2. The second principle of dogmatic hermeneutics concerns the rereading of the First Vatican Council in light of the whole tradition and the integration of that Council within this tradition as a whole. The texts of the First Vatican Council itself already pointed out this route. The introduction to the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus described it as the intention to interpret this teaching “secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem” and defend it against mistakes. Clear mention was made of the declarations of the previous Popes and of the preceding Councils. The First Vatican Council even appealed to the consensus between the Church in the East and the Church in the West. The Second Vatican Council reinforced especially this last point when it mentioned the legitimacy of the particular tradition of the Oriental Churches and recognized that they can rule themselves according to their own law.
Such indications express an important concept, valid for all Councils: the Church is the same in all centuries and in all Councils; this is why each Council is to be interpreted in the light of the whole tradition and of all the Councils. The Holy Spirit, Who guides the Church, particularly in its Councils, cannot contradict Himself. What was true in the first millennium cannot be untrue in the second. Therefore the older tradition should not be simply considered as a first phase of a further development. The other way round is also true: the later developments should be interpreted in the light of the wider older tradition. Therefore the First Vatican Council should be seen in the context of the older Councils. Thus the first millennium’s ecclesiology of communion, reaffirmed in its validity by the Second Vatican Council, constitutes the hermeneutical framework for the First Vatican Council.
In the meanwhile, especially after Cardinal Ratzinger’s conference in Graz, the normative importance of the first millennium has been widely recognized also in Catholic theology. But it is essential to understand it correctly. It is clear that it is not a question of simply going back to the first millennium or reverting to an “ecumenism of return.” Such a return to the first millennium is impossible, in any case, for historical reasons: divergent views already existed in the first millennium, and so it cannot offer us any miraculous solution. Moreover, significant developments have taken place in the second millennium not only in the Catholic Church but also within the Eastern Churches. Why should we suppose that the Spirit guided the Church only in the first millennium? And did not the first millennium already contain the foundations of what developed in the second, which is true of the Eastern tradition also?
Therefore today, at the dawn of the third millennium, we cannot turn back the clock of history; but we can interpret the different events of the second millennium in the light of the first one in order to open the door to the third millennium. The Second Vatican Council had already initiated the interpretation of the First Vatican Council within the wider horizon of communio ecclesiology.
A corresponding reception on the part of the Churches in the East has not happened so far. Such a reception would not imply a mechanical acceptance or a submission of the East to the Latin tradition: it would entail a lively and creative process of appropriation into one’s own tradition. This would enrich the tradition of the Eastern Church and give it a greater degree of unity and independence that is currently lacking. Also, the Latin tradition would be freed from the constraints in which it found itself in the second millennium. The Church as a whole – as the Pope has expressed many times – would start breathing with two lungs again. This implies that integrating the other tradition and vice versa could lead to different forms and expressions in the exercise of the Petrine ministry, as occurred in the first millennium and as occurs today in the Oriental Churches in full communion with Rome.
To be continued …
Cathedra Unitatis 
“Introduction to the Theme and Catholic Hermeneutics of the Dogmas of the First Vatican Council.” From The Petrine Ministry: Catholics And Orthodox In Dialogue. Walter Cardinal Kasper, ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1995), pp. 16-18.
“A corresponding reception on the part of the Churches in the East has not happened so far. Such a reception would not imply a mechanical acceptance or a submission of the East to the Latin tradition: it would entail a lively and creative process of appropriation into one’s own tradition.”
I do not foresee the East appropriating the juridical ecclesiology that forms the basis of the Vatican I decree. What is more likely is that the West will finally recognize the fact that the councils it held during the second millennium are not ecumenical, but are only particular synods of the Western Church, and as such, they do not now, nor will they ever, apply to the Orthodox.
The East rejects the vitalistic notion of doctrinal development espoused by Cardinal Newman, and hold instead that doctrines are immutable encounters with God through the uncreated energies. What can develop is our perspective in seeing the truth, but the doctrine remains unchanged. In other words, the change occurs in man, i.e., in his perception of the reality, but not in the doctrine itself.
God bless,
Todd
So, you’re saying the East is inflexible, and all compromise must come from the West?
That is most unhelpful, IMHO. As is use of loaded “devil-terms” like “juridical ecclesiology.” Can’t we get past these polemical caricatures?
Cathedral Unitatis,
I am an Orthodox Christian in full unity with Constantinople. I am also convinced that Rome is correct in her claims, but after much prayer have been convinced that conversion would be wrong in my situation. I now strive to be part of the appropriation within the Orthodox Church of the ecclesiology apprehended by Rome for an Eastern context.
Rather than considering taking a road to Rome, dear Cathedra Unitatis, why not embrace your Orthodox Faith and work for the healing of Christ’s body by helping with this appropriation in our own Church?
After all, if you go to Rome, then will you not be furthering the breach by re-enforcing the polemical voices who say that Rome and Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive? We are Orthodox… how can we abandon our Church for what is only another part of the whole, and even if the Cathedra Unitatis abides in her, is she not still incomplete without the Eastern Church? Has not God placed us here to work for the restoration of the wholeness of the Church?
OC – I really appreciate your perspective here. Many thanks for posting this.
Diane,
What I am saying is that the West will need to reformulate the primacy along the lines of an ecclesiology of communion, which involves the restoration of a patristic understanding of the relationship between the one (i.e., the universal Church) and the many (i.e., the many particular Churches) within the Church. In other words, the West will need to return to a position on the primacy that does not see it as a supreme power or legal jurisdiction over others, because these secular notions have no place in the Church, but which instead sees primacy as a loving service in the maintenance of ecclesial communion. Now, in addition to avoiding secular notions of authority in the Church, it is important to also avoid an ecclesiology that promotes the false idea that each particular Church relates to the universal Church as parts of a whole, because each particular Church is mystically and sacramentally the whole Church. Thus, no bishop or Church can be over another, because the unity of the sacrament of orders to Episcopacy is a reality that transcends the particular, since the whole of the episcopal office is manifested in each bishop. Moreover, every bishop is a successor of the Apostles, and this includes the Apostle Peter, which means that all bishops hold the petrine succession, while certain particular sees (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria) have a historical connection to Peter in addition to that which they possess through episcopal consecration [see St. Gregory the Great, “Registrum Epistolarum,” Book VII, 40]. Ultimately, the Roman primacy will need to be situated once again within the synodal structure of the Church, and that means that the primate cannot act without the agreement of his synod, while the synod cannot act without its head [see the “Apostolic Canons,” canon 34].
God bless,
Todd
Thank you, CU. You have been in my prayers since I discovered your blog in January. I look forward to learning how to “breathe fully” with you as you explore these very complex issues that are supremely worthy of attention if we truly love the Lord Jesus whose body we find torn.
Let me add a provocative point of which this post reminds me, and risk quoting a heretic as an authority…
I once read a book simply called “The Church” by the Protestant theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg that makes a point similar to the one made here by Kaspar. Pannenberg says that unity must come when we look forward to the parousia. He asserts, again provocatively, that all divisions of Christendom are based upon mythical pasts: the Protestants look to one in which the Church was united around the primitive teaching of the apostles. THe Orthodox look to a mythical past in which all were united under the Pentarchy, and the Catholics look back to an era where all were united around Peter. None can entirely square historiographically. For example, Rome might have had its present theology more or less intact pretty early in the 5th century with Leo, but the other patriarchs were certainly not convinced… and vice versa… Since proposals for future unity cannot therefore be based on these false historical foundations, Pannenberg says, the solution is to look forward and ask, “what must I(we) do to be ready and unashamed at the second coming, when we shall stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ and give an account for our role (and the role of others, if you take the Orthodox juncture to repent of the sins of all mankind) in these divisions?” We know that we shall be perfectly one and united in Him at the eschaton… so what must we do now to prepare, and how does our future, eschatological unity impact our ecclesiology now?
As an Orthodox, I disagree with Pannenberg’s Protestant pragmatism. The past indeed makes us who we are. But so does the future. And Holy Tradition seems strongly eschatological both in its “development” (we can debate later, brethren, about this touchy word) as well as its content and orientation. Is this not therefore, the very thing about which Kaspar and Pannenberg are prophetically warning us? That our future is the key to the past? Let us take the words of the poet as our warning:
“East is East and West is West
And ne’er the twain shall meet
till earth and sky shall fly away
from God’s Great Judgement Seat.”
Lord, have mercy.
While being a catholic I agree with STK. The primacy of the ecumencial council and the infalliablity of the bishops in concert with the Pope must be stress. We must be able to say, without betraying tradition, that the Pope is an infallible head, because he is permeantly connected to an infalliable body of bishops, that are led by the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that, regarding primacy and conciliarity, both Orthodox and Catholic often have unrealistic expectations of one another.
Orthodox hardliners demand a wholesale return to the first millennium what they regard as a Roman “primacy of honor”. Catholic hardliners hold that, even though certain concessions can be made, the Orthodox must nonetheless accept the Roman primacy as it has developed in the second millennium. Catholics should not desire the “submission” of the East to the Papacy, with the surrender of ecclesiastical autonomy; nor should Orthodox desire the “submission” of the Papacy to the East, with a wholesale dismantling of the entire Roman primacy as it has developed.
If you ask me, both Orthodox and Catholics have a lot of growing and developing to do in the area of ecclesiology. Simple “return”, whether it be to the first or second millennium, is not a panacea. The East and the West must find an ecclesiology of communion for the third millennium. The famous Ratzinger proposal is a way of imagining how this might work.
This will be uncomfortable for both sides, obviously, but I don’t see practically how it could be done otherwise.
Benedict XVI has a deep and subtle ecclesiology, one that is commonly misunderstood by many on all sides.
His proposal for the pre-requisites of unity state the solution problematically without stating the way, but perhaps meant to inspire creative thinking. He is trying to do his part in his proposal on behalf of the West by eliminating the title of “Patriarch of the West,” (though this again was misunderstood). What can we Easterners do to point the way forward?
CU, you hit the nail on the head. It will be uncomfortable for both, and require more humility, forgiveness, and love that we have yet been able to muster in our history of pride and bloodguilt. Let us all prepare by repentance!
This Lent, let us all fast and pray particularly for our reconciliation. When the most heard-headed partisan among us on both sides unite through repentance in ashes, all things become possible for God. We have all been given varying degrees of intellectual creativity and acumen. Not all of us, perhaps none of us, can hit the golden solution, but all of us can repent, fast, and pray.
CU,
I am an Eastern Catholic, but I can tell you right now that the assumption underlying your post, i.e., that ecclesiology must “develop”, is not going to fly well in the Orthodox Churches.
Primacy within synodality is the only way in which East and West can be reunited, and that means that the juridical notions underlying the Vatican I decree will have to be either expunged, or they must be so radically reinterpreted as to make them nearly nonsensical. To be blunt, I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will ever accept Vatican I as a true ecumenical council.
God bless,
Todd
P.S. – I remember reading something about a paragraph (no. 45) in the document on the Primacy and Synodality in the Church being discussed in Belgrade, which said that since the schism there have not been any “ecumenical” councils, but only particular synods held either in communion with Rome or in communion with Constantinople. If my memory serves me, this was the portion of the text that caused the Russian Orthodox delegates to become upset.
Nor would a suggestion of development fly very well in conservative and traditionalist Catholic circles. It would be very uncomfortable and painful for both sides, which is why the above commenter “An Orthodox Catholic” may be right about the eschaton.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s fair for the Orthodox to expect Rome to do all of the “expunging” or “radical reinterpretation” with regard to everything that offends or confuses the Orthodox … in the same way that it would be unfair for Catholics to expect Orthodox to do the same.
Dear Cathedraunititus,
Dearest brother, I have been following your appearance with some interest because I also enjoy much of what has been said on these threads.
Way back when you commented on the Ochlophobist blog I entreated you to delve into Orthodox spirituality, which I still maintain is the fulfillment of your search as well as all peoples. As a brother to you I humbly enjoin you to not bolt, but to be patient with our Church, she will not dissapoint you. She is so lovely as she is.
My brother, I also humbly bring to your attention that when we are dealing with these matters of extreme imoportance, ultimately we are discussing matters of cosmic significance and to alter anything is very dangerous.
Have you ever considered that it is a strenghth of the Church not to change rather than a weakness? Also when we say that each side should give and take, do we not remember that the Church is not ruled by a democracy where we can decide what to concede and what not to but that the Church is ruled as a monarchy by the Master?
The Orthodox Church has remained unchanged not because of Her members, but in spite of them.
I just wished to add my voice to your cosideration.
In fellowship and in Christ,
Sophocles
Dear Sophocles,
How do you live out Orthodox spirituality?
Dear Michael,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to answer you. Are you asking me my opinion on how one goes about living Orthodox spirituality or are you asking how I, personally, live it out? Also, are you the same Michael I have spoken with a bit on Energetic Processions?
STK:
Your arguments against both Vatican-I ecclesiology and the development of doctrine are fallacious.
1. According to you, the “ecclesiology of communion” premises that each and every local church “is mystically and sacramentally the whole Church.” There is a sense in which that is true and Catholic: if all but one local church were to disappear, the whole Church would still exist. All the marks of the universal Church exist in each true, particular church. But you also claim it follows that local churches are not related to “the” Church as parts to the whole. That does not follow. The existence of any particular church presupposes a universal Church to which it belongs, whereas the existence of the universal Church does not presuppose that of any local church in particular. In the beginning, i.e. with the Apostles, the universal Church happened to coincide with the local church of Jerusalem; but all that shows is that the universal Church must necessarily be embodied in some or other local church or churches; it does not show that any old local church is, itself, the Church. If it did show that, then there would be more than one universal Church, which is absurd.
Moreover, on your version of the ecclesiology of communion, a group of bishops called a “synod” can have authority over members of the synod. How that is possible if each local church is the universal Church as opposed to being a part of it is, at best, unclear. What we have here is another false dichotomy at work.
It is also thought that such an ecclesiology precludes a single bishop’s having authority over all other bishops. You claim the latter idea is “secular” as opposed, presumably, to theological. That doesn’t follow either. Just as synods can and do exercise authority over their members consistently with the ordinary authority of each member as bishop, so a single bishop can exercise authority over synods consistently with the latter’s ordinary authority within their respective jurisdictions. Of course one can rule out such an inference with the assumption that that only rule by consensus is consistent with servant-leadership in love. But there is no more evidence in Eastern than in Western tradition that that assumption was always accepted, much less made dogmatic.
2. You write: The East rejects the vitalistic notion of doctrinal development espoused by Cardinal Newman, and hold instead that doctrines are immutable encounters with God through the uncreated energies. What can develop is our perspective in seeing the truth, but the doctrine remains unchanged. In other words, the change occurs in man, i.e., in his perception of the reality, but not in the doctrine itself.
That is confused. Newman quite clearly affirmed that the reality of divine revelation, which is centered in the Person of Jesus Christ and coextensive with the content of “the deposit of faith,” is immutable. Doctrines, on the other hand, are formulations of said content. Those can and do change—not in the sense of negating what has been authoritatively proclaimed and affirmed as belonging to the deposit of faith, but in the sense of improving and sharpening the expression thereof, which in turn both reflects and facilitates improvement in our “perception” and understanding. As John XXIII said: “The deposit of faith is one thing; its mode of expression is another.” Development of doctrine is not that of the content of Truth, but of the understanding and expression of Truth. What you call vitalism is as good a metaphor as any for that process.
Best,
Mike
Mike L,
You’ve probably read this before and you are no doubt more familiar with this author than I am, but it has helped form my thinking concerning some of the problems you brought up:
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/schmemann_unity.html
Let me quote an especially relevant portion of Schmemann’s essay:
“For the Byzantine Church division meant the falling away of one or several local Churches from catholic agreement and, consequently, from the trite faith expressed in and through this agreement, not, would I repeat, a separation from a universal organism, nor the breaking away from Eastern Church, regarded in some sense of the word as the source of the Church, but the violation of Tradition and Truth. But in so far as the Church manifests and recognizes her ontological identity in this unity of Tradition, in this manifested Truth, and the unity of faith is a condition of this identity, the violation of catholic agreement interrupts the communion in the Sacraments. For the Roman Church division is precisely a breaking off of communion with Rome, because Rome is the source of the Church and the source of her visible of unity.”
Sophocles Said:
“Dear Michael,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to answer you. Are you asking me my opinion on how one goes about living Orthodox spirituality or are you asking how I, personally, live it out? Also, are you the same Michael I have spoken with a bit on Energetic Processions?”
Sophocles: I suppose I am asking both, how one goes about living Orthodox spirituality and (if you care to share) how you find it helpful living it out.
No, I don’t believe I have spoken with you on Energetic Processions. I have however become a fan of Monk Patrick!
Dear Michael,
First of all, a joyous Lenten Season to you, dear brother. Yeah, me too, I have become a huge fan of Father(Monk) Patrick, I’m so glad that there are guys out there that understand the Faith like they do and can explain it to those within and those without the Church.
As to what questions you have posed above, my brother, I woefully lack the ability to state what our Holy Church says about Orthodox Catholic spirituality. I can only direct you to do what She has directed me to do, to make the Church my Mother, to follow the liturgical cycle of Her calender, observing the Feasts and the
Fasts under the guidance of a spiritual father(we fast to learn how to feast, the Church goes from Feast to Feast in her cycle, not Fast to Fast, an important distinction, in preparation for that Great Feast with the Triune God), and repent always.
I believe that from the outset we must keep at the forefront of our minds that it is a PROCESS to grow in our understanding and praxis of becoming Christ, to be prapared for the inevitable ups and downs that will ensue, to understand that we have a very real enemy that HATES us and will hinder every step of the way our growth in Him who loves us, who died for us, who suffered for us.
I, a vile sinner, have very little understanding of these matters, so I would urge you to immerse yourself in Holy Scripture and that here you would surrender your own understanding to that of our Holy Fathers that the mind of the Church may be formed in you.
Understand, strive to understand more, that you are broken, you are sick(by “you” I mean to include myself here as well as sick, fallen humanity which our Lord took the form of man to heal this nature) and this sickness is not only in your spirit, but is also in your will, your body(and forgive me for compartmentalizing these things as they are not distinct and separated from each other, but for explaining I did so.)
Theosis is the center of our belief and this is not to be understood in a way other that the path up towards God is down, serving and loving and forgiving my fellow human beings, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, Christian and non-Christian, any and all that it is in my power to love, to identify with, to see Christ in.
I hope this has been of some small help, my brother, and I hope that in whatever shortcomings you may find in my answer, you may forgive me.
In fellowship and in Christ,
Sophocles