The Ravenna Document is stimulating great and profound thoughts in the Orthodox-Catholic blogosphere.
First, from an Orthodox perspective, John at Ad Orientem has two posts on Ecumenical Councils (post I and post II). I’m encouraged to see this sort of constructive, rather than nitpicky and dismissive, response from a fellow Orthodox.
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 …
Partly in response to John’s posts, Dr. Mike Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae) has some excellent reflections from a Roman Catholic perspective. This point in particular is of great interest to me:
As evinced by Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, as well as other pertinent documents since that council closed, the Catholic Church has undergone and fostered the development of ecclesiological doctrine in such a way as to give an account of how the EOs and OOs relate to “the Church,” which is said to “subsist” in the Roman communion as a perduring whole. As a matter of fact, John’s challenge to us Catholics makes use of that development. But something analogous does not seem to have occurred in Orthodoxy. We have Zizoulas’ eucharistic ecclesiology, which dovetails somewhat with Ratzinger’s theology of communio and has clearly influenced the Ravenna proceedings. But further progress in Orthodox ecclesiology is necessary if the process embodied by Ravenna is to continue. What direction could and should such progress take? That’s the question that Orthodox like John need to consider.
Cathedra Unitatis 
CU,
Thank you for your kind words, and getting this discussion rolling with your post of the original document.
ICXC
Joihn
John,
You’re quite welcome. Let’s keep the ball rolling!
I understand Mike’s view and appreciate his good heart. How blessed it is for brothers to dwell in unity.
While the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church that Martin Luther reacted to, there are still substantive issues that make reunion unlikely. For me, the key issue is whether the Pope can claim salvific equality with the Blood of Jesus?
Hi, Alice!
I must confess I do not understand your question. In all sincerity, what does it mean? This is the first time I have ever heard of popes claiming “salvific equality with the Blood of Jesus.” I am a fairly well catechized Cradle Catholic. But I have never heard of such a thing; I cannot even imagine what it means.
Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide!
Diane
oops, I just posted under my son’s blog identity! LOL. Sorry–this is moi, Diane.
@Alice:
For me, the key issue is whether the Pope can claim salvific equality with the Blood of Jesus?
Where did you get that one from?????
He doesn’t. Trust me.
Alice:
As a well-educated cradle Catholic, I’ve never heard such a claim either. I would say it’s the blood of Jesus which saves; as a vital part of the Mystical Body vivified by that blood—i.e. the Church—the papacy is merely one of the instruments Jesus uses.
Best,
Mike
It’s funny, but I see that many Orthodox (converts in particular) seem to think that we Catholics just run around thinking about the Pope all the time, tattooing his name on our forearms and writing sonnets for him.
Sure, I think Pope Benedict is a great man, but I believe that, for most of us, the most important person in our sacramental lives (besides the Lord) is our diocesan bishop. We don’t equate either of these men with the Blood of Jesus. No disrespect to Mrs. Linsley, but that is just silly. I can’t think of anyone, liberal, conservative, traditional, who thinks that highly of the Pope.
When a Catholic seems to think a great deal of any Pope, it is not the office, but rather the man they admire, probably becuase they agree with him on many points, or like his style of leadership. Many people loved JP II because of his charisma, not because he was Pope.
I mean, we don’t see too many fan clubs for Paul VI, do we? And Benedict XV (early 20th cen) didn’t have groupies. But Pius XII still does. Why? Because many people think he was a good Pope. Like with any leader, we recall with love the good ones, and try to think Christian thoughts about those who were no big splash in the pond.
I know the Orthodox (and us Catholics, believe it or not) still cherish every word Chysostom (Ecumenical patriarch, right?) wrote. Why? Do they give him “salvific equality with the Blood of Jesus”?
Or do they just admire a great and wise saint?
I, too, thought this line was quite interesting and a major overture. Something like it had been said elsewhere, I think by B16, where various RC Councils, which are currently viewed as “ecumenical”, may officially be (re)classified as “local” or “Western”. Not sure how legit or official these reads are, or whether they are simply wishful thinking or academic excercises on the part of some RC theologians. We’ll see.
I just have never seen or felt this intense desire to heal the external divisions in the Church. There are many examples of saints being separated from the visible Church who were later declared to have been the true voice of catholic, orthodox Christianity: Sts. Athanasius, John Chrysostom and Maximus Confessor spring to mind. In the end, we are already united insofar as we share the one, same Eucharist already – or, are divided insofar as we do not share in the one, same Eucharist due to heresy and/or schism. In fact, the fact that we are all so vigilant to keep error out of the Church is, to me, a sign of life and faith – as the opposite seeme to be true of those Protestant churches most active in ecumenism.
Bp Hilarion’s reflection:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3945
Something like it had been said elsewhere, I think by B16, where various RC Councils, which are currently viewed as “ecumenical”, may officially be (re)classified as “local” or “Western”.
Hm, I cannot lay hands on a citation one way or another, but I think that it was Paul VI, not Benedict XVI, who floated the idea which you mentioned.
Anon (#10),
I appreciate that link, although the translation seems very strange and I’m having a hard time making sense of it!
Sure, I think Pope Benedict is a great man, but I believe that, for most of us, the most important person in our sacramental lives (besides the Lord) is our diocesan bishop.
Amen!!
What the bishop says certainly has a much bigger immediate impact on my life as a Catholic. Along with “what Father says”! LOL!
Christopher: I very much doubt that the post-Schism councils will ver be reclassified as non-ecumenical. I don’t see how they could be, frankly. Trent, VCI, and VCII, in particular, are simply too important. Moreover, from the Catholic POV, they certainly meet the criteria for ecumenicity; they were even called as ecumenical councils.
I know it sounds all fuzzy and ecumenical to speculate re this, but I don’t think it’s realistic. I certainly could be wrong–it’s been known to happen!–but I just can’t see how a millennium of ecumenical councils can suddenly bceome negotiable.
I think the challenge is to explain doctrines like the IC and papal infallibility in terms that make sense to Easterners. But those dogmas themselves are not negotiable. truth is truth. There is not one truth for the East and another for the West.
Personally, I don’t think the issues are insurmountable–if the Orthodox are willing to surmount them. In our age of globalization and cultural cross-pollination, different “ways of seeing” are becoming blurred anyway. Perhaps we are not as different from each other as we think we are. 😉
Sorry for all the typos above. 🙂
I think you are right, Diane, about the liklihood of Rome declaring this reclassification, which is why I believe there will not be a reunion this side of the Parousia – and for the same reason: truth is truth. Papal Infallibility, especially, is simply anathema to the received and ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church; it is likewise a central part of the received and ancient tradition of the Roman Catholic church. The question is, paraphrasing Irenaeus, which of us has ancient Tradition on our side and which has ancient error? age is not a guarantor of truth. For reunion to happen, one church body will have to cease being what it is today, and has been for a millenium or more.
BTW, I am not proferring a way toward union, here, I am simply stating what I have heard (read?) was a suggestion made from the RC side about the reclassification of what Rome currently refers to as Ecumenical Councils (from the 8th onward to Vatican II). It jives with the phrase in this agreed statement about the RCC not having been able to hold a truly Ecumenical Council, ” in the strict sense of the term”. I still think it was a possible position offered by Ratzinger prior to his election as Pope, but I’ll have to look for the citation more. I think your response is a good example of why Ad Orientem thinks it unlikely that the RCC would take this action due to lack of support on the Right – as well as antagonism from their Left.
I think that saying Vatican I is the “big obstacle” to reunion is underestimating the problem. Vatican II refers to treat numerous times and insists that all its dogmatic principles remain intact. Trent is still the guiding council of the Church. And Trent is huge. Some eighteen years long and, I believe, dozens of dogmatic pronouncements.
You could possibly explain or nuance Vatican I to please some Orthodox. To change Trent would be to destroy the Catholic Church. All the traditions held on to by SSPX and other trads, while they may pre-date Trent, owe a great deal to that Council. A few decades of liturgical dance and womynpriests don’t change the fact that we really are the Church of Trent.
That should put a knife through the heart of any reunion dreams. The Orthodox would not swallow Trent whole, and we will never allow anyone to fiddle with it. The Orthodox have their Seven Great Councils, but for us, whether we realize it or not, Trent is our own version of those first seven councils. It defines who we are and who we will be, once the grave takes away some of the heretical cardinal archbishops who are prancing about the world stage now.
That’s a very interesting point, Rob.
What specifically in Trent do you think would be absolutely unacceptable to the Orthodox (except the usual quibbles with Latin scholastic expressions)?
Well,
1. The Council claimed to speak for the whole Church.
2. In the third session it repeats and reaffirms the filioque.
3. Fourth session, on scripture, basing the canon on the latin vulgate (a minor point, but I believe the Orthodox use the Septuagint, no?)
4. Fifth session, original sin. The Orthodox view of ‘original sin’ is different than ours (Do they even believe a version of that dogma? My impression was ‘no’.)
5. Session 13, transubstantiation
6. Session 24, on creation of bishops and cardinals (rife with stuff to tick off any Orthodox. All must be submitted to the ‘Sovereign Pontiff’ for his approval. Who needed Vatican I? It was all right there in Trent!)
7. Session 25 – Purgatory and Indulgences. Need I say more?
And these are just objectionable ‘points’ I found in a quick skim of a humongous document.
But much Orthodox resistance to the reunion idea is based on taste, in the sense that they do things a certain way and we do them differently (and in various ways, some of them unfortunate). My sense is that the entire document – it’s language, it’s diction, it’s attitude – make it totally unacceptable for the Orthodox. We are, indeed, ontologically different. This doesn’t mean we can’t “get along”, but they are never going to want to be in the same room with us.
That’s why I say: Give up. Let’s work together to combat sin, abortion, pornography, and all the personal corruption prevalent in both East and West and let God sort us out at the end. We (Catholics) have managed to form some pretty good alliances with conservative “anti-Catholic” protestants when it comes to great public sins such as abortion and the tidal wave of pornography that batters our culture. After the protests and the prayer, we all go back to our own churches and live in peace. Let the Orthodox think they are better than us, we can think the same, and get along just fine.
-What specifically in Trent do you think would be absolutely unacceptable to the Orthodox (except the usual quibbles with Latin scholastic expressions)?-
Even if you could erase the dogmatic differences, these ‘quibbles’ would still keep us apart.
For reunion to happen, one church body will have to cease being what it is today, and has been for a millenium or more.
Well Christopher, that’s the standard mantra of those who, like Rob, urge us all (and therefore Benedict and Bartholomew) to “give up.” Do I take it, then, that you consider the 1982 Ratzinger proposal a non-starter?
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also “presides in charity,” this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
Best,
Mike
Rob,
I am almost (although not quite) as pessimistic as you. Most of your observations are dead on. The problem is that Rome has dogmatized its theolgumen and they can’t restore communion without our assent to those dogmas. And needless to say we won’t restore communion with a church that espouses as “dogma” anything not accepted by the Church Catholic. See my most recent post on the issue over at A/O. So yes you are absolutely correct that restoration of communion would mean the conversion of either the Orthodox Church to Catholicism or Rome returning to Orthodoxy.
But I am not prepared to write off miracles. If someone had told me 10 years ago that I would live to see the Russian Church Abroad restore communion with Moscow I would have laughed my @$$ off. Of course that is small stuff compared to what we are talking about. I think we all pretty much agree that the differences are insurmountable absent divine intervention. We just disagree on what we think a miracle would look like. Mike and the RCs generally see a miracle as being Orthodox assent to all of the post 1054 councils and essentially us becoming Eastern Rite Catholics. I think a miracle would mean Rome backing off its carved in stone position that their post 1054 councils are true ecumenical councils binding on everyone.
However I also think this issue has been pretty much beat to death. In fact I vaguely recall Fr. Stephen (Freeman) once opining over at Fr. Kimel’s (now sadly defunct) Pontifications that after the number of comments on any given topic of discussion hit 50 that was usually when very little additional light is shed on the subject and I have generally found that to be an accurate assessment. Between the threads here at CU and the one over at Mike’s blog we are way past 100 and I see the same old dead horses are starting to be dug up and beaten again. Which causes me to recall that we are now firmly in the Nativity Fast (for those of us on the reformed calendar). In addition I caught myself earlier tonight getting a bit short with Diane over at SV and thats a warning sign that its time to walk away from the discussion. On which note I believe I will follow CU’s lead and cut back on my posting and try to refrain from controversial debates at least until after the Nativity.
Wishing all of you a blessed fast and the joy of the season…
ICXC
John
But much Orthodox resistance to the reunion idea is based on taste, in the sense that they do things a certain way and we do them differently
This is certainly the impression I’ve received, and it makes my little head explode.
I cannot understand why resistance based on “taste” should be such a big huge issue…for I believe that the Catholic Church is big enough to accommodate a pretty wide sprectrum of “tastes.” Is that not the point of “inculturation” WRT, say, African Catholicism? Is it not the point of the current rapprochement with Traditional Anglicans, which may even extend to creation of a specifically Anglican Rite? (We already have the Anglican Use–precisely to accommodate “taste.” And boy, if there’s anything ex-Anglicans have, it’s taste. ;))
The Association of Hebrew Catholics is working toward a similar Hebrew-Catholic Use or Rite–and reportedly Pope Benedict is very encouraging.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Rites already exist within the Catholic Church–and no, not all of them are “latinized.” And certainly, in the event of reunion with the East, no one would expect our Orthodox brethren to latinize! The Swiss Guard would not swoop down on former EO churches, forcibly remove iconastases, and replace all the icons with statues. 😀 ‘Twouldn’t happen…honest!
Given all of this, I guess I don’t understand why the taste thing is so paramount. I suspect that it is an insurmountable obstacle mainly in the eyes of some converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, who seek to out-Orthodox the cradles. And the grand irony is that these folks are thoroughly Western; the closest they’ve ever really gotten to the Mysterious East was when they got takeout at the Golden Dragon. OK, just kidding…but you get my drift.
God bless,
Diane
Michael: Re the oft-quoted Ratzinger statement (which may or may not reflect his current thinking in his official capacity as pope): Don’t you think the kicker there is that the Vatican I doctrine of the papacy is already present in the first millennium, precisely because it is contained in the Depositum Fidei?
The language may change, but the core truth it expresses cannot.
Moreover, as patristics scholars point out, there were some papal maximalists in the first millennium (and notably among the Eastern Fathers!) whose writings re papal prerogatives make Pastor Aeternus look almost namby-pamby. 😉
I don’t think it’s a non-starter, I think it is an unfinishable without one or the other ceasing to be what they are today.
The apostolic Church of Rome, at a relatively early date, saw its role in the Church in a way different than the equally ancient tradition of all of the other apostolic Churches, which were in the East. So, one side or the other will have to accept a different ecclesiology than has been in place since prior to the turn of the first millenium of the Church. St. Irenaeus’ comments on the differences between the age of orthodox, catholic doctrines and ancient heresies is pertinent here – age alone is no guarantor of truth.
The other option is some ecclesiological form of the ‘branch theory’ or a new acceptance/toleration of ‘diversity’ in a way similar to that currently uniting in communion such diverse ecclesiologies as those of Episcopalians (ECUSA) and congregationalists (UCC). That is, people could just come to the conclusion that none of this matters, that eccelsiology isn’t ‘church dividing’, but that would be contrary to both our traditions leaving not just one or the other, but both of us ceasing to be what we have been since at least 1054.
Inculturation and taste are new horses to this conversation it seems.
Personally, I find most Greek and Antiochian Orthodox taste to be lacking in taste; whereas I find the Russians to be far more tasteful. Yet, they are all Orthodox, so taste (however that is defined) is not a requirement for full communion.
Where taste becomes something more – and in Orthodoxy everything is theology – is where Tradition and its transmission is concerned, and this gets at inculturation. How is orthodox, catholic Christianity to be passed on to new cultures and new times?
A contrast between the evangelization and inculturation of RC Africans and East Asians and the Orthodox evanglization and inculturation of the Slavs (by Greeks) and Siberians and Native Alaskans (by Russians) would be telling in understanding how we each view Tradition and the ‘essentials’ of Christianity differently. It would also be interesting to examine whether there are differences between the pre- and post-Vatican II RCC in this regard, and between Orthodoxy before, during and after the Turkish and Communist yokes.
As a RC with many Greek Orthodox friends and praying for re-unification for the sake of Our Lord’s prayer that we be one, I am curious about the Russian Orthodox Church.
From my layman’s eyes it seems that Russian and Greek Patriarchs do not seem to be on same page in terms of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople “first among equals”
status. And there seems to be quibble as to Moscow being the even newer Rome after the loss of Byzantium to Ottomans.
Does this complicate re-unification? In order to unify, doesn’t Orthodox Churches need to be on same page?