Over at the excellent
Sacramentum Vitae Mike Liccione has
posted his thoughts on recent developments in the world of ecumenism. His report on the developments with the TAC was very interesting (and not terribly surprising). I wish them luck in their efforts since Rome is a vast improvement over being a splinter sect of the fast disintegrating Anglican Communion. However that is not the subject of tonight’s post. I wish to address very briefly Mike's suggestion of a compromise that he feels might help us Orthodox get around Vatican I. Those who have read some of my earlier posts know that I generally see the decrees of that council as quite likely the single greatest obstacle to eventual restoration of communion.
Before proceeding let me begin by noting that I abhor the schism dividing the Latin Church from Orthodoxy. It is an open wound in Christendom that has been aggravated by all too often petty and self interested parties on both sides of the great chasm. And I have no patience for knee jerk anti-Catholics who seem too often more possessed of small minded prejudice than Christian agape. But my great concern is that any restoration of communion be based on a mutual understanding of Truth in the great issues which have separated us. Anything less than that is like trying to build a castle out of sand. It may look pretty, but what is its life expectancy when the tide comes in?
Now let me present Mike's views and idea in his own words.
"...But there is hope nonetheless, and action motivated by such hope. Constantinople and Athens remain closely involved in the current panel discussions. My optimism about the Orthodox stems from the fact that they have held no council, of a kind even they would consider ecumenical, committing Orthodoxy dogmatically to rejecting the Roman communion as one of true, particular churches. There seem to be many Orthodox who take the view that "we know where the Church is, but we don't know where she isn't." Not all Orthodox take the view of the Athonites that popery is a diabolical scourge of Christendom and that Rome doesn't even have a canonical bishop. That actually allows many Orthodox to consider the Latin Church a church with true sacraments, even if she's gone off the rails somewhat about doctrine. Imagine that. But what, realistically, could talks on primacy yield?Taking their cue from the generation-old Ratzinger proposal made in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, some Eastern Catholics seem to take the view that Vatican I's decrees about papal authority would hold only in the West, not in the East, within a reunited Church. That's a non-starter. If the pope is what Vatican I says he is, then he is that in the East as well as the West. The Orthodox should not expect Rome to retract anything she considers dogma any more than Rome should, or does, expect the Orthodox to retract anything they consider dogma. The real room for compromise is on the level of the exercise of jurisdiction. And that's where theology can help.The compromise might look like this: to end the schism, the Orthodox patriarchs would defer to Rome on matters not resolved otherwise, and Rome would confine her interventions in those patriarchates to matters not resolved otherwise. The theoretical basis for such an arrangement exists in nuce in the work of Ratzinger on communio and of Zizioulas on eucharistic ecclesiology. I for one believe this is how one aspect of the Ratzinger proposal can be worked out: the one where he says that Rome can require no more of the East than was "held in common during the first millennium." To be sure, views about what was thus held in common diverge, and often diverge sharply. Getting agreement on the point will require consensus about what general form the development of doctrine may take. I think that's where the hard work remains to be done. But it's far from hopeless. I've encountered a good number of Orthodox authors who, while averse to the phrase "development of doctrine" as smacking of addition to the faith-once-delivered, admit what amounts to development in a sense not irreconcilably different from what Newman and Vatican II meant."First let me restate that I think many Catholics put way too much stock in the lack of a council anathematizing any of the various dogmas of the Latin Church. Councils are not generally held to discuss something which is not controversial. And the decrees of Vatican I relating to Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction are simply not controversial over on our side of the fence. That’s not to say that we accept them. Rather it’s to say that we are more or less of one mind on the subject. And since we can’t even agree on what day it is, that’s pretty impressive. In the minds of even the most ecumenically minded Orthodox, the decrees of Vatican I are heretical (though many are too polite to say it). Those few who don't see it as heresy either have swum the Tiber or they probably should as a matter of personal honesty.
Having said all this, Mike’s suggestion for getting around the problem of Universal Jurisdiction is an interesting one. But it has a fairly major flaw. This compromise lasts only for as long as Rome chooses to adhere to it. In other words it is a compromise of choice for Rome not of obligation. The decrees of Vatican I remain fully in place. The lack of papal intervention in the Churches of the East is based on restraint, not a lack of authority. And the Pope could at any time choose to set aside that compromise if he deemed it proper to do so. Living under an absolute monarch who chooses to exercise restraint in the use of his powers is not the same thing as having rights which he is bound to respect. However benevolent or restrained the current Pope may be, what guarantee is there for the next, or the one after that?
I am not going to get into all of the theological arguments since that’s a horse that has been beaten to death. But the bottom line is this… If Vatican I is not heresy, we Orthodox have no business doing anything other than kneeling in front of the Pope and kissing his ring. And the Pope has no need or legitimate reason for not exercising his universal jurisdiction throughout The Church. If God gave him the authority it was not done with a view to only using it in the West. And if Vatican I is heresy, then Orthodoxy must never ever under any circumstances compromise with it. Whatever failings I have (and they are legion) I am not a relativist. Any attempted compromise in a matter of Truth is a recipe for disaster. It is the foundation for another Florence. As Owen the Ochlophobist once observed in one of his more memorable quotes (I paraphrase) '
In order for communion between Rome and Orthodoxy to be restored, one or the other must cease to exist.' Either Rome is right or we are.
Those are not comfortable words. But there it is.
The Former Prefect: Cardinal Francis Arinze
The New Prefect: Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera
