RAVENNA, Italy, NOV. 15, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held Oct. 8-14 in Ravenna. The statement, which was released today, is titled “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.”
Introduction
1. “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17, 21). We give thanks to the triune God who has gathered us — members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church — so that we might respond together in obedience to this prayer of Jesus. We are conscious that our dialogue is restarting in a world that has changed profoundly in recent times. The processes of secularization and globalization, and the challenge posed by new encounters between Christians and believers of other religions, require that the disciples of Christ give witness to their faith, love and hope with a new urgency. May the Spirit of the risen Lord empower our hearts and minds to bear the fruits of unity in the relationship between our Churches, so that together we may serve the unity and peace of the whole human family. May the same Spirit lead us to the full expression of the mystery of ecclesial communion, that we gratefully acknowledge as a wonderful gift of God to the world, a mystery whose beauty radiates especially in the holiness of the saints, to which all are called.
2. Following the plan adopted at its first meeting in Rhodes in 1980, the Joint Commission began by addressing the mystery of ecclesial koinônia in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the Eucharist. This enabled a deeper understanding of ecclesial communion, both at the level of the local community around its bishop, and at the level of relations between bishops and between the local Churches over which each presides in communion with the One Church of God extending across the universe (Munich Document, 1982). In order to clarify the nature of communion, the Joint Commission underlined the relationship which exists between faith, the sacraments — especially the three sacraments of Christian initiation — and the unity of the Church (Bari Document, 1987). Then by studying the sacrament of Order in the sacramental structure of the Church, the Commission indicated clearly the role of apostolic succession as the guarantee of the koinônia of the whole Church and of its continuity with the Apostles in every time and place (Valamo Document, 1988). From 1990 until 2000, the main subject discussed by the Commission was that of “uniatism” (Balamand Document, 1993; Baltimore, 2000), a subject to which we shall give further consideration in the near future. Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and reflect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority.
3. On the basis of these common affirmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which flow from the sacramental nature of the Church. Since the Eucharist, in the light of the Trinitarian mystery, constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole, how do institutional structures visibly reflect the mystery of this koinônia? Since the one and holy Church is realised both in each local Church celebrating the Eucharist and at the same time in the koinônia of all the Churches, how does the life of the Churches manifest this sacramental structure?
4. Unity and multiplicity, the relationship between the one Church and the many local Churches, that constitutive relationship of the Church, also poses the question of the relationship between the authority inherent in every ecclesial institution and the conciliarity which flows from the mystery of the Church as communion. As the terms “authority” and “conciliarity” cover a very wide area, we shall begin by defining the way we understand them.[1]
1. The Foundations of Conciliarity and of Authority
1. Conciliarity
5. The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility. It is also possible, however, to take the term in a more comprehensive sense referring to all the members of the Church (cfr. the Russian term sobornost). Accordingly we shall speak first of all of conciliarity as signifying that each member of the Body of Christ, by virtue of baptism, has his or her place and proper responsibility in eucharistic koinônia (communio in Latin). Conciliarity reflects the Trinitarian mystery and finds therein its ultimate foundation. The three persons of the Holy Trinity are “enumerated”, as St Basil the Great says (On the Holy Spirit, 45), without the designation as “second” or “third” person implying any diminution or subordination. Similarly, there also exists an order (taxis) among local Churches, which however does not imply inequality in their ecclesial nature.
6. The Eucharist manifests the Trinitarian koinônia actualized in the faithful as an organic unity of several members each of whom has a charism, a service or a proper ministry, necessary in their variety and diversity for the edification of all in the one ecclesial Body of Christ (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-30). All are called, engaged and held accountable — each in a different though no less real manner — in the common accomplishment of the actions which, through the Holy Spirit, make present in the Church the ministry of Christ, “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn 14, 6). In this way, the mystery of salvific koinônia with the Blessed Trinity is realized in humankind.
7. The whole community and each person in it bears the “conscience of the Church” (ekkesiastikè syneidesis), as Greek theology calls it, the sensus fidelium in Latin terminology. By virtue of Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation) each member of the Church exercises a form of authority in the Body of Christ. In this sense, all the faithful (and not just the bishops) are responsible for the faith professed at their Baptism. It is our common teaching that the people of God, having received “the anointing which comes from the Holy One” (1 Jn 2, 20 and 27), in communion with their pastors, cannot err in matters of faith (cfr. Jn 16, 13).
8. In proclaiming the Church’s faith and in clarifying the norms of Christian conduct, the bishops have a specific task by divine institution. “As successors of the Apostles, the bishops are responsible for communion in the apostolic faith and for fidelity to the demands of a life in keeping with the Gospel” (Valamo Document, n. 40).
9. Councils are the principal way in which communion among bishops is exercised (cfr. Valamo Document, n. 52). For “attachment to the apostolic communion binds all the bishops together linking the épiskopè of the local Churches to the College of the Apostles. They too form a college rooted by the Spirit in the ‘once for all’ of the apostolic group, the unique witness to the faith. This means not only that they should be united among themselves in faith, charity, mission, reconciliation, but that they have in common the same responsibility and the same service to the Church” (Munich Document, III, 4).
10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves.
11. The Church exists in many and different places, which manifests its catholicity. Being “catholic”, it is a living organism, the Body of Christ. Each local Church, when in communion with the other local Churches, is a manifestation of the one and indivisible Church of God. To be “catholic” therefore means to be in communion with the one Church of all times and of all places. That is why the breaking of eucharistic communion means the wounding of one of the essential characteristics of the Church, its catholicity.
2. Authority
12. When we speak of authority, we are referring to exousia, as it is described in the New Testament. The authority of the Church comes from its Lord and Head, Jesus Christ. Having received his authority from God the Father, Christ after his Resurrection shared it, through the Holy Spirit, with the Apostles (cfr. Jn 20, 22). Through the Apostles it was transmitted to the bishops, their successors, and through them to the whole Church. Jesus Christ our Lord exercised this authority in various ways whereby, until its eschatological fulfilment (cfr. 1 Cor 15, 24-28), the Kingdom of God manifests itself to the world: by teaching (cfr. Mt 5, 2; Lk 5, 3); by performing miracles (cfr. Mk 1, 30-34; Mt 14, 35-36); by driving out impure spirits (cfr. Mk 1, 27; Lk 4, 35-36); in the forgiveness of sins (cfr. Mk 2, 10; Lk 5, 24); and in leading his disciples in the ways of salvation (cfr. Mt 16, 24). In conformity with the mandate received from Christ (cfr. Mt 28, 18-20), the exercise of the authority proper to the apostles and afterwards to the bishops includes the proclamation and the teaching of the Gospel, sanctification through the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, and the pastoral direction of those who believe (cfr. Lk 10, 16).
13. Authority in the Church belongs to Jesus Christ himself, the one Head of the Church (cfr. Eph 1, 22; 5, 23). By his Holy Spirit, the Church as his Body shares in his authority (cfr. Jn 20, 22-23). Authority in the Church has as its goal the gathering of the whole of humankind into Jesus Christ (cfr. Eph 1,10; Jn 11, 52). The authority linked with the grace received in ordination is not the private possession of those who receive it nor something delegated from the community; rather, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit destined for the service (diakonia) of the community and never exercised outside of it. Its exercise includes the participation of the whole community, the bishop being in the Church and the Church in the bishop (cfr. St Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8).
14. The exercise of authority accomplished in the Church, in the name of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, must be, in all its forms and at all levels, a service (diakonia) of love, as was that of Christ (cfr. Mk 10, 45; Jn 13, 1-16). The authority of which we are speaking, since it expresses divine authority, cannot subsist in the Church except in the love between the one who exercises it and those subject to it. It is, therefore, an authority without domination, without physical or moral coercion. Since it is a participation in the exousia of the crucified and exalted Lord, to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cfr. Mt 28, 18), it can and must call for obedience. At the same time, because of the Incarnation and the Cross, it is radically different from that of leaders of nations and of the great of this world (cfr. Lk 22, 25-27). While this authority is certainly entrusted to people who, because of weakness and sin, are often tempted to abuse it, nevertheless by its very nature the evangelical identification between authority and service constitutes a fundamental norm for the Church. For Christians, to rule is to serve. The exercise and spiritual efficacy of ecclesial authority are thereby assured through free consent and voluntary co-operation. At a personal level, this translates into obedience to the authority of the Church in order to follow Christ who was lovingly obedient to the Father even unto death and death on a Cross (cfr. Phil 2, 8).
15. Authority within the Church is founded upon the Word of God, present and alive in the community of the disciples. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, as the Church, through the Holy Spirit present and active within it, has discerned it in the living Tradition received from the Apostles. At the heart of this Tradition is the Eucharist (cfr. 1 Cor 10, 16-17; 11, 23-26). The authority of Scripture derives from the fact that it is the Word of God which, read in the Church and by the Church, transmits the Gospel of salvation. Through Scripture, Christ addresses the assembled community and the heart of each believer. The Church, through the Holy Spirit present within it, authentically interprets Scripture, responding to the needs of times and places. The constant custom of the Councils to enthrone the Gospels in the midst of the assembly both attests the presence of Christ in his Word, which is the necessary point of reference for all their discussions and decisions, and at the same time affirms the authority of the Church to interpret this Word of God.
16. In his divine Economy, God wills that his Church should have a structure oriented towards salvation. To this essential structure belong the faith professed and the sacraments celebrated in the apostolic succession. Authority in the ecclesial communion is linked to this essential structure: its exercise is regulated by the canons and statutes of the Church. Some of these regulations may be differently applied according to the needs of ecclesial communion in different times and places, provided that the essential structure of the Church is always respected. Thus, just as communion in the sacraments presupposes communion in the same faith (cfr. Bari Document, nn.29-33), so too, in order for there to be full ecclesial communion, there must be, between our Churches, reciprocal recognition of canonical legislations in their legitimate diversities.
II. The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority
17. Having pointed out the foundation of conciliarity and of authority in the Church, and having noted the complexity of the content of these terms, we must now reply to the following questions: How do institutional elements of the Church visibly express and serve the mystery of koinônia? How do the canonical structures of the Churches express their sacramental life? To this end we distinguished between three levels of ecclesial institutions: that of the local Church around its bishop; that of a region taking in several neighbouring local Churches; and that of the whole inhabited earth (oikoumene) which embraces all the local Churches.
1. The Local Level
18. The Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the Apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches. The fruit of this Eucharist and this ministry is to gather into an authentic communion of faith, prayer, mission, fraternal love and mutual aid, all those who have received the Spirit of Christ in Baptism. This communion is the frame in which all ecclesial authority is exercised. Communion is the criterion for its exercise.
19. Each local Church has as its mission to be, by the grace of God, a place where God is served and honoured, where the Gospel is announced, where the sacraments are celebrated, where the faithful strive to alleviate the world’s misery, and where each believer can find salvation. It is the light of the world (cfr. Mt 5, 14-16), the leaven (cfr. Mt 13, 33), the priestly community of God (cfr. 1 Pet 2, 5 and 9). The canonical norms which govern it aim at ensuring this mission.
20. By virtue of that very Baptism which made him or her a member of Christ, each baptized person is called, according to the gifts of the one Holy Spirit, to serve within the community (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-27). Thus through communion, whereby all the members are at the service of each other, the local Church appears already “synodal” or “conciliar” in its structure. This “synodality” does not show itself only in the relationships of solidarity, mutual assistance and complementarity which the various ordained ministries have among themselves. Certainly, the presbyterium is the council of the bishop (cfr. St Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, 3), and the deacon is his “right arm” (Didascalia Apostolorum, 2, 28, 6), so that, according to the recommendation of St Ignatius of Antioch, everything be done in concert (cfr. To the Ephesians 6). Synodality, however, also involves all the members of the community in obedience to the bishop, who is the protos and head (kephale) of the local Church, required by ecclesial communion. In keeping with Eastern and Western traditions, the active participation of the laity, both men and women, of monastics and consecrated persons, is effected in the diocese and the parish through many forms of service and mission.
21. The charisms of the members of the community have their origin in the one Holy Spirit, and are directed to the good of all. This fact sheds light on both the demands and the limits of the authority of each one in the Church. There should be neither passivity nor substitution of functions, neither negligence nor domination of anyone by another. All charisms and ministries in the Church converge in unity under the ministry of the bishop, who serves the communion of the local Church. All are called to be renewed by the Holy Spirit in the sacraments and to respond in constant repentance (metanoia), so that their communion in truth and charity is ensured.
2. The Regional Level
22. Since the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn. 52 and 53). Communion among Churches is expressed in the ordination of bishops. This ordination is conferred according to canonical order by three or more bishops, or at least two (cfr. Nicaea I, Canon 4), who act in the name of the episcopal body and of the people of God, having themselves received their ministry from the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands in the apostolic succession. When this is accomplished in conformity with the canons, communion among Churches in the true faith, sacraments and ecclesial life is ensured, as well as living communion with previous generations.
23. Such effective communion among several local Churches, each being the Catholic Church in a particular place, has been expressed by certain practices: the participation of the bishops of neighbouring sees at the ordination of a bishop to the local Church; the invitation to a bishop from another Church to concelebrate at the synaxis of the local Church; the welcome extended to the faithful from these other Churches to partake of the eucharistic table; the exchange of letters on the occasion of an ordination; and the provision of material assistance.
24. A canon accepted in the East as in the West, expresses the relationship between the local Churches of a region: “The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is first (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the first (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit” (Apostolic Canon 34).
25. This norm, which re-emerges in several forms in canonical tradition, applies to all the relations between the bishops of a region, whether those of a province, a metropolitanate, or a patriarchate. Its practical application may be found in the synods or the councils of a province, region or patriarchate. The fact that the composition of a regional synod is always essentially episcopal, even when it includes other members of the Church, reveals the nature of synodal authority. Only bishops have a deliberative voice. The authority of a synod is based on the nature of the episcopal ministry itself, and manifests the collegial nature of the episcopate at the service of the communion of Churches.
26. A synod (or council) in itself implies the participation of all the bishops of a region. It is governed by the principle of consensus and concord (homonoia), which is signified by eucharistic concelebration, as is implied by the final doxology of the above-mentioned Apostolic Canon 34. The fact remains, however, that each bishop in his pastoral care is judge, and is responsible before God for the affairs of his own diocese (cfr. Cyprian, Ep. 55, 21); thus he is the guardian of the catholicity of his local Church, and must be always careful to promote catholic communion with other Churches.
27. It follows that a regional synod or council does not have any authority over other ecclesiastical regions. Nevertheless, the exchange of information and consultations between the representatives of several synods are a manifestation of catholicity, as well as of that fraternal mutual assistance and charity which ought to be the rule between all the local Churches, for the greater common benefit. Each bishop is responsible for the whole Church together with all his colleagues in one and the same apostolic mission.
28. In this manner several ecclesiastical provinces have come to strengthen their links of common responsibility. This was one of the factors giving rise to the patriarchates in the history of our Churches. Patriarchal synods are governed by the same ecclesiological principles and the same canonical norms as provincial synods.
29. In subsequent centuries, both in the East and in the West, certain new configurations of communion between local Churches have developed. New patriarchates and autocephalous Churches have been founded in the Christian East, and in the Latin Church there has recently emerged a particular pattern of grouping of bishops, the Episcopal Conferences. These are not, from an ecclesiological standpoint, merely administrative subdivisions: they express the spirit of communion in the Church, while at the same time respecting the diversity of human cultures.
30. In fact, regional synodality, whatever its contours and canonical regulation, demonstrates that the Church of God is not a communion of persons or local Churches cut off from their human roots. Because it is the community of salvation and because this salvation is “the restoration of creation” (cfr. St Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 1, 36, 1), it embraces the human person in everything which binds himor her to human reality as created by God. The Church is not just a collection of individuals; it is made up of communities with different cultures, histories and social structures.
31. In the grouping of local Churches at the regional level, catholicity appears in its true light. It is the expression of the presence of salvation not in an undifferentiated universe but in humankind as God created it and comes to save it. In the mystery of salvation, human nature is at the same time both assumed in its fullness and cured of what sin has infused into it by way of self-sufficiency, pride, distrust of others, aggressiveness, jealousy, envy, falsehood and hatred. Ecclesial koinônia is the gift by which all humankind is joined together, in the Spirit of the risen Lord. This unity, created by the Spirit, far from lapsing into uniformity, calls for and thus preserves — and, in a certain way, enhances — diversity and particularity.
3. The Universal Level
32. Each local Church is in communion not only with neighbouring Churches, but with the totality of the local Churches, with those now present in the world, those which have been since the beginning, and those which will be in the future, and with the Church already in glory. According to the will of Christ, the Church is one and indivisible, the same always and in every place. Both sides confess, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the Church is one and catholic. Its catholicity embraces not only the diversity of human communities but also their fundamental unity.
33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always “to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas” (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself — thus, on the very being of the Church.
34. It is because of this communion that all the Churches, through canons, regulate everything relating to the Eucharist and the sacraments, the ministry and ordination, and the handing on (paradosis) and teaching (didaskalia) of the faith. It is clear why in this domain canonical rules and disciplinary norms are needed.
35. In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches — in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires — recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.
36. The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.
37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole — by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer — acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.
38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops’ decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.
39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.
40. During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinônia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinônia.
41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.
43. Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.
Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:
1 Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
2 While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.
44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.
45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinônia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
46. We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together.
Doesn’t this simply mean that the Orthodox accept (in theory) that the Bishop of Rome is first in primacy (which we already knew)?
It doesn’t mean that they recognize Benedict XVI as the actual bishop of Rome, right? If they did, then, essentially, the schism would be over. It’s more like they are saying, “If there were an Orthodox bishop of Rome, then he would be the first among the primates…”
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but isn’t this about as “earth-shaking” as sitting at a table and agreeing that the sky is blue and the Earth is round? The Orthodox have always said that the bishop of Rome was first among the Patriarchs, right? The only problem is, they don’t think that there has been a real and orthodox bishop in the See of Rome for a thousand years.
Rob and CU,
I believe that there is great import in Article 39, which acknowledges that the Schism “rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term”. This is a cardinal point, because it could reopen several issues that have been “closed” by councils in the West, the first among these being papal infallibility and the meaning of the Pope’s “universal and immediate” jurisdiction.
W.H.
[...] point in multiplying the loci for discussions on this document, I refer you all to the exchange at Cathedra Unitatis, who has also provided the full text of the document [...]
Rob,
You’re right that, on the whole, it’s not earth-shattering. As always, the media make it into a bigger deal than it really is. The Orthodox (with the exception of a handful of characters on the fringes) have always been ready to accept the Roman primacy in a sense. The statement (which, of course, is not binding on either church) still leaves a whole lot unsettled as to the nature and extent of papal primacy. Yes, the ecclesiology of Vatican I (and its affirmation/clarification by Vatican II) is still the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Cardinal Casper said that this statement “merely indicate[s] the praxis for future debate” and that “we must not exaggerate its importance.”
But, nevertheless, there are a couple of significant things about the statement, in my mind:
(1) As Cardinal Casper pointed out, “for the first time the Orthodox churches have said: Yes, this universal level of the Church exists … This means that there is also a primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the Bishop of Rome.”
(2) One sees the marks of Ratzinger’s “communio” ecclesiology and Zizioulas’s eucharistic ecclesiology all over the statement. One would hope that both sides would start thinking more in terms of these ecclesiologies, to balance the less-ecumenically helpful triumphalist and universalist formulations on both sides.
(3) Wei Hsien is correct that the bit on the councils is very significant. This idea has been around for a while on both sides, but it’s interesting to see both the Catholic and Orthodox representatives endorsing it here. Obviously, this point will be a lot harder for Latin Catholics to accept than for Eastern Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics.
Obviously, this point will be a lot harder for Latin Catholics to accept than for Eastern Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics.
Yes indeed. For instance, as I already noted on the other thread, this Latin Catholic thinks that the article goes farther than a real Catholic can actually go. Maybe it has been impossible since the schism for Constantinople to hold an ecumenical council, but it has not been impossible for us. Incidentally, what is so magical about the schism between Rome and Constantinople. If the alienation of a large body of Christians from another precludes a genuinely “ecumenical” council, then it seems to me that none have occured since Ephesus.
As a Baptist by birth, a Lutheran by proximity to a Christian school for my children, and an ecumenist by the simplest of reasonings; I’m encouraged by such kind dialog that passes here between my dear Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers.
If this first wound between the two largest parts of the ancient Church is healed, there must follow a wave of self examination regarding unity among all Christians.
Thanks for the kind words, Deacon Eric. I too am encouraged by the generally irenic and charitable dialog that takes place here.
To say that the East-West schism precludes the holding of a genuinely ecumenical council is equivalent to saying that the East-West schism is an actual divide within the Church — that the Church herself is divided and the Creed no longer means what it says about One Church.
I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox will ever agree to this. Despite what Greg said, this notion is more congenial to the RC side than to the Orthodox side. Rome has authoritatively said that the Orthodox Churches are “true particular Churches” even though they are not in communion with Rome. If there can be a “true Church” outside the Roman communion, is this not admitting an actual division within the Church?
The two Churches have two different ecclesiologies. If there is to be unity, there must be repentance for false teaching, not an attempt to “nuance away” the differences.
Greg: As Chris (#8) points out, if the Schism is within the Church, then how can we have a council that is truly ecumenical in this state? The Schism was more than a break between Rome and Constantinople. Effectively, it was a break in communion between Rome and the 4 other major Sees. As Archbishop Elias Zoghby pointed out, the Sessions of the 7th Ecumenical Council state that, in order for a council be regarded as ecumenical, it must have the cooperation of (1) the Pope of Rome; and (2) the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria (Constantinople is assumed since the Council was held in its territory).
Chris: I don’t think that it is impossible for the Orthodox to acknowledge that the Schism is a division within the Church. This statement was issued by Orthodox representatives, after all. The preamble to the decree of union from the Council of Florence states:
If the East could once see the “wall” as being within the One Church, then all hope is not yet lost!
W.H.
Wei Hsien,
The statement was issued by Orthodox representatives, just as the decrees of Florence were signed by Orthodox representatives. But the Orthodox at Florence did not speak for the Orthodox Churches as a whole; only St Mark of Ephesus, who did not sign, spoke for the Orthodox Churches.
I doubt that these “Orthodox representatives” are any more truly representative of Orthodoxy as a whole than their counterparts at Florence were.
As Archbishop Elias Zoghby pointed out, the Sessions of the 7th Ecumenical Council state that, in order for a council be regarded as ecumenical, it must have the cooperation of (1) the Pope of Rome; and (2) the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria (Constantinople is assumed since the Council was held in its territory).
Does Archbishop Zoghby give a citation for this? I cannot find such a claim in the acta of Nicea II.
Incidentally, assuming that Archbishop Zoghby’s assertion about Nicea II is true, if this to be taken as the groundwork for a means by which we might set aside (for instance) the ecumenical status of Vatican I, then you have no idea how problematic a can of worms you are opening up. When Chalcedon anathematized Dioscoros, the vast majority of the Alexandrian faithful followed their Patriarch out of the Catholic communion and into what became Oriental Orthodoxy. As a result, the (at least nominally) Catholic Emperor created a new, Catholic patriarch in Alexandria. So, when we say that it is necessary for the Patriarch of Alexandria to cooperate in order for a council to be “ecumenical,” does this newly created patriarch of Alexandria count? If so, then why does the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, appointed by Pius IX and present at Vatican I, not count as sufficient to make Vatican I pass muster? If, on the other hand, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria does not count, then why does the cooperation of the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria (whose actual congregation was almost nothing) count to make Nicea II legitimate?
Chris: Good point. I only want to say that what was once possible cannot be said to be impossible. The present statement is being issued in circumstances quite different, historically and theologically, than from those at Florence. I have no certainty, only hope.
Greg: I’m traveling, but when I get back to Denver on Sunday, I’ll be able to give you the citation. It comes from the sessions of the Council, not its acts (somewhere between Session 13 and 16, I think).
Also, I appreciate the historical point which you make (I’m learning quite a bit here). I realize that Archbishop Elias’ observation raises questions and opens cans of worms (or rather, scatters the critters all over the floor); nevertheless, I think it is one with which we ought to struggle, even if it makes everything messier. Beyond that, my starved knowledge of the political, historical and theological factors prevents me from saying more. (Incidentally, the qualified acceptance of Pastor Aeternus by the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was rather ambiguous, I think.)
Chris,
I am on record as being more than slightly skeptical about the chances for any form of restoration of communion between East and West. One of the things which I have always seen standing in the way of the reunification are the dogmatic definitions of the Latin Church post 1054 (most especially but certainly not limited to Vatican I). Many Roman Catholics have attempted to assert the possibility of reunion on the basis of the fact that Orthodoxy has never dogmatically anathematized the various doctrinal developments/innovations of the Latin Church.
Mike Liccione is one of the great champions of that line of reasoning. The counter which I always raised was that it boiled down to an acceptance that Rome is in fact THE CHURCH and that we are wrong. That is of course a nonstarter since both East and West independently affirm that they are the One True Church. From an Orthodox perspective therefore it is not possible for the Roman Catholic Church to make true dogmatic definitions.
However Mike is correct on an important point which does lend some small hope. Since Orthodoxy for whatever reasons (I would opine there are many) has not held an oecumenical council since 880 AD, and therefore has not formally condemned the Latin innovations, they could be treated as theologumen. Granted, I think there is far greater unanimity among the Orthodox hierarchs and the lay faithful that many Western doctrines are heretical, than there is support for some of them among the Roman Catholic faithful. But it still boils down to theologumen on our side. But if you remove Rome’s carved in stone claim that those doctrines are infallible truths binding on all of the faithful, then we may move back to square one.
This would not of course end the schism or restore communion. But it would have the effect of saying both sides have strongly held contrary OPINIONS of great import that need to be resolved. On that basis it might be possible to convene a Great Council of The Church to begin the process of sorting things out and resolving them one at time.
By no means is this any guarantee that we would succeed. Florence failed. But I think it is quite probably the only way true and lasting communion could ever be restored. Also I think this would not be something that could be resolved in a year or two. I am thinking decades on the conservative side, but more likely centuries. The mere act of sitting in the same room with the Pope at what might eventually claim to be an ecumenical council would spark schisms within Orthodoxy, and very probably among Roman Catholic traditionalists as also liberal Catholics who would understand the mortal threat to their dreams posed by the prospect of restored communion between Rome and Orthodoxy. And then there is the fact that Ecumenical Councils don’t just happen and get rubber stamped in Orthodoxy. They take years and sometimes centuries to gain acceptance.
Now if you think getting the Orthodox to agree to anything like this is going to be hard then just consider the idea of Rome entertaining, even for a millisecond, the idea that there has not been a true and binding ecumenical council in well over a thousand years. If you like those odds, I have some Enron Stock I would like to sell you at the bargain price of $100.00 per share. Saying that this would be messy and downright ugly would be the understatement of the year. The bottom line is that this is one of the most unlikely ideas ever floated. But I also think it might be the only way that will really work. I do not see communion ever being restored without a Great Council.
Rome claims two very key things. First that all of the Latin dogmas proclaimed post 1054 are correct, and secondly that the Orthodox Churches are true and particular churches that are a part of the One True Church, if imperfectly. In support of this they note (repeatedly) that we have never formally anathematized those doctrines. Assuming for the sake of discussion those two claims are correct then Rome should have nothing to fear from putting it all on the table. Let a true Great Council of The Church be convened and hammer it all out. The worst that happens is it fails and we are back to where we stand today (with a few dozen more schisms on the side). That might indeed be the result. I suspect it is quite likely. The odds against agreement are staggering. But maybe, just maybe, we would see a miracle. I think the possibility of living to see a concelebrated liturgy with all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope of Rome is worth the risk. But it really comes down to this; how confident is Rome of its position? Are they willing or even able to take such a leap? What say my Roman brothers and sisters, is restored communion worth such a risk?
ICXC
John
Rome claims… that the Orthodox Churches are true and particular churches that are a part of the One True Church…
Gosh, I am not sure that is really true. Can you point me to the citation where Rome has gone on records as saying that the Orthodox Churchs are part of Christ’s Church?
I briefly considered confining my reactions to this combox, but quickly realized it wouldn’t be realistic to do so. So, please go here:
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/11/ravenna-latest-chapter-in-catholic.html
Best,
Mike
Greg,
Before I go digging up the texts of the relevant CDF docs, let me ask a quick question. When the Creed speaks of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; do you perceive that it is possible for there to be a true and particular church outside of The Church spoken of in the Creed? I would have to say that such a position would be alien to Orthodoxy.
ICXC
John
Re: #12,
“When Chalcedon anathematized Dioscoros, the vast majority of the Alexandrian faithful followed their Patriarch out of the Catholic communion and into what became Oriental Orthodoxy. As a result, the (at least nominally) Catholic Emperor created a new, Catholic patriarch in Alexandria. So, when we say that it is necessary for the Patriarch of Alexandria to cooperate in order for a council to be “ecumenical,” does this newly created patriarch of Alexandria count? If so, then why does the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, appointed by Pius IX and present at Vatican I, not count as sufficient to make Vatican I pass muster?”
Rem acutissime tetegisti.
Moreover, when one looks in detail at the post-Chalcedon history of the Alexandria patriarchate, one sees readily (a) that despite attempts of the Emperor to foist either an explicitly Chalcedonian patriarchate on it (once, in the person of Dioscoros’ successor, Proterius, who was lynched soon after his arrival in his see) or one who was willing to “discuss issues” without accepting or repudiating the council, the Patriarchate continues united, and overwhelmingly anti-Chalcedonian, until 566, when (b) the Imperial authorities erect a Chalcedonian counter-patriarchate in opposition to the existing one, which had anathematized Chalcedon (not for the first time, but in a conclusive manner) around 563.
I have always maintained, if not Florence, then why Chalcedon; and if Chalcedon, than why not Florence?
Bill,
I have always maintained, if not Florence, then why Chalcedon; and if Chalcedon, than why not Florence?
The answer is simple, if unsatisfying: because Chalcedon was orthodox and Florence heterodox. There can be no other criterion.
As Dr Lossky said, there is no formal, external criterion of the Truth.
Unsatisfying indeed. It seems like classic question begging to me.
because Chalcedon was orthodox and Florence heterodox. There can be no other criterion.
By what authority do you make such a judgment? And who gave you this authority?
Just sayin’….
Diane
Unsatisfying indeed. It seems like classic question begging to me.
To me, it seems more than unsatisfying. It seems downright…Protestant.
Honestly, pardon my pessimism, but there are times when I am almost tempted to say: “If the Orthodox really don’t want reunion, then the heck with ‘em.”
I know that is wrong, but…well, even Our Lord said to shake the dust from one’s feet when one is rejected and rebuffed, over and over again.
Sigh.
I think I’ll take a nap.
God bless,
Diane
classic question begging
Not at all. “Question-begging” is the introduction of hidden premises into an argument which amount to assuming the answer which one wishes to demonstrate. What I have done is to make the case that the premises underlying the question are wrong or unfounded, which is something else entirely. Thus I plead not guilty to question-begging.
What, after all, is the question being begged? Underlying Bill’s often-asked rhetorical question comparing Chalcedon and Florence is the substantive, non-rhetorical question “what are the objective criteria by which we may determine whether or not a council is ecumenical and therefore authoritative and infallible?”. If there are such objective criteria, then we may meaningfully ask which councils qualify, and whether or not any particular communion (Rome, Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy) is applying such criteria consistently. Hence Bill’s question “if not Florence, why Chalcedon and if Chalcedon, why not Florence?” One might as well ask “why Nicaea and not Sirmium; why Chalcedon and not Ephesus II; and why Nicaea II and not Hieria?”
The Roman Catholic answer to this underlying question has the virtue of simplicity: the criterion of ecumenicity is nothing more nor less than confirmation by the Pope. This, of course, makes the authority of the council entirely derivative from that of the Pope, which is entirely alien to the Orthodox ecclesiology of sobornost and mutual accountability among bishops.
The Orthodox Church, rather than having a different answer, a different set of criteria, simply denies the premise of the question, denies that the question is meaningful. An ecumenical council is not, as the question implies, an element (however extraordinary) of the polity and structure of the Church, whose convening, composition, role, and authority can be laid out in systematic fashion. It is, rather, a charismatic event in which the Holy Spirit, when and as He chooses, raises up a council to be a witness to the Church’s authentic and unchanging Tradition — just as the Holy Spirit raises up an Athanasius, an Augustine, or a Maximos Confessor to be a witness to the Apostolic Tradition. We can no more apply external criteria to define an ecumenical council than we can identify an “automatic Athanasius” or a “guaranteed Maximos.”
To recognize one council and to reject another is not a matter of observing and applying historical criteria, and then submitting to the authority of a council thus identified; the recognition or rejection of a council is an act of confession.
Diane,
It seems downright…Protestant.
That is perhaps unsurprising. I am, after all, a Lutheran.
“If the Orthodox really don’t want reunion, then the heck with ‘em.”
To be fair, don’t blame the Orthodox for my intransigence.
Anyway, the Orthodox “want reunion” just as much as anybody. But they want it on the basis of orthodoxy, of the Truth. A reunion on the basis of “nuance” and the explaining-away of differences is worth nothing.
Re: #23: Points very well taken, Chris.
Greg and others,
As promised, here is a text from the Seventh Ecumenical Council. It is not from the Horos or Definition of the Council but rather Sessions V and VI.
Chris:
This, of course, makes the authority of the council entirely derivative from that of the Pope, which is entirely alien to the Orthodox ecclesiology of sobornost and mutual accountability among bishops.
As I have pointed out many times before in debate with you, that does not follow at all. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not that the authority of the episcopal college derives from that of the pope, but rather that it can only bind the whole Church in union with that of the pope. Ordinarily, that means express papal approbation. Councils can and have met without the pope convoking or even attending them, yielding sound results thereby; but they do not bind the whole Church without, at some point, the pope. And once a dogmatic definition from such a council is ratified by the pope, no subsequent pope has the authority to revoke it. That is certainly one kind of accountability; there are other, less formal ones that I’ve discussed before with you.
An ecumenical council is not…an element (however extraordinary) of the polity and structure of the Church, whose convening, composition, role, and authority can be laid out in systematic fashion. It is, rather, a charismatic event in which the Holy Spirit, when and as He chooses, raises up a council to be a witness to the Church’s authentic and unchanging Tradition.
From the Catholic standpoint, that is an altogether false dichotomy. For one thing, it would make no sense even in Catholic terms to say that an ecumenical council is an element of the “polity or structure of the Church.” Rather, it is an extraordinary exercise of the authority of such an element, namely the episcopal college—a very important element, I should think. Such an exercise is certainly “charismatic” in the sense you claim, rightly, is intended by the Orthodox understanding. But then, so in Catholic terms is the general authority of the bishops and the pope to teach infallibly, when the conditions for their so doing are satisfied. It does not arise from their personal expertise or virtue, but by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
To recognize one council and to reject another is not a matter of observing and applying historical criteria, and then submitting to the authority of a council thus identified; the recognition or rejection of a council is an act of confession.
Another false dichotomy. In Catholic terms, recognizing a council as binding on the whole Church is not the result of the scholarly application of “historical criteria.” Rather, it is a matter of ascertaining whether the episcopal college, in union with the pope, intends its decrees to so bind. It so binds when, with papal ratification, it manifests its intention to do so.
As to confession: once I accept a council that so binds, I confess as de fide what it teaches. I do not do so because I happen to approve of how it has resolved a controversial theological issue. The resolution might or might not seem satisfactory to me or my theological allies as individual members of the Church; but that does not matter. I confess its teaching as de fide because I recognize that those who decreed and ratified what I assent to have the apostolic authority to require my assent thereto as a member of the Church. That’s what matters, and that’s all that matters. Anything else is private judgment.
Best,
Mike
Chris,
I like your post and the direction I think you are attempting to move in (unless I am misreading your point). However there really are some criteria, even in Orthodoxy, for Ecumenical Councils. Councils need to be lawfully convened and there must be someone to preside over them. As noted elsewhere in the discussion councils must also be received by the various patriarchates. While I like the effort to remove an element of laid out legal formatting that seems to put limits on the workings of the Holy Spirit, we need to be careful that we don’t slide too far in the other direction. Orthodoxy is not a society of theological anarchists.
ICXC
John
Mike,
As I have pointed out many times before in debate with you, that does not follow at all.
No matter how many times you have “pointed it out,” that does not make it so. If the authority of a council is not binding until and unless it is ratified by the Pope (as you stated), then its authority does not and cannot exist apart from that ratification — an authority which is “not binding” is no authority at all. We can, therefore, never look to the council itself for its authority; we must always look to the authority of the Pope who has ratified it. Hence, the council’s authority is derivative. You have simply re-stated my conclusion in your own words, all the while claiming that my conclusion “does not follow.”
You have not demonstrated that my conclusion does not follow; all you have done is to claim that the RC Church does not explicitly teach that it follows. That is simply an argument from authority, an authority which I do not recognize; and, in particular, an authority whose nature and scope is precisely what is under discussion. You’re skating closer to question-begging than I have done.
The RC Church can say as much as it likes that the bishops’ authority is somehow independent of the authority of the Pope. But their exercise of that authority is circumscribed in the Roman system in such a manner and to such an extent that the dependence of episcopal authority on Papal authority is an ineluctable inference. If RC doctrine attempts to say otherwise, that does not make it so; it merely makes RC doctrine incoherent.
John,
there really are some criteria, even in Orthodoxy, for Ecumenical Councils
True; but only necessary, not sufficient, conditions. It is remarkably difficult to delineate a set of conditions which consistently explains the acceptance of some councils and the rejection of others — to explain, for example, why Ephesus II (the “Robber Council”) is to be rejected in favour of Chalcedon. That is what gives Bill’s rhetorical question — which we may perhaps call “Tighe’s Conundrum” — its force.
The fundamental criterion for Orthodoxy has always been “acceptance by the Church.” But every ecumenical council has been occasioned by a doctrinal division within the Church and most of them have exacerbated, rather than healed, those divisions; precisely because, by giving explicit definition to some aspect of the Church’s Tradition, the councils’ decrees have served to define the boundaries of the Church. There is an ineluctable circularity in the “reception by the Church” criterion, because it is only reception by the orthodox that “counts.” If a council were invalid because it was rejected by the heterodox, of what possible use could the council be?
What makes a council authoritative is that it is an authentic witness to the Apostolic Tradition, such that the orthodox are willing to, and do, makes its teachings a matter of communion-breaking, Church-dividing confession. That is the meaning of St Maximos’s statement that “even if the whole world should agree with you [the Monotheletes], I should not be in communion with you.” That is why we honour him with the title “the Confessor.”
Hi, John. Can you explain how the process described by Mike above puts “limits on the workings of the Holy Spirit”?
I ask in all sincerity. This is a common charge made against alleged Latin “legalism,” but I never see it backed up by anything. I would really appreciate some explanation as to precisely how the Catholic approach limits the working of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks much in advance!
Diane
When the Creed speaks of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; do you perceive that it is possible for there to be a true and particular church outside of The Church spoken of in the Creed?
Yes, briefly stated, I do think that this is possible. Many of my fellow Catholics also think as much. In light of this, can you point me to the Catholic affirmation of the claim that the Orthodox Churches are part of Christ’s Church?
#23: Points very well taken, Chris.
Well, yes, I agree with this. Mr Jones does admirably acquit himself of the charge of begging the question in #23. That said, I think that the other sentence in your response to his post is still apt. That is, his answer to Dr Tighe is still “unsatisfying indeed.”
Perhaps Mr Jones has Jesus over for tea and cucumber sandwiches ever Tuesday afternoon, such that Mr Jones has a chance to ask Jesus whether he has two wills, one human and one divine, or just one will. I do not.
For my part, I can happily affirm that wholesome apophaticism of the Orthodox which is chary of saying any more about God than that which He has revealed to us Himself. That said, I was not around in first century Palestine to hear God makes these revelations, so I am obliged to rely on second-hand testimony which I get from the Church which He established to preserve this revelation.
In order to do so, I must be able to identify those organs of the Church’s magisterium that actually do the yeoman’s work of preserving said revelation. The idea that there exist “no formal, external criteri[a] of the Truth” by which I might recognize Chalcedon as “orthodox” leaves me without a single following Jesus. How am I supposed to follow Him if I cannot get a straight answer to the question “what did He tell us?”?
Dear Wei-Hsien Wan,
Hm, it is not clear to me from that text that the cooperation of Alexandria, Antioch, etc is really necessary for a council to function as an ecumenical synod. Certainly if such a requirement really is necessary then we have to wonder how the first council of Constantinople, which had no Roman involvement, is to pass muster. In any event, as I said before, this simply is not going to work as a strategy to solve the problems associated with Vatican I or Trent. One cannot clear them off the slate of “Ecumenical Councils” without calling Chalcedon or Nicea II into question at the same time.
Greg (#33),
Yes, I meant Chris’s acquittal of himself on the question-begging charge.
[...] Final Ravenna Document Cathedra Unitatis has posted the text of The Final Ravenna Document. I read it with great hope that the divisions between East and West may one day come to an end. It [...]
How am I supposed to follow Him if I cannot get a straight answer to the question “what did He tell us?”?
Precisement, as Poirot would say.
Sacred Tradition, like Sacred Scripture, does not explicate itself.
Greg,
I’m not clear as to Rome’s involvement at the First Council of Constantinople. If Rome was not involved, wouldn’t that raise the problem of a council being ecumenical without the Pope’s ratification? In any case, would you agree with what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it?
I understand that the criteria in the Sessions above does not tidy things up with regards to Chalcedon and Nicea II, but it still seems to put these two councils in a better position than, say, Vatican I, from which even more Patriarchs were absent.
W.H.
Chris (#29):
I think the reason you fail to recognize my argument as an argument is that, for reasons which remain mysterious to me, you have never recognized the distinction on which the argument hinges. I shall exhibit the logic of it once again here; perhaps others will see it even if you don’t.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the authority of the episcopal college is only exercised legitimately with at least the “consent” of the Roman Pontiff (cf. LG §22). But that does not mean that said authority “derives” from the pope’s. A few facts illustrate as much. Throughout the Church’s history, there have been many instances when bishops in communion with Rome attained their offices without papal appointment and/or exercised their authority without a canonical mission from the pope. That is rare today, but it still happens, e.g. in a few of the Eastern churches. And of course there was the Council of Constance, which was not convoked by anybody whom the Church as a whole recognized as pope and, indeed, decided who was to be pope. If it were Catholic doctrine that bishops merely derived their authority from the pope’s, all of that would be considered illegitimate by the Church. It is not.
I do see a glimmer of hope, however, in the way your first and last paragraphs equivocate. Thus we first get this:
We can, therefore, never look to the council itself for its authority; we must always look to the authority of the Pope who has ratified it. Hence, the council’s authority is derivative.
followed by this:
The RC Church can say as much as it likes that the bishops’ authority is somehow independent of the authority of the Pope. But their exercise of that authority is circumscribed in the Roman system in such a manner and to such an extent that the dependence of episcopal authority on Papal authority is an ineluctable inference.
(Emphasis added).
Dependence is a weaker relation than derivation. If A derives from B, then A indeed depends on B; but the converse does not follow: e.g. I depend on my brain but I do not derive from my brain. Given what I’ve identified as Catholic teaching, there is a sense in which the authority of the episcopal college “depends” on that of the pope; for it cannot be legitimately exercised against that of the pope. But given all I’ve been citing, it just does not follow that said authority “derives” from that of the pope.
As I’ve also said more than once before, it’s no good having a debate about whether Catholic teaching is true if we can’t even agree on what the teaching is. I hope my little excursus into history and logic will move us closer to such agreement.
Best,
Mike
And of course there was the Council of Constance, which was not convoked by anybody whom the Church as a whole recognized as pope and, indeed, decided who was to be pope. If it were Catholic doctrine that bishops merely derived their authority from the pope’s, all of that would be considered illegitimate by the Church. It is not.
Very well said. The existence of the Council of Constance gives the irrefutable lie to the rather silly idea that, on a Catholic view, bishops derive their authority from the Pope.
I’m not clear as to Rome’s involvement at the First Council of Constantinople. If Rome was not involved, wouldn’t that raise the problem of a council being ecumenical without the Pope’s ratification?
The Pope’s only role in Constantinople I was his ratification. The whole synod was conducted without his knowledge, and then presented to him after the fact as a fait accompli. It seems rather a stretch, then, to say that Rome “cooperated” in the first council of Constantinople. If such cooperation is really a necessary condition of “ecumenical” status, then Vatican I is not the only council to go. Indeed, as I said, Vatican I had at least the Latin patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Constantinople I had not any Roman representatives, so if the cooperation of the Pentarchy is really to be taken as a criterion for establishing “ecumenical” status, Constantinople I will get the axe before Vatican I.
Greg,
I’m having a hard time seeing your point, so I think the following questions might help clear things up a bit.
1. Do you think that the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council were wrong in claiming that all the preceding councils bore the cooperation of the Pope of Rome? It might seem like a stretch to you, but that is in fact what the Fathers said.
2. If the later ratification given by Pope Damasus and his successors to Constantinople I cannot be sufficiently regarded as “cooperation” (synergon), then are you saying that a council can be ecumenical without the ratification of the Pope?
3. What do you think is at stake with the ecumenicity of Vatican I? What do we have to lose if we regard it as a Synod of the Western Church, but not as an Ecumenical Council?
Thanks.
W.H.
Now, if the so-called modernist “orthodox theologians” want to forget about and deny one of many confessors of the “True Orthodox Church” that is of their accord and free will.
As for me, I will answer with our Great and Most Holy Father Saint Mark of Ephesus…
“The testimonies of these Western teachers I neither recognize nor accept,” he said, “There can be no compromise in matters of Orthodoxy.” Amen!
THE FALLACY OF THE RAVENNA DOCUMENT
It is obvious to all who understand Orthodox Christianity that the Final Ravenna Document is not the work of the Holy Spirit, nor is it even academically correct. This can be demonstrated since the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has an erroneous premise in paragraph 5 of its Final Ravenna Document which is as follows: “The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility.”
This is an utterly false premise. Although the term conciliarity might come from the word “council” (concilium in Latin), the term conciliarity does not also come from the word “synodos” in Greek. The word synodality comes from the word “synod” (synodos in Greek, no word in Latin). The word conciliarity comes from the word “council” (symvoulion in Greek, concilium in Latin).
The meaning of the word “ecumenical” in the phrase “Holy Ecumenical Synod” is having “worldwide range or applicability” (as defined by The Free Dictionary by Farlex); it does not mean being “concerned with establishing or promoting unity among [different denominations] or religions” (as defined by The Free Dictionary by Farlex). Simply put, a Holy Ecumenical Synod is a Holy Synod of the Ecumene where “ecumene” is the entire area of the world where the faithful, of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, live. A Holy Ecumenical Synod is an officially convened gathering of all the hierarchs of the ecumene of our one Holy Orthodox Church of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Further, in order for a Holy Synod to be termed ecumenical, it must be accepted as being ecumenical by a later Holy Synod which also is considered to be ecumenical and/or it must be accepted as being ecumenical by a preponderance of the faithful of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” of our Creed.
We Orthodox Christians call our assembly of bishops and church officials, convened for regulating matters of ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline, a synod (synodos), not a council (symvoulion). The Holy Orthodox Church has always gathered and will always gather in synod, not council. If hierarchs gather in council and not a synod, then we know that these hierarchs are not of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. For example, we celebrate the Holy 7th Ecumenical Synod (Holy 7th Synod of the Ecumene), not the Holy 7th Ecumenical Council. Why? Properly speaking, although both a synod and a council are hoped to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at a synod all official members are expected to show up, and they have an equal vote. More importantly, the vote cannot be overruled by anyone except for the preponderance of devout laity of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed or another synod that is equal to or greater in authority than the synod called.
It is this last fact that some people seem to misinterpret into assuming that a council and a synod are the same. A lesser synod can always be overruled by a greater synod. As an example, an Archdiocesan Synod (lesser synod) can be overruled by a Patriarchal Synod (greater synod). A synod that is not a Holy Synod of the Ecumene (lesser synod) can always be overruled by a Holy Synod of the Ecumene (greater synod). Orthodox Christians hold that when a synod is gathered together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that synod will always eventually be confirmed by an equal or greater synod than itself. The point of confusion arises since a lesser synod seems similar in function to a council in that it can be overruled by a greater synod. However, although this is true, a lesser synod cannot be overruled by just one hierarch, whereas only one hierarch can override a council.
At a council everyone may also have an equal vote, but the council can be overruled by another person who is not present at the council. For example, simply put, the Roman Catholic Church uses a council system, not a synodal system. The Pope does not meet and vote with his Cardinals as in a synod, but the Cardinals meet in council, and then the Pope tells them whether they are correct or not. This is not the tradition or way of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The only time the Roman Catholic Church uses more of a synodal system is when it votes to replace a Pope who has died. In this case, there is no Pope to tell the Council of Cardinals whether they are right or not, and there is no other redress either.
Many people are familiar with councils in their local parishes and secular forms of government. For example, the decisions of a Parish Council may be overruled by the parish, the priest, the hierarch, a higher council, or a synod. A City Council may have its decisions overruled by the citizens of the city, the mayor, or a court, etc.
Because of this above, solitary, much-reflected-upon, much-discussed, flaunted, and untrue premise in paragraph 5 of the Final Ravenna Document, its participants made extremely erroneous conclusions. Why and how it happened is important. For all who have agape for the All-Holy Trinity, the Final Ravenna Document does not contain the true essence of the Holy Church of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. May our Lord Jesus Christ and our most-holy Mother of God, the Theotokos, have great mercy on our souls and protect us from all that has taken place at Ravenna.
[...] The text of the Ravenna Document can be found at the old blog, Cathedra Unitatis. [...]