from what I remember.

 

[jwinch2]

LOL! I tried to find it before posting the OP. Perhaps it will soon surface!

I’ve looked for it a couple of time since but can’t seem to find it. Perhaps it was removed? In it, Met. Kalistos made a statement to the affect that primacy did exist, but that the manner in which that primacy manifested was still under consideration. It’s been a while since I watched it, but I believe I am remembering it correctly for the most part.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There’s no use to do the same things over and over and expect a different result.

Indeed - that’s insanity defined.

Ergo: we are nowhere.

That is a widely held view among the laity, but not truly representative of the state of relations between the Churches at an official level. It is this that I had hoped we’d be able to explore in this thread.

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t see how that last paragraph you bolded is anything but a fancy way of nuancing the fact that ex cathedra statements do not require the consent of the Church to look as if they do require the consent of the Church. The argument in fact rather reminds me of enlightenment theories of the governed giving implicit consent to the government. The Pope, so the argument goes, already has the consent of the Church by virtue of his office as the temporal head of the Church. And so using these two assumptions, that the Church cannot fall into error, and that the body cannot be separated from the head, it therefore can be concluded that the head can never fall into error in while defining something in his capacity as head. But this does nothing to temper the statement that a pronouncement of such nature by the Roman Pontiff is irreformable not by the consent of the Church. In fact, it complements its meaning, showing that the existence of the body is merely a necessary condition for the head to have its power, but that the consent of the body is not necessary in any sort of instrumental fashion.

“Nuance” always seems to have the condition of being “fancy.” To put a rather more blunt point on the issue, the language before the bolded section makes clear the language means you don’t need a vote, either before or after. A rather non-remarkable meaning…unless you are wedded to votes, say at councils. In which case Florence clearly goes to the Catholics as only one bishop opposed the union otherwise approved by all the Bishops, Pope and Emperor. Meaning that, like the non-Chalcedonians, those rejecting the council are ipso facto outside the Church. So, if you want as an Orthodox Christian to rely on votes…the result is rather “not-in-your favor.” Naturally, the novel claim that followed Florence of acceptance by the laity being a requirement for a valid council gets bogged down in all sorts of historical problems - not the least of which no such requirement ever existed before or after… Oh well, let the tradition bound Orthodox rail when tradition bites them on the tush.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, we do not separate the Pope from the Church. The problem is that when the Pope speaks unilaterally, we believe he speaks for the entire Church. This will never be accepted by the Orthodox. We believe that the Pope is the Church in the sense that lack of communion with him is to be outside the Church. So the dilemma remains the same.

I underlined a section above that I do not understand, and that I really don’t think occurs very often at all.
The Pope, when he speaks on a matter is only after much discussion has already occurred within the Church. He has received opinions, results of studies, been able to ask questions himself and receive (name removed by moderator)ut etc…etc…etc…
I don’t really think that the pope ever speaks unilaterally on matters of doctrine.

Recognizing this and getting away from this image of the pope as simply making pronouncements seemingly without any (name removed by moderator)ut from others would go a long way towards promoting dialogue.

Just my humble opinion.

Peace
James

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’ve looked for it a couple of time since but can’t seem to find it. Perhaps it was removed?

After reviewing a few saved links, I believe that might be the case. I remember first seeing the video (in two parts) on a blog post @ Called to Communion - Kallistos Ware: Orthodox & Catholic Union. The embedded YouTube videos are no longer active.

 

[johnnykins]

Sorry, I was quite seriously trying to address your op. There’s no use to do the same things over and over and expect a different result. Ergo: we are nowhere. Does anyone really see any possible resolution? I was quite serious in my proposed solution. And I’d really like to know the answers to my questions:

Is the Eucharist the Eucharist in both churches? Do the Orthodox think we are eating bread and drinking wine? Does the RCC think this of the Orthodox? How is this not the first issue to settle? Once it’s settled, why would anything else be a true impediment?

You have a way to go…many Orthodox are not even sure that Catholics are validly baptized. Then layer on top the underlying Cyprian v. Augustinian view of the sacraments (Maybe, since it’s underlying, it is really the place to start?). Toss in “economy” and the common practice of most Orthodox Churches of not re-baptizing Catholics, or re-doing other sacraments such as ordination - and all sorts of interesting questions arise. Then layer on actual practice in many parishes…who knows exactly what we’re dealing with?

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Nuance” always seems to have the condition of being “fancy.” To put a rather more blunt point on the issue, the language before the bolded section makes clear the language means you don’t need a vote, either before or after. A rather non-remarkable meaning…unless you are wedded to votes, say at councils. In which case Florence clearly goes to the Catholics as only one bishop opposed the union otherwise approved by all the Bishops, Pope and Emperor. Meaning that, like the non-Chalcedonians, those rejecting the council are ipso facto outside the Church. So, if you want as an Orthodox Christian to rely on votes…the result is rather “not-in-your favor.” Naturally, the novel claim that followed Florence of acceptance by the laity being a requirement for a valid council gets bogged down in all sorts of historical problems - not the least of which no such requirement ever existed before or after… Oh well, let the tradition bound Orthodox rail when tradition bites them on the tush.

The number of votes at a council has nothing to do with its orthodoxy (as a matter of fact, that sort of thinking is firmly rejected in the relatio you linked to, so I fail to see how you could hold us to such a standard when you yourself would reject it). Your argument only works with an incredibly reductionist view of Church history. At any rate, none of what you wrote has anything to do with my exegesis of the text of the Relatio, as whether the Orthodox Church is the true Church has absolutely nothing at all to do with ascertaining as an academic exercise, how Papal Infallibility is to be understood. If you believe that my exegesis of the passage is mistaken, then provide your own exegesis without any red herrings (it would also be nice if you lost the smug and polemical tone, although this is not completely necessary, since how insufferable I find reading your posts has little to do with the quality of their arguments, I suppose).