Thursday, March 10, 2011

Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine (Not)

From what Fr. Z so aptly refers to as the "National Catholic Fishwrap"...
As we celebrate another Week of Prayer for Christianity, what is there to fuel our hope that this isn’t all just an exercise in futility? What’s to celebrate?

Signals are there that this movement called “ecumenical” does in fact move, that reflection as we go along on an increasing degree of “life together” is shaping our perception of the future in positive ways.

One noteworthy sign of this was the statement by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation last October.

For the past forty-five years they have been sifting through the pastoral and doctrinal issues that historically have prevented our churches from sharing a single life of faith, sacraments and witness before the world. But in this document, as indicated by its title, they are getting down to brass tacks: “Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future.”

Their listing of what we share is substantive and long. In short: We believe our life as churches to be centered on the Divine Liturgy, the Word of God, and the sacraments from baptism to marriage.

Both churches recognize each other’s bishops as legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession. Both venerate Mary, the Mother of God, and a whole range of holy men and women from every age, many of them common to both our traditions. Both our churches cherish ancient practices that help the faithful grow in holiness, such as reverencing sacred images, fasting, the monastic life, and various forms of contemplative prayer.

All of which pushes the commission members to state:
It is urgent that Orthodox and Catholic Christians find an effective way to realize our common tradition of faith together, and to present the world with a unified testimony to the Lordship of Jesus. To be what we are called to be, we need each other…. To become what we are…we cannot stop short of re-establishing full Eucharistic communion among ourselves.
Read the rest here.

I have been refraining from posting most of the endless silly articles from the RCC press predicting imminent reunion, but this one is just too in your face to ignore. It is a expose for why there will not be communion between Rome and Orthodoxy anytime in the foreseeable future. It totally ignores almost every point of difference on doctrine between us and it further demonstrates a gravely flawed concept of what it means to be in communion. "Close enough" is clearly acceptable to many in the Roman Catholic Church. It is not in Orthodoxy. There must be full agreement on all essential points of doctrine for us to commune from the same chalice. And since Rome has about a thousand years of additions to the Deposit of the Faith that we are not onboard with (in fairness some are probably resolvable) that's going to be a really major problem.

Vatican I and it's unyielding and crystal clear language is a deal breaker. It is heresy, and we do not and will not accept it as written. But one must also add the Filioque to that list. We don't even recite the same Creed. How can we share the cup?

With that in mind I say let's stop trying to turn the clock back a thousand years and work on things that are in fact doable. The author is correct that we do share a great deal in common. And there are a myriad of common interests. Charitable works and the dangers post by militant sucularists and Islamists are just the two most obvious. One could also add a common witness againts the creeping tide of liberal and relativist theology in many parts of the Christian world, especially among the so called Reformed Churches.

Anyone who sees unity as close enough to imagine is living in a fantasy world. But that doesn't mean we can't work together on meaningful issues and present a common witness to the world on at least some subjects.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Both churches recognized each other's bishops as legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession.

Really? When did that happen? News to me. I wasn't even aware that we fully recognize RC baptisms, let alone their episcopal consecrations.

Anonymous said...

While I agree with you, let's be honest as well: Orthodox lay intercommunion with the Oriental Orthodox is a reality under many Bishops, so absolute agreement on all doctrinal formulations is something that obviously has some wiggle room.

Ingemar said...

"We're basically the same religion! The only difference is the Scope of 'da Pope." [/youngfogey]

@Fr. Benedict:

The GOArch received me through chrismation since apparently they recognize the Roman formula for baptism. Then again, I have heard of the GOArch being derided as "Episcopalianism waiting to happen", so....

Anonymous said...

@ Ingemar,

The question is not whether RCs may be received by Chrismation - which has happened for centuries - but rather what the status of that baptism is prior to Chrismation into the Body of Christ. There do seem to be a variety of theological opinions within Orthodoxy in that regard.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

That's a very good point. The truth is that Church is not of one mind on the subject of Roman Catholic Sacraments.

In ICXC
John

mjl said...

Bluntly, Rome is not of one mind on her own sacraments. In America, at least, there are are as many opinions on the sacraments and the role of the church as there are heads. In my own city, the local priest preached against sin and didn't feel the need to hear confession but if I walked seven blocks south I would be told to attend confession weekly and given a list of mortal sins. I realize that this may sound like I'm exaggerating, but I am certain that other Romans can back me up.

Rome is in confusion right now and I think it is silliness to talk about reunion when we are hardly certain wheat we're saying. For every Fr. Robert Taft there are untold numbers of his fellow Jesuits who do not hold a single belief in the Catholic church and are more or less broad church Anglicans.

Jack O'Malley said...

Re the Filioque, the last two Popes have omitted it in saying the Creed with the Oecumenical Patriarchs. The Eastern Rites do not use it (in general). There is as far as I know no compulsion for RC's to accept it, even in the (what used be be called) Latin rite. In other words, even in Latin, ex Patre procedit incurs no odium theologicum. What they do in the novus ordo I haven't a clue, but it's probably up to the whim of the presiding presbyter or altar girl or the lady lectoress, along with the color of the balloons and the number of banjos. If I were Orthodox, I would be more put off by liturgical μιάσματα than by theological discrimina.

That said, it's nice that every few years Easter coincides, and we can wave and greet our fellow Christians across the street. There must be some divine intention in that. There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Jack
We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end.

-Canon 1 Fourth Lateran Council 1215

1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

- Canon 1 Second Council of Lyons 1274

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


-Council of Florence 1438-1445

In ICXC
John

Jack O'Malley said...

John,

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of your citations to my comment.

The Orthodox Tentmaker said...

In my opinion, we either find a way to something very much like unity, or face God's judgement in the form of the advancement of the Islamic world at our expense.

The Orthodox Church must find a way to allow the Roman Catholics to be Roman Catholics while retaining her own theological independence.

The Pope should become "First Among Equals" to the Orthodox, but refrain from forcing Roman Catholic Doctrines on the Eastern Church.

There is a Primacy of Peter short of the current Papal setup. The Roman Catholic Church is too strong in that Primacy, and the Orthodox Church is too weak.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The Peace of Christ be with All,

Columba

Jack O'Malley said...

Orthodox Tentmaker,

In my opinion, we either find a way to something very much like unity, or face God's judgement in the form of the advancement of the Islamic world at our expense.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about this. Europe has been invaded. Russia is surrounded. The Phanar is beseiged. A mosque is within sight of the Basilica of St. Peter. And for more than half a millenium Hagia Sophia stands violated! How long before Notre Dame de Paris, Cologne Cathedral, il Duomo, perhaps even the beautifully restored Christ the Saviour are defiled by the medallions of syphilitic coranic chancre

The Orthodox Church must find a way to allow the Roman Catholics to be Roman Catholics while retaining her own theological independence.

I'm assuming you mean Orthodox theological independence. Yes. From Original Sin to the Immaculate Conception, there are many RC's (в том числе и я) who agree with this.

The Pope should become "First Among Equals" to the Orthodox, but refrain from forcing Roman Catholic Doctrines on the Eastern Church.

I think that Orthodoxy already admits the "Primus inter pares" concept. Peter is Peter after all. The question is, what jurisdiction has Peter? And I agree there have been dogmas defined by Rome that are problematic to the Orthodox. And to some RC's!

There is a Primacy of Peter short of the current Papal setup. The Roman Catholic Church is too strong in that Primacy, and the Orthodox Church is too weak.

JP2 called for a "two-lung" theory. That is nonsense. What about the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East? How many lungs has an organism? I pass over the Protestants and Anglicans. They are lost. Besides, from the Orthodox point of view, they are schismatics or heretics from Rome and they are Rome's problem. I think most talks between Anglicans and Orthodoxy are mere exercises in wine and cheese tasting at this point. Anglo-Catholics have at their own petition an Ordinariate in the Roman communion. The FSSPX is still in abeyance.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The Golden Mean. Would that we who seek it find it.

The Peace of Christ be with All

Indeed. The hope of all true Christians. Pax Christi omnibus! Мир Христа всем! ἡ ειρήνη Χριστοῦ πάντοις.

Ingemar said...

Jack O' Malley, I think you're missing the point. Orthodox and Catholics can make common statements for common causes and against common enemies but that doesn't require what we consider true unity (from an Orthodox perspective).

You parade encroaching Islam as a failure on the part of Orthodoxy to accept unity [on Roman terms]. Yet you also mention that "a mosque is within sight of St. Peter's Basilica" and worry over the desecration of Notre Dame de Paris. If Rome herself is already under siege then that means that Roman communion is not the panacea you imagine it to be since Rome, with all her Papal glory, cannot defend herself against her enemies. What makes you think that the weaker, disorganized Orthodox communion would improve Rome's situation?

Also, Notre Dame has already been desecrated in the past--just not by Muslims.

Orthodoxy has already rejected false union on the perceived benefit of earthly preservation. Don't think that it won't happen again.

Jack O'Malley said...

Ingemar,

I agree common cause does not constitute true unity. That is so patently obvious that it need not even be pointed out.

I pass over your gross distortion of my statement on encroaching Islam. It is too rebarbative to merit a rejoinder.

Bob Glassmeyer said...

The National Catholic Reporter is not a good yardstick by which to measure Roman Catholicism. For one thing, it advocates a sort of "welcome to our big tent" version of Catholicism, which to me is not Catholicism at all, but Unitarian Universalism.

It seems to me that people on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide have lived and died and been martyred for their beliefs. If "gee, we're all just the same, so why don't we just get together and hug" is the order of the day, then these people died for nothing, lived for nothing, and Christ wasted His time on the Cross, not to mention His public ministry.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Jack,
Re: I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of your citations to my comment.

You previously wrote...
There is as far as I know no compulsion for RC's to accept it, even in the (what used be be called) Latin rite.

My point being that it is a defined dogma of the Roman Church and it is acceptance is indeed compulsory.

rebarbative

That's worth at least 10 points.

gdelassu said...

JP2 called for a "two-lung" theory. That is nonsense. What about the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East?

This is a largely off-topic point, but you have just needled my own pet peeve, so once again I will explain what the "two lungs" metaphor means (and what it does not mean).

More Orthodox combox participants than I care to count have mentioned the "two lungs" in the same breath as the "branch theory," as if they were the same thing. They are not. The late Pope did not say that the "Church must breathe with both lungs, Catholic & Orthodox." He said that She must breathe with both lungs, "the Eastern & the Western".

In other words, the Holy Father was not claiming that the Catholic Church is the The Church and the Orthodox Church is as well. He is claiming that Eastern and Western rites of the Catholic Church are The Church. In this metaphor, the Church is having a hard time breathing right now because a significant chunk of one of Her lungs has been severed and is lying on the ground. It needs to be re-attached.

The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church are just fragments of that already severed lobe of the eastern lung. If they were re-attached they would not make for a third and fourth lung. They would simply be welcome re-additions to the once-damaged eastern lung.