Ecumenical Councils IV

The rather long discussion prompted by the recent post on Eastern Rite Catholics and the Filioque has (predictably) turned into a vigorous debate on Rome-Orthodox ecumenical relations and/or the lack thereof. But I think a few posts by an anonymous commenter and Father J, an occasional and appreciated (if often critical) contributor to com-box discussions here, require a response.

It strikes me that they are overstating their case and ignoring some important elements. First I know of no Orthodox Christian who does not want the unity of the early Church restored. What we do not want is unity at the expense of Truth. And since our two churches have different (often dramatically so) views on dogmatic matters, that creates obstacles which they and David B. Hart (see his essay here) seem stubbornly unwilling to address.

In short Fr. J and Mr. Hart are both wearing the same set of blinders. They are long on platitudes and short on substantive recommendations. When Owen the Ochlophobist asked Fr. J to name some of the carved in stone post-schism dogmas of the Roman Church he felt are negotiable Fr. J could not come up with a single one. While the dear father’s prayers for unity are much appreciated something a bit more concrete would also be helpful.

So I will ask Owen's question again; what Roman Catholic post-schism dogmatic definitions are negotiable? If there are none then we are back to square one which has already been described.

Unity can be obtained as soon as we Orthodox become Catholics, or Rome returns to Orthodoxy.

While we have held two councils post-schism that many Orthodox (including myself) consider OEcumenical, they did not dogmatize anything that should pose a severe problem for Rome. It is Rome's last fourteen claimed OEcumenical Councils which pose the near insurmountable barrier. This is especially true of the decrees of Vatican I whose definitions, as we Orthodox have repeated ad infinitum, are flatly inconsistent with the doctrine and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church both pre and post-schism. Further the language of the decrees on Papal Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction is so crystal clear and unambiguous as to remove any possible wiggle room for “doctrinal development.” In summary Orthodoxy does not require of Rome any assent to doctrine which she has not already claimed to agree to, while Rome demands total acquiescence to her post 1054 doctrinal innovations.

Even so I have opined in the past that there is a path forward, if Rome is willing to take the leap. I actually addressed this in a series of posts back on November 16 (here and here) and November 19 (here) of 2007. It was part of a multi party (and multi-blog) discussion on what might lead to restoration of communion.

I will spare everyone a lengthy reposting of my original articles and summarize them.

In a nutshell I believe the only path that has a reasonable chance at reconciliation is the one I have labeled "reset." Which is to say that Rome must de-dogmatize its post 1054 doctrinal additions and come to an OEcumenical Council ready to lay it all on the table for open discussion. This does not require as a precondition that Rome must abjure the Filioque or any of its other additions. But it does require that Rome must agree that no true OEcumenical Council has been held since the seventh (the last one agreed on by both East and West). The councils held since then could be treated as local synods of the Western Church and the "dogmas" promulgated would be understood as theologumena and the strongly held opinions of the Latin Church, that could then be debated by the Church as a whole.

As others have noted, there are surely some areas where we might be able to reach agreement. Most Orthodox would have little difficulty with coming to some sort of understanding on the doctrine of the Assumption. Many other points of difference might be resolvable. And then there are others where the odds are steeper than the slopes of Mt. Everest in winter (Vatican I). But I see no hope at all if Rome's position is "come, kneel, and kiss the Pope's ring and all will be forgiven."

In other words we need to start from where the breach occurred. Even if Rome agreed to this and such a council could be convened, it might well fail. Lyons and Florence did, though in fairness neither council was an attempt at a reset. But if a council were to have a chance it would only be if it were convened as the eighth OEcumenical Council, not the twenty-second. The question before us then is the same one I asked Mike Liccione back in ’07. Is Rome prepared to take this leap?

I think the answer must be negative as Mike implied in his reply (see the post of 19 November 2007). For Rome to do so would implicitly call into question her claim to being the One True Church. Effectively this still leaves us with what Owen has repeatedly stated must be the end product of any restored communion. One or the other of our churches must cease to be.